here are old message board entries

---

prev <-> next

[2004-05-13 09:37:00] - vinnie+pierce: Michael Chiklis claims he's going to be Thing in the fantastic four movie - travis

[2004-05-13 09:33:00] - Mig: I'm sure Michael Moore is already on it. -paul

[2004-05-13 09:32:00] - I'm waiting for the Microsoft handheld. -Paul

[2004-05-13 09:32:00] - http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/business/technology/s/116/116552_sony_and_nintendo_go_hand_to_hand PSP not compatible with PS or PS2 games, and the nintendo DS will have bluetooth for wireless gaming - travis

[2004-05-13 09:28:00] - seems odd the arab terrorists would bother to make him wear that. - mig

[2004-05-13 09:26:00] - someone was wondering what on earth the guy was doing wearing an orange jumpsuit, and there was a noticable lack of blood after the decapitation.  of course i haven't seen the video but I'm curious as to why he was wearing the orange jumpsuit. - mig

[2004-05-13 09:24:00] - conspiracy theory alert!  there's a discussion going on that the beheaded guy's death may have been staged. - mig

[2004-05-13 08:37:00] - a: Problem is it's tough to measure the amount of gallons consumed. You know how flaky gas gauges are. - aaron

[2004-05-13 08:30:00] - http://ap.dodgeglobe.com/stories/20040512/2152282.shtml Reform Party endorses Nader!? -Paul

[2004-05-13 08:06:00] - Besides, it would also be like comparing apples to oranges. It's hard to just suddenly create an entirely new standard and expect people to buy it, especially when you're up against the government. -Paul

[2004-05-13 08:04:00] - a: Well, what do you expect from the EPA? I'm not sure I blame Toyota and Honda as much as I blame the EPA because everyone has used the EPA ratings for so long that if Toyota and Honda suddenly used their own, people would be outraged and claim that they were trying to juice the numbers. -Paul

[2004-05-12 21:15:00] - instead, do like consumer reports does.  take the numer of miles driven, and divide by the number of gallons consumed!    ~a

[2004-05-12 21:14:00] - paul:  the point is that they use emmisions to determine gas milage (what the fuck are they thinking).  it's true that it may work some of the time (like in your case), but if you make a car that has no emissions, that isn't the same as saying that it does infinity miles per gallon.  ~a

[2004-05-12 21:00:00] - a: My Echo seems to pretty much get the gas mileage that Toyota advertises for it. -Paul

[2004-05-12 20:06:00] - travis:  i can pretend to be mel.  ~a

[2004-05-12 19:56:00] - Mel: if you're still around, i'd be most interested in hearing your opinion on my first posted question this morning:"would a woman be offended if a guy were checking her out while she was working out?" my theory being that she cares about her looks so that guys will notice her - travis

[2004-05-12 19:12:00] - pierce:  you have the source code  ~a

[2004-05-12 19:08:00] - pierce:  yes, i guess i allow "amp" and "quot".  i don't remember why, but i'm sure there was a reason.  ~a

[2004-05-12 19:05:00] - mel:  yes, but they're blaming it on the epa.  i guess it's the epa's fault, but honda and toyota are perpetuating the lie.  ~a

[2004-05-12 18:45:00] - "The 19-year-old EPA tests for city and highway mileage actually gauge vehicle emissions and use that data to derive an estimated fuel-efficiency rating."  And hybrids are cleaner so they come off as appearing to get improved mpg.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 18:44:00] - Hinda = Honda

[2004-05-12 18:42:00] - a: wow, interesting.  Are Toyota and Hinda really blatantly lying to us?  -Mel

[2004-05-12 18:41:00] - i guess this is what i should have posted:  http://www.wired.com/news/autotech/0,2554,63413,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1  ~a

[2004-05-12 18:38:00] - http://slashdot.org/articles/04/05/12/1436225.shtml?tid=126  ~a

[2004-05-12 18:37:00] - pierce: wow, just caught up on the earlier arguments and I'm disappointed I missed them.  I'll have to check the message board earlier tomorrow.  Aww, Vinnie replaced me?  I'll have to see what I can do about that...    -Mel

[2004-05-12 18:29:00] - hmmm.  bug!  ~a

[2004-05-12 18:29:00] - if i remember correctly, i convert all "&"s to "&"s.  ~a

[2004-05-12 18:28:00] - what?  do i allow any at all?  ~a

[2004-05-12 18:25:00] - a: why do you only allow a subset of html named character entities? - pierce

[2004-05-12 18:24:00] - &

[2004-05-12 18:24:00] - test... & &eacute; & - pierce

[2004-05-12 18:08:00] - pierce: yeah, that's how i sorta worked today, if i need to restart my program and let it build up some data so i could test it (it's too complicated to premake data and insert it) - travis

[2004-05-12 18:07:00] - Mel: oh, one thing you missed is that Vinnie and I have a single mind again, so I'm afraid you're no longer my doppelganger. - pierce

[2004-05-12 18:06:00] - Mel: I'm still here, because I'm in a different time zone at the moment.  But I have a lot of work, so my messages will be intermittently dependent on when my computer is doing something that I need to wait for. - pierce

[2004-05-12 18:05:00] - travis: thanks, I didn't know.  I've been "working."    I'll definitely check the archives.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 18:00:00] - Mel: you did miss two rather large debates, if you have time/desire to drudge through the archives - travis

[2004-05-12 17:59:00] - Paul: and you have to actually do some work in order to claim "work is over for me" - travis

[2004-05-12 17:58:00] - bye Paul!  see you tomorrow.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:57:00] - Goodbye all. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:57:00] - Mel: You have to stop working and post on the message board earlier in the day. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:56:00] - Well, I would love to stick around and talk about sex and reproduction some more, but work is over for me. It's time to go home. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:55:00] - Mel: *Shrug* We're animals at heart. I think most everything we do comes down to basic survival and breeding. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:53:00] - so it all comes down to sex and reproduction.  Yet again.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:53:00] - Whereas for men if yoou perform better (mentally and physically), you get the best mate.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:53:00] - Paul: yes, actually, I think that's what it all boils down to if we just generalize.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:52:00] - After all, if you look prettier than all the women around you, you're likely going to get the best mate. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:51:00] - It's probably like how men directly compete with eachother in physical and mental activities. Women compete by trying to look better than eachother. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:49:00] - Mel: My theory is that it's a combination of wanting to impress men and other women. I think being a lesbian doesn't change much unless you are one of the lesbians that reject the whole notion of dressing up pretty to attract men. -paul

[2004-05-12 17:47:00] - header = harder

[2004-05-12 17:47:00] - Paul: so why do women obsess so much about appearance?  And how would being gay figure in?  Because if a women is gay then she has to impress other women so shouldn't she try even hearder to look good?  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:45:00] - Travis: He loves to mock everything and everyone. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:45:00] - Mel: I'm even more sure of that. Men don't care at all how other men look (well, unless they are gay I guess). If women cared at all, it would be more than men care. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:45:00] - travis:  haha.  really??  That's not sometrhing I would expect from barkley.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:44:00] - Actually, the more I think of it, the more I like Gwen's makeup-less look better. Still don't think either is particularly great, but I really don't like her makeup picture. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:44:00] - Paul: charles barkley loves to mock someone else's tie every night during half-time - travis

[2004-05-12 17:43:00] - Paul: interesting.  I think women are generally harsher too.  How about of a man's appearance?  same thing?  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:43:00] - Another thing I just realized is that men tend to make note of when a woman is good looking (at least in my experience) more than when she is bad looking, whereas I think women are more apt to note when a woman is bad looking than when she is good looking. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:42:00] - Travis: yes, I totally agree, she's the best example I think.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:42:00] - haha.  probably Paul .  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:42:00] - drew barrymore definitely looks better without makeup on that site - travis

[2004-05-12 17:42:00] - Mel: It really depends on the person, but I think it's women. As long as a woman looks decently good, I don't think most men care too much about the rest. On the otherhand, I've heard plenty of women tear apart how another woman looks over something miniscule. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:41:00] - Or maybe it's just me and my crazy ideas. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:40:00] - Paul: Here's a question, do you think women or men are harsher judges of a woman's appearance?  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:40:00] - Or makeup, I think a lot of guys think that women generally wear too much makeup. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:40:00] - Mel: Well, for instance, I think a lot of women think that men want these skinny, tall, tanned blondes with big breasts or something. And while maybe that might be what a lot of guys want, I don't think it's nearly a big enough majority for women to try to strive for the Barbie image. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:39:00] - Mel: I can't really put into words what matters to me. It's not really any one thing. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:38:00] - Paul:  hmm, that's a very general statement, so I can't really agree or disagree.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:38:00] - Mel: It's entirely possible. You would be the first. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:38:00] - Mel: Personally, I think many women have a different idea of what beauty is than men do. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:37:00] - Paul: Yes, i agree on every point.  So maybe we actually have similar views on beauty.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:37:00] - Paul: I think I care a lot about clear, smooth skin.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:36:00] - Jennifer Lopez, Beyonce, Britney, Drew, Liv and Jennifer Garner all looked either as good or better without makeup. I'm actually not fond of Gwen's look with OR without makeup. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:36:00] - Paul: oh, I thought Pamela Anderson looked bad.  Her skin was all washed-out.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:36:00] - Paul: me too.  Although that may not be the mainstream ideal, I don't know.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:35:00] - And while I haven't seen any pictures where the Olsen Twins look too skinny, I wouldn't doubt that they could stand to gain some pounds. Most actresses in hollywood are too skinny for my liking. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:35:00] - Paul: well the fake tan was really fake.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:34:00] - Drew Barrymore still looked good.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:34:00] - Mel: Cameran Diaz looked pretty bad too. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:34:00] - Mel: I'm kinda a freak in terms of beauty, though. I tend to have much different opinions of who is attractive than most people I know. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:34:00] - Paul: me too.  I though Gwen Stefani and Madonna looked the worst.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:33:00] - There are actually some pictures where I think they look better without makeup than with it. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:33:00] - Paul: well that's cool.  Maybe I was the only unrealistic one then.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:33:00] - dave: yes, some people still look ok without makeup.  That was cool.  It's not everyone.  But I really honestly thought all those celebrities were reallt good-looking naturally.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:32:00] - Mel: The make-up doesn't seem to change much for me. Actresses I think are attractive I still find attractive and the ones that I think aren't so attractive don't get better with make-up. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:32:00] - err, tho decent number

[2004-05-12 17:31:00] - Paul: I thought the Madonna one was the scariest.  It made me reconsider what I think of celebrity beauty.  They always look so great, but is it really mostly because of makup and photoshop?  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:31:00] - mel: Yeah, those decent number actually still look pretty much the same -dave

[2004-05-12 17:30:00] - dave: yes, very true.  And of course People picks some bad ones. -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:30:00] - Mel: Nevermind, I got it. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:30:00] - Paul: As a newsstand subsriber.  With the keyword spectacular.  Let me know if that works, I'm interested in what you think of the pictures.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:30:00] - mel: I think it also depends on the picture - like you can still have good or bad pictures without makeup -dave

[2004-05-12 17:29:00] - Mel: I'm still not sure how to sign in. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:27:00] - Dave: In that case I guess she isn't older. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:26:00] - That free code is "spectacular".  No e-mail necessary.  I got the code from a different message baord.  that way you can check out the People pics without paying.    -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:26:00] - paul: says born in 1990 -dave

[2004-05-12 17:26:00] - Paul: yes, exactly undead is a good word.  Maybe they should eat a little more.  They look kinds of scary skinny and pale if they don't wear makeup. -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:25:00] - There is an article in People magazine called "Natural or Not?" that has photos of a bunch of celebrities when they aren't wearing make-up;  I found it pretty mind-blowing.  Madonna in particular looked scary.  You can check it out at http://people.aol.com/people/galleries/0,19884,613147,00.html.  Login with "spectuacular."  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:24:00] - Mel: I've not seen too many pictures of them, but I know there are some in which they definitely are wearing too much make-up and it makes them look kinda undead. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:21:00] - I think the Olsen twins look kind of scary in certain photos.  -Mel

[2004-05-12 17:19:00] - Dave: She was 14, I believe she is older now. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:16:00] - paul: well, decently old in comparison to 14, isn't that the age someone said watson was? -dave

[2004-05-12 17:16:00] - Dave: That is most certainly not 'decently old' even in my book. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:14:00] - paul: well, i believe they are actually decently old, like they turn 18 in June? Something like that -dave

[2004-05-12 17:12:00] - Dave: Actually, it depends. I saw them on Letterman one night as I was flipping through channels and they looked absolutely hideous. Way too much makeup. Almost as if they were trying to look older than they were. -paul

[2004-05-12 17:11:00] - paul: ack, definitely hot -dave

[2004-05-12 17:11:00] - paul: now the olsen twins are definitely not -dave

[2004-05-12 17:10:00] - Yeah, if you saw her on the Harry Potter ABC special, she looks the same age as the Olsen Twins. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:10:00] - paul: even numbered Fridays on odd numbered months ^_^ -dave

[2004-05-12 17:09:00] - Dave: It's possible that sometimes I maybe see what you're talking about on even numbered Fridays. -Paul

[2004-05-12 17:08:00] - oh, and the second pic i posted was from the premiere of the first movie in the theater, so she was (noticeably) 2 years younger - travis

[2004-05-12 17:06:00] - paul: I think you should add some more qualifiers to that ^_^ -dave

[2004-05-12 17:03:00] - Travis: When you make your comparisons to young Halle Berry and young Jennifer Garner, at first I don't see it but the more I look at them, I sometimes see where you are coming from. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:59:00] - travis: odd, I don't see the jennifer garner resemblance. -dave

[2004-05-12 16:58:00] - the first one she sorta looked like a younger jennifer garner - travis

[2004-05-12 16:55:00] - travis: she was hot in the very first picture you posted. The other pictures she is starting to look kinda young. Still cute and all...but young -dave

[2004-05-12 16:50:00] - want = wand -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:50:00] - Vinnie: The stick is his wand? Trying to cast a magic spell? Even without the want, that ass looks like a major medical problem. He should get it looked at. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:49:00] - that comment scared everyone away, I can see - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:47:00] - paul: that's what that pumpkin-looking thing in the foreground is. harry's ass. with a stick in it - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:46:00] - http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0304141/C459-4A.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Watson,%20Emma%20(II) So, do you think the boys are mooning her off the set? -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:43:00] - only pierce will get this, but Hermoine looks like Connie from the Shield in that second one - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:43:00] - Vinnie: It looks like somebody didn't teach him that you need to have less clothes on to have sex. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:42:00] - Pierce: The one from earlier in the afternoon? -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:42:00] - now, that second one, I can't even call that cute. it looks like harry's consoling a heroin addict - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:42:00] - dave: I think I remember a case like that in California, or some other weird area where the age for statutory raping a female was 16, but for males, it was 14 - aaron

[2004-05-12 16:42:00] - Vinnie: Mmmmm, little sisters.... -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:41:00] - The one you said I didn't answer. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:41:00] - Travis: Honestly, going by the movies, I thought that her and Harry were going to be the ones that hooked up. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:41:00] - travis: i was being quite sarcastic. but she actually does look cute in that picture. like a little sister! - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:41:00] - Pierce: Which question? The one I asked Vinnie? -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:41:00] - Vinnie: Can't tell if you are saying that truthfully or just because of the debate surrounding it before. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:41:00] - most of the pictures are her with harry, not ron - travis

[2004-05-12 16:40:00] - vinnie: is that good or bad? - travis

[2004-05-12 16:40:00] - Travis: http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0304141/C491-1.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Watson,%20Emma%20(II) Uh oh, Ron's gonna be jealous. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:39:00] - Paul: what was your question again? - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:39:00] - Dave: I'm willing to say that I don't think that law is just.  Either we say people are adults, or we say they are not.  We have no right to change it whenever it's convenient. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:39:00] - well that's a sexually arousing picture - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:38:00] - we are at an impasse - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:38:00] - something to take everyone's minds off the degraded argument: http://www.imdb.com/gallery/granitz/1755/Events/1755/EmmaWatson_Grani_743903_400.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Watson,%20Emma%20(II) - travis

[2004-05-12 16:37:00] - Vinnie: Well, since you didn't answer my question I see no reason to answer yours. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:37:00] - pierce: No idea, but a 16 year old was accused of raping a 15 year old, and that was the case where he was going to be tried as an adult (eventually dropped the case because there were many witnesses who said it was consensual) -dave

[2004-05-12 16:36:00] - Paul: random thought. if everyone was dead, but they had total freedom. Do you think that would be a good world to live in? - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:36:00] - paul: kind of a logical problem there.  Because you want to say that no, that wouldn't be a good world to live in, but then if you were one of those people, your opinion would be totally different since you wouldn't know any better -dave

[2004-05-12 16:35:00] - Pierce: *Sigh* I'm sorry for making a joke about it. I'm really not offended by you leaving or me having to defend myself. That's what the ':-P' means. It's a joke. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:35:00] - Dave: but does statuatory rape apply to minors?  I was nearly positive it didn't. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:34:00] - Vinnie: Random thought. If everybody in Pleasantville was actually happy, but they were stuck in their routine and didn't have the freedom to do anything else. Do you think that would be a good world to live in? -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:34:00] - Paul: and no one is forcing you to continue defending yourself.  If it bothers you this much, you have as much right to "run away", as you call it, as I did. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:34:00] - dave: that is strange. i wonder why - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:34:00] - errr, accused of rape -dave

[2004-05-12 16:33:00] - as an interesting thought, did you know that those accused by rape are always charged as adults, even if they are like 15,16? They have to make a motion to make the case juvenile if they want it to be -dave

[2004-05-12 16:33:00] - paul: Well of course. - aaron

[2004-05-12 16:33:00] - Paul: tonight I'll defend myself from the hotel if it makes you happy.  It's not like I was intentionally doing it to ruin your fun. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:33:00] - Travis: Heh. The funny thing is that I DID say that, but I was using it as a counter-example to something Adrian said. I don't think I believe we shouldn't let people with bad genes breed. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:32:00] - i understand it sounds wrong to you. but to me, it's just the way society has to work. i know you like to say that [insert controversial opinion] wouldn't drastically change things, but I think this one would! i really really think society would be much worse off with the age of consent that low - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:31:00] - Aaron: I guess my only point was that the issue seems to be more about knowledge than mental ability. -paul

[2004-05-12 16:31:00] - Vinnie+Pierce: I was just kidding. Although I am a bit annoyed that we never got to see Pierce defend himself from three people. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:30:00] - paul: but shouldn't we be allowed to keep people with bad genes from having kids?  i recall a discussion during bowling one time where you said we should be able to do that to aid evolution (just like not keeping old/sick people alive) - travis

[2004-05-12 16:30:00] - Pierce: What are you talking about!? I'm here defending this position (whether I believe it or not) as best as I can whereas you run away when everyone questioned yours (which I understand is because you had to work, but still...) -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:30:00] - Paul: did someone tell you to keep debating?  You can leave anytime you want.  And for your information, I left because I actually have work today. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:30:00] - pierce: I will say that I don't think that Paul cops out of things by saying that they're just hypotheses. Almost all of his actual views are idealistic ones anyways. -dave

[2004-05-12 16:29:00] - Pierce: I'll give an answer if you like, I'm just not sure why you need one. Honestly, it seems like the only reason is because you want some confirmation that I am a loon. I know, because I've had people do that to me before. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:28:00] - Vinnie: that's fine, and if you change you're opinion from something absurd to something reasonable then I won't consider you an absurd person anymore.  But (IMO) Paul has a tendency to cop out of having to defend his own opinions by claiming that they're just hypotheses.  No offense, Paul. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:28:00] - Vinnie: I won't ask, just because of that , but I will say that determining some people as being unfit to breed sounds very wrong to me. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:27:00] - paul: Okay. If you give a four-year old all of the mental capacity and knowledge of a 18-year old then I guess he can have all the sex he wants. - aaron

[2004-05-12 16:26:00] - paul: go do "work" if you don't feel like defending yourself - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:26:00] - I understood Paul's reluctance to give you an answer Pierce. in half of these debates I form and change an opinion as I go - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:26:00] - Wah. How come when everyone ganged up on Pierce, he just left, but I have to stick around and defend myself? -paul

[2004-05-12 16:25:00] - Aaron: I suppose in a way I am. I'm not terribly good at details without being able to think things through in advance and so I probably didn't mean they are just as likely to make mistakes. I meant if you give them equal knowledge. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:24:00] - Paul: so you're not going to tell me, am I correct?  Just answer straight. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:24:00] - two mentally challenged people? no. it's not that dissimilar from the child services framework we have in place. unfit people (cue Paul asking who defines it ) don't get to have children - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:24:00] - Pierce: My mistake. Make it illegal for them to have sex then. Or hell, for them to have sex with women who CAN breed. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:24:00] - With respect to sex, just as it's not "illegal" for children to have sex with each other, it's not "illegal" for senile people to have sex with each other.  And just as it is illegal for a 30-year-old to have sex with a child, it is illegal for a 30-year-old to have sex with a senile person.  It's considered rape. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:23:00] - Pierce: You can interpret it any way you want, but I wouldn't exactly say it's a good idea to assume that I believe it just because I refuse to say either way. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:22:00] - Paul: that point, with respect to breeding, is essentially moot, because women at a senile age have pretty much universally reached menopause. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:22:00] - Vinnie: Ah, HA. So should mentally challenged people be allowed to breed? -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:21:00] - Paul: I might, I can't promise one way or another.  It's just something I'm curious about, and obviously you have no obligation to tell me if you really want to keep it to yourself. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:21:00] - Pierce: Right, and so going by that, shouldn't we also make it illegal for senile people to breed? -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:21:00] - paul: I'm saying adults have learned more than children, including a lot of things which help them avoid mistakes - aaron

[2004-05-12 16:21:00] - paul: Your argument was that adults make just as many harmful mistakes as children, and it sounds like now you're disagreeing with yourself - aaron

[2004-05-12 16:21:00] - Paul: should I interpret from your responses that this is your actual opinion, and not just a hypothesis? - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:20:00] - Pierce: Again, I ask you why it matters. Are you going to argue differently, or not at all, if I say that I believe it or not? -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:20:00] - paul: because the brain isn't fully developed until age 4 (uh, don't quote me here, this is what you said, I think it's after that). it makes sense to me that a person without a fully developed brain shouldn't have the same rights. and yes, that means taking away rights of mentally challenged people - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:20:00] - Paul: you have more data as an adult, and the underlying hardware is better developed, according to the field of human development as I understand it. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:19:00] - Aaron: Yes, exactly. We're exactly agreeing here I think. You're just not understanding what I'm saying. You have more data than when you were a child, but I think your underlying hardware is the essentially the same. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:18:00] - Paul: up until a very late age, the adult brain is still far more capable than a child's brain.  And in fact, elderly people who have reached senility do lose their rights.  How else do you think people end up in old folks' homes against their will? - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:17:00] - Vinnie: I don't understand your point. I drew the line at when a fetus becomes a human at brain activity. You proposed I moved my line up, I guess? And then I asked why you wouldn't move yours up. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:17:00] - paul: And they obtain data that helps them avoid stupid mistakes, like getting in a stranger's car because he has toys - aaron

[2004-05-12 16:16:00] - Paul: because I personally find it completely absurd to claim that a four-year-old has equal decision-making ability as a 30-year-old, and I want to know if I'm arguing with a rational person proposing absurd hypotheses, or an absurd person posting their own opinions. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:16:00] - Pierce: So does that mean that we should keep getting more rights as we age and then start losing them as we get older? It seems like a reasonable extrapolation. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:15:00] - Aaron: No, not at all. I think that learning things is all that they do. I just don't think humans upgrade their brains from a pentium 2 at age 4  to a pentium 3 by age 12. They're just filling up the hard drive with more data for their AI. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:15:00] - no, you drew the line at brain activity. I drew it at age 4. please tell me why age 0 != age 4 = age 21 - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:15:00] - paul: Personally I think i'm lot better at, oh, not getting run over than I was when I was, oh, even 9 years old! Learning to drive really helped me cross the street safely - aaron

[2004-05-12 16:15:00] - Paul: the field doesn't say that development ever stops, and the brain in fact regresses later in life.  The important thing is that there is a developmental difference between a young brain and an adult brain with respect to decision making. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:14:00] - Pierce: Why does it matter? The only reason I can think of where it should matter is because you want to make this personal in some way. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:14:00] - Vinnie: The same reason you wouldn't put the line at 21. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:13:00] - Pierce: If the field of human development disagrees with me, then I'm probably wrong (although I want to know why I was roundly condemned for implying the same thing to Dave). When does the field say that development stops then? -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:13:00] - heh, nm, they do. they get spanked and put to bed early - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:12:00] - Or do they just not learn things that help them avoid mistakes - aaron

[2004-05-12 16:12:00] - Paul: So you don't think, in the population of the world, that anybody learns anything as they get older? - aaron

[2004-05-12 16:12:00] - Okay, Paul, just to be clear... do you honestly think this, or are you proposing hypothetical situations for the sake of argument? - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:11:00] - so why would you not draw the line at age 4 then? it seems a better line to me than the one you drew earlier (but still not the best ) i don't see lots of kids or parents complaining of rights violations at that age - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:11:00] - Paul: by what understanding of human development do you draw that conclusion?  The field of human development wholeheartedly disagrees with you, who are you to argue without some better-formed evidence? - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:09:00] - Paul: but they don't have a level playing field, for one thing.  Adults have the benefit of that many more years of personal experience and understanding of the world. - pierce

[2004-05-12 16:09:00] - I'm just pretty sure that most of our brain development is finished at a pretty early age. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:09:00] - Vinnie: Ok, I probably horribly mispoke there. I was more thinking of the difference between a walking and talking 4 year old or so and adults. You all are probably right that babies and toddlers probably don't have a fully functioning brain yet. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:08:00] - well, I guess knowledge too, since at birth they wouldn't have heard many words - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:08:00] - i mean, I think the fact that kids don't talk at birth is related to physical development, not knowledge - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:06:00] - are = aren't. god I'm awful today. so eager to type! - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:06:00] - just like bones are fully formed at birth, I don't think the brain is either - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:04:00] - oooh, I disagree - vinnie

[2004-05-12 16:03:00] - In essence, I think that age just gives us more information to work with, and that we never really become significantly smarter with age, just more knowledgeable. -Paul

[2004-05-12 16:01:00] - Pierce+Aaron: If you gave them a level playing field and the same information about something, then I think it's quite possible. You forget that we just ASSUME kids would make stupid decisions since we rarely give them the opportunity to make said decisions. We also provide stupid adults with MANY safety nets. -paul

[2004-05-12 16:01:00] - Yes, you may have anecdotal evidence about mentally challenged adults, or advanced children, but I don't think you can deny the practicality of "age" as an influencing variable for "decision-making maturity". - pierce

[2004-05-12 15:59:00] - paul: So you believe older people are equally likely to make harmful mistakes than young people? - aaron

[2004-05-12 15:58:00] - Paul: where I take issue is not with the claim that adults make mistakes, but with the claim that "people much older are just as likely to make harmful mistakes".  If you really believe this to be true, and are not just using it as a hypothetical, then I am astounded. - pierce

[2004-05-12 15:58:00] - it's both. developmental psychology shows that critical decision-making isn't fully develop at birth - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:57:00] - Vinnie: That's more a function of knowledge than age then, which brings us back to a test to allow somebody to breed. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:56:00] - true, some people will always be stupid but i'd like to think not most of them - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:56:00] - I think the type of person somebody is is actually more important in terms of whether or not they make "good" decisions than their age. I have two young cousins in grade school who I have no doubt could survive on their own for weeks or months if need be. I know some adults who can't do that. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:56:00] - but stupid people aren't always stupid. if I hadn't a clue what a credit card was, I'd make the same mistakes. I'd like to think time has given me that chance to learn - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:55:00] - i don't think there's nearly enough irresponsible people over the legal age than under it - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:54:00] - I mean, hell, just think about all those people out there who have dozens of maxed out credit cards. Some people are stupid no matter what age. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:53:00] - Vinnie: Just look at the world around us. There are tons of people of legal age who are going out and having irresponsible sex, making stupid decisions regarding drugs and jobs and everything under the sun. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:51:00] - i'd like to hear why you think that - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:50:00] - Vinnie: And all I'm saying is that people much older are just as likely to make harmful mistakes (and are still quite likely to make many unintentional mistakes too). -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:49:00] - ok, then I really misunderstood your point here. I draw the line there because I don't think children can make capable decisions at that age. they make too many unintentional, harmful mistakes - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:48:00] - Pierce: The way I see it, you can't have it both ways. Either allow everything or allow people to make restrictions. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:48:00] - Pierce: But then we get into the debate we were having before about who gets to vote. Who is to say that a 42 year old white man's decision is any more valid than a 12 year old's? -paul

[2004-05-12 15:47:00] - on the other hand, a four year old has an underdeveloped rationality, and should not be subject to the consequences of their decisions. - pierce

[2004-05-12 15:46:00] - Paul: unfortunately, I can't participate too heavily in this discussion, but just as age was a heuristic of physical maturity in the conversation before, it is a heuristic of emotional and rational maturity as well.  a 42-year-old black man and a 42-year-old white man are, for all intents and purposes, capable of making rational decisions. - pierce

[2004-05-12 15:45:00] - Vinnie: That wasn't what I was trying to get at. I was only saying that I don't understand why you would draw the line there. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:44:00] - Pierce: Oh, and was the book written in french? -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:44:00] - not to me no. but your whole argument was that you don't think a line should be drawn at all - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:44:00] - Pierce: I just liked his comments about verbs being invaders and all. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:43:00] - Vinnie: Yeah, we're both drawing lines. But what if I drew lines at white males? Would that be just as good of a line? -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:42:00] - I mean seriously, the "sentences" quoted in that article were not valid english, so it's not like he's made any great achievement. - pierce

[2004-05-12 15:42:00] - Pierce: Including charges of misogyny. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:41:00] - if children became smarter basically (that could mean any numbers of things) - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:41:00] - but the fact that you draw a line - isn't it the same as what I'm doing? - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:40:00] - In other news, a competing author has announced the release of the first book without coherence.  The controversial novel, "Mkphyzzzt$", is sure to incite harsh criticism from reviewers. - pierce

[2004-05-12 15:40:00] - Vinnie: I'm interested in hearing what kind of evidence would change your mind. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:40:00] - Vinnie: This may put me at odds with the abortion lobby, but if I had to pinpoint a time when a fetus becomes human, I would say when it first starts having brain activity. -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:39:00] - i agree it's relative. i am more than willing to change lines if I see evidence it should be changed. i see no such evidence here - vinniew

[2004-05-12 15:38:00] - Vinnie: Whether consent is reasonable or not is all relative. We used to condescendingly think that blacks and women weren't capable of making important decisions. And just because we personally don't agree with the decisions that some people would make doesn't mean that they aren't reasonable. -paul

[2004-05-12 15:36:00] - http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/09/wverb09.xml author publishes the first book without verbs -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:36:00] - fetus - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:36:00] - gah, fetus becomes a human, not child - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:36:00] - not accurate, bad choice of words. maybe i mean 'reasonably'. i guess what it comes down to is that i see kids as property, basically. i'm curious where you think the child becomes a human, because what I'm doing is basically drawing that line further down the road - vinnie

[2004-05-12 15:32:00] - Vinnie: What do you mean "accurately" give consent? How can consent be more or less accurate? -Paul

[2004-05-12 15:31:00] - I don't particularly see a problem, no. It doesn't seem like anybody is getting unreasonably hurt in that scenario. -Paul

prev <-> next