How does having individual identity convey different rights? Does one have different rights depending on what their name is? At this point, I can't agree that different identities means different rights.
What rights differ between black humans and white? What rights differ between myself and my father? Between males and females? . There is age of consent by which adults have more rights than children, but what rights differ among adults? The only thing I can think of is women having a right to an abortion that men do not. Although, technically, a man does have that right were he ever to get pregnant.
Well, I'm going to vote with my dollars that I think voting against this movie is not a net good.
And you should. That's the point. You're voting with your dollars because you want to offset the other people voting with their dollars that disagree.
I am capable of enjoying products made by people that I disagree with, and don't want to discourage them from producing more.
Personal opinions vary. For some, however good the end product is, it's not justification for everything the producer does/believes. Why would I give my money to someone I disagree with. It's just a movie.
To be clear, I never read the books. I don't have any intention of seeing the movie for that reason. Had I been a big fan, I probably would go see it. The issue doesn't effect me personally, and it's not a topic I champion. I've just never understood why people have a problem with boycotts. If I don't like Wal-Mart's practices why on earth would I give them money? If I don't like Orson Scott Card, why would I give him money?
I vote with my dollars. I don't shop at stores that don't treat their employees well. I don't do business with places that differ from my politics. We live in a capitalist society and if you're not voting with your dollars, you're not voting.
Personally, I never thought eBay would go anywhere, since it's not actually an auction; the mathematical reduction is "second lowest bid ceiling plus bid increment", given that you can give a bid ceiling, and it will automatically "bid" for you.
I work at a real auction with real auctioneers. We have proxy bids if that's what you're referring to. It works no different than if you sent a rep to bid for you. The seller sets a floor of say $1000. If you place a proxy bid of $1500 and the increment is $100 you essentially start the bidding at $1100. If someone in person at the auction bids $1200 you automatically bid back $1300. The person at the auction can bid back. In theory the person at the auction should be following a similar formula. They should already know what they're willing to spend.
I do see people in person bid others up just because they are new or because they don't like them for some reason. You may have no interest in buying something but can still make the other person pay more than they otherwise would have. After all if you can make someone else spend more money they won't have it when it's time to bid on what you want.
This is the first paragraph of my original post. I stated
Currently their are organ transplants upon which a donor would depend on if alive. There is little evidence that anyone is currently murdered for their heart for the wealthy. Although, there is also evidence that the wealthy do get put high on the list of organs. Some of this is due to the wealthy being able to go where the list is short and being able to file a mountain of paperwork.
I specifically mentioned hearts (and an advantage to the wealthy) because as I understood your posts you are arguing that body transplants are wrong because the motive for misuse is too high and that the difference with other organ transplants are that the donation of a kidney does not kill the donor. I am open to having misunderstood you. The reason I ask about heart transplants is because I thought that your opinion on them would clarify for me your objection to body transplants. I could make assumptions about your opinion on heart transplants but I do my best to guard my assumptions and biases.
My motive is only to learn as much as I can. I want to absorb your viewpoint and attach it to a million other thoughts that are in my mind. Whatever your thoughts, I will ask you questions that help me have a deeper understanding of your conclusions.
You may notice in our debate that I frequently come back to the heart. It was what I wrote about from the very beginning. You may also notice in my first post that I mentioned cloning headless bodies. You addressed this with the concern that it is likely cloned bodies would cost more and create an economic barrier that would lead back to the concern for harming people. I understood that headless clones would not solve your concerns because I recognized the valid consideration for costs.
I am currently uncertain about the full extent of objections to body transplants regarding undue harm to innocent people. I have conceded the point that harm is a factor. The reasons I ask for evidence is simple. I want to know the specifics of the information you are basing your viewpoints on. It's good that you did provide it because I was mostly focused on the illegal harvesting end of things and once you posted a link I could understand better the trade part. Interestingly, there is little evidence of illegal organ harvesting and plenty of evidence for illegal organ trade. It's a subtle difference but I can certainly accept the the latter implies the former. It is also interesting that most illegal trade is in organs that do not require the donor to be dead. Kidneys and livers are big. I wonder if it is whole livers or partial.
I asked for a solution and you stated there was no absolute 'fix'. I understood. It clarified for me your position. . I then asked how you would suggest mitigating the problem.
I mention hearts because accepting all factors of your viewpoint (as I understand them) it would appear hearts may be a good proxy to understanding the pros and cons to body transplants from a moral perspective. However, I may very well be wrong and it is unlikely that I am aware of all factors (one could argue no one is aware of all factors regarding any topic). This is why I ask about your opinion on heart transplants.
Of course I enjoy Socrates via Plato and others.:)
I haven't even stated a position. I also did not state that people weren't harmed by illegal organ harvests, I simply said there was little evidence of it. I also conceded the point several times. What topic am I diverting? I'm trying to understand you're position but you are very busy assigning a motive to me and being defensive. I'm asking you things. Why are you so defensive when I haven't even disagreed with an opinion? You can choose not to answer why a body transplant is different than a heart transplant. I was just hoping to learn something new and hear a different perspective. I seek understanding.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where is the power to track the communications of all citizens delegated to the United States in the constitution? I know, I'm sure the argument is made that it is for national defense. I guess that's as good an argument as granting powers under the commerce clause. Too bad, we don't debate why we have these protections and laws and let technicalities and advances in technology destroy their intent.
Whenever I want to contemplate whether the founding fathers would be for or against something I just imagine, if we apply it to the British would our founding fathers be for it or against it? Who among our founding fathers would have argued that it's okay for the King to track the communications of everyone?
Untrue, I told you that I had already written my opinion so there was no need to rewrite the statement. A lack of desire to find information does not magically make things not exist. Nor does someone pointing to a written statement in the same thread instead of rewriting the statement mean that they choose not to provide an opinion. If you believe what you stated to be correct, you have a brain not working properly. If it was the first time you had chosen a tactic, I may have a different opinion of you. You have used the same broken logic several times now.
I simply asked you questions. It's not a tactic and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply asking questions. Attacking me or assigning me motives has nothing to do with the debate. Telling someone to go find it themselves is considered poor form and would never be accepted in a formal debate.
Same statement as above applies. You stated very clearly that currently people are not harmed for organs. Google is very easy to use, and you can easily find that your statement is not true. If you want me to be a dick, I could post some "let me google that for you" links, but there is no need. You were and are dishonest, and your failure to look at facts does not make facts non-existent. It means that you have a delusion that you don't want to get rid of by reviewing facts contrary to your belief. Stating that you can't find evidence that I'm correct while conceding the point is a circular statement with no logical definition since the two statements conflict and negate each other.
I have asked you for information. That is not being dishonest. I've made very clear that I cannot prove a negative. I never said people are not hurt by organ transplant. I can't say that, because one cannot prove the absence of something. I said there is little evidence and asked you to provide it. I'm open to spirited debate. If you want to assign motives to me you may, but it will not change the rules of debate, evidence or logic.
My last point on that topic is that if it was so hard to find information on the subject, why is there a whole Wiki [wikipedia.org] page on it?
Yay, finally a link. Thank you. It even has sources. Good. That's all I needed. Now, you will see that my only contention was that there was little evidence of people being murdered for their organs. You might want to look under the section of Media Portrayal to see that illegal organ trade is not the same thing as killing people to harvest organs. The link I was referring to lacking citation on Wikipedia was related to illegal harvesting Even so, I consistently conceded the point to you so that we could move on to solutions and your opinion regarding heart transplants.
I don't propose a solution to the black market organ trade, because that is not the subject the post is about. The post, and article are about whole body transplants, which is for the 3rd time different. If you donate a kidney, willing or not, you can still live. If you donate your body, willing or not, you don't. I would agree that body snatching is a speculation. That speculation is grounded in what we currently know in criminal activity, combined with what we know humans are capable of. Humans are not all good, and we can't ignore that when talking ethics and logic.
This is one of the reasons I always used the example of a heart. I am not talking about kidneys or organs that the donor doesn't depend on. Precisely for the reason you say. A person needs a heart to stay alive. Do you think heart transplants are different to body transplants as it relates to our discussion? Or do you think they are the same and the science of heart transplants should be limited? Or any other option. How does a heart transplant compare?
We live in a democracy. We have elections every 2 years. What is this certainty that keeps being brought up as a talking point. I don't understand. In 2016 we will have a different president. 2 years after that, 1/3 of congress changes. And then 2 years after that, oh my, the president may change again.
Life's full of uncertainty, better not be a business man if you can't deal with uncertainty and risk.
nor does my opinion regarding there being a huge difference between an organ transplant or blood transfusion, and being able to put a head onto a new body.
That is why I am asking about heart transplants specifically. I do not see where your thoughts are specifically mentioned regarding heart transplants.
I also do not see where a solution is offered to the problem you propose. I have tried to make my questions and statements direct and simple to provide clarity. I do not see the harm in answering my specific questions.
No sense in re-hashing what I have already written.
I've asked you very specific questions which you choose not to answer. Are you against heart transplants is a question that requires a simple yes/no. Why not just say so.
Other points require no re-reading, such as the current black market for organs which causes harm and death to innocents.
Any claim can be made, but you have yet to provide a single source for your claim. It is not up to anyone to prove a negative. It is up to you to support your claim. Stating that the info is out there is dishonest in debate. The reason citing a source is so important is because the source can also be debated. If you refuse to provide a source then no validation of your claim can be made.
Nonetheless, I have looked and I still find little evidence. There are a couple of Snopes entries debunking some of the claims. There is a Wikipedia section regarding illegal organ harvest but the entry lacks any citations. And there are a few reports of people claiming it happens. There are no doctor's reports supporting that it happens. There are no reports outside of claims that it occurs. Additionally, all of the stories around organ theft involve tourists in 3rd world country. On the face of it, it really doesn't make sense to steal organs from people from powerful countries in places where there are plenty of other candidates that would unlikely be missed. I mean wouldn't it be the wealthy west stealing organs from 3rd world people and not the other way around? Now if you wish to provide me with your source, perhaps you can teach me something. If you do not have a valid source you should really reconsider whether your claim is accurate or not.
Even so, without evidence and just for the sake of argument, if I accept your assertion that there is a strong demand for black market organs you still have not offered a solution to the problem. Nor have you provided me any reason to think body transplants would be any different than heart transplants with regards to the motives that might be behind a black market.
At least in the U.S. pictures of copyrighted work can be considered violations of copyright. An obvious example is a cam copy of a movie in a theater violates copyright law. Even if it's not for monetary gain. Your picture clearly shows a copyright and date that shows it is still under copyright. Why would Wikipedia risk any problems?
Turn in your geek card. This is/. It's News for Nerds (it's still in the title tag). BSD and streaming music over wifi is what this site is all about. Above all else, Slashdot is never ahead of the news.
You're confusing me with another poster. I never mentioned blood transfer.
I then pointed out that my opinion is not against organ donation, but donations which could cause someone to lose their life to benefit someone with enough money.
Notice that I did not attack you in any way. You on the other hand have chosen to make your argument about insults and straw men. You provide no evidence of your assertions and claim I am making arguments I am not. I'm not even sure where your stance is because you spend so much time telling me what I think and that I'm wrong. Are you arguing that organ donation is bad because someone might be killed for their organs?
Let's make this easy, if I accept all of your arguments, what do you propose is the solution?
Currently their are organ transplants upon which a donor would depend on if alive. There is little evidence that anyone is currently murdered for their heart for the wealthy. Although, there is also evidence that the wealthy do get put high on the list of organs. Some of this is due to the wealthy being able to go where the list is short and being able to file a mountain of paperwork.
It's also important to think about this coupled with other technology. It's been 12 years since scientist made headless mice It's conceivable that headless clones of people could be grown. They would probably need to be grown ahead of time though. Might be more effective to just make different models of bodies for people to choose from rather than each individual person getting their own body back.
I have no interest in discussing souls or chakras or other BS.
I think about the self often. I'm curious. How do you define yourself as both not changing from a drug and not discussing 'other BS'. Personally, I'd make the case that drugs (and anything else consumed including food), does change who you are. I'm just confused that you define yourself as something unchanged by a drug without eliciting a spirit. I guess I'm looking for clarification on how you define the self. Do you exclude mood as a part of who you are?
However, it is also true that if the labor force is larger than the labor required that wages will sink with no end. Unfortunately, humans do not store in a warehouse until needed. When there is a surplus in labor it does not take long for poverty to spread in a free market. We see this anywhere government is too weak to enforce regulations. And when poverty spreads so does crime.
It's not like everything was working fantastic with the free market and people suddenly decided to enact regulations and laws for no reason. Now, money has twisted our regulation and convinced people that the solution is no regulation. The real debate should be about what our regulations should look like, not whether they should exist.
If you want to convince me that OSHA should be abolished then you're going to have to show me the amortized costs of injuries and deaths. If you put the cost of death around 10 times salary (4-10 times is generally accepted) You could argue that cheaper or more profitable coal is worth x number of deaths. Of course a death might not cost you anything. There would be nothing for the family to sue about. There would be no guidelines or regulations that you failed to meet.
The problem is the economy is not a zero sum game but our money is. As we increase productivity the base money supply should have expanded. Because the government printing money is a no-no we instead let banks print the money and then borrow it. Companies are making greater profits and have shown no indication of increasing hiring. The truth is, companies don't hire people just because they have money. They hire people because it will make them more money to do so.
If the added value is less than minimum wage + all associated costs + regulations, the employee simply doesn't get hired.
It also means that demand is not great enough for the product to pay anyone a decent wage to produce it.
If those programs didn't exist, people wouldn't even work at Wal-Mart because it wouldn't pay the bills
That's a big assumption, it's fundamental to your argument and I disagree. People will still work for next to nothing. Even more so when they have a hungry stomach. Try it. Go look for a new job but don't eat until you get one. Now if you want to combine welfare into education programs to truly help people get out of poverty I'll agree with that. I would also support making food stamps operate more like WIC. But the idea that the poor have any kind of market bargaining power doesn't stand up to history outside of unions and revolts.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder as we see more biometrics implemented when the ADA will get involved. It seems inevitable.
I don't have eyes you insensitive clod!
How does having individual identity convey different rights? Does one have different rights depending on what their name is? At this point, I can't agree that different identities means different rights.
No human has the same rights as any other human
What rights differ between black humans and white? What rights differ between myself and my father? Between males and females? . There is age of consent by which adults have more rights than children, but what rights differ among adults? The only thing I can think of is women having a right to an abortion that men do not. Although, technically, a man does have that right were he ever to get pregnant.
Well, I'm going to vote with my dollars that I think voting against this movie is not a net good.
And you should. That's the point. You're voting with your dollars because you want to offset the other people voting with their dollars that disagree.
I am capable of enjoying products made by people that I disagree with, and don't want to discourage them from producing more.
Personal opinions vary. For some, however good the end product is, it's not justification for everything the producer does/believes. Why would I give my money to someone I disagree with. It's just a movie.
To be clear, I never read the books. I don't have any intention of seeing the movie for that reason. Had I been a big fan, I probably would go see it. The issue doesn't effect me personally, and it's not a topic I champion. I've just never understood why people have a problem with boycotts. If I don't like Wal-Mart's practices why on earth would I give them money? If I don't like Orson Scott Card, why would I give him money?
I'm curious. In what aspects do you believe he is right?
I don't think he was arguing for equality or that homosexuals are more than human. There's only one other option.
I vote with my dollars. I don't shop at stores that don't treat their employees well. I don't do business with places that differ from my politics. We live in a capitalist society and if you're not voting with your dollars, you're not voting.
I'm going to uuencode my hard drive and then print it out just to be safe.
Personally, I never thought eBay would go anywhere, since it's not actually an auction; the mathematical reduction is "second lowest bid ceiling plus bid increment", given that you can give a bid ceiling, and it will automatically "bid" for you.
I work at a real auction with real auctioneers. We have proxy bids if that's what you're referring to. It works no different than if you sent a rep to bid for you. The seller sets a floor of say $1000. If you place a proxy bid of $1500 and the increment is $100 you essentially start the bidding at $1100. If someone in person at the auction bids $1200 you automatically bid back $1300. The person at the auction can bid back. In theory the person at the auction should be following a similar formula. They should already know what they're willing to spend.
I do see people in person bid others up just because they are new or because they don't like them for some reason. You may have no interest in buying something but can still make the other person pay more than they otherwise would have. After all if you can make someone else spend more money they won't have it when it's time to bid on what you want.
Currently their are organ transplants upon which a donor would depend on if alive. There is little evidence that anyone is currently murdered for their heart for the wealthy. Although, there is also evidence that the wealthy do get put high on the list of organs. Some of this is due to the wealthy being able to go where the list is short and being able to file a mountain of paperwork.
I specifically mentioned hearts (and an advantage to the wealthy) because as I understood your posts you are arguing that body transplants are wrong because the motive for misuse is too high and that the difference with other organ transplants are that the donation of a kidney does not kill the donor. I am open to having misunderstood you. The reason I ask about heart transplants is because I thought that your opinion on them would clarify for me your objection to body transplants. I could make assumptions about your opinion on heart transplants but I do my best to guard my assumptions and biases.
:)
My motive is only to learn as much as I can. I want to absorb your viewpoint and attach it to a million other thoughts that are in my mind. Whatever your thoughts, I will ask you questions that help me have a deeper understanding of your conclusions.
You may notice in our debate that I frequently come back to the heart. It was what I wrote about from the very beginning. You may also notice in my first post that I mentioned cloning headless bodies. You addressed this with the concern that it is likely cloned bodies would cost more and create an economic barrier that would lead back to the concern for harming people. I understood that headless clones would not solve your concerns because I recognized the valid consideration for costs.
I am currently uncertain about the full extent of objections to body transplants regarding undue harm to innocent people. I have conceded the point that harm is a factor. The reasons I ask for evidence is simple. I want to know the specifics of the information you are basing your viewpoints on. It's good that you did provide it because I was mostly focused on the illegal harvesting end of things and once you posted a link I could understand better the trade part. Interestingly, there is little evidence of illegal organ harvesting and plenty of evidence for illegal organ trade. It's a subtle difference but I can certainly accept the the latter implies the former. It is also interesting that most illegal trade is in organs that do not require the donor to be dead. Kidneys and livers are big. I wonder if it is whole livers or partial.
I asked for a solution and you stated there was no absolute 'fix'. I understood. It clarified for me your position. . I then asked how you would suggest mitigating the problem.
I mention hearts because accepting all factors of your viewpoint (as I understand them) it would appear hearts may be a good proxy to understanding the pros and cons to body transplants from a moral perspective. However, I may very well be wrong and it is unlikely that I am aware of all factors (one could argue no one is aware of all factors regarding any topic). This is why I ask about your opinion on heart transplants.
Of course I enjoy Socrates via Plato and others.
This page is intended as humor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline.
I haven't even stated a position. I also did not state that people weren't harmed by illegal organ harvests, I simply said there was little evidence of it. I also conceded the point several times. What topic am I diverting? I'm trying to understand you're position but you are very busy assigning a motive to me and being defensive. I'm asking you things. Why are you so defensive when I haven't even disagreed with an opinion? You can choose not to answer why a body transplant is different than a heart transplant. I was just hoping to learn something new and hear a different perspective. I seek understanding.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Where is the power to track the communications of all citizens delegated to the United States in the constitution? I know, I'm sure the argument is made that it is for national defense. I guess that's as good an argument as granting powers under the commerce clause. Too bad, we don't debate why we have these protections and laws and let technicalities and advances in technology destroy their intent.
Whenever I want to contemplate whether the founding fathers would be for or against something I just imagine, if we apply it to the British would our founding fathers be for it or against it? Who among our founding fathers would have argued that it's okay for the King to track the communications of everyone?
Untrue, I told you that I had already written my opinion so there was no need to rewrite the statement. A lack of desire to find information does not magically make things not exist. Nor does someone pointing to a written statement in the same thread instead of rewriting the statement mean that they choose not to provide an opinion. If you believe what you stated to be correct, you have a brain not working properly. If it was the first time you had chosen a tactic, I may have a different opinion of you. You have used the same broken logic several times now.
I simply asked you questions. It's not a tactic and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm simply asking questions. Attacking me or assigning me motives has nothing to do with the debate. Telling someone to go find it themselves is considered poor form and would never be accepted in a formal debate.
Same statement as above applies. You stated very clearly that currently people are not harmed for organs. Google is very easy to use, and you can easily find that your statement is not true. If you want me to be a dick, I could post some "let me google that for you" links, but there is no need. You were and are dishonest, and your failure to look at facts does not make facts non-existent. It means that you have a delusion that you don't want to get rid of by reviewing facts contrary to your belief. Stating that you can't find evidence that I'm correct while conceding the point is a circular statement with no logical definition since the two statements conflict and negate each other.
I have asked you for information. That is not being dishonest. I've made very clear that I cannot prove a negative. I never said people are not hurt by organ transplant. I can't say that, because one cannot prove the absence of something. I said there is little evidence and asked you to provide it. I'm open to spirited debate. If you want to assign motives to me you may, but it will not change the rules of debate, evidence or logic.
My last point on that topic is that if it was so hard to find information on the subject, why is there a whole Wiki [wikipedia.org] page on it?
Yay, finally a link. Thank you. It even has sources. Good. That's all I needed. Now, you will see that my only contention was that there was little evidence of people being murdered for their organs. You might want to look under the section of Media Portrayal to see that illegal organ trade is not the same thing as killing people to harvest organs. The link I was referring to lacking citation on Wikipedia was related to illegal harvesting Even so, I consistently conceded the point to you so that we could move on to solutions and your opinion regarding heart transplants.
I don't propose a solution to the black market organ trade, because that is not the subject the post is about. The post, and article are about whole body transplants, which is for the 3rd time different. If you donate a kidney, willing or not, you can still live. If you donate your body, willing or not, you don't. I would agree that body snatching is a speculation. That speculation is grounded in what we currently know in criminal activity, combined with what we know humans are capable of. Humans are not all good, and we can't ignore that when talking ethics and logic.
This is one of the reasons I always used the example of a heart. I am not talking about kidneys or organs that the donor doesn't depend on. Precisely for the reason you say. A person needs a heart to stay alive. Do you think heart transplants are different to body transplants as it relates to our discussion? Or do you think they are the same and the science of heart transplants should be limited? Or any other option. How does a heart transplant compare?
What I did propose a solution to, is limiting t
We live in a democracy. We have elections every 2 years. What is this certainty that keeps being brought up as a talking point. I don't understand. In 2016 we will have a different president. 2 years after that, 1/3 of congress changes. And then 2 years after that, oh my, the president may change again.
Life's full of uncertainty, better not be a business man if you can't deal with uncertainty and risk.
nor does my opinion regarding there being a huge difference between an organ transplant or blood transfusion, and being able to put a head onto a new body.
That is why I am asking about heart transplants specifically. I do not see where your thoughts are specifically mentioned regarding heart transplants.
I also do not see where a solution is offered to the problem you propose. I have tried to make my questions and statements direct and simple to provide clarity. I do not see the harm in answering my specific questions.
No sense in re-hashing what I have already written.
I've asked you very specific questions which you choose not to answer. Are you against heart transplants is a question that requires a simple yes/no. Why not just say so.
Other points require no re-reading, such as the current black market for organs which causes harm and death to innocents.
Any claim can be made, but you have yet to provide a single source for your claim. It is not up to anyone to prove a negative. It is up to you to support your claim. Stating that the info is out there is dishonest in debate. The reason citing a source is so important is because the source can also be debated. If you refuse to provide a source then no validation of your claim can be made.
Nonetheless, I have looked and I still find little evidence. There are a couple of Snopes entries debunking some of the claims. There is a Wikipedia section regarding illegal organ harvest but the entry lacks any citations. And there are a few reports of people claiming it happens. There are no doctor's reports supporting that it happens. There are no reports outside of claims that it occurs. Additionally, all of the stories around organ theft involve tourists in 3rd world country. On the face of it, it really doesn't make sense to steal organs from people from powerful countries in places where there are plenty of other candidates that would unlikely be missed. I mean wouldn't it be the wealthy west stealing organs from 3rd world people and not the other way around? Now if you wish to provide me with your source, perhaps you can teach me something. If you do not have a valid source you should really reconsider whether your claim is accurate or not.
Even so, without evidence and just for the sake of argument, if I accept your assertion that there is a strong demand for black market organs you still have not offered a solution to the problem. Nor have you provided me any reason to think body transplants would be any different than heart transplants with regards to the motives that might be behind a black market.
At least in the U.S. pictures of copyrighted work can be considered violations of copyright. An obvious example is a cam copy of a movie in a theater violates copyright law. Even if it's not for monetary gain. Your picture clearly shows a copyright and date that shows it is still under copyright. Why would Wikipedia risk any problems?
Turn in your geek card. This is /. It's News for Nerds (it's still in the title tag). BSD and streaming music over wifi is what this site is all about. Above all else, Slashdot is never ahead of the news.
I then pointed out that my opinion is not against organ donation, but donations which could cause someone to lose their life to benefit someone with enough money.
Are you against heart transplants?
And the solution is?
Notice that I did not attack you in any way. You on the other hand have chosen to make your argument about insults and straw men. You provide no evidence of your assertions and claim I am making arguments I am not. I'm not even sure where your stance is because you spend so much time telling me what I think and that I'm wrong. Are you arguing that organ donation is bad because someone might be killed for their organs?
Let's make this easy, if I accept all of your arguments, what do you propose is the solution?
Currently their are organ transplants upon which a donor would depend on if alive. There is little evidence that anyone is currently murdered for their heart for the wealthy. Although, there is also evidence that the wealthy do get put high on the list of organs. Some of this is due to the wealthy being able to go where the list is short and being able to file a mountain of paperwork.
It's also important to think about this coupled with other technology. It's been 12 years since scientist made headless mice It's conceivable that headless clones of people could be grown. They would probably need to be grown ahead of time though. Might be more effective to just make different models of bodies for people to choose from rather than each individual person getting their own body back.
This does not mean the drug changes who I am.
I have no interest in discussing souls or chakras or other BS.
I think about the self often. I'm curious. How do you define yourself as both not changing from a drug and not discussing 'other BS'. Personally, I'd make the case that drugs (and anything else consumed including food), does change who you are. I'm just confused that you define yourself as something unchanged by a drug without eliciting a spirit. I guess I'm looking for clarification on how you define the self. Do you exclude mood as a part of who you are?
What's the competing plan? I'd like more info on alternatives.
It's not like everything was working fantastic with the free market and people suddenly decided to enact regulations and laws for no reason. Now, money has twisted our regulation and convinced people that the solution is no regulation. The real debate should be about what our regulations should look like, not whether they should exist.
If you want to convince me that OSHA should be abolished then you're going to have to show me the amortized costs of injuries and deaths. If you put the cost of death around 10 times salary (4-10 times is generally accepted) You could argue that cheaper or more profitable coal is worth x number of deaths. Of course a death might not cost you anything. There would be nothing for the family to sue about. There would be no guidelines or regulations that you failed to meet.
The problem is the economy is not a zero sum game but our money is. As we increase productivity the base money supply should have expanded. Because the government printing money is a no-no we instead let banks print the money and then borrow it. Companies are making greater profits and have shown no indication of increasing hiring. The truth is, companies don't hire people just because they have money. They hire people because it will make them more money to do so.
If the added value is less than minimum wage + all associated costs + regulations, the employee simply doesn't get hired.
It also means that demand is not great enough for the product to pay anyone a decent wage to produce it.
If those programs didn't exist, people wouldn't even work at Wal-Mart because it wouldn't pay the bills
That's a big assumption, it's fundamental to your argument and I disagree. People will still work for next to nothing. Even more so when they have a hungry stomach. Try it. Go look for a new job but don't eat until you get one. Now if you want to combine welfare into education programs to truly help people get out of poverty I'll agree with that. I would also support making food stamps operate more like WIC. But the idea that the poor have any kind of market bargaining power doesn't stand up to history outside of unions and revolts.