Grillick

They do count as a border. But that map in the link in the original post is a complete myth.

It's also true that Jesus (according to the Bible) never said anything about homosexuality. Y'all need to stop listening so much to Paul. He wasn't even a Christian. He was the first troll, and he trolled an entire religion so hard they thought his word was law.

A worldwide federal government is the ideal endpoint for human civilization. I don't think we'll reach it unless and until we discover intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy with whom we can conduct war and/or commerce, however.

Some people think this forum is going to be flooded with childish, spammy nonsense. Others think that the members of this community are mature enough to discuss controversial topics in a respectful, productive manner. What do you all think?

I think when he said 100 years, he was talking about any given individual.

But it's a discussion in a Q&A subforum. Shouldn't it be moved to Game Discussion or Suggestions?

Oh. I thought Warn points were public, and so because I couldn't see any on you, you didn't receive one. I deleted that statement while you were posting because I didn't think it was productive, though. Apologies.

Debate and respect are not mutually exclusive, and a rule against flaming is not inconsistent with a debate subforum. Asking those who participate in debates to be respectful of one another is not an unreasonable restriction on debate and, in fact, should be a requirement. Another forum on which I used to post regularly had a debate forum that had limited access, with access restricted to those who promised to keep the discussion respectful and avoid a small number of topics chosen by the moderation team (including, strangely, operating system debates). It works exceptionally well.

The two you recently locked in Questions and Answers. I mean, looking at them in a vacuum, it makes sense, since they're suggestion threads, but the "Money" thread has been open for three pages and isn't really a Question/Answer thread as much as a suggestion thread, so I didn't understand why the others were locked and that one wasn't. It doesn't really affect me: I was just curious.

What is the policy for determining when a thread should be locked? It appears to be rather arbitrary (except in the Bug Report thread, where Sheepy locks and archives the posts as soon as the bug is resolved), and I don't see any clear guidelines. Why are some "completed" threads locked while others are not? Are there definitive criteria, or is it purely discretionary?

That link doesn't actually address the point you were making, Jerry. You said that you don't believe in the scale and the size of the external effects of greenhouse gases. Your link addresses the question whether human activity is a major contributor to global warming. (Edited to add:) Fixed that for you. Let me state this very clearly: the scientific consensus is made and if you don't agree with it, you aren't abiding by the scientific principle any more and deserve to be consigned to the intellectual scrap-heap along with those who believe in sorcery and fairies. End of story. Lambdadelta, that attitude is actually contrary to the scientific method itself. Scientific theories thrive upon being tested, and testing them is best when it comes from a side of skepticism and doubt. Academic science engages in a dangerous amount of recklessness with theories, as individual scientists are given more recognition for advances in their field than they are for challenging and confirming (or refuting) the findings of others. While it is true that the field of climate science has largely avoided this fate as a result of its highly politicized nature, it is nonetheless true that those who value science would do well to check themselves before degrading dissenting opinions merely because they are dissenting. Accusing dissenters of being accessories of attempted genocide is absolutely unacceptable in the context of a debate.

While this is true in theory, it's not so much in practice. I've had plenty of minimum wage jobs, and some that pay slightly above minimum wage, and 5/6 of those jobs would use every little thing as an excuse to raise prices. Before I moved from Maryland the 7/11 I worked at bumped up most prices because they were debating minimum wage, even though every employee worked above the current minimum. The only one who didn't change prices at the drop of a hat was Gamestop cause they weren't allowed to. They just fired and transferred people. Your anecdotal evidence does not establish your point (because anecdotal evidence is not statistically relevant), nor would your point refute my statement. The fact that small businesses raise prices in response to increases (or even threatened increases) in the minimum wage neither proves nor disproves the statement that the increase in prices will be smaller proportionally than the increase in the minimum wage. To offer another anecdotal illustration, I worked at a short-order restaurant in Albuquerque from 2002 to 2009. In 2007, Albuquerque raised the minimum wage in the city. In response, the restaurant I worked at (even though the starting pay for a new employee has already higher than the new minimum wage) increased the starting pay for new employees by an amount equal to the dollar value of the increase in minimum wage. In addition, prices on every item increased by $0.05 to $1.00. A $2.00 increase in the minimum wage represented a 40% increase over the federal minimum wage. The $2.00 increase in the starting wage for new hires represented a 25% increase over the previous wage for new hires. The increase in prices was approximately 2-4%.

Increasing the minimum wage does cause inflation, but it causes less inflation than the proportional increase in wages, because not everybody works for minimum wage (or even below the new minimum). Further, increased wages increases spending, which increases the demand for products, which will cause firms to increase supply. Increasing supply requires increasing productivity or increasing the workforce. Still, Sheepy's arguments are not unreasonable. It may be that a better solution than increasing the minimum wage would be increasing the availability of government benefits, ensuring that everyone who is willing to work full-time (whether or not there are jobs available for them) has enough income to support themselves (and, perhaps, one other person). This way cyclical job loss doesn't hurt national consumption, which would help to moderate the effects of recessions and and even prevent some recessions from occurring. This may lead to an increase in longterm unemployment, because it makes unemployment somewhat less painful, and it would lead to some inflation simply because there will be more money available for spending, thus increasing demand for goods and services, but it would have a smaller effect on the price of goods and services, because it would not increase the cost of providing those goods and services.

How can you possibly be confused about how "Show up at the polls and tell the poll worker your name, then vote" is easier than "Get a photo ID, then show up to the polls, tell the poll worker your name and show him/her your ID, wait for the poll worker to approve the form of your ID, then vote?" You may not think the difference is substantial, but the fact that it exists cannot be disputed.

I've been to El Paso. I grew up in New Mexico. I'm fully familiar with border issues, and the reactionary demagogues who make their political careers off of exploiting middle- and lower-class white people's fear of Hispanics. And I'm also fully familiar with the fact that you don't have any evidence to back up your claims. If you did, you'd provide it.

9000 illegal immigrants voted in El Paso in the last election? B.S. Show me evidence. Impersonation of voters at a polling place is a terrible way to steal an election. It wouldn't even make sense to do it that way, if you were going to steal an election. Here's a discussion of the issue from the Wall Street Journal, which is hardly what anyone would call a liberal newspaper. http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/counting-voter-fraud-1165/

Even if there were a dozen people who do that, that would amount to thirty votes in a city of 672,538 people. That is not what any reasonable person would call a problem worth the government's time to fix.

Seriously every single person who makes a living off the gun industry has numerous skills that will translate immediately and easily to another industry. This is not a reasonable objection to gun control measures.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just give out free IDs that never expire? It would save a lot of money on printing.

Those are your values. I don't share them.

Uncertainty makes killing less legitimate, not moreso. When in doubt, err on the side of mercy and life. That is the standard to which humans should hold themselves.

You accurately describe the law in most states here, but I question the legitimacy of this premise regardless. If an unarmed person enters your home without your permission, there is no reason this should mean s/he deserves to die.

Mischaracterizes the evidence. This study shows that firearms were used only about 2.1 million times per year from 1988 to 1993 in defense against crime generally. It does not say it is used that many times in defense of one's life. In fact, over 60% of these instances are used in defense of crimes against property. More than half of them involved an unarmed perpetrator. 46.8% of them involved a perpetrator who did not even threaten the "victim." Forgive me if I don't think this justifies putting handguns into homes. It seems to me that most of these people would have been just as likely to successfully defend themselves and their homes from crime by brandishing a kitchen knife, a baseball bat, or even a bottle.

Voter fraud is almost nonexistent in this country. It's a bogeyman raised by supporters of voter ID laws (which are intended to disenfranchise the poor, and by correlation minorities) to justify the policies. And personally, I don't have a problem with any resident of this country participating in our government process, citizen or non-citizen. And it is simply false to say that undocumented immigrants are taking the majority of Texas. Hispanics may well be, but the vast majority of Hispanics in this country are not only not undocumented immigrants, but they are also natural-born citizens.

More than six out of every ten handgun deaths in the United States are suicides. Handguns are the real problem, not rifles. Studies have shown that when a particular method of suicide is made more difficult, alternative methods do not increase. Suicide is often an impulsive activity, and those who attempt it, and are thwarted, are unlikely to attempt it again. Therefore, removing handguns from private homes will reduce handgun deaths by more than 50%. That alone is reason to support it.