ABC News: Oregon City to Ban Would-Be Criminals (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5449011&page=1) ---Quote--- Upset With Drugs and Petty Crime, Eugene, Ore., to Ban Miscreants From Downtown By CLOE SHASHA July 25, 2008 Fed up with drug dealing and petty crime, Eugene, Ore., officials want to ban people who have been accused or convicted of crimes from the downtown area. Some say the proposed ordinance is an overreaction that's unconstitutional and would never stand up in court. Others, like Eugene Chief of Police Robert Lehner, defend the proposal as an effective way to fight crime and blight, and say the exclusion is not as broad as it seems. Store owners and residents in Eugene, population 153,000, have been complaining about unsavory people who loiter downtown, hindering business and threatening pedestrian safety, according to Lehner. ---End Quote--- What do you think about this? Do you support them banning people, or are you against it? Thoughts?

I'll admit that, like many people, I have a sick sense of humor. I often can't utilize it on Volconvo because -- usually -- I'm busy debating and don't want to risk infractions. That's basically what this thread is for; to relieve tension and hopefully get a few laughs. What classic examples of sick humor do you have? I'll get the ball rolling with this great limerick: There was a young vampire called Mabel Whose periods were very unstable. One night by the moon, She pulled out a spoon And drank herself under the table. Tell me that isn't a great, gross-out verse? Grandpa h.

This is a debate about the various smoking bans in individual states, and the effects of these bans. I would appreciate members writing what they can about the ban in their state if they have one and what everyone's oppinions are of the bans. I will start. Iowa recently passed a smoking ban, it has a few exceptions, one of which is being challenged by Iowa's former Governor Tom Vilsak. Prompted by resturaunt and bar associations, who specificaly argue that the state's exemption of the smoking ban to allow smoking in state licensed casinos is not only unfair but leaves the question open of how does a state so blatantly excempt themselves from their own laws. Many other lawsuits are being filed including businesses who feel their rights are being violated by the ban. My personal opinion is that you do not have the right to enter an establishment you have the priveledge, and if you do not like the atmosphere, wether that includes smoking, drinking, music, the smell of the food, etc, then don't go, go home or go somewhere else. I believe it is the right of the establishment owner to decide. I do however see there to be a need for smoking bans in certain situations, or places such as a hospital where patients are being treated, a doctors office, a school where children are that sort of place. If it is a bar or casino, or resturant then it should be allowed. People have the right to make their own decisions and I think smokers are the victims of the day, just like drinking was many years ago during the prohibition. I also don't buy into the excuse, my drinking doesn't affect anyone else, because it does, if you drink and drive and kill me, if you get stupid and loud and trip all over the bar and run into me, threaten me or try to grab me it's my problem too. I think there are enough owners who want to voluntarily be smoke free that patrons can enjoy smoke free dining and drinking without having to ruin it for people who happen to want to get together sit and have a drink and smoke a cigarrette, huka, cigar or whatever.

Iraq banned from Summer Olympics - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/07/24/iraq.olympics/index.html) ---Quote--- BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A few months ago, it seemed liked nothing could stop Iraqi sprinter Dana Hussain from representing her country in the upcoming Summer Olympics. Then, the International Olympic Committee banned Iraq from competing because of what it says is the government's political interference in sports. Hussain cried for hours after hearing the news, which arrived in the form of a letter to Iraqi officials. "She hasn't stopped. It's like finding out that a close relative has died," said her coach, Yousif Abdul Rahman. Abdul Rahman attempted to console Hussain by assuring her that she could compete in the 2012 Olympics. ---End Quote--- Interesting. Do you think they should be allowed to compete? Or do you agree with the decision? Or something else? Please read the entire article first though.

I put this in Misc in case somebody wanted to debate. Otherwise I would have put it in genereal discussion as pure coversation. I want to hear your opinion. Everybody NEEDS your opinion. Sum it all up for everybody.. Here's the question... What is going on?

Big brother to watch illegal file sharers - tech - 24 July 2008 - New Scientist Tech (http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn14395-big-brother-to-watch-illegal-file-sharers.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news6_head_dn14395) ---Quote--- UK residents illegally sharing music and films online will receive letters warning them their behaviour is being monitored, under a new government plan drawn up with the country's six biggest internet service providers. Letters will be sent during a three-month trial, warning downloaders that they are being monitored. Many of the letters will be sent to parents unaware their children are sharing files online. More than 6 million Britons are thought to illegally download files each year. The telecommunications regulator Ofcom will work with ISPs and media companies to decided on a course of action should the warnings have no effect. Options may include a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" system, or filtering to prevent illegal tracks from being downloaded. The government and ISPs Virgin Media, BSkyB, Carphone Warehouse, BT, Orange and Tiscali say they are aiming for a "significant reduction" in the illegal sharing of content. Fee warning Media reports suggest the government would levy a £30 fee on every internet connection to compensate music and film companies, if the letter-writing scheme fails to cut illegal file sharing. ---End Quote--- Thoughts on filesharing? Is this the end for Brits? Is it about time or has the UK government overstepped its boundaries?

What do you think of the size acceptance movement? I believe they have a legitimate cause for complaint in the areas of job discrimination and the social stigma attached to being obese. However, some of their other claims are nonsense. One of the most common ones is that diets do not work. Indeed, most dieters do not succeed, but the reason for this is not because it is impossible to lose weight. The reason is because the dieters do not adhere to the program strictly enough or for long enough and they fail to include enough physical activity. A properly designed, sensible diet, if strictly followed and combined with frequent and sufficiently vigorous activity, will induce weight loss in all but the most extreme cases of endocrine disorders, such as hypothyroidism and polycystic ovary syndrome. Often, size acceptance people will even try to deny the health risks of obesity, which are inarguable. It would seem to me that if they, themselves, were truly comfortable with their size, they would not need to be dishonest. They would not need excuses about diets being inherently useless and the health risks of obesity being overblown. So they are expecting society to accept that which they cannot even accept themselves. I feel that a revulsion towards obesity is natural, since the sight of a body in such an unhealthy state makes people uncomfortable. We feel the same way when we see an unhealthily thin person or somebody with an obvious illness. This does not mean one hates fat people. So, while I think it's foolish to expect people to ever accept obesity as normal and desirable, this does not excuse discrimination or cruelty towards the obese.

in the endless space with likely endless dimensions there are innumerable worlds there are different matters and sometimes different spaces of the same matters

Though some of you may call me a racist, the fact is I'm just making an observation. This happens often when I'm in a public place: the grocery store, the mall, on the street. They do it in packs and it makes me uncomfortable. For whatever reason, Hispanics feel the need to stare at me. It's as if they've never seen a white person before. I can understand starring at some 'hot mama' as I sometimes do. But they regularly stare at me :I'm just a normal white guy. I've talked to other people and they have shared with me a similar experience. It's quite creepy. They usually have a disgustingly smug look on their face, as if to say "hey buddy, how do you like it now, we are in your country, and there's nothing you can do about it." I'm not saying its all Hispanics, just many of them.

To anyone who reads or watches the news, it's clear that McCain, given all his gaffes, is either adversely affected by his age, a fool, or grossly misinformed or all three. It amazes me that given his clearly demonstrated incompetence that he lags behind Obama by only a few points in most polls. How is that so many Americans would vote for such a clearly inept person?

in order new thoughts would appear in your mind the information shall be processed you need an AI which would bring you the contents in order to think, to feel, whatever, otherwise it would be a garbage in your consciousness it takes years to write an AI and the levels of the AI at this time aren't so high as what we are capable for to claim there is a god who didn't develop the AI from certain starting point would be to claim that a very advanced AI just existed by occasion

Theists and atheist will always argue.Its like a guy who likes white chocolate trying to convince the guy who hates white chocolate that it tastes great. I'm pretty much new enough to these volconvo debates but after only a couple of weeks you can notice that the same arguments about religion are expounded post after post in increasingly more complex analogies and allegories. It seems obvious that the people who lead these debates are more than capable of realizing the ins and outs of both sides but consciously ignore what the other person is saying, boiling down to the canopy stand off of one of the following. (A) I believe that God exists (B) I believe that he doesn't exist Because of the overriding urge of both sides to treat any topic as an opportunity to prove or disprove their _*FUNDAMENTAL*_ belief in one of the above , all points of views in every particular "debate" about religion seems to narrow down to those above 2 questions. It seems from nearly every religious thread here, that both sides for the most part are incapable of accepting contrasting beliefs over the existence of God. Thats not debating. Can people forget what they believe for th sake of debating the thread when it comes to religion? Of course many thread pose the question of whether god exists or not so in those instances no..but many many topic here seem to be destroyed by the insistence of those adamant about their believe in the A and B above If I hear the you cant prove God exists so its stupid line one more time!!!

Astonishing.:sceptical: Male-female income disparity in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States) Another example of wicked capitalism.

I just thought about it. Bill Gates' personal fortune is $58,000,000,000. Microsoft got 90,000 employees. What if Bill Gates' personal fortune was equally distributed to every employees? Every employees would receive $644,000. What would you say? Bill Gates is the boss, he has the right to be richer than his employees? We may or we may not agree. But let's say he just keeps $20,000,000, which is way more than what he needs to feed his family for a few century, and give all the rest to his employees, would that make everyone happier? After all, does the the PDG works about two million time more than the coffee-addicted night-shift programmer, as he got a 60 billion dollars bank account while a typical employee is lucky to get over $30,000 when it is time to retire? What to say about what I call "money pits"?

What's your view on morals? _Objective Moralist_ - morals exist above and beyond human perception and there is an absolute, unchanging criteria that judges what is right and what is wrong. _Cultural Relativist_ - what is right and wrong all depends on the views of your culture/country/society. The collective opinions of the major population of your culture dictate what is right and wrong. _Personal Relativist_ - what is right and wrong all depends on the views of yourself as an individual. Your personal opinion and view dictates what is right and wrong. _Moral Nihilist_- morals do not exist in any objective sense. What is right and wrong is similar to asking what flavour of bubblegum is the best. I have probably misrepresented most or all of these headings in some way, however if you'd like to comment on just how exactly you feel regarding the issue, I encourage it! As for myself, I am a strong moral nihilist. *Problems with Moral Relativism (cultural/personal)* Although cultural relativism was what I first believed, I now see every form of moral relativity simply as adding to the nihilist argument. Under both personal and cultural relativism, these subjective views often lead to contradicting opinions about right and wrong, as the times change (think slavery, etc.). Cultural relativism also implies that all minorities and revolutionaries, etc. are in the wrong. Personal relativism obviously can lead to many opposing views of what is right, which is a logical impossibility (after all, who is right: the serial killer, or the pacifist?). Recall that the implications of relative morality means that if the culture deems something 'right', then is actually is right. As is the same with personal relativism. Such implications imply that an objective, absolute standard can change when the views change--something rather contradictory. * Problems with Objective Morality* It is quite clear that there is no absolute set of morals to which all of humankind adheres. So, how do we know who's standard is the true objective one? The religious of all sorts will claim it is theirs. Similar to different cultures believing their morals are correct, the different religions do just the same. No scripture is grounds enough to determine this answer because: -scripture is written by humans, with no evidence of any divine intervention--faith is not an adequate reason to view one set of morals as objective rather than another. - there is undoubtedly not only one scripture in the world to which we could use as a reference. -many things written in scripture that were considered okay are now considered wrong--defenders of this objective standard must bite the bullet and accept everything that was written as right (ex. look to the Old Testaments for examples). Also, what is right and wrong can only be considered by those conscious enough to perceive a situation. As such, it is perception that defines what is right and wrong and thus, without the beings with said consciousness, morality doesn't exist. After all, there is nothing right or wrong for a rock, the Earth, the galaxy, or the universe--further discouraging the idea of objective rights and wrongs. *Problems with Moral Nihilism * Moral nihilists are criticized in that many claims they can't have a say in what is right or wrong because they don't believe in them. This is true when right and wrong are taken in a objective sense. However, I think moral nihilists are able to defend what they feel to be 'right' or 'wrong' in the same way they are able to defend what kind of ice cream flavour is the best. While knowing they don't believe in a objective answer, they can speak for what they think would be best based on a personal and subjective level. This is where moral nihilists and cultural relativists can see eye to eye on many issues. The only difference is, under cultural relativism, whatever is considered right at the time is viewed as objectively right--something to which I have already criticized above. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope you will share your arguments for your position and against mine.