My argument is that you are making a non existent distinction. If it is not immoral, it shouldn't be illegal.
I am not arguing that prostitution brings harm to society. I am saying that if something brings harm to society, that is the DEFINITION of immoral. If something is not immoral, it should be legal.
The only question is who gets to decide what is of great enough immorality to be made illegal.
With this in mind, as the other poster pointed out, murder is and should be illegal because it specifically harms an unwilling party. Same with theft. Same with assault and battery. And that's the way it should be. We're supposed to be a society that prizes freedom.
So if the person agrees to it, it should be legal to kill them? As far as I know, in most states, killing someone, even if they agree to it is illegal.
The problem is that you don't understand what "moral" means. Something is immoral only if it brings harm to others or society (actually that is redundant, harming society harms others). The difference is whether you agree that it brings harm. You say that the things you see as bringing harm to others should be illegal and the things that someone else sees as bringing harm to others, but you don't, are "moral" issues and there shouldn't be a law against them.
There is certainly an argument to be made as to whether prostitution brings harm to society (and thus to others) or not, but just saying "it is a moral issue and so should be legal" does not address the argument.
The bottom line is that it's not the government's business to enforce morality.
Exactly what do you think the laws against murder enforce? Theft? Not everything that is immoral should be illegal, but anything that is not immoral should be legal. The only question is who gets to define what is immoral enough to be illegal.
Prostitution is not in and of itself a Federal crime. Those aspects of it that are probably should remain so, even if it is legalized in every state (There may be some Federal statutes that relate to prostitution that would be unnecessary if prostitution were otherwise legal, but the one's I am aware of are not).
Actually, there is merit to the second part of your comment. Before 9/11, airport security screeners worked for the airlines. After 9/11, Congress passed a law making them Federal employees.
A better solution would have been to leave the airport screeners as airline employees (with at least some interest in customer service)and set up a group of people whose job it was to go around and test their effectiveness. Then fine the airlines for various levels of failure.
I haven't listened to either one in over 3 years. So, I suppose you are happy with the federal government taking controlling interest in various industries? Have you paid attention to the way the Administration strong-armed several Chrysler investors into giving up their rights?
Yes, but what this database is going to result in is lots and lots of the opposite problem false positives for child abuse, and it will probably not reduce the number of false negatives. Every time someone sees something that they think might be child abuse, into the database it goes. When these observations by people who have almost no first hand knowledge of the people involved reach a certain number, in comes a Child Services worker who "knows" the parents are abusive and they just need to find "proof".
On the other hand, the doctor in the case mentioned still wouldn't think that the injuries were related to child abuse and never even note them in the database.
You talk as if the only danger is someone exporting a large subset of this data. Why would a pedophile want to do that when they can search the database where it is? Yeah, that data is all out there already, but right now, I have to find which database has the data I want and then find someone with access to it to subvert. This system puts it all in one place. Now, instead of having to hope the person I can subvert has access to the right database, I know they do. Out of 390,000 people, there are going to be a significant number who can be subverted to access that information.
Exactly, the only reason that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" is because major PC manufacturers don't pre-install it on computers in any serious manner.
Yes, I am aware of several manufacturers who do half hearted pre-installs (good enough for Linux geeks, but not for Joe Sixpack).
It's not just that (although that is certainly part of it). The "computer" is on their desk (keyboard, mouse and monitor), so whatever else is connected to the "computer" needs its own name. I can never get it through my sister's head that the "computer" is the box on the floor and the stuff on her desk is just peripherals. Whenever she has a problem with her computer it takes me forever to figure out if the problem is something I can walk her through over the phone or if I need to drive over there to fix it.
That is very similar to what I do when I get one of those automated calls. You know, "We are selling xxx, if you are interested leave your name and a number we can reach you at at the tone." I always used to get these calls at work. I would give an easily remembered name and my work number. Then when they called back, "Oh, I'm sorry, he just stepped out. He should be back in 15 minutes." I got one of them to call back 3 times.
I don't really care for John Barne's or Ian Banks' books, but they might translate well to film. Vernor Vinge and Neil Stephenson (if they pick the write stories) could make some really good movies. None of Robert Forward's books ever interested me enough to try and read them.
There was no "Bush's legislation". Bush was President. Presidents don't legislate. Legislators (in the U.S. Federal government that means Congressman and Senators) do.
So, you are trying to tell me that if Bush had done NOTHING, embryonic stem cell research would be more advanced in the U.S. then it is today?
Are the media going to do reports on the "Obama ban", like they've been doing on the "Bush ban"? Is it only a "ban" when you take funding from 0 to something non-0?
Let's just say that Bush's finance strategy didn't really hurt the global stem cell research effort, it just hurt the stem cell research community inside the US.
How did it hurt the research community inside the U.S.? Before Bush, the U.S. didn't fund ANY embryonic stem cell research.
At the worst, it didn't help it as much as some would have liked.
There are just so many ways that you are wrong, but then since you believe that might makes right, it is entirely too complicated to prove on this type of forum. As for your last question, the answer is NO. Your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness imposes no obligations on me, except to not interfere with them.
I am replying to both you and the poster you replied to. The primary reason that HFCS is used instead of sugar in the U.S. is because of the protectionist policy of the U.S. government keeping sugar prices in the U.S. above world levels.
Yeah, except the last time a Democrat was President of the U.S. didn't they burn done some compound in Texas because they wouldn't let the ATF in on a "child abuse" warrant? (hint: the ATF doesn't have jurisdiction in child abuse cases)
That is certainly a valid argument. However, there are other people who believe that the success of the Founding Fathers owes a lot to the differences between their thinking and that of the French Revolutionaries. One could make the argument that part of the reason that the French local government was destroyed was because of some of the differences in viewpoint of the French Revolutionaries (I don't think I would want to make that point, but I would, also, at this point, not want to argue against it).
You do know that Ben Franklin was a self made man. He did not inherit any wealth. He left Boston and went to Philadelphia, where he built his wealth through hard work (not by exploiting connections, except for those he made on his own). So Ben Franklin didn't "live in his own world".
A reason that the Founding Fathers get so much credit is because there was another group around the same time with similar ideas who launched a revolution and set up a government based on those ideas as well. That group didn't work out so well (it was the group behind the French Revolution). So, the Founding Fathers of the USA obviously had some insight or something that the leaders of the French Revolution didn't.
Slashdot Mirror
My argument is that you are making a non existent distinction. If it is not immoral, it shouldn't be illegal.
I am not arguing that prostitution brings harm to society. I am saying that if something brings harm to society, that is the DEFINITION of immoral. If something is not immoral, it should be legal.
The only question is who gets to decide what is of great enough immorality to be made illegal.
With this in mind, as the other poster pointed out, murder is and should be illegal because it specifically harms an unwilling party. Same with theft. Same with assault and battery. And that's the way it should be. We're supposed to be a society that prizes freedom.
So if the person agrees to it, it should be legal to kill them? As far as I know, in most states, killing someone, even if they agree to it is illegal.
The problem is that you don't understand what "moral" means. Something is immoral only if it brings harm to others or society (actually that is redundant, harming society harms others). The difference is whether you agree that it brings harm. You say that the things you see as bringing harm to others should be illegal and the things that someone else sees as bringing harm to others, but you don't, are "moral" issues and there shouldn't be a law against them.
There is certainly an argument to be made as to whether prostitution brings harm to society (and thus to others) or not, but just saying "it is a moral issue and so should be legal" does not address the argument.
The bottom line is that it's not the government's business to enforce morality.
Exactly what do you think the laws against murder enforce? Theft? Not everything that is immoral should be illegal, but anything that is not immoral should be legal. The only question is who gets to define what is immoral enough to be illegal.
Prostitution is not in and of itself a Federal crime. Those aspects of it that are probably should remain so, even if it is legalized in every state (There may be some Federal statutes that relate to prostitution that would be unnecessary if prostitution were otherwise legal, but the one's I am aware of are not).
Actually, there is merit to the second part of your comment. Before 9/11, airport security screeners worked for the airlines. After 9/11, Congress passed a law making them Federal employees.
A better solution would have been to leave the airport screeners as airline employees (with at least some interest in customer service)and set up a group of people whose job it was to go around and test their effectiveness. Then fine the airlines for various levels of failure.
I haven't listened to either one in over 3 years. So, I suppose you are happy with the federal government taking controlling interest in various industries? Have you paid attention to the way the Administration strong-armed several Chrysler investors into giving up their rights?
Because if I build computers, I can't (legally)put an Apple OS on them. See MS has an effective monopoly on OEM OS's.
Replace "President" with "People of the United States"
Replace "President" with "Chancellor" and you might start to get an idea what has people worried.
Yes, but what this database is going to result in is lots and lots of the opposite problem false positives for child abuse, and it will probably not reduce the number of false negatives. Every time someone sees something that they think might be child abuse, into the database it goes. When these observations by people who have almost no first hand knowledge of the people involved reach a certain number, in comes a Child Services worker who "knows" the parents are abusive and they just need to find "proof".
On the other hand, the doctor in the case mentioned still wouldn't think that the injuries were related to child abuse and never even note them in the database.
You talk as if the only danger is someone exporting a large subset of this data. Why would a pedophile want to do that when they can search the database where it is? Yeah, that data is all out there already, but right now, I have to find which database has the data I want and then find someone with access to it to subvert. This system puts it all in one place. Now, instead of having to hope the person I can subvert has access to the right database, I know they do. Out of 390,000 people, there are going to be a significant number who can be subverted to access that information.
Exactly, the only reason that "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" is because major PC manufacturers don't pre-install it on computers in any serious manner.
Yes, I am aware of several manufacturers who do half hearted pre-installs (good enough for Linux geeks, but not for Joe Sixpack).
It's not just that (although that is certainly part of it). The "computer" is on their desk (keyboard, mouse and monitor), so whatever else is connected to the "computer" needs its own name. I can never get it through my sister's head that the "computer" is the box on the floor and the stuff on her desk is just peripherals. Whenever she has a problem with her computer it takes me forever to figure out if the problem is something I can walk her through over the phone or if I need to drive over there to fix it.
That is very similar to what I do when I get one of those automated calls. You know, "We are selling xxx, if you are interested leave your name and a number we can reach you at at the tone." I always used to get these calls at work. I would give an easily remembered name and my work number. Then when they called back, "Oh, I'm sorry, he just stepped out. He should be back in 15 minutes." I got one of them to call back 3 times.
I don't really care for John Barne's or Ian Banks' books, but they might translate well to film. Vernor Vinge and Neil Stephenson (if they pick the write stories) could make some really good movies. None of Robert Forward's books ever interested me enough to try and read them.
There was no "Bush's legislation". Bush was President. Presidents don't legislate. Legislators (in the U.S. Federal government that means Congressman and Senators) do.
So, you are trying to tell me that if Bush had done NOTHING, embryonic stem cell research would be more advanced in the U.S. then it is today?
Are the media going to do reports on the "Obama ban", like they've been doing on the "Bush ban"? Is it only a "ban" when you take funding from 0 to something non-0?
No, it is only a "ban" when you are a Republican.
Let's just say that Bush's finance strategy didn't really hurt the global stem cell research effort, it just hurt the stem cell research community inside the US.
How did it hurt the research community inside the U.S.? Before Bush, the U.S. didn't fund ANY embryonic stem cell research.
At the worst, it didn't help it as much as some would have liked.
So basically, you are saying that because Microsoft doesn't support Linux, Linux is not mature.
There are just so many ways that you are wrong, but then since you believe that might makes right, it is entirely too complicated to prove on this type of forum.
As for your last question, the answer is NO. Your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness imposes no obligations on me, except to not interfere with them.
I am replying to both you and the poster you replied to. The primary reason that HFCS is used instead of sugar in the U.S. is because of the protectionist policy of the U.S. government keeping sugar prices in the U.S. above world levels.
Yeah, except the last time a Democrat was President of the U.S. didn't they burn done some compound in Texas because they wouldn't let the ATF in on a "child abuse" warrant? (hint: the ATF doesn't have jurisdiction in child abuse cases)
That is certainly a valid argument. However, there are other people who believe that the success of the Founding Fathers owes a lot to the differences between their thinking and that of the French Revolutionaries. One could make the argument that part of the reason that the French local government was destroyed was because of some of the differences in viewpoint of the French Revolutionaries (I don't think I would want to make that point, but I would, also, at this point, not want to argue against it).
0.8% is popular?
You do know that Ben Franklin was a self made man. He did not inherit any wealth. He left Boston and went to Philadelphia, where he built his wealth through hard work (not by exploiting connections, except for those he made on his own). So Ben Franklin didn't "live in his own world".
A reason that the Founding Fathers get so much credit is because there was another group around the same time with similar ideas who launched a revolution and set up a government based on those ideas as well. That group didn't work out so well (it was the group behind the French Revolution). So, the Founding Fathers of the USA obviously had some insight or something that the leaders of the French Revolution didn't.
(the Kindle could automatically correct errors in books as they are found).
Yeah, especially the inconvenient ones in history books.