>Do you believe rehabilitation is impossible or do you want revenge?

I don't believe that someone who commits mass murder can be rehabilitated, no. It isn't about revenge; it's about public safety.

Someone once pointed out that hoping a rapist gets raped in prison isn't a victory for his victim(s), because it somehow gives him what he had coming to him, but it's actually a victory for rape and violence. I wish I could remember who said that, because they are right. The score doesn't go Rapist: 1 World: 1. It goes Rape: 2.

What this man did is unspeakable, and he absolutely deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he needs to be kept away from other prisoners as a safety issue, there are ways to do that without keeping him in solitary confinement, which has been shown conclusively to be profoundly cruel and harmful.

Putting him in solitary confinement, as a punitive measure, is not a victory for the good people in the world. It's a victory for inhumane treatment of human beings. This ruling is, in my opinion, very good and very strong for human rights, *precisely* because it was brought by such a despicable and horrible person. It affirms that all of us have basic human rights, even the absolute worst of us on this planet.

This is precisely why I lost all interest in Oculus the instant I heard that it had been acquired by Facebook.

This explains why there are no arrogant people over the age of 30, yes?

Stack Overflow reputation is cumulative. This means that if two people are providing answers of the same quality and at the same rate over time, the folks who have been there longest will have higher reputations, and that the higher reputation will reflect only tenure. Not any kind of quality.

If you want to look at quality, you should be looking at a metric that is something like (total reputation / number of months active). Even this is imperfect of course, since if people take a hiatus or something that will present the appearance of worse quality using this metric.

I was going to say that this fatal flaw invalidated the conclusions because the correlation between reputation and age just reflected the older people being around longer. The problem with that is that Stack Overflow opened in 2008. That's not enough time to explain a linear trend that tracks from age 16 to nearly age 50, but the final conclusion "So, senior coders earn their higher reputation by providing more answers, not by having answers of (significantly) higher quality." should still be re-examined with tenure-controlled analysis to try and see whether older aged members have been members longer.

You and the OP are both being unnecessarily vague and inaccurate.

The question is whether the US federal government has the authority to tell one person to purchase something from another private entity.

The local government isn't forcing you to buy something. It's forcing you to pay taxes (which it can do) and then it's providing a service (which it also can do). Even though it looks similar, paying taxes + receiving a public benefit != purchasing a consumer good.

You don't need special glasses to see a 3d-movie in 2d. The 3d glasses work fine. They did for me anyway.

I've got various eye-problems related to a severe infection I had as an infant. I've had surgery twice to try and correct my lazy-eye. And I'm totally immune to all kinds of 3d (3d movies, magic eye, etc.). Last time I went to the optometrist she explained that during the years where my eyes were crossed I developed a pyschological "blind spot". Since the eyes weren't pointing the same direction, I could either see double or just shut off the signal from one eye at a time. My brain opted for the latter.

Since my eyes are straight now the problem is theoretically something I could train my brain to stop doing, but I've never had any luck with the eye-exercises they gave me.

I went to see Avatar in 2d. Then I went to see it in 3d. The only difference at all for me was that in the 3d version if I took off the 3d glasses the whole screen looked fuzzy. If I kept them on nothing was in 3d, but the polarization meant that at least I could see the 2d images clearly.

This is good advice, and gives me an opportunity to speak to the community at large: some of us who go to cons and are in a position to shake tons of hands politely decline. It's not because we're being dicks, it's because we know it's a good way to substantially decrease our chances of catching and spreading any germs.

I played the PAX Pandemic game, where the Enforcers handed out stickers to attendees that read [Carrier] [Infected] or [Immune] (There was also a [Patient Zero].

I got the [Immune] sticker, and by the time I got home on Monday, it was clear that I had the flu. I've had a fever between 100 and 104 all week that finally broke last night, but I'm going to the doctor today because I think whatever I had settled into my lungs. I'll tell him about the H1N1 outbreak and get tested if he wants to run the test, but at this point I think it's safe to assume that I was [Immune] to the Pig Plague, but definitely [Infected] with the damn PAX pox.

Even though it's been a week of misery, it was entirely worth it, and I don't regret going to PAX for a single second.

This is why my motto (and fundamental rule for life) is Don't be a dick: it's simple to understand, and reasonable people can agree on what it means.

That is just wrong. In cultures where the notion of a supreme being has never been considered or is otherwise not a notion that enters their culture in the slightest, where then do these people fall?

Obviously if you've got no notion of theism you fall outside the spectrum of beliefs about God entirely. I coudl see why you'd want to call such folks "atheist", but unfortunately the term is already in use. You'd have to call them "nontheists" or something to avoid confusion. That would add a fourth option. There's no problem with that. The three options I provided are the three positions you can take on theism. For, against, neutral. Being unaware of theism obviously means you can't take a position on it, so it'd be off the chart.

Where's the problem here?

In any case, the rejection of an idea is not a religion any more than not liking football is a sport.

You can prove anything by analogy. Let's get back to some actual definitions.
Theism: Positive belief that there is a God.
Weak Atheism: Rejection of theism - makes no positive statement about God.
Strong Atheism: Not only a rejection of theism, but in addition makes the positive statement that God does not exist.

Now let's define religion: A system of belief that makes claims about the supernatural which can not be substantiated by science.

So according to that definition weak atheism is not a religion, but strong atheism is.

You're going about this all wrong. The negative claim (fairies don't exist) cannot exist without the positive claim (fairies do exist) being made first. You can't say that you don't believe in god unless someone first makes the claim that god does exist. The claim and burden of proof both fall on the "god exists" camp.

Your claim that you need to argue that something exists before you can argue that it doesn't exist is manufactured hogswash to try and shift the burden of proof onto the theist camp. If you have to try and set up conditions at the start of a debate where your opponent has to do more work than you do that's a pretty good indicator that your argument itself is pretty weak.

In actual logic there's no reason at all that you have to argue for something to exist before you can argue against it.

Person A: Here's a definitino for God. [Provides a definition.]
Person B: So do you believe God exists?
Person A: Nope. I just think it's an interesting concept.
Person B: Well, I think God doesn't exist. [Provides reasoning.]

You see how it was totally unnecessary to say God exists before arguing that He doesn't? All that is necessary is a definition so you have a concept to argue about.

The claim is that god exists, not that he doesn't exist. Person A says to Person B, I believe god exists. Here's why. Person B says, your evidence is not sufficient enough to support your claim. Person B is not making a claim. He is rejecting the claim made by Person A based on lack of evidence.

You are either deliberately employing sleight of hand to try and build your case, or you simply haven't grasped the distinction between strong (positive) and weak (negative) atheism. Here are the definitions again:

Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism. Historically, the terms positive and negative atheism have been used for this distinction, where "positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism

So, if Person B understood logic and was honest, this is how the conversation would play out.

Person A: I believe in God. [Presents reasoning.]
Person B: I find your reasoning unconvincing, so I fail to accept your conclusion. I do not believe in God. (WEAK ATHEISM)
Person A: So you believe God doesn't exist? (STRONG ATHEISM)
Person B: Not necessarily. If I wanted to make a positive claim that God doesn't exist (STRONG ATHEISM) I'd have to build an argument to do so. I don't feel like doing that. So I'm just going to observe that your reasoning is weak, fail to accept your conclusion, and be content with disbelief regarding God (WEAK ATHEISM) rather than belief that He does not exist (STRONG ATHEISM).

You might also notice that I'm saying "fail to accept" rather than "reject". This is also basic logic. If an argument is invalid (e.g. the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises) or unsound (e.g. some of the premises are not true) than you can reject the argument. You can not, however, reject the conclusion. You can simply say that the argument didn't prove the conclusion. The conclusion may or may not be true by some other reasoning.

For example:

1. The American flag is red, white and blue.
2. All flags with the color red in them are constitutional republics.
C. America is a constitutional republic.

Premise 2 is obviously false so the argument is unsound. But if you were to conclude that because the argument is unsound the conclusion must be false you'd be making your own logical error. So if someone presents an argument from God and you observe that the argument doesn't work you can't automatically assume the conclusion is false (STRONG ATHEISM). You can only observe that they haven't proved their case, so you have no reason to believe them (WEAK ATHEISM).

This is all basic logic, and it boils down to the original point: If you make a claim - any claim - you have the burden of proof. Weak atheism doesn't make a claim. It just rejects someone else's argument. That's why it's called negative atheism. Strong atheism does make a claim. It states that the universe is actually a certain way (e.g. devoid of God). That is the reason it is often called positive atheism.

Pick which one you are. If you're a weak atheist then great. You don't have a burden of proof. But if you're a strong atheist (which most of the annoying, trendy atheists like Richard Dawkins are) then you damn well do have a burden of proof.