Except that the people who had guns then could just as easily kill with guns then as now -- there is no change in that. Their reasoning is that at any point a Democracy can devolve into a dictatorship as soon as the new popularly elected leader decides to use secret police to defend his power -- as has been proven in many countries over the last few hundred years. At that point neither passive reason nor a foolable ballot box will succeed in defeating the armed secret police -- only an armed responsible citizenry can do that. Read Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and get wise.
They also have few gun murders in China and North Korea thanks to strict regulation, but too bad for the citizens who try to revolt and just get mopped up whenever they do...
I think assuming the Dallas situation is actually controlled is, anyone who flies in from Liberia et al should have some indelible ink placed on a thumb that takes a week or so to wear off. If they come into the country and head to a doctor who sees that, they should immediately seriously check for Ebola...
Exactly - why _would_ they think they had Ebola? Unbeknownst to them, all they did was brush against the guy with Ebola at the drugstore while they were going in to get a newspaper... Suddenly they have a cold and who would do anything but assume it is a cold?
Suppose someone in Dallas starts getting intense cold symptoms -- should they check for Ebola? They have never been to Liberia.. Perhaps they should just go get some antibiotic from the doctor....
If you read Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" - a great read, by the way, you see that the protesters are fighting to survive. Unless they succeed, and even if they succeed but keep the status quo government, at some point in the future they can be dragged from their beds at 3am, tortured and held in a cell until they sign their lives away, on the basis of that evidence, plus evidence from anyone else involved who names them after said torture to 'hopefully' get their sentence reduced. Doing a halfway measure now will only delay their execution, imprisonment or exhile.
You must mean the death of 'Arius'. Arius' death however was most likely poisoning, as there were not hundreds of other people around him that died in the same way (not contagious) - it was considered highly 'unusual'.
Probably the fact that the entire rest of the developed world was reassembling itself brick by brick and America had the only completely standing factories didn't hurt either
The problem with taxing states on population is that it would disproportionately place a burden on states like Arkansas and Mississippi, which have low tax and income per populace, in favor of states like California and New York which have high tax per populace. The idea of taxing the States and cities a fixed proportion of their tax revenues is friggin ingenious.
There are two things going on here -- 1) Whether something should in principal be legal or not, 2) Whether someone should follow the law as it currently stands, before any change.
One may or may not agree that Cannabis at some level should be legal, however, in practice violating the current and active law grows and supports the violent black market, and the various murders and atrocities people get to live (or not) through. One may argue that murder is a law that should be repealed - certainly the Aztecs would condone legalizing it. However, practicing that in disregard of current and active law demonstrates the arrogant insensitivity to others and law in general that 'liberals' demonstrate on a common basis.
He said, give your own wealth -- but he never said, 'take someone else's wealth' -- nor did he say 'keep getting more wealth so you can keep giving it out' -- he said, abstract yourself from materialism, do not form a hamster in the wheelcage slavery state of your own mind to Caesar (or rather, that which is Caesars is quite Caesars alone)
So the $100 you happily spent on weed (illegally) to get high with your 'liberal' buddies that went into the pocket of a Mexican drug lord that cut someone's head off in competition for your business, was ok, because you are holding out for the day when it is legalized?
Actually, the give unto Caesar would be more of a free market conservative -- it is the idea that money is separate from personal value, such that the concept of someone deriving value from forcefully extracting wealth from another person (socialism) would be quite apart from spiritual value, which has its own value set quite independent (give unto Caesar that which is Caesars).
A socialist would impinge upon the mind that wealth redistribution is of moral value and worthy of spiritual earnest; Jesus said quite the opposite!
Putting an employee who would be twiddling his thumbs on a project like that may not be the same as allocating a productive employee. Sometimes companies make those decisions just to keep people busy when they are not immediately needed.
The desecration of a human life at embryonic state, or at fully adult state, are as you say destruction of meat. And this is true - the radical destruction of another person you may view that way. However, in our society we have posited values of mutual respect for life. And in that context we have laws against murder, despite it being merely destruction of meat. To that end we find the bounds of what we term life and the abuse of life, or murder, and seek a Rio Grande, a border river that determines the one versus some arbitrary sprinkling of dust in the cosmos. The rio grande for life is when the egg and sperm form the unique random combination that forms a new lifeform. Otherwise, there is little difference from one microsecond to the next microsecond subsequently (a few more or less cells one way or the other).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes and a government bureaucrat will take good and loving care of you.
If a Republican says it it must be lies. nah nah nah can't hear you!
Actually it looks like we _didn't_ learn it.
Except that the people who had guns then could just as easily kill with guns then as now -- there is no change in that. Their reasoning is that at any point a Democracy can devolve into a dictatorship as soon as the new popularly elected leader decides to use secret police to defend his power -- as has been proven in many countries over the last few hundred years. At that point neither passive reason nor a foolable ballot box will succeed in defeating the armed secret police -- only an armed responsible citizenry can do that. Read Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and get wise.
They also have few gun murders in China and North Korea thanks to strict regulation, but too bad for the citizens who try to revolt and just get mopped up whenever they do...
I think assuming the Dallas situation is actually controlled is, anyone who flies in from Liberia et al should have some indelible ink placed on a thumb that takes a week or so to wear off. If they come into the country and head to a doctor who sees that, they should immediately seriously check for Ebola...
Exactly - why _would_ they think they had Ebola? Unbeknownst to them, all they did was brush against the guy with Ebola at the drugstore while they were going in to get a newspaper... Suddenly they have a cold and who would do anything but assume it is a cold?
Suppose someone in Dallas starts getting intense cold symptoms -- should they check for Ebola? They have never been to Liberia.. Perhaps they should just go get some antibiotic from the doctor....
If you read Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" - a great read, by the way, you see that the protesters are fighting to survive. Unless they succeed, and even if they succeed but keep the status quo government, at some point in the future they can be dragged from their beds at 3am, tortured and held in a cell until they sign their lives away, on the basis of that evidence, plus evidence from anyone else involved who names them after said torture to 'hopefully' get their sentence reduced. Doing a halfway measure now will only delay their execution, imprisonment or exhile.
You must mean the death of 'Arius'. Arius' death however was most likely poisoning, as there were not hundreds of other people around him that died in the same way (not contagious) - it was considered highly 'unusual'.
No he is a government bureaucrat that wants to send his family to Disneyworld
Thanks to America printing dollars faster than toilet paper Canadians can come down and live like kings on their [less devalued] currency
Probably the fact that the entire rest of the developed world was reassembling itself brick by brick and America had the only completely standing factories didn't hurt either
The problem with taxing states on population is that it would disproportionately place a burden on states like Arkansas and Mississippi, which have low tax and income per populace, in favor of states like California and New York which have high tax per populace. The idea of taxing the States and cities a fixed proportion of their tax revenues is friggin ingenious.
There are two things going on here -- 1) Whether something should in principal be legal or not, 2) Whether someone should follow the law as it currently stands, before any change.
One may or may not agree that Cannabis at some level should be legal, however, in practice violating the current and active law grows and supports the violent black market, and the various murders and atrocities people get to live (or not) through. One may argue that murder is a law that should be repealed - certainly the Aztecs would condone legalizing it. However, practicing that in disregard of current and active law demonstrates the arrogant insensitivity to others and law in general that 'liberals' demonstrate on a common basis.
He said, give your own wealth -- but he never said, 'take someone else's wealth' -- nor did he say 'keep getting more wealth so you can keep giving it out' -- he said, abstract yourself from materialism, do not form a hamster in the wheelcage slavery state of your own mind to Caesar (or rather, that which is Caesars is quite Caesars alone)
So the $100 you happily spent on weed (illegally) to get high with your 'liberal' buddies that went into the pocket of a Mexican drug lord that cut someone's head off in competition for your business, was ok, because you are holding out for the day when it is legalized?
Actually, the give unto Caesar would be more of a free market conservative -- it is the idea that money is separate from personal value, such that the concept of someone deriving value from forcefully extracting wealth from another person (socialism) would be quite apart from spiritual value, which has its own value set quite independent (give unto Caesar that which is Caesars). A socialist would impinge upon the mind that wealth redistribution is of moral value and worthy of spiritual earnest; Jesus said quite the opposite!
Putting an employee who would be twiddling his thumbs on a project like that may not be the same as allocating a productive employee. Sometimes companies make those decisions just to keep people busy when they are not immediately needed.
The desecration of a human life at embryonic state, or at fully adult state, are as you say destruction of meat. And this is true - the radical destruction of another person you may view that way. However, in our society we have posited values of mutual respect for life. And in that context we have laws against murder, despite it being merely destruction of meat. To that end we find the bounds of what we term life and the abuse of life, or murder, and seek a Rio Grande, a border river that determines the one versus some arbitrary sprinkling of dust in the cosmos. The rio grande for life is when the egg and sperm form the unique random combination that forms a new lifeform. Otherwise, there is little difference from one microsecond to the next microsecond subsequently (a few more or less cells one way or the other).