The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[All Darc]

That's quite dangerous...
At the whole would be more than 24 hours withou sleep.

Originally Posted by redpoint5

On several occasions I've driven nearly 1000 miles after having worked a 13hr work shift. It completely wipes me out. I'm basically a zombie the whole next day.

Yes, ultra slow.
Why they keep the rules to such low speed? Is that because faster would turn the CD higher fo such aerodynamics, reducing efficiency of the vehicle itself ?
For me, if it's really that, it's quite a tricker to call atention and try to be impressive.

Originally Posted by Vman455

Those cars average 15mph in competition. At that speed, LA to NY would take you 8 days--with no stops for food or bathroom breaks.

[All Darc]

Well, we don't want people to kill you, rape your wife and marry you pre teen daughters, don't you agree?

Sorry for the strong sentence. I don't even know you or you family. It was just to raise a point.

Humans are a disgrace, we are more prone top evil than for good. To get a good rightfull person you need 2 decades, a lot of moral education, good parenthood, good example, good influence, and even so it'd not guarantee. For other side, to create a monster or a crap you just need to do nothing.

Rights are a invention, yes, and not a human nature. If it was from human nature it would be some sort of abominable disgracefull rights.

It took some thousand years to take we out of a savage condition, with society, some laws, some protections. But it would took just some months to take us back to bestiality, in case of a nuclear was or cataclysm.

Originally Posted by Vman455

Let's be clear--"rights" are completely a human invention, and only exist insofar as we collectively decide to bestow them on each other.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Vman455

But you were asking the government to get married! You were asking for it to bestow conveniences, like the ability to file a joint tax return or make healthcare decisions for an unresponsive partner. You can do everything that marriage is--live together, share finances, raise children, own a home, whatever--without the government if you wanted. Why didn't you just do that and leave the government out of it? Because you wanted the rights the government grants to those who are legally and not just practically married (I'm using those two words, "legally" and "practically," literally here).

Let's be clear--"rights" are completely a human invention, and only exist insofar as we collectively decide to bestow them on each other.

My gripe is more one of semantics. The form shouldn't be called a marriage license, but instead "registration of spouse". Just as the state can't stop you from purchasing a vehicle, they do require that you register with them. I'm ok with that for purposes of bestowing certain legal rights/responsibilities. I'm just not asking for permission to get married. "Denied" is not an acceptable option for the state to decide. I suppose from that standpoint that makes me "pro-gay marriage", insofar as it's none of the state's business.

When I was filling out my marriage application, it asked for my occupation. My response, "Nunya". I didn't know that would appear on the actual certificate. To my wife's chagrin, and my absolute delite, it does.

[All Darc]

For me, to be allowed to marry the couple should get psychiatric evaluation to detect dangerous disturbs, and inform the persons about the serious problems the other can have. This would save the life of many women and some man.

For other side, psychiatry it's still quite a sh...t in many pointd, even in 21 century. But something should be done to detect sociopaths and other dangerous people.

[Xist]

I have a right to party and I will fight for it.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

For me, to be allowed to marry the couple should get psychiatric evaluation to detect dangerous disturbs, and inform the persons about the serious problems the other can have. This would save the life of many women and some man.

For other side, psychiatry it's still quite a sh...t in many pointd, even in 21 century. But something should be done to detect sociopaths and other dangerous people.

If a person can't identify that they are with a sociopath, then they had it coming. I prefer to err on the side of liberty, and it seems you prefer authority.

Counseling is a great idea for people considering getting married, or even people still married. It should be optional though. People forced into counseling don't take it seriously, including the counselors.

Originally Posted by Xist

I have a right to party and I will fight for it.

I'm right there with you, Xist.

[All Darc]

It's not authority, it's fight evil, fight evil people to protect possible victims.
There are a lot of people whose lives were destroyed by horrible marriages.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

It's not authority, it's fight evil, fight evil people to protect possible victims.
There are a lot of people whose lives were destroyed by horrible marriages.

It is authority. I understand you want the authority (government) to protect people from becoming victims. That's the whole premise of granting authority to the state. If it were as easy as granting authority to the masses or elected group of people to solve these problems, I'd be all for it. It never turns out well, though.

We already have laws to remove people from abusive situations, especially when it comes to children. Perhaps these need to be improved, but the answer is not to force people to go to counseling before marriage, go through an approval process to get married, and submit proof of fitness to have children. That is giving the state way too much control, and they are sure to run amok with that power.

There has to be a balance of individual sovereignty and protecting citizens.

Please answer this: what should the state do if someone has a child without going through the application process? Does it matter if it turns out they meet all criteria for having a child, or should they still be punished? What is that punishment?

It's pointless to argue to make something illegal without also arguing how the law should be enforced.

[All Darc]

There is always room for incentives before enforcements.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by All Darc

There is always room for incentives before enforcements.

Bingo! That's what I've been arguing all along.

Let's start with free IUDs for anyone that wants it and see how that turns out. I realize that probably offends most Catholics since the Church has said that any birth control is wrong. The government supports programs that offend religious morality all the time though.