Well, I think the trolly problem is perfect for engineering. It's specifically addressed in engineering ethics. People are happier to use technology to kill. It's technology relevant. It's a moral dilemma, but one with a technological context. To me, that's one of the points of it being harder to push a person that a button. But it's your video, and I wouldn't overrule you. (I never took anything out of any channel so I could put it in engineering, but there was plenty of room in the trolly video).

I have a special button to throw things OUT of my channel, but none to put it in that I know of.

All those sound engineering relevant to me. I just got tired of puting htings in...

And thanks for the congrat.


In reply to this comment by jonny:
In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
*engineering

I took the trolley problem vid out of engineering since it doesn't really have any engineering connection. There's not even supposed to be one on the train. Seriously, though, it's a moral dilemma question in the context of a psychology experiment.

I've added some others though - the killacycle vid, the Kurzweil TED talk, and the space shuttle take-off. Obviously, if they don't belong, go ahead and knock them out.

There's a few others I wasn't sure about:

Coyote definitely knows the agony of engineering
Pinky's discussion of Edison and AC (engineering ethics?)
cool software engineering in the SIGGRAPH clip

Oh, and I think there's supposed to be a special button for channel owners to include/exclude vids from their channel, without having to use an invocation.

Congrats on the diamond and your new channel! It definitely fills the void left when the tech collective went away.

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
*engineering

I took the trolley problem vid out of engineering since it doesn't really have any engineering connection. There's not even supposed to be one on the train. Seriously, though, it's a moral dilemma question in the context of a psychology experiment.

I've added some others though - the killacycle vid, the Kurzweil TED talk, and the space shuttle take-off. Obviously, if they don't belong, go ahead and knock them out.

There's a few others I wasn't sure about:

Coyote definitely knows the agony of engineering
Pinky's discussion of Edison and AC (engineering ethics?)
cool software engineering in the SIGGRAPH clip

Oh, and I think there's supposed to be a special button for channel owners to include/exclude vids from their channel, without having to use an invocation.

Congrats on the diamond and your new channel! It definitely fills the void left when the tech collective went away.

Slavery being right or wrong, capital punishment being right or wrong, animals don't comprehend such things. You're taking this matter in a strictly human point of view.

"Just because something is a certain way in nature does not suggest anything regarding how things should be."

Who decides what how things 'should' be? That's strictly your (human) opinion. There's no representative from nature that comes down to sign a treaty or something. How can you argue against this??

And human morals don't have anything to do with how nature works. Does earthquakes have anything to do with morals? natural selection have anything to do with morals?

Again, the above points were heavily hominine. We can say or label whatever we want about how the nature works, but it's still a man-made definition that is designed severely parochial and exclusively dependent on human's whim.

>> ^legacy0100:
I disagree with this video. But I'll upvote to promote discussion.
Exploitation is a very natural drive. Since when did animals treated their rivals and prey as their equals and share their abundance?
Seeing all creatures on earth as 'equals' is a uniquely exclusively human and extremely philosophical, which is, man made. But yet, exploiting one's environment and designing them to aid one's self isn't a strictly human thing. Lots of species out there exploit other animals or their surroundings to do their bidding.
Scissor ants harvest leaves, against that tree's will, to grow a fungal farm. Hyenas steal cheetah's food when they're exhausted from chasing the prey. And they don't give a gazelle's ass whether the cheetah dies of hunger or exhaustion.
And when it comes to cruelty, mammals like lions kill off all cubs when newly taken control of a pride in order to wipe out the previous leader's seeds and to lessen competition by them near future. Birds kill the competitor's young by replacing the competition's egg with their own egg.
So what this video argues has nothing to do with how the actual nature runs things.


Here is what's wrong with this entire point: It is the textbook example of a logical fallacy, aptly named an "Appeal To Nature"
Just because something is a certain way in nature does not suggest anything regarding how things should be.
I should remind you of how slippery of a slope this argument stands on, as you appear not to have thought this one all of the way through, with all due respect.
hypothetically, say we were to look at the way things are at any given moment, and remark "well this world is just fine! because this is the way things are in nature and have been for a long time. therefore, nothing needs be changed or revised, because we base what SHOULD be on what is OBSERVED IN NATURE"..

ultimately, how can you justify the accepting of any human-made laws as morally sound?
surely you can't be suggesting that for human-human affairs, the man-made consensus decides what is right and what is wrong, while then back-flipping to say that these same good/bad judgements are utterly NULL and VOID when it comes to animals?
i would like to know where you stand on slavery issues?
capital punishment?

this argument could not be more misguided, in my opinion.

Additionally, I am not ignoring your other points, but rather don't have the time right now. Let's take the arguments one at a time for now.

Hoping you can clarify some things,
tcash

This is absolutely chilling, and for that reason ought to be required viewing in science class in any country where capital punishment is used.

deedub. please keep in mind that the reason christians get to say mormons aren't christians boils down to this. RELIGION IS SUBJECTIVE. yes, some christians will say mormons are christians, but other christians, those who view the bible more literally will refuse to acknowledge mormons as christians. perhaps these details will help you understand their point of view. This is exactly why I encourage you to use reason when examining these issues and not faith. I would ask that you read through and at least try to understand where they are comign from.

Mormon explanations of them being Christian

1. Mormons believe they are Christians because they believe in Jesus.

2. Mormons believe they are Christians because the name of their Church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."

3. Mormons believe they are Christians because they believe Jesus is their Savior.

4. Mormons believe they are Christians because they believe in God.

WHY MORMONS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS

Claiming to believe in Jesus does not make anyone a Christian. Jesus said:

"21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. 24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." (Matthew 7:21-27 KJV)

The context of Matthew 7:13-27 is that there are many who will go down the wrong road in life and the end result is destruction. However, those who go the narrow road will find life. Jesus warns about false prophets who appear to be Christians but in fact are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Jesus warned about bad fruit which is not built upon the foundation of the tree. (Jesus) Jesus warned about many people claiming to be of the Lord and doing many things in His name, but Jesus rejected them because He did not know them. This truth shows that just because a person believes in Jesus does not mean they are truly Christian.

Having a certain name for a Church does not make anyone a Christian. There are many religious sects which have Biblical names but they are not Christians. The Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, and Oneness Pentecostals have Biblical names but they have a different Jesus and a different Gospel. They are, by Biblical definition, non-Christians. What makes a Church or fellowship Christian is not what name they go by, but what they believe concerning the nature of Jesus Christ and the gospel message.

Many religious sects claim to believe in Jesus as their Savior, but many truly do not believe in the atoning work of the cross and Jesus' shed blood. Mormons do not know Jesus as the true Savior because they have been taught that the blood of Jesus Christ does not atone for all sins. Mormon apostle Bruce McConkie states:

"But under certain circumstances there are some serious sins for which the cleansing of Christ does not operate, and the law of God is that men must then have their own blood shed to atone for their sins. Murder, for instance, is one of these sins; hence we find the Lord commanding capital punishment."... "President Joseph Fielding Smith has written: "Man may commit certain grievous sins -- according to his light and knowledge -- that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved, he must make sacrifice of his Own life to atone -- so far as in his power lies -- for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail. . . . Joseph Smith taught that there were certain sins so grievous that man may commit, that they will place the transgressors beyond the power of the atonement of Christ. If these offenses are committed, then the blood of Christ will not cleanse them from their sins even though they repent. Therefore their only hope is to have their own blood shed to atone, as far as possible, in their behalf"' [Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 133-138]" (Mormon Doctrine, Bruce McConkie, pages 92-93)

This quote is from an apostle of the Mormon Church stating that the blood of Jesus does not atone for all sins, even if they repent. Bruce McConkie also stated that this was taught by Joseph Smith and President Joseph Fielding Smith which gives this special validation to what the Mormon Church teaches. The Bible teaches:

"But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin....If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us (our) sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:7&9 KJV)

The Bible teaches that all sins are covered and atoned for through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches that if we confess our sins and seek forgiveness we will be cleansed from all unrighteousness.

Many people say they believe in God but that does not make them Christians. The Bible warns about those who claim to know God but have been deceived. The Mormon Church teaches that God was once a man who became a God, but this is unbiblical and heretical. Joseph Smith said:

"I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of a being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth, for I am going to prove it to you by the Bible, and to tell you the designs of God in relation to the human race, and why He interferes with the affairs of man. God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible. Say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form, like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another. In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345)

According to Joseph Smith God has not always been God, but was a man first who became a God. The Scriptures clearly state that God has always been God. (Deut. 4:39, Psalms 93:2, Isaiah 40:28, Romans 16:26) To teach that God was at one time not God is clearly a false doctrine.

"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Psalms 90:2 KJV)

This information Biblically shows that Mormons are not Christians. Mormons have been deceived with a different Jesus, different Gospel, and a different God. Joseph Smith was not a true prophet of God because what he taught was not in line with what the Word of God clearly teaches. We have this information not to bash anyone but to challenge people to examine their beliefs. Please contact us if you have any comments or questions concerning this information.

"4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him]...13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds." (2 Corinthians 11:4 & 13-15 KJV)

"Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?" (2 Cor. 13:5 KJV)

http://www.afcministry.com/Are_Mormons_Christians.htm

The reason Education has been such an underperforming agency is because of the adamant demand for local control. The dept is hamstrung by a million different petty bureaucracies, often filled with people who have little or no experience in education.

the quality of education for the average student has gone down ... 225 years of contradictory evidence

Those statements are what's contradictory.

I agree there is a constitutional issue to be dealt with on this. But so is there a constitutional problem of the federal government mandating the 21 y.o. drinking age, for instance.

Dag - not all of the founding fathers envisioned the U.S. as a loose confederation. Read some of Hamilton's essays on the subject. Besides, we don't live in the 18th century anymore. Travel, business, communication are all vastly more free flowing now than even Hamilton expected. On the other hand, it is because of the expense/difficulty of communication and travel for many citizens that national laws on things like abortion, separation of church and state, equal rights, etc., are needed.

Karl (swedishfriend) - you give no context for claiming local solutions are better, just abstractions. Perhaps local solutions would have been better in determining voting rights in the south? Or maybe water usage in the west? I'm not saying that the national government always has the answers, but it is absolutely necessary to have a coherent national policy on things like energy policy, free speech, capital punishment, bank regulation, and on and on. [edit] Just reread your comment Karl - my apologies, you did give some specific examples. But take the minimum wage, for instance. How many states would have none were it not for the federal minimum wage? Yes, many states are ahead of the federal government on things like environmental policy, but how many more would be completely backwards without it?

The reason I can't support RP isn't because I think he will be able to get all of those things done, but because those views will inform all of his decisions. He will push an agenda of strict constructionism on every issue, and it's this blind allegiance to the "intent of the founding fathers" that I find troubling. The founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen the issues we face today. What would they have made of the immigration debate? They wouldn't understand half the complexities involved.

Dag - you don't care if Kansas is teaching creationism? What about when one their graduates becomes a high school science teacher in your district? Or is appointed to the federal bench?

It is not possible to love a person and at the same time advocate the loved one should be executed. There are literally hundreds of lines in the Bible prescribing capital punishment for things that we would view as minor offenses or not offenses at all.

The following are crimes punishable by death according to the OT:
Ignoring or Disobeying Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12)
Being a Witch (Exodus 22:17)
Working on the Sabbath (Exodus 31:12-15)
Following a different religion (Exodus 22:19)
Nonbelief (2 Chronicles 15:12-13)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16)
Fornication (Leviticus 21:9)
Not being a virgin on wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
Homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13)
Insulting a Prophet (Kings 2:23-24)
Having a father who was a sinner (Isaiah 14:21)
Having a person in your town who worships another god (Deuteronomy 13:13-19)

It is impossible to read the whole bible with a sane mind and believe that the fictional overlord therein really loved everyone that he smote with eternal torture in hell. It has been said that the Old Testament is much harsher than the New, but this is incorrect because it is only in the New Testament that the concept of eternal torture in Hell appears. It's time for moderate Christians to start calling this ancient fairy-tale nonsense what it is and switch to the Jefferson bible. One can find a better examination of moral questions in other great works of literature.

Even if it may be 'scurrilous', I absolutely thinks it qualifies for the former Spanning Time.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
hi - I was going through my published vids to update the channels, and wondered if this commentary on Edison qualified for the History Channel. What do you think?

hi - I was going through my published vids to update the channels, and wondered if this commentary on Edison qualified for the History Channel. What do you think?

Arlen Specter's (R-PA) questions were very good (one of them at t-3:50); he is a former district attorney, so it wasn't surprising. But every single one went unanswered, including a question about Constitutional Law in general, and another about a capital punishment death sentence Att Gen Gonzalez signed off on recently (clips from this appear towards the end). It was wild. Sen. Specter was getting upset. Specter noted that he still remembers from his District Attorney days every detail of every capital punishment case he ever signed off on. He earns another gold star for effort in my book.

... again, thats conservative Republican Sen. Arlen Specter I'm talking about. Its not conservative vs. liberal, its American justice system vs. cover-ups.

And keep in mind all these clips are from a single hearing appearance, not from someone hunting around for clips to support a particular position.

If I'm not mistaken, I think this video is more aimed at prisoners who go through unfair trials. But maybe that's just me...

Anyway, I've never seen capital punishment as effective. Unless you make a public spectacle out of it, no one ever, EVER believes it could happen to them. People look at the death penalty as something that happens to the monsters of society in some far off land they could never touch.

By the way, to prevent this in the future, don't stand so far back when shooting.

I think in an age of ideology run rampant (read: greed) a structured return to principles that everyone can agree on makes some serious sense.

Though admittedly not every American thinks deeply about the implications of the Constitution, most would say they abide by the spirit of its rules and would defer to its wisdom simply because it can be generally agreed that pretty much everything in the Constitution is a Pretty Good Idea---at least in theory. Yes, the application of it needs to be monitored and tempered, but a properly functioning American government and legal system should be able to take care of that; that's what it was designed for, after all.

And yes, I actually disagree with a lot of what Paul has to say about abortion and the environment, but he's also one of the only candidates who is actually willing to draw a line between what he believes, and what The People should decide for themselves, especially in matters that relate directly to personal liberty. Unlike *every other candidate* he's is not treating this election like his own personal, preening, self-aggrandizing, wank-fest.

Beyond believing that the ultimate power belongs to the people, and that even the office of the president is not above scrutiny, I don't give a fuck what the president believes....about capital punishment, abortion, jesus, or anything else, because *it shouldn't really matter*. The president just steers the boat and navigates as best he can. If the Constitution is the map, then that about wraps it up: now your presidential choice comes down to who, out of the candidates, best understands the map.

as long as any lunatic can say what he wants we call that free speech

I didnt really get this post, but just to be clear on what I mean, "free speech" doesnt mean any idiot should deserve to speak unchallenged about whatever, Criticizing Rushdies books, picking apart his argument, or calling him an outright fool is as much free speech as anything, what I am talking about is outright death threats, death sentences in the form of fatwas. That, is what is indefencible, it is undemocratic, it is cruel, primitive and an insult to human intelligence to condemn people TO DEATH for writing a book or drawing cartoons or having sex with consenting adults.

People who condone and excuse these things are no better than nazi collaborators, and I am a principle opponent of capital punishment, but they do need a good smack in the face, if nothing else but to wake them up.

Holding an idealistic view about abolishing capital punishment is one thing, actually implementing such a system state wide is an entirely different thing. I don't see why the state should make citizens pay more taxes to keep criminals in prison for life. Nor do I see citizen accepting such a scheme.

It's the same arguement as anti-abortionists make, they say that it's killing babies and what not. If that is the case, then the state should sanction taxes to citizens to run proper foster homes for abandoned and unwanted children, or better yet families must willingly sponsor a child's education and livelihood. They want to abolish Roe Vs Wade without realizing that it has lead to a marked decrease in the amount of criminal activity (see Freakanomics).

One must look at issues with a realistic mind set. I believe capital punishment still has it's place in our world, it would slowly diminish itself over time as society progresses.