Slashdot Mirror
Reconciling Information Privacy and Liberty?
thetan asks: "F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that 'The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.' However, for many outsiders, it's hard to understand how cliques reconcile seemingly contrarian views.
For example, many US Republicans are against abortion but in favour of the death penalty (no doubt they have their reasons). Amongst the Slashdot commentariat, one often hears that information wants to be free, almost as a catchcry of the open source, copyfight and related info-libertarian movements. OTOH, these same Slashdot readers stridently guard their privacy, so presumably information about their shopping preferences or websurfing does not 'want to be free'. How does the intelligent and functional Slashdot crowd reconcile the liberty of other people's information with the privacy of their own?"
Oh shit! And I'm at ground zero!
True. Now to add. You'll note in these abortion debates that the man's position is never considered (we're not talking horizontal either). It's always "what the woman's body wants". When Roe vs Wade starts taking that into account. Then I'll give it some weight. Until then it's all about what one person wants.
--
The "are you a script" word for today is emotion
There are so many fundamental problems when equating aborting a pregnancy and the death penalty the mere idea of linking them is pointless. Especially using the innocent vs. guilty argument. It's should be no secret that 'innocent' men have been executed by the U.S. Prison Industrial Complex (see : Larry Griffin, among others). I also wonder how many have slipped through the cracks and failed to be exhonerated (119 have been found not guilty after being sentanced to death in the last 30 years alone). Considering it's generally poor folk who are placed on death row, what kind of mess would we uncover if each of those people could afford a high-class lawyer? I'm not implying that every individual on death row didn't commit the crimes they were convicted of, but the system is flawed so deeply, I do not see, in good conscious, how anyone can support putting another human being on death row. What burns me up the most is the constant use of religion to justify killing a criminal. I'm no Christian, but having been raised in a very conservative Christin belief system, it's a no-brainer to me. The cut and dry reality is that being a christian means living a life modelled after Jesus. Living as a servent and finding mercy and forgiveness for the worst of the worst. I have a hard time with the idea that Jesus would sanction a state-run execution, for whatever reason. Just can't picture him standing next to Jeb Bush and saying (this was a Jeb quote) "What I hope is that we become more like Texas. Bring in the witnesses, put them on a gurney, and let's rock and roll." I use this as an example seeing as so many folks on the right love being able to use the Bible to justify their actions. Maybe check out some alternatives to killing other humans : Religion and the Death Penalty: A Call for Reckoning
The Biblical Truth about America's Death Penalty
That was very honest of you re: pro-lifers.
Still, find me a government anywhere that doesn't have a racial *and* financial bias associated with it. Xenophobia is universal. Wealth goes to the favored class, always. Even the Soviet Union had (well, more like ethnic) bias and a clear class structure. And their whole government was premised against such a thing, to the point of writing it in their constitution.
So perhaps you should just say "you don't like people killing other people" rather than the red herring of bias. That will always exist.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
What's even more confusing is that Democrats see it the other way.
Fetus, embryo, pre-born child = okay to die
Capital criiminal = death penalty is inhumane!
BTW, the parent post is not flamebait, it is a logical observation/explination. My post, is probably more of a flamebait.
IANAL...
e has chosen to act in a manner that our society deems unacceptable. S/he has committed this heinous crime knowing of the possibility that s/he would die in the act (via. self defense), that s/he might go to prison, or be sentenced to death if caught (death penalty), and that s/he would cause irreparable harm to another person.
Yelling "fire!" in a crowded fire is not illegal, and is not necessarially a bad thing. It is just a commonly (and incorrectly) used example to try and demonstrate limitations on freedoms.
For example, if there's a fire in a crowded theatre, you *should* yell "fire!"
Yelling "Fire!", when there is no fire, and no reason to believe that there is a fire, with the purpose of making a crowded theatre believe that there is one, is also not illegal.
It becomes illegal when someone is injured. If someone is injured by the yell (and there is argument that the theatre is monetarially damaged, or that the patrons' time is stolen, but I'm not delving into that, here).
It is illegal because the injury is forseeable, and to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, without reasonable cause is negligent.
The activity is frowned upon because everyone has heard the example, and hasn't thought about it.
As far as pro-infant-life/pro-death-penalty, I am a conservative (well, a libertarian), and you are correct: it is all about the circumstances. The infant has made no choice to be born, but it is a life, and should be protected. It is particularly valuable as it is an innocent life, and cannot have acted in any manner such as to have forfited such life.
The murderer/rapist/committer-of-another-heinous-crim
Note that the victim is innocent, as the baby is innocent - a victim of a murder cannot have acted in such a way as to make the murder reasonable - then it would have been self defense.
As such, the criminal has chosen to behave in a manner that could forfeit his or her own life. It would be interesting to know the statistics, to know how likely s/he is to commit another heinous crime. In those cases where further heinous crimes are likely, it is both reasonable and fitting to put the criminal to death, in order to protect future innocent lives.
See: the common thread is that the life being protected is innocent, and the (acceptable) life being taken has already been forfeited by the criminal.
There are extenuating curcumstances (such as inability to understand right from wrong due to severe mental retardation). In such cases, it is more appropriate to handle the criminal differently than a death sentence.
Flamwar averted.
Ah, crap. Maybe not.
How, exactly does that happen if the baby is given up for adoption?
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
she knows that fucking makes babies.
She does? They teach that in school or something these days?
she musta fucked somebody if she's pregnant
Or someone forced her into having sex, or someone just drugged her and raped her while she was out.
Second, who the hell wouldn't put up a child for adoption but would kill it?
Texas's "Baby Moses" law exists precisely because people were leaving newborns in trashcans or alleyways. So the "who" are "enough people to convince the government to change the child abandonment laws".
I think the anti-abortion groups should look into the "why" of that, it might explain a lot, and go a long way towards reaching their goal, without throwing around laws and constitutional amendments to enforce those laws.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
It's perfectly possible for someone to oppose abortion and support the death penalty, although I'm not sure how it would fit into the Christian ethic espoused by Republicans of late in the US.
That's the nice thing about the Bible. It's really long, and it has plenty of time to take both sides of every issue.
I am troubled by abortion rights -- even in the absence of religious motivation -- because I can't answer the question, "When is it no longer OK to kill a baby?"
Let me know if you get a better answer, but for now I find it works out pretty well to use this one: if you have sympathy for it, don't kill it. Look at a picture of what your baby looks like at its current age, and if you see a baby, let it live. If you see a fish, and you really want it gone, get rid of it. Short of The Big Guy coming down and explaining it, I doubt you'll ever get a better answer than that.
Disclaimer: I'm a hardcore liberal. But I can't stand it when liberals make the "how can Republicans want the death penalty, but not abortion." It's easy. Unborn children haven't committed crimes. Criminals have. Personally I still don't want the death penalty for a different reason, because there is a clear racial and financial bias going on in the American legal system; however, I still hate it, and feel embarassed when, my friends try to use this idiotic argument of "Republicans are contradicting themselves!" when my friends are arguing for abortion or against the death penalty.
Holy. Crap. I just had my stance fairly and eloquently defined by a self-described "hardcore liberal." You, sir, have earned my respect. *bows*I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
For example, many US Republicans are against abortion but in favour of the death penalty (no doubt they have their reasons).
How about, for example, many Democrats are in favor of jail time for disturbing the eggs of the Piping Plover (or name an endangered species), but are in favor of sucking a human fetus out of a womb... Don't touch the growing bird, but go ahead with the human.
Many Republicans say "I am proud of what you do in the Guard, I would be over there with you if I wcould be." And then i point out that they are under the enlistment age, and we will gladly take them. And then of course, well, I'd fight if they really needed me. Hmmm.... Lets see- the army could use some people bud...
Or when Hannity, who never served, says "I don't agree with you but I would die for your right to say that..." Um sure- I have never heard a vet say that- I mean, I wouldn't put my life on the line and die so that someone is free to say that the US sucks...
Not in favor of the death penalty? Would you be if you kid was raped, or your mom was beaten? I pray to got that never happens. People often say one thing to hypotheticals, but it is very different in reality.
Look, the test is not what you say, but what you do. If you believe info should be free, but you get paid to design information that is sold, well then you aren't practicing what you preach.
Character is what you do when no one is looking.
The best leaders/influencers are those who are "do what I do", not "do what I say, not what I do."
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
This is the most insightful, informative post I've seen in some very long time. Look, folks. he's on-topic. He's adding to the conversation... meaningfully
I shudder to think of a future where the innocent (other than just the unborn) fear "termination" by arbitrary individuals and the state, but those proven guilty of raping and murdering the innocent are protected, and guaranteed the "right" to continue raping and murdering the innocent.
Oh, wait -- I forgot. That's where we live, today...
-- -pjk Perry Kundert perry@kundert.ca http://kundert.2y.net
She does? They teach that in school or something these days?
Yep. Starting around 4th grade, unless mom and dad say "no sex ed for my kid."
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
The classic knee-jerk pro-life response. Replace "babies" with "fetus", and your statement is perfectly acceptable. Why? Because "babies" relates to something everyone can see, feel, hear, and relate to as a separate living entity. "Fetus", on the other hand, connotes a living entity that must depend upon the woman's body to survive. It cannot survive on its own like a "baby".
As a last shot at injecting a true thought into your brain: At what point is it truly a baby if, for example, it's hydrocephalus and has no real brain? Should the woman be forced to carry it for the remaining months, only to have it die at birth?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
How can we be sure?
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Personally, I think we'd be a lot better off if we worked on solutions to the real problem: the fact that those unwanted kids depend on the mother to give birth to them (and to care for them afterwards). Design and build an artificial womb technology that can sustain the child. This could solve the problem even in cases where the life of the mother was at risk. -Then- outlaw abortion in all cases except where the child is not viable.
Even better, this would allow people to have kids who want to have children, but for whatever physical reason, can't do so. It would be quite possibly the ultimate medical breakthrough in terms of providing care in cases like the one in Virginia. Instead of keeping that child in a risky environment where the placenta could potentially pass on blood-borne cancer cells which could metastasize into the fetus, the child could be immediately removed, be placed in an artificial womb, and be allowed to mature safely to term.
To every Republican who has ever spent time and money to try to ban abortion, if you spent that same amount of time and money working to find a real solution, we would already have this sort of technology by now. Climb down from your high horses and start actually fighting for good instead of fighting against evil. You'll do far more good that way.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
That is why I make it a habit to meta-moderate. It is a very rare day that I don't find at least on bad moderation.
It isn't much, but it is all we can do.
I love it when moderators moderate based on their beliefs rather than on the content of a posting.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
It doesn't get a choice no matter which way you stand. The pro-lifers don't take into account that the baby might not want to be born to a druggie mom with fetal alchohol syndrome, the pro-choicers don't take into account that the baby might want to go to an adoptive family. Why? Because babies don't make choices. So that's not really a valid point is it? It sure makes for nice pointless rhetoric to put on your signs though doesn't it?
I am for pooing in the toilet and against pooing elsewhere; these are not opposing viewpoints because they are different contexts. People who are for the death penalty and against abortion are not both for and against life (so-called "culture of life" notwithstanding); in the context of criminals who are dangerous to society (note the loaded words) they are for killing and in the context of the lives of innocent babies (again, the loaded words) they are against killing. Information in the context of knowledge valuable to the world at large wants to be free, but information that can be used to make my life unpleasant does not.
You can think of this as inconsistent policy, but you can't seriously expect anyone to keep a purely consistent policy. The world is just more complicated than that. Consider that one can be the most pacifistic person in the world, yet nearly everyone will fight tooth and nail for the safety of their (respective) offspring. Reconciling these apparently opposing viewpoints is as simple as recognizing the contexts in which they actually apply.
We seem to have no problem taking out cancerous tumors from our bodies, and those are also cells which are dividing and being nourished by the human bloodstream (technically, they are cells which are programmed to die, and ignore that signal, while new cells are put into place to replace them, hence the "tumor"). Why is killing one set of human cells wrong, and killing others ok? Who makes that decision? The state? The government? Where does it stop?
Yeah, the difference between a tumor and a fetus really can be pretty hard to call from a purely-technical standpoint. (I'm thinking specifically of ovarian teratomas, which can develop teeth, organ substructures, you name it.)
From a purely-genetic standpoint, you don't even need male gametes to create human offspring. (That's something else the people who want to bring their Bibles to science class are going to have to deal with, eventually.)
In my case, the criteria I'd be inclined to use is the standalone potential for development of conscious awareness. Gametes don't have that attribute, so no, every little sperm isn't sacred. A fertilized egg does have that attribute from the moment of conception, even though it isn't yet ontogenically-differentiated. A tumor, even one of those weird-ass teratoma deals, doesn't.
Personally, I see people deciding who should live and who should die all the time, without a single care
Sure; that's a necessary practical consequence of having no objective authority to consult on the matter. If there is a God, s/he/it's been awfully quiet on the subject for a few thousand years now, so I'd have to assume that s/he/it is OK with the way things are going.
I wouldn't have such a problem with capital punishment, myself, if the standard were "guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt" rather than merely "guilty beyond reasonable doubt." It's hard to lump Timothy McVeigh in with the West Memphis Three, yet currently, that's what you have to do when someone asks you if you support capital punishment under the current US judicial system.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
He is saying that the views concerning the baby change between the time when abortion is an option and the time when adoption is (usually at least 6 months time difference).
Linux is not Windows
What about those who are given the death penalty who end up being innocent?
I discovered that I am totally alright with abortion, but against the death penalty
This doesn't make sense. I can see being against the death penalty, but how is a known criminal's life (assuming the courts were correct, which isn't always a given) worth more than a unborn baby's? (Assuming no mother's health issues, which is the majority of abortions)
Those pro death penalty, against abortion, use the innocent argument. That clearly cannot apply. Yet you are not against abortion, so you can't claim you consider life sacarid. (and there are a lot of people against both abortion and the death penalty). Those for both abortion and the death penalty are consistant. I do not understand what your position is, please enlighten me.
That is such skewed to be expected bullshit. I am against abortion and for the death penalty and that is no fucking contradiction whatsoever. If some jackass goes out and murders people he should be killed. What the fuck wrong did that child in the womb do?
Oh and here is another seemingly contradictory statement too, I fully support a womans right to choose.
You heard me right.(or read, as it may be)
That's right. I support a womans right to choose. That bitches choice is made the second she pulls down her pants and any of you that think different are simply looking for an excuse to justify your 'sex for fun' that has so abundantly spread over the face of this world.
Disclaimer: I'm a hardcore liberal. But I can't stand it when liberals make the "how can Republicans want the death penalty, but not abortion." It's easy. Unborn children haven't committed crimes. Criminals have.
You mean like the guy who just served 25 years for multiple rapes that DNA evidence proved was not him, so he was let go this week?
Some people would have executed him. There are no do-overs once you're killed by the state for the roar of the mob.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Except, accoring to the GOP, once that child is born, screw 'em. 1/5 kids have no health care and are malnurtied. Schools are failing. They're against birth control and teaching sex ed to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But hey, if your poor, you can join the army and go kill other poor people for the rich GOP (or Dems for that matter).
I don't want them to think about the decision that's easiest for them, I want them to think about the decision that is best for everyone concerned. Be that "I won't have sex without a condom" or "I'm not bringing a rapist's baby into the world because I will hate it, and that's not fair to the baby" or "Some family will want this baby, and I can't support it, so I'll give it away"...some degree of hard, painful, serious thought needs to be involved in a decision about someone's life...moreso when there is another potential someone's life involved.
Easily accepted decisions as the accepted norm are why abortions and unwanted pregnancies are so common in the first place. Let's try to push responsibility up to the forefront of what's important in America, and see if we do better than we are at present. No, they're not responsible members of society, and they may never be, but maybe that's because nobody expects it of them.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Yes, agreed. Can you provide either a legal or faith-based definition of irredeemably wicked? I was always taught that God was about forgiveness and unconditional love, and I'm not sure how the court can decide 100% that someone is past the point of no return (hence, irredeemable).
"Vengence is mine," sayeth The Lord
"Allow me to hasten the meeting,"" sayeth Man
Sure, but there's also the point that only execution can properly express society's revulsion at murder.
Redeemable or not.
I am pro-abortion and pro-death penalty. I am concerned about innocent getting executed, as well as apparent lack of equality when applied to different races. But I do support the core concept.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Indeed. And those Christians also claim to believe in original sin... in which case, that child is no more innocent than the murderer.... God forbid that anyone actually suggest that to one of them, though... unless you own an asbestos suit and tie.
Last I checked, no theology in the world that believes in original sin thought it was worthy of the death penalty.
You're saying in-born flaws are equal to murder in the eyes of Christians. That's quite a lie.
To the GP: thanks for being honest - I tip my hat.
I got my Linux laptop at System76.
My personal views on abortion aside: Why do people rush to make the "rape" case against outlawing abortion when that scenario comprises an insignificant minority of abortion cases?
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
ending guilty lives does not necessarily save innocent lives. same as a guilty life may have been used in ending a more sinister life, thus saving more innocent lives then taking. you can point out the opposite if you want, but it makes no difference. then again, if this is some biblical related thing, arn't you a guilty life by exacting your revenge on a guilty one? do we really want to just take the motto kill them all and let gOD sort them out? cmon, we hear that in movies and video games that are intended as being violent and crass.
The abortion/death penalty "conundrum" is really simple.
Being pro-life is about saving innocent lives.
The death penalty is about ending guilty ones.
So doctors should only abort future guilty fetuses. Look I solved the abortion issue. In fact, if there are women reading this, if you do have an abortion and you are shunned by those conservative, just tell them your baby was going to kill and rape them. You're just saving the state money by doing the execution now.
What I'm trying to point out is that the abortion shouldn't happen just because it's an easier decision. That's not a good reason to end a life or a potential life. A decision like that should be made because it's the *best* decision that can be made, and determining that should include the fate of the embryo or fetus.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Since people killed under the death penalty have been innocent and fetuses kept from abortion have grown to be guilty, the contradictory positions do not resolve as simply as you posit.
Being against abortion is about forcing potential mothers to realize that potential once properly inseminated.
Being for the death penalty is about saying that a group of people can empower one person to kill another person provided a certain procedure is followed.
"We are descendants of people who did nasty things," the woman said. "We don't
like to admit there were barbarians in our ancestry. A Reverend Mother must
admit it. We have no choice."
Murbella had the knack of only thinking her questions now. Why must I . . .
"The victors bred. We are their descendants. Victory often was gained at great
moral price. Barbarism is not even an adequate word for some of the things our
ancestors did."
Frank Herbert, Chapterhouse: Dune
You need a picture of CowboyNeal fiddling (err...playing air guitar?) while the 'net burns.
--LWM
Famous "Troll"s and "Flaimers:" people:
Thomas Paine
Thomas Jefferson
Ben Franklin
Karl Marx
Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King
Martin Luther
Ghandi
I can't believe you left out the biggest flamebait of all time: Joan of Arc!
But seriously, a "troll" post in the classic sense is one designed to make the people responding to it look stupid. For instance, in a physics thread, posting something with technical-sounding but totally wrong physics is a troll. Similarly, well-desguised links to goatse.cx are also trolls.
The term has been extended to people who copy-paste the same stupid, false, offtopic things every time a story on a given topic comes up, eg, complaining about one-button mice or 17MB files in every Apple story, or saying that *BSD is dying in every BSD story. Perhaps these should be modded offtopic along with "fr1st ps0t b1tch3s", but they're frequently moderated troll.
Flamebait is an overused mod. It is intended to mod down only obscene and nasty posts ("flames"), and posts designed to attract them. These deserve to be modded down. However, I agree that it's being used too often against controversial statements. The solution is, if you're going to write a controversial statement, make sure it's well-thought-out, doesn't contain false information, and addresses the issue rationally rather than just calling the other side dipshits.
Martin Luther didn't write up a bunch of things calling the Catholics idiots, he addressed specific points that he had problems with, and brought in relevant evidence as to why they were wrong. King was one of the more eloquent speakers of his day; his speeches were brilliant, and were in line with both his beliefs and his actions. Similarly for Franklin; he is considered one of the cleverest diplomats and inventors of all time, and many of his essays are still considered authoritative. Karl Marx thought about his Communist Manifesto for more than 3 minutes, and once again backed it up with facts and evidence. Paine's satire was both funny and relevant, and Jefferson's writings are used as guidelines by judges and lawmakers today.
None of these compare with disguised links to disgusting pornographic images (or ASCII representations of said images), page wideners, stories about Richard Stallman getting raped by various animals, attempts to get idiots to show off their stupidity, or direct or semi-direct copies of false comments which have been posted at least 15,000 times.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Is it that hard to grasp? Kill the child molestors, keep the children.
and also that there is moderation done beyond what users are allowed?
Points 1 and 2 are all that should be needed to mod submitter imbercile. People who don't understand something like 'information wants to be free' need to go back to elementary school.
;-)
I'm not sure I agree with 3, being pro-life and pro-death seems pretty fucking contradictory to me. If you have the intelligence to form your own views, you probably have the intelligence to mod parent post up