I'm going to have to disagree with you here and saw that laws are at least in part based upon morality. You give the example of smoking pot as not being immorral. One of the arguments against it is that it could cause mental health problems in later life and of course smoking it will cause damage to your lungs. There are also the claims/arguments that smoking pot leads to harder drugs which leads to crime (note that I'm not arguing whether these claims are suppoted by any reliable evidence or not just what is claimed). Considering the potential for these harmful effects would it not be immoral to smoke it because it firstly increases medical care costs to you AND others in society as well as costs incurred fighting any associated crime and is therefore immoral because it harms others in society (once again I'm not arguing for the evidence just linking the moral and legal arguments).
The other example you gave was adultery which, while not illegal in your state is still illegal in several countries around the world, mostly Islamic and according to wikipedia still technically illegal in Michigan, Wisconsin and Maryland.
So I'd say that things that are considered immoral are often then made illegal which means that morality does have an effect on legality.
That's probably because we think it would have been a good thing for someone to blow up the houses of parliament and take down a corrupt government. At least that's what I thought until I was about 20. It never occurred to me that the government wasn't corrupt and that Fawkes wasn't a 'freedom fighter'. I suppose that just goes to show the quality of our historical education at school and the faith in the current government (the one I've grown up with) from a average lowly commoner.
Obsessive procrastination? I know that when I have a deadline coming up I will obsessively find things other than my work to do. More likely I'm just lazy.
I hope I've read you correctly, are you saying that child porn, terrorism and copyright violations don't exist? (or at least don't exist in the majority of times someone says they does). If there is damage caused, either to society or to an individual, by falsely accusing someone of child porn, terrorism or copyright violation without reasonable grounds then yes they should be prosecuted for that. Sorry if I misunderstood you though.
I don't think that's quite right. I would say that you have the right to free speech to shout fire in a theatre if you want, but that you would/should be prosecuted for the damage and injury caused in the ensuing panic and not for speaking freely.
I'd say it is probably better to vote for the third party. Following your logic, IF enough people started voting for more left wing third parties because they are unhappy with Obama/McCain this time, then in four years time the Democrats would be more likely to field a left leaning candidate next time around to get those votes, possibly bringing the Republicans to the left quicker than if you voted for Obama this time. Of course it might mean McCain winning this time and I don't know if the little democracy left in the US would survive another 4 years but it might be worth it in the long run.
No I agree it's not source material, although if you go to the main website newnetworks.com there are plenty of articles about broadband in the US some of which will most likely have the references you're after.
I don't think the whole war plan was around oil, but that it was a major factor. And it wasn't necessarily a war to get more oil, limit the supply and raise prices equals profit as this article http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17717 illustrates.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going to have to disagree with you here and saw that laws are at least in part based upon morality. You give the example of smoking pot as not being immorral. One of the arguments against it is that it could cause mental health problems in later life and of course smoking it will cause damage to your lungs. There are also the claims/arguments that smoking pot leads to harder drugs which leads to crime (note that I'm not arguing whether these claims are suppoted by any reliable evidence or not just what is claimed). Considering the potential for these harmful effects would it not be immoral to smoke it because it firstly increases medical care costs to you AND others in society as well as costs incurred fighting any associated crime and is therefore immoral because it harms others in society (once again I'm not arguing for the evidence just linking the moral and legal arguments). The other example you gave was adultery which, while not illegal in your state is still illegal in several countries around the world, mostly Islamic and according to wikipedia still technically illegal in Michigan, Wisconsin and Maryland. So I'd say that things that are considered immoral are often then made illegal which means that morality does have an effect on legality.
That's probably because we think it would have been a good thing for someone to blow up the houses of parliament and take down a corrupt government. At least that's what I thought until I was about 20. It never occurred to me that the government wasn't corrupt and that Fawkes wasn't a 'freedom fighter'. I suppose that just goes to show the quality of our historical education at school and the faith in the current government (the one I've grown up with) from a average lowly commoner.
Obsessive procrastination? I know that when I have a deadline coming up I will obsessively find things other than my work to do. More likely I'm just lazy.
It's also reassuring to know that I have another 640, 400 hours to live.
I hope I've read you correctly, are you saying that child porn, terrorism and copyright violations don't exist? (or at least don't exist in the majority of times someone says they does). If there is damage caused, either to society or to an individual, by falsely accusing someone of child porn, terrorism or copyright violation without reasonable grounds then yes they should be prosecuted for that. Sorry if I misunderstood you though.
I don't think that's quite right. I would say that you have the right to free speech to shout fire in a theatre if you want, but that you would/should be prosecuted for the damage and injury caused in the ensuing panic and not for speaking freely.
I'd say it is probably better to vote for the third party. Following your logic, IF enough people started voting for more left wing third parties because they are unhappy with Obama/McCain this time, then in four years time the Democrats would be more likely to field a left leaning candidate next time around to get those votes, possibly bringing the Republicans to the left quicker than if you voted for Obama this time. Of course it might mean McCain winning this time and I don't know if the little democracy left in the US would survive another 4 years but it might be worth it in the long run.
No I agree it's not source material, although if you go to the main website newnetworks.com there are plenty of articles about broadband in the US some of which will most likely have the references you're after.
Here is a good place to start http://www.newnetworks.com/BroadbandScandalIntro.htm
I don't think the whole war plan was around oil, but that it was a major factor. And it wasn't necessarily a war to get more oil, limit the supply and raise prices equals profit as this article http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17717 illustrates.