That holds true for correct (or not seriously wrong) decisions. In the general case, a Darwin award is a far more probable outcome.

I think what you call "not seriously wrong" is the majority case. When trying to avoid being eaten by a saber-toothed tiger, false positives (fleeing when unnecessary) have few drawbacks. In that situation a Darwin award comes from false negatives (thinking there's no tiger when there is), which over time removes from the gene pool those less likely to jump to conclusions.

In practice we think we see patterns everywhere. If the first two librarians I meet are nice, I'm more likely to think that librarians in general are nice.

Intelligent people do not need the kind of rubberstamp advice you find in self-help books.

Not all self-help books contain rubberstamp advice. There are people who know a lot about marriage, and some of them write books about it.

In my opinion the goal is to reach a state where each partner is unilaterally putting the other person first, trying to elicit and meet their partner's needs regardless of how well their own needs are being met. Nobody can do this all the time, but as long as one or both people do it bad times will generally be minimized.

This really sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Bifocals and trifocals work, and have no moving parts.

The problem this technology is intended to solve is the shortage of opticians in the remote impoverished villages of the world.

While I agree that changing speed makes sense, why have it in the form of a Turbo button?

Nostalgia.

Yet, we have laws against . . . the classic "'fire' in a crowded theatre"

For historical context, the "fire in a crowded theater" quote comes from a case where the court ruled that it is OK to prohibit dissemination of anti-war propaganda during wartime. What "fire in a crowded theater" means is "we can prohibit political speech we disagree with." It was not exactly a shining moment in the history of this country.

At least these aliens are slightly more alien, but they're still bipedal oxygen breathers with bilateral symmetry.

Bilateral symmetry is objectively rational for multicellular organisms on the surface of a planet. Gravity provides a reason to differentiate between up and down, and direction of travel provides a reason to differentiate between forward/backward and side-to-side. No external force makes left different from right. Organisms that don't have bilateral symmetry tend to not care about gravity, or are not self-propelled, or both.

The problem is some spirituals, such as Christians, believe . . .

Yes, those Christians, who all believe the same thing. And they're all bigots too.

Do you not know the meaning of the word "some"? Is the concept of "not all but not 0" totally alien to you? Are you really that stupid, or just trolling the GP? Seriously, cut that shit out.

Grammar, my friend: "some" modifies "spirituals" not "Christians" in the portion I responded to. Starlon wrote (apparently without meaning to) that all Christians are included in the subset of spiritual people that believe cloning is bad. Since this is a common misconception I made fun of it with the hypocritical "they're all bigots" line.

The problem is some spirituals, such as Christians, believe . . .

Yes, those Christians, who all believe the same thing. And they're all bigots too.

Talking to passengers has the same effect... Too bad you can't ban that, too

With the government's monopoly of force on your side, you sure can! Mandate installation of soundproof (but transparent, for safety) partitions between the driver and the rest of the vehicle. Parents in particular are sure to be enthusiastic. Taxi drivers, not so much.

Or did you mean, you can't ban it because it would be a ridiculous imposition of government authority?

Ever considered consulting a psychiatrist?

Someone is not psychologically damaged for having different moral values than you do, and except in certain limited areas you're not allowed to impose your moral values on me. Nobody can prove that their moral code is the One True Way. It's not true that someone who disagrees is either evil or insane.

In case you were reading my previous post literally, append "in entertainment" after the words "sex" and "violence". Actual violence and actual sex are both sometimes wrong and sometimes OK.

You Americans need to relax a little bit concerning sex. I think violence is a lot worse than sex.

You Europeans need to relax a little bit concerning violence. I think sex is a lot worse than violence.

OK, maybe not a lot. In either case it depends on the precise details. My point is that each person or group thinks that their own moral code is the One True Way.

The reality is that blurring or bleeping out portions does nothing to shelter the viewer. Prime time TV has all sorts of inappropriate sexual situations even if they don't show any nipple.

What's being ruined here?

Our decision-making abilities. Trying to protect everybody from everything not only doesn't work, it trains people to be stupid.

note that the FDA is CONSIDERING this. And its their freaking job to look at stuff like this, if something is killing people (yes, even if they are a STUPID ASS they don't deserve to die) they should look at the risks versus rewards.

Whether or not anybody deserves to die, we all will. Keeping X people alive for a little longer is not worth losing some of our freedom. A step in the right direction would be to make the FDA completely advisory: it would recommend (or not) various things, and people would have the freedom to follow that recommendation or not. Pharmacists would even have the freedom to refuse to dispense drugs to people who don't have a doctor's prescription.

So we ban something because the average person is too stupid to read the bottle?"

Perhaps if ti's the average person, then there is an issue.

Unfortunately it's not the average person, it's a tiny minority ruining it for everybody. Again.

So let me get this right.... you think it is the cyclists fault if a car driver passes them on a blind corner and then has an accident?

It depends how loosely you define "fault". In the situation described, both the cyclist and the driver share some of the blame (the cyclist for unnecessarily blocking traffic and the driver for passing foolishly). If you verbally taunt somebody and he punches you in the nose, it's his "fault" but you both contributed to that event happening.