Why do we have to start with a cell? Chemical processes can occur without a membrane surrounding them. You could imagine the entire world to be one big organism that then divided.
I don't think that that is even a valid question. There is no 'evolved' variable present in an organism. I guess you could measure complexity, but even that is not directly linked to evolution - further evolution can reduce the complexity of an organism.
Is life based on DNA the only possible life? How many other forms of life might there be?
Think of it this way. The chance for a specific number to be picked in a lottery is extremely small. But each week a number is picked. Does that make the fact that someone won a miracle, or just chance? Does it make it somehow less likely that another person might win next week, since the chance of the same number repeating is small?
And that's if you win. If you don't you get to work your entire life to pay off your lawyer (no lawyer is going to take 100$ case on contingency). And if you're really unlucky you get to pay off the corporation's lawyers too.
So the answer should be to 'create' more rape victims? Once everything is rape, rape becomes acceptable. "Oh, you were in prison for rape? So what did you do, not call her after the sex?".
What is needed is some common sense. If someone spikes a woman's drink or slips her drugs and has sex with her unconscious body, then that is rape. But if a woman drinks or takes drugs, then decides to have sex in that altered mental state, who are we to call that rape? She chose to consume those substances, knowing that they can influence her decisions. And the same thing goes for men. Both sexes need to take responsibility for their actions, not blame others for 'taking advantage' of them.
What will college courses have to look like, when the kids that take them will have nearly no previous knowledge of chemistry, math, physics (the 'hard' subjects)?
And do we really want MBAs with even the most basic knowledge of science?
The problem is that it will force kids to choose their career in high school. And knowing kids, most will pick the 'easy A' subjects without any thought to their future.
Does the 'unable to receive a fair trial' claim ever work? Wish the amount of media attention many crimes get, half of all criminals would need to be released without trial if it was followed in all cases.
They should each have to live with the consequences of their actions. She decided to show her boobs to him - stupid act, but she was a kid and they do stupid things. Her 'punishment' would have been the discomfort of knowing there are pictures of her out there.
He should have been prosecuted for the crimes he commited - production of child pornography, distribution of child pornography, probably something like corrupting a minor, extortion, cyber stalking, harassment,...
And my guess is that she would have felt a lot better about herself if she saw society make sure that the guy who wronged her paid for his acts, rather then letting him continue to harass her.
It might be connected to religions still prohibiting the use of contraception, even though it also helps prevent the spread of most STDs. AND many 'religious' politicians are against vaccinating children against viruses like the HPV, with some claiming that it would encourage teenage sex.
But isn't that a big double standard? If two people go out, both get stupid drunk and have sex, why is that considered a one sided rape? If consent laws are to be enforced, then charge them both.
Why even bother with felony murder. The guy can be charged with any number of other crimes (production of child porn, distribution of child porn, stalking, harassment,...........) Add that all up and he'll spend a good few years in prison - and I don't think child pornography is a 'good' crime to be imprisoned for.
Yes, morality has been closely tied to religion in the West. But if you look at what that morality actually was, most of it would be considered immoral by today's standards. Everything from slavery to burning people for heresy was sanctioned and enforced by the Church. So it's just as correct to say that there were many fine, upstanding individuals that were good IN SPITE of being religious. And in the last 100 years there have been many governments, both religious and atheist that have done unspeakable things. The reason the atheist ones did more evil is that they survived longer - after defeating the religious ones.
They protest against the Innocence of Muslims (even in western countries). If they value conformity, shouldn't they condemn the protests in the rest of the world and keep quiet? After all, most of the population thinks the movie is crap but doesn't protest about it. Isn't it mischief on their part, since they know they'll upset people with their protests?
The problem is that there is a big double standard : Since their cultures value conformity, people should conform when visiting. But why can't we also demand that they accept out values (or lack of them) when vising the west? Such as the value we place on freedom of speech.
And if they can demand that their values are held sacred in the west, can we demand our values are followed in the east? Equality for women, freedom of religion, acceptance of all sexual orientations,...? Can we demand that their preachers never again condemn a gay man? After all, it's offensive to our values, and the internet enables his ideas to reach us.
But why do they expect the west to conform to their ideals of respect for their religion? People make fun or religions in the west. It's a pretty standard to have people joking about religions, insulting religions etc (and just about everything else). If Muslims value conformity, why don't they accept that and conform? If vocal dissent is seen as a 'bad' thing in their culture, why do they complain when a person does something that is seen as normal in the west? It seems to me that the only view they demand respect for is their own, even when they are in the minority.
How much extra infrastructure do they need? Protection and safety can be provided by the police - just like for everyone else. Or if they feel the need for extra security they can hire guards, again just like everyone else. And health care is again available. Everyone can go to a doctor to get check up.
What is needed is a law stating that every sex worker has to be checked every X days, use condoms etc. Basic rules just like for every other profession.
But why stop at the maker of the movie? Why not also blame the parents of the protesters for not raising them to be more tolerant, their teachers, imams,.........
What if a woman choosing not to wear a burka caused a riot? Would you still blame her? Would you demand that she bear the responsibility for the riot and sue her for the damage caused?
The movie maker made a crappy movie. Unless the movie called for the people of to riot (which is a crime I believe - inciting a riot), then he can't be prosecuted if someone decides to riot in protest. He can still be prosecuted for violating his parole by makin the movie, but that's a different story.
What if one set of beliefs conflicts with (is disrespectful) of another set of beliefs and vice versa. What if people that hold those sets of beliefs have to live together?
Demanding that everyone respects your beliefs only works if you're prepared to extend the same courtesy. And if beliefs conflict, that option is pretty much impossible.
But the discussion here is why prostitution is illegal. If it was legal, then there would be no problems with informing the police. And the public law enforcement wouldn't be substituted by the guards, it would just be supplemented - just like with all other private guards. A customer is less likely to start beating a prostitute if there is a 300 pound gorilla sitting outside in the lobby.
I think the money in the safe (not the safety deposit boxes) IS the property of the bank. People give the bank a loan (deposit), giving the bank possession of the money. So if the money is stolen, only the bank is hurt - it still owes the people the money.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do we have to start with a cell? Chemical processes can occur without a membrane surrounding them. You could imagine the entire world to be one big organism that then divided.
I don't think that that is even a valid question. There is no 'evolved' variable present in an organism. I guess you could measure complexity, but even that is not directly linked to evolution - further evolution can reduce the complexity of an organism.
Slovenia still has a catholic majority. Membership is dropping, and there are fewer and fewer 'true' believers, but the number is still above 50%
The advantage is that the local priests don't come and beat you to death for not believing in &localdeity.
Is life based on DNA the only possible life? How many other forms of life might there be?
Think of it this way. The chance for a specific number to be picked in a lottery is extremely small. But each week a number is picked. Does that make the fact that someone won a miracle, or just chance? Does it make it somehow less likely that another person might win next week, since the chance of the same number repeating is small?
And that's if you win. If you don't you get to work your entire life to pay off your lawyer (no lawyer is going to take 100$ case on contingency). And if you're really unlucky you get to pay off the corporation's lawyers too.
So the answer should be to 'create' more rape victims? Once everything is rape, rape becomes acceptable. "Oh, you were in prison for rape? So what did you do, not call her after the sex?".
What is needed is some common sense. If someone spikes a woman's drink or slips her drugs and has sex with her unconscious body, then that is rape. But if a woman drinks or takes drugs, then decides to have sex in that altered mental state, who are we to call that rape? She chose to consume those substances, knowing that they can influence her decisions. And the same thing goes for men. Both sexes need to take responsibility for their actions, not blame others for 'taking advantage' of them.
Depth requires educated teachers who give a damn.
What will college courses have to look like, when the kids that take them will have nearly no previous knowledge of chemistry, math, physics (the 'hard' subjects)?
And do we really want MBAs with even the most basic knowledge of science?
The problem is that it will force kids to choose their career in high school. And knowing kids, most will pick the 'easy A' subjects without any thought to their future.
Does the 'unable to receive a fair trial' claim ever work? Wish the amount of media attention many crimes get, half of all criminals would need to be released without trial if it was followed in all cases.
They should each have to live with the consequences of their actions. She decided to show her boobs to him - stupid act, but she was a kid and they do stupid things. Her 'punishment' would have been the discomfort of knowing there are pictures of her out there.
He should have been prosecuted for the crimes he commited - production of child pornography, distribution of child pornography, probably something like corrupting a minor, extortion, cyber stalking, harassment,...
And my guess is that she would have felt a lot better about herself if she saw society make sure that the guy who wronged her paid for his acts, rather then letting him continue to harass her.
It might be connected to religions still prohibiting the use of contraception, even though it also helps prevent the spread of most STDs. AND many 'religious' politicians are against vaccinating children against viruses like the HPV, with some claiming that it would encourage teenage sex.
But isn't that a big double standard? If two people go out, both get stupid drunk and have sex, why is that considered a one sided rape? If consent laws are to be enforced, then charge them both.
Why even bother with felony murder. The guy can be charged with any number of other crimes (production of child porn, distribution of child porn, stalking, harassment,...........) Add that all up and he'll spend a good few years in prison - and I don't think child pornography is a 'good' crime to be imprisoned for.
Yes, morality has been closely tied to religion in the West. But if you look at what that morality actually was, most of it would be considered immoral by today's standards. Everything from slavery to burning people for heresy was sanctioned and enforced by the Church. So it's just as correct to say that there were many fine, upstanding individuals that were good IN SPITE of being religious. And in the last 100 years there have been many governments, both religious and atheist that have done unspeakable things. The reason the atheist ones did more evil is that they survived longer - after defeating the religious ones.
Why link the funding to attendance? Won't a crappy (underfunded) school lead to MORE pupils missing class?
They protest against the Innocence of Muslims (even in western countries). If they value conformity, shouldn't they condemn the protests in the rest of the world and keep quiet? After all, most of the population thinks the movie is crap but doesn't protest about it. Isn't it mischief on their part, since they know they'll upset people with their protests?
The problem is that there is a big double standard : Since their cultures value conformity, people should conform when visiting. But why can't we also demand that they accept out values (or lack of them) when vising the west? Such as the value we place on freedom of speech.
And if they can demand that their values are held sacred in the west, can we demand our values are followed in the east? Equality for women, freedom of religion, acceptance of all sexual orientations,...? Can we demand that their preachers never again condemn a gay man? After all, it's offensive to our values, and the internet enables his ideas to reach us.
But why do they expect the west to conform to their ideals of respect for their religion? People make fun or religions in the west. It's a pretty standard to have people joking about religions, insulting religions etc (and just about everything else). If Muslims value conformity, why don't they accept that and conform? If vocal dissent is seen as a 'bad' thing in their culture, why do they complain when a person does something that is seen as normal in the west? It seems to me that the only view they demand respect for is their own, even when they are in the minority.
How much extra infrastructure do they need? Protection and safety can be provided by the police - just like for everyone else. Or if they feel the need for extra security they can hire guards, again just like everyone else. And health care is again available. Everyone can go to a doctor to get check up.
What is needed is a law stating that every sex worker has to be checked every X days, use condoms etc. Basic rules just like for every other profession.
But why stop at the maker of the movie? Why not also blame the parents of the protesters for not raising them to be more tolerant, their teachers, imams,.........
What if a woman choosing not to wear a burka caused a riot? Would you still blame her? Would you demand that she bear the responsibility for the riot and sue her for the damage caused?
The movie maker made a crappy movie. Unless the movie called for the people of to riot (which is a crime I believe - inciting a riot), then he can't be prosecuted if someone decides to riot in protest. He can still be prosecuted for violating his parole by makin the movie, but that's a different story.
What if one set of beliefs conflicts with (is disrespectful) of another set of beliefs and vice versa. What if people that hold those sets of beliefs have to live together?
Demanding that everyone respects your beliefs only works if you're prepared to extend the same courtesy. And if beliefs conflict, that option is pretty much impossible.
They kept supporting Nazis until the end of the war (at least in Yugoslavia). The church supported 'Home guard' units, which swore loyalty to Hitler.
But the discussion here is why prostitution is illegal. If it was legal, then there would be no problems with informing the police. And the public law enforcement wouldn't be substituted by the guards, it would just be supplemented - just like with all other private guards. A customer is less likely to start beating a prostitute if there is a 300 pound gorilla sitting outside in the lobby.
I think the money in the safe (not the safety deposit boxes) IS the property of the bank. People give the bank a loan (deposit), giving the bank possession of the money. So if the money is stolen, only the bank is hurt - it still owes the people the money.