Once she is pregnant, yes. I was talking about avoiding the pregnancy.
"There are only two options once pregnant" is no more a valid defense of abortion than "once the baby is born you either kill it or you dont" is a defense of infanticide. The fact that that infant is with you for the long haul is kind of a consequence of events set in motion long ago @ conception-- just like the pregnancy itself.
In case you want to continue to be super dense about this, I was talking about condoms, IUDs, hormone therapy, sterilization, etc. The first one at least is incredibly cheap, incredibly accessible, and incredibly effective.
If youre arguing that adults should be able to behave recklessly and without consideration of the future, and then be able to throw ethical concerns out the window in order to escape from the consequences, then Im sorry but I dont agree with you.
Re:TFA's Scientist's take on Gattaca problem
on
Sequencing the Unborn
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Issues of begging the question aside (addressed in my other post-- apoligies for double post), there are several issues in your post.
First, the recognition of a newborn's rights has nothing to do with the availability of safe havens and adoption agencies. Even if such things were utterly unavailable to a couple, just about every human being with a functioning conscience would find it to be pretty heinous if the parents were to kill their child (except perhaps in the most extreme of cases, and even then....). The fact that we cant just move an unborn child (two can play the semantics game) from one womb to another has no real relevance to its status or right to live.
Answering your point, no, I don't think letting the parents decide whether abortion is right or not for them is only ethical if we assume life does not begin at conception.
And thats precisely because YOU dont think human life (or more precisely humanity) begins at conception, which is the exact point I was making.
Legalizing abortion doesn't endorse abortion, it only leaves the ethical question up to the people who deserve to make the choice: the parents.
Ill make my example more crystal for you. If we were discussing the clear-cut killing of an innocent in cold blood, and your response was "well, I have my own opinions, but I dont think the state needs to take a stance on it, each individual should decide for themselves whether its OK for them to kill another".... you dont see a problem there? Once you grasp that, you will understand WHY pro-life (or anti-abortion) folks want abortion to be illegal. Their view doesnt give two shillings what your personal opinion is, the results (unborn child killed) remain the same, and the fact that their parents thought it was OK isnt really a mitigating factor.
Re:TFA's Scientist's take on Gattaca problem
on
Sequencing the Unborn
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Called it! That's a strawman. We're not talking about a newborn, we're talking about an embryo.
And you just demonstrated, again, begging the question.
What is begging the question? Why, its the fallacy of beginning your argument by assuming the thing to be argued. And what did you just do, in an argument that is basically about whether or not an embryo is a human? Why, you started with the assumption that it isnt.
If you were to take anything from this, its that in future discussions you should to argue your point, not assume it.
Actually we do let parents give up the baby post-birth... it's called adoption.
Which has nothing to do with my post, the discussion, or anything else. The point isnt whether adoption is viable, but whether "let people decide for themselves morality regarding killing an infant" is a viable argument.
it's one of having to take basic stances and then argue from them
Thats fair enough-- Im just arguing against trying to make a cop-out argument that "it doesnt matter what you or I think, its what he thinks"-- because THAT IS begging the question. Arguing about the issue itself is fine, but the whole "im for letting OTHERs make their own choice" is so disingenuous its not funny.
Its one of the reasons the whole "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" nomenclature is so messed up-- its begging the question, false dichotomy, and misdirection all rolled into one awful bundle.
Well, I just don't care for turning women into baby-making machines and telling them they don't control their own bodies.
And that, friends, is what we call a false dichotomy.
Im fairly certain that there are a plethora of choices that dont involve an abortion-- even if you dont count the "day-after" pill.
Re:Big shoutout to Tridge and the whole Samba team
on
Samba 4 Enters Beta
·
· Score: 1
Use a batch script with "rundll32 printui.dll,PrintUIEntry". Youll save a ton of headache. Yes its klunky. Yes, it really is the best way to deploy printers programatically.
Ive never heard of such a thing. I HAVE heard of companies which restrict the use of GPL TOOLS in a development process, because that (feasibly) could be seen to be "derivative". But if your business is selling widgets and you use linux, your internal memos arent somehow going to become public domain because you used GPL software. And if you use Samba to serve up files used in a development process, I dont think theres a judge in the world who would rule that your dev project is somehow derivative just because you used samba incidentally.
Re:TFA's Scientist's take on Gattaca problem
on
Sequencing the Unborn
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
How about we let parents decide whether it's ethical for them?
Thats begging the question: Its only OK to let the parents decide whats ethical, if your stance on abortion is correct. If it isnt, your argument would be akin to "why not let the parents decide if they want to abandon their newborn".
Not trying to be flame/troll bait here (even tho I likely will be modded as such), but the entire argument from most prolifers is that the fetus is every bit as human as a newborn is. Unless you start off by assuming theyre wrong (again, begging the question), you cant just say "well, lets let the parents decide whether thats true"-- because we DONT take that stance with a baby post-birth.
Instead, all I ever saw was that MS was evil and Linux and open source had to be given access to it. To my mind this was nothing much more than legally enforced theft of technology and I never thought it was right.
Would mod you up if I hadnt already posted-- This never settled well with me. Earlier in the thread someone was ranting about how closed and inoperable AD / MS was-- but it seems like it at the very least got its leg up on its own merits, because if there had been a superior offering from "Open Source" at the time it seems to me that businesses pursuing profit would have found it, used it, and had an advantage.
Insisting that MS help everyone else compete with them just seems lame. If their product is so bad and inferior, out-compete them. Make a better product. Worst case, an MS rep will drop by with a buyout offer.
And this goes especially true for Samba - as GPL3 is worded, you are not allowed to use-it to serve protected files, or, if you do, it's fair game to anyone to steal your data as this whole "domain authentication" stuff is Digital Rights Management.
Im no lawyer, but that sounds like absolute nonsense. DMCA for example means that even if it is technically feasible to crack DRM, it is (or can be? not a lawyer) illegal to do so.
And if the files being served are company property, for another entity to gain access to them in an unauthorized fashion would certainly run afoul of several anti-hacking laws, at the very least.
Further, GPL says NOTHING about what you can or cannot do with compiled binary IIRC-- all of the scary restrictive stuff has to do with redistribution and modification.
Your legal team is incompetent if they think the GPL has any implications for anyone who isnt a developer specifically working on (or deriving from) the GPL'd source code.
Re:GPL *is* the most permissive license...
on
Samba 4 Enters Beta
·
· Score: 1
You have a funny definition of permissive that seems to include "has restrictions". The "most permissive license" would be one that imposed no use restrictions whatsoever-- which GPLv3 (and v2) does not qualify for.
You might say that its the "most free" or "most open" or "most consumer friendly", and possibly some might agree with you, but certainly not most permissive.
Re:Big shoutout to Tridge and the whole Samba team
on
Samba 4 Enters Beta
·
· Score: 1
Does it fully replicate how halfbaked the printer GPOs are? That part is really important.
The war in Iraq killed over a hundred thousand civilians - I have no doubt that in several decades, the USA will officially give REAL recognition to these victims
If you read carefully, basically all of those figures will acknowledge that the VAST majority of those casualties were NOT caused by us.
Can someone start by giving me a concise definition of what "intelligence" is? Ive asked folks who stand by the IQ test, and I dont think I've ever gotten a good answer yet.
Depends where you're at. Some places offer gbps for ~$900/mo. I imagine a large, long-term connection like a university could negotiate a pretty good deal.
Also I have neighbors who now treat me like dirt because the arrest
Do you think the accquital being int he paper would matter? Is there a law which requires thearrest to be in the paper, but prevents the acquittal from being there?
More to the point, you really think there is a change of law which could change this? If so, tell me what it is, cause im skeptical.
Thats not a law problem, its a problem of people's perspective. There is no law change you could make which would change the whole "felony makes it harder to get a job" thing, or the whole "accusations stick with you even when proven false".
Slashdot Mirror
Once she is pregnant, yes. I was talking about avoiding the pregnancy.
"There are only two options once pregnant" is no more a valid defense of abortion than "once the baby is born you either kill it or you dont" is a defense of infanticide. The fact that that infant is with you for the long haul is kind of a consequence of events set in motion long ago @ conception-- just like the pregnancy itself.
In case you want to continue to be super dense about this, I was talking about condoms, IUDs, hormone therapy, sterilization, etc. The first one at least is incredibly cheap, incredibly accessible, and incredibly effective.
If youre arguing that adults should be able to behave recklessly and without consideration of the future, and then be able to throw ethical concerns out the window in order to escape from the consequences, then Im sorry but I dont agree with you.
Issues of begging the question aside (addressed in my other post-- apoligies for double post), there are several issues in your post.
First, the recognition of a newborn's rights has nothing to do with the availability of safe havens and adoption agencies. Even if such things were utterly unavailable to a couple, just about every human being with a functioning conscience would find it to be pretty heinous if the parents were to kill their child (except perhaps in the most extreme of cases, and even then....). The fact that we cant just move an unborn child (two can play the semantics game) from one womb to another has no real relevance to its status or right to live.
Answering your point, no, I don't think letting the parents decide whether abortion is right or not for them is only ethical if we assume life does not begin at conception.
And thats precisely because YOU dont think human life (or more precisely humanity) begins at conception, which is the exact point I was making.
Legalizing abortion doesn't endorse abortion, it only leaves the ethical question up to the people who deserve to make the choice: the parents.
Ill make my example more crystal for you. If we were discussing the clear-cut killing of an innocent in cold blood, and your response was "well, I have my own opinions, but I dont think the state needs to take a stance on it, each individual should decide for themselves whether its OK for them to kill another".... you dont see a problem there? Once you grasp that, you will understand WHY pro-life (or anti-abortion) folks want abortion to be illegal. Their view doesnt give two shillings what your personal opinion is, the results (unborn child killed) remain the same, and the fact that their parents thought it was OK isnt really a mitigating factor.
Called it! That's a strawman. We're not talking about a newborn, we're talking about an embryo.
And you just demonstrated, again, begging the question.
What is begging the question? Why, its the fallacy of beginning your argument by assuming the thing to be argued. And what did you just do, in an argument that is basically about whether or not an embryo is a human? Why, you started with the assumption that it isnt.
If you were to take anything from this, its that in future discussions you should to argue your point, not assume it.
Actually we do let parents give up the baby post-birth... it's called adoption.
Which has nothing to do with my post, the discussion, or anything else. The point isnt whether adoption is viable, but whether "let people decide for themselves morality regarding killing an infant" is a viable argument.
it's one of having to take basic stances and then argue from them
Thats fair enough-- Im just arguing against trying to make a cop-out argument that "it doesnt matter what you or I think, its what he thinks"-- because THAT IS begging the question. Arguing about the issue itself is fine, but the whole "im for letting OTHERs make their own choice" is so disingenuous its not funny.
Its one of the reasons the whole "pro-life" vs "pro-choice" nomenclature is so messed up-- its begging the question, false dichotomy, and misdirection all rolled into one awful bundle.
Well, I just don't care for turning women into baby-making machines and telling them they don't control their own bodies.
And that, friends, is what we call a false dichotomy.
Im fairly certain that there are a plethora of choices that dont involve an abortion-- even if you dont count the "day-after" pill.
Use a batch script with "rundll32 printui.dll,PrintUIEntry". Youll save a ton of headache. Yes its klunky. Yes, it really is the best way to deploy printers programatically.
http://forums.ocsinventory-ng.org/viewtopic.php?id=10929
Youre welcome.
(and I know that those GPOs look like they should work much better but... just dont)
Ive never heard of such a thing. I HAVE heard of companies which restrict the use of GPL TOOLS in a development process, because that (feasibly) could be seen to be "derivative". But if your business is selling widgets and you use linux, your internal memos arent somehow going to become public domain because you used GPL software. And if you use Samba to serve up files used in a development process, I dont think theres a judge in the world who would rule that your dev project is somehow derivative just because you used samba incidentally.
How about we let parents decide whether it's ethical for them?
Thats begging the question: Its only OK to let the parents decide whats ethical, if your stance on abortion is correct. If it isnt, your argument would be akin to "why not let the parents decide if they want to abandon their newborn".
Not trying to be flame/troll bait here (even tho I likely will be modded as such), but the entire argument from most prolifers is that the fetus is every bit as human as a newborn is. Unless you start off by assuming theyre wrong (again, begging the question), you cant just say "well, lets let the parents decide whether thats true"-- because we DONT take that stance with a baby post-birth.
Instead, all I ever saw was that MS was evil and Linux and open source had to be given access to it. To my mind this was nothing much more than legally enforced theft of technology and I never thought it was right.
Would mod you up if I hadnt already posted-- This never settled well with me. Earlier in the thread someone was ranting about how closed and inoperable AD / MS was-- but it seems like it at the very least got its leg up on its own merits, because if there had been a superior offering from "Open Source" at the time it seems to me that businesses pursuing profit would have found it, used it, and had an advantage.
Insisting that MS help everyone else compete with them just seems lame. If their product is so bad and inferior, out-compete them. Make a better product. Worst case, an MS rep will drop by with a buyout offer.
And this goes especially true for Samba - as GPL3 is worded, you are not allowed to use-it to serve protected files, or, if you do, it's fair game to anyone to steal your data as this whole "domain authentication" stuff is Digital Rights Management.
Im no lawyer, but that sounds like absolute nonsense. DMCA for example means that even if it is technically feasible to crack DRM, it is (or can be? not a lawyer) illegal to do so.
And if the files being served are company property, for another entity to gain access to them in an unauthorized fashion would certainly run afoul of several anti-hacking laws, at the very least.
Further, GPL says NOTHING about what you can or cannot do with compiled binary IIRC-- all of the scary restrictive stuff has to do with redistribution and modification.
Your legal team is incompetent if they think the GPL has any implications for anyone who isnt a developer specifically working on (or deriving from) the GPL'd source code.
You have a funny definition of permissive that seems to include "has restrictions". The "most permissive license" would be one that imposed no use restrictions whatsoever-- which GPLv3 (and v2) does not qualify for.
You might say that its the "most free" or "most open" or "most consumer friendly", and possibly some might agree with you, but certainly not most permissive.
Does it fully replicate how halfbaked the printer GPOs are? That part is really important.
that some might start wondering if having one should be a formally recognized right.
What about a right to food? You willing to pony up to feed me? I dont feel like working.
Youre right, we should have left the pacific be in WW2. Im sure everything would have turned out lovely.
The war in Iraq killed over a hundred thousand civilians - I have no doubt that in several decades, the USA will officially give REAL recognition to these victims
If you read carefully, basically all of those figures will acknowledge that the VAST majority of those casualties were NOT caused by us.
....That....was the point of my post, that we have such laws.
Can someone start by giving me a concise definition of what "intelligence" is? Ive asked folks who stand by the IQ test, and I dont think I've ever gotten a good answer yet.
Depends where you're at. Some places offer gbps for ~$900/mo. I imagine a large, long-term connection like a university could negotiate a pretty good deal.
Also I have neighbors who now treat me like dirt because the arrest
Do you think the accquital being int he paper would matter? Is there a law which requires thearrest to be in the paper, but prevents the acquittal from being there?
More to the point, you really think there is a change of law which could change this? If so, tell me what it is, cause im skeptical.
I'll vote for option number 2. Any law where lack of criminal intent is specifically excluded as a defense is hideously broken,
"I didnt mean to sideswipe that pedestrian, i had no criminal intent! That your son is dead is an accident!"
Im pretty sure you dont want to live in a society where there is no punishment for what we call "criminal negligence".
You really, really, really dont want to live in a world where vigilante justice is what passes for criminal justice.
At any rate, if you call the cops they expect to arrest someone
Spoken like someone who has no idea what he is talking about, and is an armchair law expert.
Thats not a law problem, its a problem of people's perspective. There is no law change you could make which would change the whole "felony makes it harder to get a job" thing, or the whole "accusations stick with you even when proven false".
Is that why the supreme court is giving the executive such a hard time about so many things these days?