Comments by lucas

Previous | Page 3 of 19 | Next

Posted on June 5 at 3:20 p.m.

What on earth does avoiding personal attacks have to do with free speech? At what point did I ever say that personal attacks are okay if I agree with them. Whether Ms Smith is right or wrong is completely irrelevant to personal attacks. Why would the Independent Discussion Guidelines bother forbidding personal attacks if personal attacks are merely an expression of free speech?

From Mayo Clinic: "Radiation, exposure to certain chemicals and some chemotherapy drugs are known risk factors for acute myelogenous leukemia...Exposure to certain chemicals, such as benzene, is linked to greater risk of AML. " From WebMD: "(A cause of AML is) Exposure to certain chemicals such as benzene (a solvent used in oil refineries ." From NIH: "extensive contact with crude oil, had an excess risk of hematologic neoplasms (blood and bone marrow) (rate ratio (RR) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.19-3.02). This was ascribed to an increased risk of acute myelogenous leukemia (RR 2.89, 95% CI: 1.25-6.67) and multiple myeloma (RR 2.49, 95% CI: 1.21-5.13). " Apparently, the facts are on Ms. Smith's side.

Doing your homework and citing facts is the correct way to dispute a position, not positing mocking fiction laced with ad hominem.

On Soap and Oil

Posted on June 5 at 1:34 p.m.

"Because I point out that Lisa Smith is a moron I am mean? " By that writer's own admission, if not mean, then at least engaging in direct personal attack which is a violation of the Independent Discussion Guidelines.

On Soap and Oil

Posted on May 23 at 4:10 p.m.

Do prisoners actually have cell phones? If not, how did he get regular access?

On Murder Orchestrated from Behind Bars

Posted on May 23 at 4:08 p.m.

Thanks, pk. I read this thread and despaired of ever seeing the tone of this forum raised. You renew hope.

On Huge Oversight Gap on Refugio Pipeline

Posted on May 19 at 6:09 p.m.

Thank you for taking the time to read my link. Actually, my link is in the middle of Lewis' development of his idea. I think maybe you should withhold judgment until you read the beginning and the end as well, and then we can have a clearer discussion.

"If that person really believed there was an objective "Real Morality," he would adopt it rather than his own." The Book of Romans says people do adopt what they consider to be the "objective Real Morality," but do not behave accordingly. It is unnecessary to quibble about whether the moral code they adopt is truly the objective one or merely the one they happen to approve. Lewis is right about one thing. When people behave badly according to their own code, the very next thing they do is explain why their bad behavior should be considered an acceptable exception,

On The Judiciary

Posted on May 19 at 4:23 p.m.

pk, you are right of course that nativeson never explicitly said his source for Absolute Truth was the Bible. I am only addressing the common assumption that it probably is. Then I went on to explain that if you take the Bible as Absolute Truth, you have taken little more than the Golden Rule. I suppose the best explainer of the "reasoning" is C.S Lewis who spends a good deal of time developing without recourse to the Bible the idea that we all have the Law written in our hearts even if we have never even seen a Bible. His explanation can be found in the book, Mere Christianity (

nativeson, I think Tababa's point is we, as a society, need to decide if marriage is a religious institution or a civil one. 1. If we decide it is a religious institution incumbent upon all members of society regardless of their personal religious affiliations (and presumably based on the Bible as no one has offered an alternative religious basis), then as Bill said, society needs to be much more consistent in its application, especially as touching divorce and remarriage. 2. We we decide it is a civil institution, then civil rights and protections obtain. 3. If we decide that it is a civil institution, but that our civil laws while legal are immoral, we need to change those laws. Is there a fourth option you would like to suggest?

On The Judiciary

Posted on May 19 at 2:18 p.m.

I agree that I could have been more explicit. Surveys show a lot more nuance than I stated. Here is one example: ( My point is there are a lot of Americans that do not recognize the Bible as the source of Absolute Truth (which is the question under specific consideration between pk and nativeson, not the question of what the Semitically-based religions might teach). A corollary I mentioned is that a claim that a particular religion hold such-and-such position based on its source of Absolute Truth sometimes means no more than the current interpretation holds such-and-such position. This is also pk's point.

However, it makes no sense to say we can reason or think our way to Absolute Truth. The closest the Bible comes to such an idea is when Jesus said the Law says love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. This Law is often paraphrased as the Golden Rule. The Apostle Paul said that even people who do not have access to this Law have no excuse because it is written in every human heart.

We do not need to spend any time judging whether other people comply with Absolute Truth unless we also and first judge whether our own interactions are characterized by the charitable good faith and respect which is the salient requirement of Absolute Truth.

On The Judiciary

Posted on May 18 at 1:47 p.m.

"Remind me again why we have to have foreign students at our community college..." Going to the extremes this comment implies is an unnecessary overreaction.

On Mom of Accused Puppy Torturer Pleads for Leniency

Posted on May 18 at 1:37 p.m.

People who join one of the Christian churches sign a Statement of Faith. Most of these statement have a line similar to "The Bible is the Word of God, and that its original manuscripts are free from errors and contradictions. It is the one and only infallible, authoritative, and trustworthy rule for faith and life. " At a time when America considered itself a Christian nation, it may have made sense for all society to subscribe to the Bible as the Truth and the source of national laws. One enduring problem with this idea has always been the unexamined assumption that human interpretation of Biblical Truth is also a trustworthy authority. Galileo famously suffered on account of this very problem. We, therefore, need to approach Biblical Truth with a great deal of humility.

In modern American society, 40% of the population call themselves Christians.. A smaller number have signed a Statement of Faith. Therefore at least 60% of society do not explicitly recognize the Bible as the absolute Truth. If anyone has so subscribed, they should at least have the courage to claim it. However, it must be recognized that so doing in our current society opens one up to a whole 'nother source of ridicule.

It is impossible to craft wise policies in such a poisonous lose-lose environment. It requires people, whatever their differences going in, who have the ability set ego aside, and debate with extraordinary charitable good faith and respect, qualities Christians teach the world to expect from them.

On The Judiciary

Posted on May 18 at 12:25 p.m.

"...the vast majority (90 percent) of (collisions) involve only minor, or no, injuries." Not in the statistics are the huge numbers of unreported near misses with cars, especially cars that do not respect the bike lanes. Most well designed bike lanes are next to the curb, not a car width away. Some communities put a barrier like a second curb or even a short fence between the bike lane and the car lanes. Some bicyclists resort to using the sidewalk as a bike lane. I have no problem with this as long as the cyclists are not zooming down the sidewalk as if they own it, and stop for pedestrians.

Also unreported in the statistics are the number of occasions when cars put law-abiding pedestrians at risk.

On How We Ran Off the Road

Previous | Page 3 of 19 | Next

event calendar sponsored by: