Slashdot Mirror
WTO Wants USA to Gamble Online
revtom writes "The WTO has ruled that the U.S. must allow online gambling or face trade barriers. My favorite quote from the article (Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va), 'It cannot be allowed to stand that another nation can impose its values on the U.S. and make it a trade issue.' Pot/Kettle black?"
I have always thought that there were stupid laws. For example, in NYS, you have to wear a seatbelt when in an automobile. This should not be a law, but something that is simply common sense. If someone is too stupid to wear a seatbelt, then who cares if they crash into a tree?
The argument is though, that the government is responsible for scraping people off of trees, and this becomes expensive, which every tax payer knows.
The root of this problem is that there are two types of politicians (for the most part). The first is the democrats. They want more government, yet, they do not want to tell people how to live. The second is the republicans. They want less government, yet they love to impose their strict rules and values on people. This has never made sense to me.
This is a tough one. I'm trying not to get too offtopic here, but I assume this pot calling the kettle black thing has to do with the war in Iraq, and I think that's a stretch.
First, the war with Iraq STARTED as protecting the safety of Americans, IN THEORY. You may think it was just big bad Republican GWB wanting to bomb the shit out of a bunch of Arabs, but the official reason for going to war STARTED out as "Iraq is a threat, we want to neutralize that threat." Agree or disagree with the logic and pre-emption, you may be right, but at no point was this about imposing VALUES upon another culture.
Now everything has been confused, and protection of the US has taken a back burner to "regime change from a bad man." That sounds a lot more like "we don't like the way this man was doing things, let's step in and do it our way" which even I don't agree with. But while the US can be blamed for their METHODS, keep in mind that even the UN didn't like the way Saddam and the like did things. They never approved military action against Iraq, but there WERE various unenforced ultimatums imposed on Iraq by the UN, both related to the infamous WMD and the treatment of its people. Almost all global organizations were in agreement on this. What the US did wrong was to go behind their backs and tried to take care of it without approval.
I'm sure this will get flamed to death, but keep in mind, you most likely do not agree with the war, or the President, or any actions of this current administration. But that doesn't mean that everything they do or say is hypocritical and related to each other.
Yeah, I know, Score(-1) : Offtopic. I can't help myself.
My counter-argument to this is that the life of people who already exist and have worked hard to establish themselves takes priority over the unknown.
Your counter-argument is fighting a strawman. Most pro-lifers will carve out exceptions in their stand for cases where the mother's life is in danger.
The question really is whether the convenience of people who already exist takes priority over the life of the unborn. Since most abortions are voluntary (and not for medical reasons), the pro-abortionists seem to value a woman's convenience over her fetus' life.
I know god exists. I read it on the internet, so it must be true.
The Randy Newman song "Political Science" comes to my mind...
They all hate us anyhow, so let's drop the big one now...let's drop the big one now...
Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
Look what happened to Bush when the EU was able to get a ruling against us for our steel tariffs. They targeted swing states in order to get bush knocked out of office. It would be funny if I wasn't in one of them, and bush immediately caved.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Bah, you accuse me of fallacy (which is the only reason I responded to begin with), and you setup straw men. The real argument is whether or not abortion (I'll use your term) is killing (no appeal to emotion here buddy) a living human being. If it *is* killing a living human being, then it should be illegal. If not, then it isn't, nor can it be, murder. Stop splitting hairs with me here please.
We both know that the definition of Murder is (oddly enough) malleable in this regard. In fact, there is currently legal hearings going on in some state (can't remember which) as to whether killing a fetus through abuse of a pregnant woman counts as murder. So don't tell me that the definition of murder is so etched in stone lest you should look like a "screeching moron" (gawd I'm starting to hate slashdotters...).
I believe that a fetus is a living human being, from inception on. Therefore, in my mind, it is rightly called murder if you kill it without a trial and court order (a fetus commited of capital crime?).
You believe, I'm guessing, that it becomes a human being at some arbitrary point in it's development? Thus it is not murder to 'abort' it. Or perhaps you actually have no true opinion, and just blindly follow the letter of the law in this case? You've not said, you've only bitched about my use of the word murder.
That clear things up?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin