"The problem is we have a two party system, with two parties that are pretty much the same. We need a viable third, fourth, or even fifth party to shake things up a bit."

That is not the problem. The problem is that we become INVESTED in a given party and vote for the party over the person. That is more of an issue of polarization skewing people's votes than lack of a third or fourth party candidate. The moment we view "The Republicans" or "The Democrats" as "evil" is the moment we toss our ability to vote rationally out the window.

"Meanwhile, absolutely no-one has ever argued that all craters on the Moon are of impact origin and none of volcanic origin, in the same way that no-one has (TTBOMK, and I am actually a geologist) seriously argued that all terrestrial craters are of volcanic origin and none of impact origin. We know of craters and other structures on both bodies, of both origins."

Then you failed to indicate how his "science is wrong". A volcanic cavern or tube formed a few billion years ago or 20k years ago wouldn't really make a difference on usability if it remained untouched/undamaged, would it?

You seem to be under the misapprehension that volcanic glasses are of necessity "recent" (if not "Recent", or Holocene).

I was under no impression about "recent" activity -- just that it *did* occur. Your original post seemed to dismiss lunar volcanism having any meaningful role. Your most recent post clarified what you intended.

As for recent activity, I recall a few papers (i'm not a geologist but I have wide interests and a useless superpower -- I can read wicked fast) discussing flows as early as 100 million years ago.

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/posts...

Heinlein's writing in the 1960s was based on the (incorrectly) accepted science of the 1950s.

That general statement is essentially true for all SF writers in any time -- but when the science *IS* right and they have insight they can describe a utility that may not be realized for decades -- or even centuries. I believe with regards to the utility of volcanic caverns, Heinlein's insight is most definitely correct.

"So ... Heinlein was writing within the accepted science of his day (no surprise there), which was that the craters of the Moon (there were no others known) were primarily a volcanic phenomenon. "

I'm missing what you are trying to say -- is it that there were no volcanoes on the moon? Ever? If so, I believe you are wrong. Check out volcanic glass recovered by Apollo 17 and more recent papers on fairly RECENT volcanic flows (as early as 100 million years ago).

Besides, by the 1950's, I believe it was generally accepted that lunar craters were primarily (though not exclusively) the result of impacts. I believe a geologist named Gilbert first proposed the strongest argument for this in the 19th century.

I'm unsure how you can say "his science was wrong" about Heinlein. I wouldn't say he "got it right" as he didn't INVENT the idea of lunar volcanism -- but he wrote about using underground caverns in the 1950's in a way being described in the original article.

"homosexuals would have to take additional time/effort to find another bakery."

I think you'll find that most constitutional scholars would argue that does not rise to the legal definition of "harm".

Were they to refuse service based on their sexual orientation, THAT could be argued to be discrimination. To force service that involves producing product that violates their faith would violate the baker's first amendment rights.

Example:

(A) "I will not sell you this generic cake because you are gay" could be strongly argued to be discrimination.

(B) "I will not make you a cake for a gay wedding with two grooms (or brides) on it because it violates the precepts of my faith" could be strongly argued to be correctly exercising their first amendment rights.

"Same difference. The constitution isn't ignored under either wording, because your rights haven't been infringed in the first place."

How can the force of law which absolutely "prohibit(s) the free exercise thereof" their faith be Constitutional?

"You attaching moral values on to the cake is again your own choice."

You say "moral". I say "religious". Don't ignore the constitution.

"How is it forcing when said individual CHOOSE to open a business/choose a profession that might put them in situations where they're exposed to things they religiously object?"

Ever hear the concept of corporate personhood? The concept dates back early in the 19th century (early in our existence as a nation). I believe it applies. Further, sole proprietorships do not give up constitutional rights when choosing to do business.

"then the owner must accept all the laws of the land,"

Agreed.

"... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Your point?

If you force an individual to take part in something to which they have a religious objection how are you not violating the first amendment?

Can I refuse to sell you cake based on race or whatever? No. Can I refuse to sell you a WEDDING cake, decorating it in a way that is counter to my religious beliefs? I believe the answer to that would be and should be YES.

Would *I*? No. I don't think it's a big deal. Either way.

I think it's fine for private individuals to shout "Dont go to this business because they don't like gays". I DON'T think it's OK to use the force of government to force a private individual in to a business contract for any reason.

Two words:

Bus Boycott.

"[they] rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear,"

Couldn't that be said by BOTH sides of this issue? Wouldn't it be injustice to force a private citizen to enter a private business contract/engagement with another private citizen against their will and against their beliefs?

I believe It's discrimination to not hire/or fire based on sexual orientation. I do not believe that it is discrimination to refuse to take the money and provide services to someone who wants to you to make a cake for their same-sex wedding. Trust me -- the small business bakery market will weed out those who want to miss great business opportunities and/or sales just because they don't want both figures on a cake wearing pants.

"Women and children, first". Do men and elderly have lives that are worth far less on the high-seas?

It's not a matter of what lives are subjectively or objectively worth. Their subjective value is varied and demonstrable -- I'm sorry, but my child's life means more to *ME* than that of some stranger. Their objective value differences are likewise demonstrable -- there's an entire industry based on it. Look up "actuary".

When someone who dies due to an accident, illness or by action and they have lived a full life, how can you not see the additional tragedy of lost potential on the exact same type of death of a child?

I forget where I first read it, but this sounds like a good workaround. Pick a nice secure-as-you-want password. But each website gets a different username. It sounds like most attacks are of the kind "joe_bob uses P4$$word on amazon, let's see if joe_bob uses P4$$word on this banking site too." They don't seem to be looking to see if joe_bob_amazon is the same account as joe_bob_wellsfargo. Or you could be joe_a_bob and joe_wf_bob.

Even better is if you have some control over your email accounts. They are probably smart enough to see joe.bob@gmail is j.o.e.bob@gmail(although that does let you filter incoming mail a little easier). But if you have control over the domain you have a catch all address and be me_amazon@myplace.com and me_wellsfargo@myplace.com.

Humans are different. We aren't insects. That I need to point that out to you says all kinds of things about you.

That I'm wasting my breath with an AC says all kinds of things about me...

'This "think of X" makes me sick'

Be sick, then.

Attending the funeral of a lost elder: Virtually all the conversations are about OUR loss. "I'll miss him. He was always there for me. He's been in my life since I was born".

Attending the funeral of a lost child: All the conversations are about the child's loss. "He'll never go to college. He'll never have a girl friend. He'll never get married. He'll never be a father".

Think it's sick? Bully for you. You're wrong.

'The bottom line is you are justifying it by casting another person as "lower" or "less""'

Ship goes down, save the children first. Sick? Or common sense? One life isn't worth more or less than any other -- on that we agree. But when talking about loss, we are have very different conversations.