When all is said and done...

[pclayton]

I see that another Californian poll was about hi-speed trains from LA to SF. Any thoughts?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boondoggle

[Codo]

... discriminate at the individual level.

Calm down Helene B) , noone want individual rights to be cut down.

 

The whole side discussion appeard because I said that my governement has a special protection for the family and that this special protection is based on the fact that they think that a "normal" family is the best way to raise kids. And this is part of our "Grundgesetz" which is our consitution.

 

We all may agree or disagree on this, we may find and trust statistics about this issue or we don't. But nobody claims that gays are worse parents. I would think that they are better on average, but this is just a feeling, no knowledge.

[mikeh]

Of course MikeH is right that the average man is psychologically different from the average woman, and that this is to a large extent genetically determined.

 

However, this has exactly zero relevance for this thread:

 

- Whether the difference is culturally or genetically determined has little practical consequences. Both are unavoidable. Politicians are not going to alter cultural sex differences much more than they are going to alter our genes.

 

- Even if (and this is no doubt true) men and women have on average different child-raising abilities, it does not follow that the average gay couple differs from the average straight couple in that respect.

 

- Even if (and I see little reason to assume this) gay couples have, on average, different child-raising abilities it does not necessarily mean worse child-raising abilities.

 

- Politicians can (hopefully) not prevent couples (or individuals) from raising children (except when neglect or abuse is evident) even if they can decide which marriages to give legal status. There were some right-winged politicians in Denmark who voted for gay co-parents being allowed to share legal parenthood even though they didn't like the idea of a gay couples raising children. The motivation was that since they are going to raise the children anyway we might as well give them as stable conditions as possible.

 

But the above is all irrelevant, since the only thing that matters is:

 

- Even if the average gay (or black, or moslem, or left-handed) is worse at doing something than the average hetero righthanded WASP, then it gives the government zero right to discriminate at the individual level.

I agree entirely... and I apologize if I expressed myself so badly that it seemed otherwise

[helene_t]

No need to apologize, Mike, I thought you would agree with most of my rant, in the original version I wrote "as MikeH also acknowledges", then I left it out just in case there was part of my rant you wouldn't agree with :(

[helene_t]

Calm down Helene :( , noone want individual rights to be cut down.

Well, it appears that a majority of the Californian electorate still wants that (as would a majority of the electorate in most US states and most countries).

 

So although most forum posters won't, there is still a long way to go.

[Lobowolf]

- Even if the average gay (or black, or moslem, or left-handed) is worse at doing something than the average hetero righthanded WASP, then it gives the government zero right to discriminate at the individual level.

(insert affirmative action spinoff here)

[cherdano]

The whole side discussion appeard because I said that my governement has a special protection for the family and that this special protection is based on the fact that they think that a "normal" family is the best way to raise kids. And this is part of our "Grundgesetz" which is our consitution.

This is mostly interpretation. The Grundgesetz only mentions special protection of marriage and family, but it does not say that such a family has to start with a couple of different sexes...

 

But even going along with your interpretation, the German supreme court has decided very clearly that a law allowing gay marriage would not run contrary to the special protection of straight marriage. It's a ridiculous argument anyway, no family is threatened if someone else marries a partner of the same sex.

[Lobowolf]

1. We must life with discrimination:

You are not allowed to drive cars when you are 14. Isn't this discriminating the youth?

You are not allowed to become President of the US when you are not born in the USA. Doesn't this discriminate anybody besides the US Citizens?

You and me, we are not allow to use the restrooms or showers for woman. Isn't this a sexual discrimination?

You are not allow to be a pilot when you are shortsighted. ISn'T this a discrimination of the handicapped people?

 

Obviously equal rights does not mean that anybody is allow to do anything. There are limits.

This is essentially correct (legally, in the US). There are 3 primary standards. For a regulation discriminating against certain groups (e.g. race-based) to be upheld, the regulation must be necessary to achieve a compelling government interest. This standard is almost impossible to meet, and in practice, almost any law that involves race-based discrimination will be struck down as unconstitutional. I believe there have been 2 exceptions in the last 70 years -- Korematsu (internment camps during WW2, largely regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history), and an affirmative action university admissions case.

 

For regulations discriminating against a second set of groups (e.g. gender) to be upheld, the regulation must be substantially related to achieving an important government interest. These are usually unconstitutional, but not always.

 

For regulations discriminating against a third set of groups (e.g. age) to be upheld, the regulation must be rationally related to achieving a legitimate government interest. These laws are almost always upheld, but there's a caveat: "Mere animus" is never a "legitimate" reason. It doesn't take much of a reason to discriminate against these "category 3" classes, but "because we just don't like you" doesn't qualify.

 

The bottom line is that in principle, the government can absolutely discriminate against any group you want, BUT

1) There have to have a reason; and

2) The way in which you choose to discriminate has to be connected to that reason to a certain degree.

 

Laws are struck down as unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds either because the reason isn't good enough (3 different standards), or the law itself isn't closely enough tied to the reason (e.g. it includes people that don't need to be included, or it doesn't include people who should be included); in other words, there's a better way to do it. For example, a pure quota system for race-based college admissions could be justified on the grounds that there's a connection between race and poverty in America; however, the means (race-based quotas) would never survive the analysis - race-based quotas aren't "necessary," and they are both over-inclusive (they'd benefit rich minorities) and under-inclusive (they wouldn't benefit poor non-minorities).

[mike777]

:The bottom line is that in principle, the government can absolutely discriminate against any group you want, BUT

1) There have to have a reason; and

2) The way in which you choose to discriminate has to be connected to that reason to a certain degree.

 

Laws are struck down as unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds either because the reason isn't good enough (3 different standards), or the law itself isn't closely enough tied to the reason (e.g. it includes people that don't need to be included, or it doesn't include people who should be included); in other words, there's a better way to do it. For example, a pure quota system for race-based college admissions could be justified on the grounds that there's a connection between race and poverty in America; however, the means (race-based quotas) would never survive the analysis - race-based quotas aren't "necessary," and they are both over-inclusive (they'd benefit rich minorities) and under-inclusive (they wouldn't benefit poor non-minorities). "

 

I am not advocating Polygamy but it seems to be logically illegal to ban on Equal Protection grounds.

[mycroft]

A lot of this sounds like that quote from Anatole France: "The majestic equality of laws forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets and to steal bread." Similarly, the straight as well as the gay are forbidden to marry someone of their own sex.

 

When lack of a married state causes issues with hospital visits, adoption of your partner's children (who have lived with you most of their lives) on his death, health and auto insurance, inheritance, and so on, there is active discrimination. Whether it is right or not for that to be tied to "marriage", it is clearly not right (to me, at least) to cause those issues for people simply because someone has decided "they" don't get to use that word.

 

My (heterosexual, traditional) marriage is childless and will always be so - modern medicine has seen to that (and don't get me wrong, that is a Good Thing. Life is better than broodmare/sire status). Someone telling me that I don't get the rights of breeders - and I use that term very specifically, even if the context isn't normal - would be treated as the [unprintable] that he is. I think you can see where my logic is going.

[PassedOut]

Some people believe global warming doesn't exist

 

Yes, but these are mostly the same idiots that didn't believe that global cooling existed, when that hit Newsweek in the mid-70's.

I've noticed that you mention a "global cooling" scare decades ago whenever the subject of global warming comes up. Was that a serious concern at the time? And how does that relate to global warming today?

[helene_t]

As I recall, the main concern was that if the gulf stream would turn NW-wards, Europe would get colder.

[mikeh]

Some people believe global warming doesn't exist

 

Yes, but these are mostly the same idiots that didn't believe that global cooling existed, when that hit Newsweek in the mid-70's.

I've noticed that you mention a "global cooling" scare decades ago whenever the subject of global warming comes up. Was that a serious concern at the time? And how does that relate to global warming today?

Global warming doesn't imply that all areas of the globe will get warmer.

 

One of the coldest days I ever experienced was sitting in Candlestick Park in San Francisco one July afternoon. I should have realized what I was in for when I saw people entering the stadium with blankets, gloves, ski jackets and thermos flasks. When the fog curled in, it became miserable.

 

My suspicion is that global warming will see that weather move north... so that where I live will become cooler, in the summer, and warmer and wetter in the winter, while San Francisco will become more like LA.

 

The UK is roughly the same latitude as New York, but is saved from NY style winters by the Gulf Stream. Global warming, as it melts the ice caps, may stop or divert the Gulf Stream, and hence cool off western Europe... while NY would, be seeing warmer temperatures.

[luke warm]

Some people believe global warming doesn't exist

 

Yes, but these are mostly the same idiots that didn't believe that global cooling existed, when that hit Newsweek in the mid-70's.

I've noticed that you mention a "global cooling" scare decades ago whenever the subject of global warming comes up. Was that a serious concern at the time? And how does that relate to global warming today?

yes it was a serious concern, it made the headlines of time and other major news magazines... scientists agreed that it was a very real threat (well, most scientists - there were a few who said ridiculous things, such as "the earth has always cooled and heated and always will")

[Al_U_Card]

That was when they started to investigate the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic ocean. Good thing too as it is coming in handy now. Based on the Maunder minimum as well as the mini ice age in midaeval times, those cycles are generally insolation based (orbital considerations).

 

Climate science has improved over the last few decades and we will be the better for it.

[hrothgar]

Some people believe global warming doesn't exist

 

Yes, but these are mostly the same idiots that didn't believe that global cooling existed, when that hit Newsweek in the mid-70's.

I've noticed that you mention a "global cooling" scare decades ago whenever the subject of global warming comes up. Was that a serious concern at the time? And how does that relate to global warming today?

This is another example of Lobowolf trying to create a false equivalence in order to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt...

 

"Global Cooling" was always a fringe concept. Note the following direct quote from Wikipedia

 

This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understandings of ice age cycles; and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.

 

(I can find any number of other sources that make the same basic point... Global cooling was never anything other than a fringe theory that got a bunch of hype)

 

In contrast, global warm is quite well accepted by the scientific community.

[cherdano]

Some people believe global warming doesn't exist

 

Yes, but these are mostly the same idiots that didn't believe that global cooling existed, when that hit Newsweek in the mid-70's.

I've noticed that you mention a "global cooling" scare decades ago whenever the subject of global warming comes up. Was that a serious concern at the time? And how does that relate to global warming today?

yes it was a serious concern, it made the headlines of time and other major news magazines... scientists agreed that it was a very real threat (well, most scientists - there were a few who said ridiculous things, such as "the earth has always cooled and heated and always will")

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png/200px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

 

The inability of the American public to distinguish between "some scientists suggest that.." and "an overwhelming consensus among scientists has concluded that..." is one of the biggest problems of the USA.

 

Global cooling in general can refer to an overall cooling of the Earth. In this article it refers primarily to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of press reports that did not accurately reflect the scientific understandings of ice age cycles; and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_cooling)

The world's climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.

(New York Times article from May 21, 1975)

 

Sounds a little different to the debate on global warming today, eh?

[luke warm]

Climate science has improved over the last few decades and we will be the better for it.

as it will improve over the coming decades

(I can find any number of other sources that make the same basic point...  Global cooling was never anything other than a fringe theory that got a bunch of hype)

 

In contrast, global warm is quite well accepted by the scientific community.

From Newsweek's 1975 story

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

i can post many other links that make the same basic point, but nobody's mind would be changed

 

more recently: from Canada

Dr. William Gray

[cherdano]

If there was such a consensus in the 1970s, why does every conservative website reference that wants to make the global cooling point reference the same Newsweek article?

 

This is really a silly discussion. There was no consensus in the 1970s about global cooling, and it isn't so surprising if a Newsweek reporter got that somewhat wrong.

 

This is really a case of conservatives creating their own reality, and proving Colbert right ("Reality has a liberal bias").

[Lobowolf]

This is another example of Lobowolf trying to create a false equivalence in order to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt...

This is another example of hrothgar mischaracterizing something I've said. I've never "tried to create a false equivalence," nor have I posted anything for the purpose of "spreading fear."

 

I do have to admit to a morbid curiosity as to how making a tongue-in-cheek reference to a long-dead phenomenon could be construed as "trying to spread fear."

[cherdano]

This is another example of Lobowolf trying to create a false equivalence in order to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt...

This is another example of hrothgar mischaracterizing something I've said. I've never "tried to create a false equivalence," nor have I posted anything for the purpose of "spreading fear."

"The scientists who doubt global warming is happening are the same who doubted that global cooling is happening in the 1970s."

Is that

- a misrepresentation of what you said, or

- not an equivalence, or

- not a false equivalence?

 

If you don't know the term "fear uncertainty and doubt" look it up, it has little to do with fear.

[hrothgar]

Some people believe global warming doesn't exist

 

Yes, but these are mostly the same idiots that didn't believe that global cooling existed, when that hit Newsweek in the mid-70's.

I've noticed that you mention a "global cooling" scare decades ago whenever the subject of global warming comes up. Was that a serious concern at the time? And how does that relate to global warming today?

yes it was a serious concern, it made the headlines of time and other major news magazines... scientists agreed that it was a very real threat (well, most scientists - there were a few who said ridiculous things, such as "the earth has always cooled and heated and always will")

Interesting article in Daily Kos this morning titled "Anatomy of a Zombie Lie"

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/23/9...3386/438/662648

[han]

There was some research I saw a few months back that... [skip]

LOL