You say miraculous, I say common, every day occurrence.
Rather than thinking about the statistics of how many births there are every day, if you think about the process that was going on prior to the birth, you could label that miraculous. A baby's (human) life is not something a human can create. The parents of the baby are involved in the reproduction process, and the mother carries the child during the baby's development, but the process up to and including the birth can really be explained as nothing else but miraculous.
If a god existed and wanted to communicate its purpose, why would it make it amidst the rantings of madmen? Why not give it to everyone? Why make the transmission of the purpose cause madness? For an omnipotent being this is, like everything else, trivial.
If an omnipotent being was truly omnibenevolent, and knowing the purpose of the universe or our own existence made our lives better and let us spend eternity in paradise, why wouldn't such a being communicate this purpose clearly and explicitly to everyone?
The purpose of our existence according to this God you're reffering to can be found in the Bible. You would of heard in the story of Adam and Eve and about the fall of man, and that we are all born with a sinful nature. And then just over 2000 years ago he sent his Son to save us from our sinfulness, and now we (everyone/all) are awaiting His return, at which time, all who believe in Him will be saved and all those who reject and refuse Him... well, I'm sure you know the rest (If you don't, you may want to start reading your Bible).
If a god existed, and its creation did have a purpose, why disguise the purpose? Why not have it explicitly available to all sentient beings?
I suppose you could label it "a case for faith". If God revealed Himself explicitly and everyone knew he was there, we wouldn't need to have faith, it would be evident. God has given us a free will, we can choose to accept Him, or reject Him, and there are consequences for our decision.
God (daddy god) sending himself (son) to this world so that he can get himself (jesus) nailed to a cross, where he himself (jesus) is left without himself (daddy god) to be crusified to himself (daddy god), raised by himself (jesus?) to go get back to himself (daddy god) so that he can then send himself (ghost/spirit) back to this world until he himself (jesus) will go back in order to judge the world according to the laws he made up himself (daddy god)
You may want to read the Bible for yourself. What you're referring to is more of a Unitarian view of God (not the Trinitarian ("the one trinity god"). The Triune God is three (I suppose you would call them beings/persons), but still one God. He didn't change into different personality's.
If you have a look at Mark 15:34, when Jesus was on the cross, He cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". He wasn't talking to himself, but rather his father in heaven.
Also in Mark 14:62, Jesus says "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.".
If you read through the Bible, you will find answers to the misconceptions you've been told.
He wrote this in the context of man's desire to be independent of his Creator.
Man is sinful by nature. As for man's desire to be independent of the Creator, the fact that there are so many different languages is a result of man trying to be independent of their Creator.
Genesis 11:3-7 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth." But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.
It appears as though the world is approaching a point where God will intervene once again. You may want to read your Bible's to find out what happens when God does intervene and how you can be prepared. It's all documented.
Eventually someone will create an artificial cell (just more chemistry) to put it into, and at that point any rational person would have to accept that a living thing had been totally made from raw chemicals (vs Venter's current creation only partly lab made), and that's what I mean by it not being anything fundamental. Life is just complex chemistry.
This statement is just based on speculations. The statement should be preceded with an 'if'.
It is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a new life form. The team of scientists has already successfully transplanted the genome of one type of bacterium into the cell of another, effectively changing the cell's species. Mr Venter said he was "100% confident" the same technique would work for the artificially created chromosome.
The fact that has already been pointed out is there have only been modifications made to a cell rather then creating a new self-sufficient, self-developing, reproducing artificial lifeform. I, for one, don't believe scientist's can create true artificial life, I'm not going to discourage them from trying, but life itself is not just "complex chemistry". Without 'life', all the chemicals, elements, cells, etc. are useless. For example, if you have a deceased body, all the necessary elements are there, but without the breathe of 'life', they're... a lifeless mass.
Also, Mr Venter might be "100% confident" that it will work, but methinks we should wait to see the results rather than rely on the confidence of Mr Venter.
Viruses and bacteria have certainly evolved, so we've observed evolution. How long does it take for a virus or a bacteria to evolve into a higher life form?
When you state they 'evolved', are we talking about it's natural course or actually evolving from one thing into something else. For instance, I wasn't born 6" tall, but are you referring to the process between then and now as evolution?
Also, if everything else apparently takes millions of years to evolve, how long do viruses and bacteria take to 'evolve' (if it is actually the process of evolution)?
And one thing I don't understand about creationists is that they always say that the universe is too wonderful for it to be an accident so they figure something much more unlikely, namely a super being called God, must of spontaneously appeared and created everything. To me it seems much more unlikely that a God can just appear out of nothing.
Disclaimer: This is not to discredit what the parent has said, rather it is just additional information.
According to the Bible, God does not have a beginning or and end. He wasn't created, instead he always has existed. Unfortantely, us humans don't have the ability to fully understand infinite matters.
As far as evolution goes, I am still yet to see factual result's not based on speculations and assumptions that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe evolved, or even that we are still evolving. I'm still yet to see living evidence of a being that links us to, say, monkeys or apes. Missing link, or assumed link?
Yes, we will overturn a lot of long-held beliefs in the next decade. It is however exceedingly unlikely that we will overturn the general notion of natural selection. We will get deeper insights in how it actually *has* worked. We will also gain deeper insight how it *can* work, but it is highly unlikely that it will be thrown out.
If for some reason you desire to believe that some concept named God has created evolution, so be it. Keep it out of a discussion based on reason instead of superstition however.
Did you forget that the theory of natural selection is a theory alone? You could then label Darwin's theory as superstition. Say, theoretically, in this instance, that the universe was millions if not billions of years old, where did the elements that started the said process come from in the beginning?
At last, someone who actually writes a normal respone rather than distributing a troll moderator cause they don't agree!
My concern isn't really one of corruption, but rather incompetence. DNA testing these days is generally done in a laboratory, in nearly cleanroom conditions, by trained scientists who do this kind of thing all day long who have little if any vested interest in the results of the test. This briefcase tester claims to be able to do the job in as little as 25 minutes and appears to be marketed towards local police departments. How much training would be given to the officers? What kind of protocols will be in place to prevent contamination? I'm just wondering how accurate the test results are going to be. I don't want to see innocent people jailed because some bit of dust got into the sample, nor do I want to see the guilty walking the streets.
I agree with what you're saying. That last thing we need is botched up DNA evidence that holds up in court.
The US Government has already stated that it would like DNA records on everyone inside its borders...the easier we make it, the more likely that is to happen.
This sort of thing could have some disasterous repercussions if the data were to end up in the wrong hands. I'm sure hitler would have been laughin' (not literally) if he had access to the technology we have nowadays.
People so easily forget that these tools are put in place to catch criminals/terrorists. They are not aimed at incriminating random innocent civilians, if anything, it can be used to prove your innocence if you're caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I am aware that this technology can be used by corrupt authorities to target the wrong person. Although I'm yet to see unbiased, accurate statistics on the ratio of police corruption. Should we discard any new technology that assists in removing criminal off the streets because there's a chance that it might violate our personal space?
Before you hit the 'Moderate->troll' button, think about it, and reply with a valid statement pointing out what you don't agree with rather than taking the cowardly way out.
The parent asked the question, I answered it. If you choose not to agree with my perspective/belief, that's your choice. Although I find it interesting that I receive the troll label when a post like "Yay for dropping belief as fact." is submitted, which contains no valid argument. Just an attack on a post that conflicts with its PoV. I believe that is the definition of a troll.
We can change, and do, the present, and cannot so far leap very far into the future
Not sure what you were getting at here... but,
The bottom line: should multiverses exist, we can't get to them, and they are therefore irrelevant and meaningless
I reckon that is the bottom line of this whole topic. Really, what is the relevance if you can't prove or even use findings regarding parallel universes. What benefits are there even if it were humanly possible to view even one alternate universe?
We could sit down and write down every possible outcome of each of our actions, but that would be a lot of time wasted for no'ones gain. Alternatively, we could think about what we're doing and decide on the best action to take at that point in time.
GP made a very good point. I have noticed members on this forum don't like it when people make valid points, I managed to get a troll rating (or two). They don't seem to like it when people say what is true.
This is OK, I'm not intolerant, but you're suggesting that within the context of our universe, this entity is not constrained by the physical laws of our universe, and therefore, those laws are not applicable at all times and in all places. Therefore, you assert that any observations we come up with may not be valid in the future and may not have been valid in the past because they can be invalidated on a whim. Essentially, we can learn nothing definitive.
Hmmm... that sounds about right. As humans, we have a very limited understanding of how things in this world work, let alone in the universe. After several thousand years, we've only just recently worked out how to fly short distances from the earth, we haven't figured out the algorithms neccessary for a singularity robot (previous discussion), within the past century or so we've only just figured out how to reproduce animated real-life images(TV, projector), etc.
The earth and universe is way to complex for humans to grasp. We can learn scientific facts about how certain things work and yet when the creator does reveal himself, all the scientific facts we have learnt about the planet earth will be irrelevant.
...where did this hypothetical creator and his/her/their universe come from?
Just to answer that, the creator didn't 'come from anywhere', He was, is, and is to come. He doesn't have a beginning or an end. As for the universe, that was created by this creator.
Funnily enough, the same question can be asked about evolution, where did the elements come from that created 'the big bang' in the first place? They didn't appear out of thin air.
Also, how can parrallel universes be proved to exist even if you were able to come up with a mathematical 'algorithm'.
You are here implying that this would ONLY be used against persons who have definitely committed illegal acts.
I don't believe that statement does imply that this non-lethal (to be confirmed) device will only be used against people committing an illegal act. If an individual/s flatly refuses to comply with authourities put in place by the government they have elected (not so for all countries, obiously), then they too can expect to have this device aimed at them.
You are also implying that the use of force by police for disciplinary purposes is correct.
You may want to revise this statement, it appears the word 'correct' may be out of context.
Do you actually believe either of these things?
So that would be no for the first statement, and unsure about what you were getting at in the second statement.
You're trying SO hard to win this through being cool and edgy. You're failing miserably.
Thankyou for the cool and edgy compliment, but really I'm just saying it as it is. I can't help it if you can't handle the truth.
.., you're a goddam moron.
Resorting to profanity, you make such a good point. Maybe you should just structure you're whole argument around abusing people who oppose you point of view, it might work.
And the killing of a family member can bring a grudge to even the most open-minded of people, but any sane person already knows that too.
Forgive and forget my friend. Holding grudges is not a good thing, it's only gonna bring you down.
...you take it a step FURTHER and assume that my freedom leads me to "kill, steal, assault, etc.".
Re-read the post my friend and look for the "If" at the start of the sentence.
Yeah, in principle. Too bad it doesn't work like that and the cops often (not always, because I know you're going to imply I said that) become the threat, even to the innocent. Don't believe it? Then turn off the TV dramas and read a fucking newspaper.
Ah, there you go, you're starting to use some discretion in your choice of words. Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure the police weren't patrolling the streets arresting innocent civilians, unless there was some reason to investigate them and unless they consequently abused their authorities or resisted arrest. I'm not into TV Drama's but I do enjoy the police shows such as Cops and also local real life cop shows to the country I live in. I'm sure you've been told at some stage in your life not to believe everything you read in the newspapers. The media are masters at altering the truth to suit their ideas. You wouldn't want to be naive and be led by the media now would you?
Mmmkay, first, fuck you for telling me to be thankful for anything (especially such a watered down sheeple version of freedom like that), you don't have that right.
Mmm.. again with the profanities. I don't remember stating that you should be thankful for my brief reference as to what my perception of your view of freedom should be. I do remember stating that you should be thankful that you don't get executed for expressing your opinion in the country you live in. Also, judging by (yes, I am assuming here based on what I've gathered your point of view to be) what I have read on your posts, you would be in favour of 'Freedom of Speech'. In that light, I do have the right to say what I said, and you have the right to do whatever you want with the statement.
More importantly, what kind of 'freedom' do you have when you must bow down to self-anointed superiors or rish physical assault? You're not cool with bowing down to people who want your money, but it's perfectly fine to bow down to those who only want you to know that they are in total control of you?
What gives you the impression we need to bow down to police officers elected by people who the public (you, me, everyone else) elected into power. When you say 'people who want your money', I assume you're talking about the authorities whom (in the country I live in, not sure about yours) we pay through taxes to reduce crime.
I find it interesting you refer to both of us as 'loggerheads', and yet you only attempt to rip apart my point of view.
Well, to be fair you did say, "As for your sister being pulled over 'for being the wrong color', that my friend is a figment of your imagination.", so he merely clarified the situation for you. It seems that it is you who are being a little oversensitive about race issues.
I was simply quoting a comment he made (i.e.: 'for being the wrong color') in an earlier post. Dont munipulatively try and put those words in my mouth (or post, whichever).
...pointing out his bias and its nature,..
Please enlightlen me on what you think his bias is and the nature of his bias. I have already posted that I am aware of police corruption, and if you read my posts you would have seen the part about not putting all cops in the one basket, just because there is an element of corruption.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to dangerous criminals...Realise humanity is evil by nature, no drugs required...
My friend, look up the word 'petty' in the dictionary and try again. I am fully aware that as humans we are born with a sinful nature.
Drugs are the number one excuse for removing civil liberties and rights, and you've bought right into the propaganda.
Please expand on this statement and enlighten me on how I've bought into the propoganda.
...You should be thankful the country you live in upholds the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, but you can't now, can you?
...You assume I live in a country that upholds the 'Bill of Rights and the Constitution' (and by that I mean I don't live in America, in case you were wondering.).
...you feel that alone is due cause for one to be interfered with by the police?
In one word...yes. In more than one word, if a cop has reason to believe you may be involved in criminal activity (i.e.: passing through streets wherein soliciting goes on), they should have everyright to pull you over, and if nothing is found, then there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
...you are simply a troll. 'Suspicious people' is a subjective term...
Sorry, 'suspicious people' was not my term (as stated). I agree with your statement "..because one looks suspicious, one is not necessarily a criminal.", although associating with criminals can make you a target of suspicion, and in some American states can be sentenced harshly for participating/associating with criminals (e.g.: felony murder).
You must be new here.
That would be correct my work associate friend. Although that's neither here nor there. It sounds like you've used that statement to try and stamp out opposition to your views rather than raising valid points.
Sorry, when I used the word 'suspicious neighbourhood', I was reffering to neighbourhoods, which have a higher crime rate/where regular soliciting goes on, crime 'hotspots'.
Tomorrow: If you congregate with suspicious people, you can expect to get zapped with the pain ray.
I agree with your statement as stated above. If one associates with criminals (or 'suspicious people' in your terms), you should expect to run into trouble with the law, and if one steps out of line (defies authourity), then one can expect consequences.
I am aware of corrupt or unfair/unjust cops, but that shouldn't mean we need to through them all in the one basket.
She was a white girl driving through a black neighborhood in the 'bad' (if you're scared of dark skin) part of town.
Interesting you bring into the conversation what color or race your sister is, I made no reference as to what background she was, how quickly you jump in to make racist remarks.
If you REALLY can't believe something like that could happen, it's all because your little worldview can't handle the truth.
One would have to be narrow minded to hold a grudge against "the police" because of an incident where someone (or was it someones wife) accidentally killed a family member, you really think that person had intent? I'll choose defending myself from petty criminals
I assume be 'petty criminals' you're reffering to drug dealers, theives who need money for drugs, etc. who need their money and are prepared to kill and mutilate to get it... personal opinion... I think you already know.
So you go on cowering in deference to your shiny-tin-badged overlords in the hopes that they will protect you from the boogeyman. Meanwhile, I'll live life as an American should, and if I get arrested, tasered or killed because of it, that's the price some of us pay to live free.
That depends on your definition of 'free'. If by 'free' you mean free to kill, steal, assault, etc. then you may be a little confused. The police are there to protect us from these 'boogeymen', as you put it, so that we can have freedom. Be thankful in the country you live in you don't get executed for expressing your opinion.
If upholding the law and taking oxygen-theives off the street makes a cop a 'good guy' then bring 'em on. I am aware that there is corruption but for the most part I'd prefer to have police patrolling and protecting rather having criminals running the streets.
As far as your uncle is concerned.. you sound a bit unsure as to whether it was a policeman or not. You may want to elaborate.
As for your sister being pulled over 'for being the wrong color', that my friend is a figment of your imagination. If you're driving through a suspicious neighbourhood, or look suspicious, you can expect to get pulled over regardless of color. If you're not doing anything illegal, there should be nothing to worry about.
Bottom line is, don't involve yourself in illegal activities or associate with active criminals, and you won't have to worry about being laser-beamed (or tased).
One would have to be a slow learner if one did not learn after the first or second time that continuing to do whatever illegal activity one is involved in will result in disciplinary action by authourities. If one can't learn from temporary pain, without any physical injuries, one is not going to learn from verbal correction, so what suggestion would you make for steps the authourities can take to subdue an out-of-line individual/criminal?
If you're the short tempered type of person that is ready to pull a gun on police in any situation, then you're exactly the type of person this technology should be used on (and be tased while doing so).
Slashdot Mirror
You say miraculous, I say common, every day occurrence.
Rather than thinking about the statistics of how many births there are every day, if you think about the process that was going on prior to the birth, you could label that miraculous. A baby's (human) life is not something a human can create. The parents of the baby are involved in the reproduction process, and the mother carries the child during the baby's development, but the process up to and including the birth can really be explained as nothing else but miraculous.
If a god existed and wanted to communicate its purpose, why would it make it amidst the rantings of madmen? Why not give it to everyone? Why make the transmission of the purpose cause madness? For an omnipotent being this is, like everything else, trivial.
If an omnipotent being was truly omnibenevolent, and knowing the purpose of the universe or our own existence made our lives better and let us spend eternity in paradise, why wouldn't such a being communicate this purpose clearly and explicitly to everyone?
The purpose of our existence according to this God you're reffering to can be found in the Bible. You would of heard in the story of Adam and Eve and about the fall of man, and that we are all born with a sinful nature. And then just over 2000 years ago he sent his Son to save us from our sinfulness, and now we (everyone/all) are awaiting His return, at which time, all who believe in Him will be saved and all those who reject and refuse Him... well, I'm sure you know the rest (If you don't, you may want to start reading your Bible).
If a god existed, and its creation did have a purpose, why disguise the purpose? Why not have it explicitly available to all sentient beings?
I suppose you could label it "a case for faith". If God revealed Himself explicitly and everyone knew he was there, we wouldn't need to have faith, it would be evident. God has given us a free will, we can choose to accept Him, or reject Him, and there are consequences for our decision.
God (daddy god) sending himself (son) to this world so that he can get himself (jesus) nailed to a cross, where he himself (jesus) is left without himself (daddy god) to be crusified to himself (daddy god), raised by himself (jesus?) to go get back to himself (daddy god) so that he can then send himself (ghost/spirit) back to this world until he himself (jesus) will go back in order to judge the world according to the laws he made up himself (daddy god)
You may want to read the Bible for yourself. What you're referring to is more of a Unitarian view of God (not the Trinitarian ("the one trinity god"). The Triune God is three (I suppose you would call them beings/persons), but still one God. He didn't change into different personality's.
If you have a look at Mark 15:34, when Jesus was on the cross, He cried out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". He wasn't talking to himself, but rather his father in heaven.
Also in Mark 14:62, Jesus says "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.".
If you read through the Bible, you will find answers to the misconceptions you've been told.
He wrote this in the context of man's desire to be independent of his Creator.
Man is sinful by nature. As for man's desire to be independent of the Creator, the fact that there are so many different languages is a result of man trying to be independent of their Creator.
Genesis 11:3-7 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.
Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.
It appears as though the world is approaching a point where God will intervene once again. You may want to read your Bible's to find out what happens when God does intervene and how you can be prepared. It's all documented.
Eventually someone will create an artificial cell (just more chemistry) to put it into, and at that point any rational person would have to accept that a living thing had been totally made from raw chemicals (vs Venter's current creation only partly lab made), and that's what I mean by it not being anything fundamental. Life is just complex chemistry.
This statement is just based on speculations. The statement should be preceded with an 'if'.
It is then transplanted into a living bacterial cell and in the final stage of the process it is expected to take control of the cell and in effect become a new life form. The team of scientists has already successfully transplanted the genome of one type of bacterium into the cell of another, effectively changing the cell's species. Mr Venter said he was "100% confident" the same technique would work for the artificially created chromosome.
The fact that has already been pointed out is there have only been modifications made to a cell rather then creating a new self-sufficient, self-developing, reproducing artificial lifeform.
I, for one, don't believe scientist's can create true artificial life, I'm not going to discourage them from trying, but life itself is not just "complex chemistry".
Without 'life', all the chemicals, elements, cells, etc. are useless. For example, if you have a deceased body, all the necessary elements are there, but without the breathe of 'life', they're... a lifeless mass.
Also, Mr Venter might be "100% confident" that it will work, but methinks we should wait to see the results rather than rely on the confidence of Mr Venter.
Viruses and bacteria have certainly evolved, so we've observed evolution. How long does it take for a virus or a bacteria to evolve into a higher life form?
When you state they 'evolved', are we talking about it's natural course or actually evolving from one thing into something else. For instance, I wasn't born 6" tall, but are you referring to the process between then and now as evolution?
Also, if everything else apparently takes millions of years to evolve, how long do viruses and bacteria take to 'evolve' (if it is actually the process of evolution)?
And one thing I don't understand about creationists is that they always say that the universe is too wonderful for it to be an accident so they figure something much more unlikely, namely a super being called God, must of spontaneously appeared and created everything. To me it seems much more unlikely that a God can just appear out of nothing.
Disclaimer: This is not to discredit what the parent has said, rather it is just additional information.
According to the Bible, God does not have a beginning or and end. He wasn't created, instead he always has existed. Unfortantely, us humans don't have the ability to fully understand infinite matters.
As far as evolution goes, I am still yet to see factual result's not based on speculations and assumptions that can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the universe evolved, or even that we are still evolving. I'm still yet to see living evidence of a being that links us to, say, monkeys or apes. Missing link, or assumed link?
Yes, we will overturn a lot of long-held beliefs in the next decade. It is however exceedingly unlikely that we will overturn the general notion of natural selection. We will get deeper insights in how it actually *has* worked. We will also gain deeper insight how it *can* work, but it is highly unlikely that it will be thrown out.
If for some reason you desire to believe that some concept named God has created evolution, so be it. Keep it out of a discussion based on reason instead of superstition however.
Did you forget that the theory of natural selection is a theory alone? You could then label Darwin's theory as superstition. Say, theoretically, in this instance, that the universe was millions if not billions of years old, where did the elements that started the said process come from in the beginning?
Viruses. Bacteria.
Very nice explaination. I have no further questions your honor.
But mostly I have a problem with the alleged conflict of the two. I personally believe God created evolution, so where do I fit on that spectrum?
I for one would have labeled this as funny. Hehe, that's a good one. I believe the Creationist side but it's still a funny comment.
At last, someone who actually writes a normal respone rather than distributing a troll moderator cause they don't agree!
My concern isn't really one of corruption, but rather incompetence. DNA testing these days is generally done in a laboratory, in nearly cleanroom conditions, by trained scientists who do this kind of thing all day long who have little if any vested interest in the results of the test. This briefcase tester claims to be able to do the job in as little as 25 minutes and appears to be marketed towards local police departments. How much training would be given to the officers? What kind of protocols will be in place to prevent contamination? I'm just wondering how accurate the test results are going to be. I don't want to see innocent people jailed because some bit of dust got into the sample, nor do I want to see the guilty walking the streets.
I agree with what you're saying. That last thing we need is botched up DNA evidence that holds up in court.
The US Government has already stated that it would like DNA records on everyone inside its borders...the easier we make it, the more likely that is to happen.
This sort of thing could have some disasterous repercussions if the data were to end up in the wrong hands. I'm sure hitler would have been laughin' (not literally) if he had access to the technology we have nowadays.
People so easily forget that these tools are put in place to catch criminals/terrorists. They are not aimed at incriminating random innocent civilians, if anything, it can be used to prove your innocence if you're caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I am aware that this technology can be used by corrupt authorities to target the wrong person. Although I'm yet to see unbiased, accurate statistics on the ratio of police corruption. Should we discard any new technology that assists in removing criminal off the streets because there's a chance that it might violate our personal space?
Before you hit the 'Moderate->troll' button, think about it, and reply with a valid statement pointing out what you don't agree with rather than taking the cowardly way out.
The parent asked the question, I answered it. If you choose not to agree with my perspective/belief, that's your choice. Although I find it interesting that I receive the troll label when a post like "Yay for dropping belief as fact." is submitted, which contains no valid argument. Just an attack on a post that conflicts with its PoV. I believe that is the definition of a troll.
We can change, and do, the present, and cannot so far leap very far into the future
Not sure what you were getting at here... but,
The bottom line: should multiverses exist, we can't get to them, and they are therefore irrelevant and meaningless
I reckon that is the bottom line of this whole topic. Really, what is the relevance if you can't prove or even use findings regarding parallel universes. What benefits are there even if it were humanly possible to view even one alternate universe?
We could sit down and write down every possible outcome of each of our actions, but that would be a lot of time wasted for no'ones gain. Alternatively, we could think about what we're doing and decide on the best action to take at that point in time.
GP made a very good point. I have noticed members on this forum don't like it when people make valid points, I managed to get a troll rating (or two). They don't seem to like it when people say what is true.
This is OK, I'm not intolerant, but you're suggesting that within the context of our universe, this entity is not constrained by the physical laws of our universe, and therefore, those laws are not applicable at all times and in all places. Therefore, you assert that any observations we come up with may not be valid in the future and may not have been valid in the past because they can be invalidated on a whim. Essentially, we can learn nothing definitive.
Hmmm... that sounds about right. As humans, we have a very limited understanding of how things in this world work, let alone in the universe. After several thousand years, we've only just recently worked out how to fly short distances from the earth, we haven't figured out the algorithms neccessary for a singularity robot (previous discussion), within the past century or so we've only just figured out how to reproduce animated real-life images(TV, projector), etc.
The earth and universe is way to complex for humans to grasp. We can learn scientific facts about how certain things work and yet when the creator does reveal himself, all the scientific facts we have learnt about the planet earth will be irrelevant.
...where did this hypothetical creator and his/her/their universe come from?
Just to answer that, the creator didn't 'come from anywhere', He was, is, and is to come. He doesn't have a beginning or an end. As for the universe, that was created by this creator.
Funnily enough, the same question can be asked about evolution, where did the elements come from that created 'the big bang' in the first place? They didn't appear out of thin air.
Also, how can parrallel universes be proved to exist even if you were able to come up with a mathematical 'algorithm'.
You are here implying that this would ONLY be used against persons who have definitely committed illegal acts.
I don't believe that statement does imply that this non-lethal (to be confirmed) device will only be used against people committing an illegal act. If an individual/s flatly refuses to comply with authourities put in place by the government they have elected (not so for all countries, obiously), then they too can expect to have this device aimed at them.
You are also implying that the use of force by police for disciplinary purposes is correct.
You may want to revise this statement, it appears the word 'correct' may be out of context.
Do you actually believe either of these things?
So that would be no for the first statement, and unsure about what you were getting at in the second statement.
You're trying SO hard to win this through being cool and edgy. You're failing miserably.
.., you're a goddam moron.
...you take it a step FURTHER and assume that my freedom leads me to "kill, steal, assault, etc.".
Thankyou for the cool and edgy compliment, but really I'm just saying it as it is. I can't help it if you can't handle the truth.
Resorting to profanity, you make such a good point. Maybe you should just structure you're whole argument around abusing people who oppose you point of view, it might work.
And the killing of a family member can bring a grudge to even the most open-minded of people, but any sane person already knows that too.
Forgive and forget my friend. Holding grudges is not a good thing, it's only gonna bring you down.
Re-read the post my friend and look for the "If" at the start of the sentence.
Yeah, in principle. Too bad it doesn't work like that and the cops often (not always, because I know you're going to imply I said that) become the threat, even to the innocent. Don't believe it? Then turn off the TV dramas and read a fucking newspaper.
Ah, there you go, you're starting to use some discretion in your choice of words. Last time I checked, I'm pretty sure the police weren't patrolling the streets arresting innocent civilians, unless there was some reason to investigate them and unless they consequently abused their authorities or resisted arrest. I'm not into TV Drama's but I do enjoy the police shows such as Cops and also local real life cop shows to the country I live in. I'm sure you've been told at some stage in your life not to believe everything you read in the newspapers. The media are masters at altering the truth to suit their ideas. You wouldn't want to be naive and be led by the media now would you?
Mmmkay, first, fuck you for telling me to be thankful for anything (especially such a watered down sheeple version of freedom like that), you don't have that right.
Mmm.. again with the profanities. I don't remember stating that you should be thankful for my brief reference as to what my perception of your view of freedom should be. I do remember stating that you should be thankful that you don't get executed for expressing your opinion in the country you live in. Also, judging by (yes, I am assuming here based on what I've gathered your point of view to be) what I have read on your posts, you would be in favour of 'Freedom of Speech'. In that light, I do have the right to say what I said, and you have the right to do whatever you want with the statement.
More importantly, what kind of 'freedom' do you have when you must bow down to self-anointed superiors or rish physical assault? You're not cool with bowing down to people who want your money, but it's perfectly fine to bow down to those who only want you to know that they are in total control of you?
What gives you the impression we need to bow down to police officers elected by people who the public (you, me, everyone else) elected into power. When you say 'people who want your money', I assume you're talking about the authorities whom (in the country I live in, not sure about yours) we pay through taxes to reduce crime.
I find it interesting you refer to both of us as 'loggerheads', and yet you only attempt to rip apart my point of view.
...pointing out his bias and its nature,..
...You should be thankful the country you live in upholds the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, but you can't now, can you?
...You assume I live in a country that upholds the 'Bill of Rights and the Constitution' (and by that I mean I don't live in America, in case you were wondering.).
Well, to be fair you did say, "As for your sister being pulled over 'for being the wrong color', that my friend is a figment of your imagination.", so he merely clarified the situation for you. It seems that it is you who are being a little oversensitive about race issues.
I was simply quoting a comment he made (i.e.: 'for being the wrong color') in an earlier post. Dont munipulatively try and put those words in my mouth (or post, whichever).
Please enlightlen me on what you think his bias is and the nature of his bias. I have already posted that I am aware of police corruption, and if you read my posts you would have seen the part about not putting all cops in the one basket, just because there is an element of corruption.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to dangerous criminals...Realise humanity is evil by nature, no drugs required...
My friend, look up the word 'petty' in the dictionary and try again. I am fully aware that as humans we are born with a sinful nature.
Drugs are the number one excuse for removing civil liberties and rights, and you've bought right into the propaganda.
Please expand on this statement and enlighten me on how I've bought into the propoganda.
...you feel that alone is due cause for one to be interfered with by the police?
...you are simply a troll. 'Suspicious people' is a subjective term...
In one word...yes. In more than one word, if a cop has reason to believe you may be involved in criminal activity (i.e.: passing through streets wherein soliciting goes on), they should have everyright to pull you over, and if nothing is found, then there is absolutely nothing to worry about.
Sorry, 'suspicious people' was not my term (as stated). I agree with your statement "..because one looks suspicious, one is not necessarily a criminal.", although associating with criminals can make you a target of suspicion, and in some American states can be sentenced harshly for participating/associating with criminals (e.g.: felony murder).
You must be new here.
That would be correct my work associate friend. Although that's neither here nor there. It sounds like you've used that statement to try and stamp out opposition to your views rather than raising valid points.
How can a neighborhood be suspicious?
Sorry, when I used the word 'suspicious neighbourhood', I was reffering to neighbourhoods, which have a higher crime rate/where regular soliciting goes on, crime 'hotspots'.
Tomorrow: If you congregate with suspicious people, you can expect to get zapped with the pain ray.
I agree with your statement as stated above. If one associates with criminals (or 'suspicious people' in your terms), you should expect to run into trouble with the law, and if one steps out of line (defies authourity), then one can expect consequences.
I am aware of corrupt or unfair/unjust cops, but that shouldn't mean we need to through them all in the one basket.
She was a white girl driving through a black neighborhood in the 'bad' (if you're scared of dark skin) part of town.
Interesting you bring into the conversation what color or race your sister is, I made no reference as to what background she was, how quickly you jump in to make racist remarks.
If you REALLY can't believe something like that could happen, it's all because your little worldview can't handle the truth.
One would have to be narrow minded to hold a grudge against "the police" because of an incident where someone (or was it someones wife) accidentally killed a family member, you really think that person had intent?
I'll choose defending myself from petty criminals
I assume be 'petty criminals' you're reffering to drug dealers, theives who need money for drugs, etc. who need their money and are prepared to kill and mutilate to get it... personal opinion... I think you already know.
So you go on cowering in deference to your shiny-tin-badged overlords in the hopes that they will protect you from the boogeyman. Meanwhile, I'll live life as an American should, and if I get arrested, tasered or killed because of it, that's the price some of us pay to live free.
That depends on your definition of 'free'. If by 'free' you mean free to kill, steal, assault, etc. then you may be a little confused. The police are there to protect us from these 'boogeymen', as you put it, so that we can have freedom. Be thankful in the country you live in you don't get executed for expressing your opinion.
If upholding the law and taking oxygen-theives off the street makes a cop a 'good guy' then bring 'em on. I am aware that there is corruption but for the most part I'd prefer to have police patrolling and protecting rather having criminals running the streets. As far as your uncle is concerned.. you sound a bit unsure as to whether it was a policeman or not. You may want to elaborate. As for your sister being pulled over 'for being the wrong color', that my friend is a figment of your imagination. If you're driving through a suspicious neighbourhood, or look suspicious, you can expect to get pulled over regardless of color. If you're not doing anything illegal, there should be nothing to worry about. Bottom line is, don't involve yourself in illegal activities or associate with active criminals, and you won't have to worry about being laser-beamed (or tased).
One would have to be a slow learner if one did not learn after the first or second time that continuing to do whatever illegal activity one is involved in will result in disciplinary action by authourities. If one can't learn from temporary pain, without any physical injuries, one is not going to learn from verbal correction, so what suggestion would you make for steps the authourities can take to subdue an out-of-line individual/criminal?
If you're the short tempered type of person that is ready to pull a gun on police in any situation, then you're exactly the type of person this technology should be used on (and be tased while doing so).