p3n

Here is an easy way to tell: If someone wears a cross, that isn't a strong indication of faith. If a cross wears them, that's a pretty strong indication of faith.

The Weddell Sea, north of Antarctica, brought to you by the department of redundancy department.

Absolutely. What I'm saying is that all couples can apply for the same legal contract, call it a civil partnership license, civil union, joint household contract or something to that extent. Marriage licenses no longer exist.

I'm actually opposed to all state recognized marriages in the Unites States. I believe it violates the separation of church and state clause of the 1st Amendment. This is the same reason that people who (genuinely) oppose gay marriage oppose it.

If adult couples want to enter a legal contract joining their assets and income, then that should be available to everyone regardless of gender or sexual orientation, but that should also be separate from the religious covenant of marriage and associated ceremonies performed in a church.

So I'm opposed to state recognized gay marriage, but I'm also opposed to state recognized heterosexual marriages for the same reason.

Ya, maybe bills shouldn't be 1000+ pages so that people can actually know what is in them.

This is a concept that somehow software developers seem to grasp, but lawmakers don't?

Try submitting a pull request with 100,000 lines of code to the Linux kernel, or any other serious project. Nobody is going to review and accept it because that is a rediculous amount of code to change with a single PR. How much more important is a federal law than a software project? Yet one will have maintainers pour over it line by line while the other the "maintainers" don't even read.

I would say that before you can become a Christian you first have to realize that you aren't a good person, but if you call yourself a Christian and say you are a good person, you are neither.

"Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst." — 1 Timothy 1:15, NIV

I guess I didn't communicate my point effectively. I wasn't trying to nitpick semantics. I was trying to say that people don't think critically because they assume impartiality.

If the first thing people did when they looked at a study was to ask what possible biases or conflicts of interest the sponsors have, then conducting a meta-study concluding that biased studies are biased wouldn't be news to anyone.

There is no such thing as an impartial sponsor; some are more obviously biased than others, but the belief in a fictitious impartiality is part of the problem. It shouldn't take a meta-study for people to see am obvious conflict of interest.

I'm biased. You are biased. Everyone is biased.

Is it really screwing up the education system, or is it just revealing how screwed up it already was?

I feel like he is getting a bad rap here. I mean, he had a gender change to convincingly play female characters in Juno, Inception, and Hard Candy, among others.

Talk about a method actor, let's see Christain Bale do that...

I'm curious, do the same people who think that the moon landing was faked also believe that Voyager is fake? Because to me, Voyager is more impressive at this point.

Voting to make cuts to an already ailing ATC system makes no sense to me. Simply from a self-preservation aspect, I would think this is one service that all politicians and oligarchs would maintain. It doesn't matter if you fly private or commercial, everyone uses and needs ATC to fly safely.

At least with something like global warming/climate change, I can see people selfishly believing it won't effect them during their lifetime, but the 2nd and 3rd order effects of removing ATC can be immediate and fatal.

I only hope that a minimum number of bystanders are killed when poetic justice occurs.