"You are wrong, they have great symbolic power, which is of course why they exist, are sold and bought. And of course it doesn't stop Nazi sympathisers from being so if they can't buy them, it just stops them being able to parade them in offensive ways."
The thing I see wrong with this, is that memorabilia isn't different in its symbolism from newly created items. I could go out to the store, buy a patch of cloth and threadm, cut out a swastika, and sew it onto my clothes if I really wanted to. There isn't anything stopping actual Nazi-sympathizers from doing that, unless there are laws to catch them after the fact. You're not going to outlaw all cloth and thread and scissors, just becuase they can be used to make a symbol that might offend someone... So I see your parading argument as rather moot. If France doesn't want them parading their offensive symbols, then they have every right to enforce that. If France doesnt want their citizens to buy any Nazi memorabilia, they have every right to enforce that. If France wants to stop a US company from selling Nazi memorabilia, they can piss off, because its outside their jurisdiction. France would have every right to try and persuade the US to comply, through diplomacy, sanctions, or military if they wanted. But the US doesn't need to comply if the don't want and can defend their right to do so.
Same thing is true vice versa. If the US demands France freeze all terrorists assets, for example... France has every right to refuse if it violates one of their principles. The US would have every right to try and persuade them to comply by whatever means they chose, diplomatic, economic sanctions, whatever (hopefully not military, as its usually the messiest route)... But France could refuse to comply as long as they want, so long as they can defend their right to do so.
On to Afghanistan... The Taliban, being in control had every right to defy US demands to turn over Osama bin Laden, because it violated a principle that they live by. They have every right to do this, and can continue to not comply so long as they can defend their right to do so. They US chose a military response to 'persuade' them to comply. The Taliban now have to defend their right not to turn him over.
I'm not a fan of school yard politics, and 'might makes right', but that is the way of things in all nature, and we aren't above it, as highly as we think of ourselves, and as highly principled we all think we are.
"Anyway, it's all moot AFAIAA, becasue they have pulled those pages, along with certain others such as auctions of body parts, used underwear etc.
Curious how those don't get the free speechers hopping up and down.:^)"
As to this, I would have to agree with the other previous responder. It's probably because most of those people understand it is Yahoo!'s right to govern themselves in what they allow, so long as it complies with local law. The problem is brought about when a foreign power tries to exert jurisdiction where it has none.
I think we should start looking for alternatives more aggressively. Look to conserve, look for renewable resources. Put some effort into that, then we don't need to rely on them for oil. But of course, that won't solve the problem, because if them having oil and control over it doesn't matter to the US any more, the US will just drop them. That would shatter any economies they have. The US would get blamed again, even though they wouldn't meddle there anymore. And the problems wouldn't go away.
Actually we didn't want to get terrorized on 9/11. Actually we don't want to get terrorized ever. There is a problem though, and the problem is that this is war. Al-Qaida declared war on the US. The US has declared war back upon them and any supporters of them. Afghanistan's government, the Taliban, support Al-Qaida, therefore the ally of our enemy is a target. We didn't just fight Germany in WWII, their allies, all the axis powers were targeted. That's the way these things work. The United States Government is looking out for the best interests of its own people. Most all governments do that, unless they are run by tyrants.
It sucks that innocent people die. It sucks when people who don't support their government die because of that government. But this is an unfortunate and inevitable evil in war. Those same people would probably have to die in a revolt against the government they don't support, in order to change it. How many American lives were lost in Vietnam, lives of people who didn't support the war? I'm betting quite a few. No one country has a monopoly when it comes to its citizens getting screwed by assholes being in control of their government. It's happened time and again all over the world. The best thing for them is that their government gets taken out, dismantled, recreated, and stabilized so that the people can begin the reconstruction and healing of their country. It still doesn't change the unfortunate fact that some innocents will die in the mean time, but again, that can't be helped. Sometimes the greater good outweighs the life of an individual. That's no consolation to that individual, but its a fact of this wonderful thing we call life.
I'd be all in favor of a world pacifist order. I can't understand why it is so difficult for us to all just get along, even if we don't like each other, then to just not freaking kill each other. But then that's an idealistic fantasy. The reality of the situation is that as long as one person on this planet will resort to violence to solve their problems, someone else will need to use force to stop them. Perhaps we're all fundamentally flawed as a species, I don't know. But I think it's certain we won't stop fighting each other, until their is some other distinction we can draw to fight on, like a new species (extraterrestrial or something) that threatens us, or perhaps, planetary distinctions if we ever manage to colonize the solar system. Either way, its not going to stop. There are too many people in this world who are either hot-headed, uneducated, stubbornly hard-line or fundamentalist, greedy for money or power, or just plain old followers, for the world to change into a completely peaceful place. This has nothing to do with race, creed, or nationality (though some would like to make it) - it has everything to do with what it fundamentally means to be human. You find hate-mongers, peaceniks, war-hawks, tolerant, intolerant, rational, irrational (I could go on and on) people cross every race, religion, country, state, region, political party ecetera. As a species we're pretty much all the same, as indivduals no, but as a species, yes.
And so they, Al-Qaida will continue to kill US civilians and military for as long as they are able. And so the US government must do what it can to stop their ability to do that. Force is an option, and will be used. Peacful reconstruction is an option, and should be used. Policy changes should be considered, but policy changes need to come from both governments. It will require compromise on both sides - otherwise one side will need to be completely destroyed. That's the reality.
Sec. 1951. Interference with commerce by threats or violence
(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) As used in this section -
(1) The term ''robbery'' means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
(2) The term ''extortion'' means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
(3) The term ''commerce'' means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
(c) This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15, sections 52, 101-115, 151-166 of Title 29 or sections 151-188 of Title 45.
Yahoo! should use US law to sue the French government for obstructing commerce, and give them a taste of their own medicine.
Ok, my take: You fire the gun on Canadian soil at an American, you are under Canadian jurisdiction. However, the US would be within its right to request of the Canadian Government to take some action, and from there it becomes a Diplomatic issue to be worked out.
The problem perhaps that most of the world will have with this scenario is that the US, by virtue of its military and economic power, has considerable diplomatic weight, usually more so than any other one country. Thus the US can use that weight to get its way, and there would be little the other country could do to prevent that, other than by allying with other countries sympathetic to its cause.
This is how I see the situation should be handled in France. If the French don't want Nazi memorabilia being bought by French citizens, that's fine, and they're within their right to declare it. If their citizen try to sidestep the law by buying the memorabilia outside of France from a company/indivdual who is allowed by the local laws to sell it, then the French government has the right to prosecute its own citizens for breaking the law. The French government also has the right to police its border and check imported items for possible illegal good and confiscate them.
What it doesn't have is any right to dictate what a company/individual can sell where the company/individual is not located in their jurisidiction. Thus, to require yahoo.fr to get rid of Nazi stuff from their auctions is acceptable, since its actually located in France. To require or threaten yahoo globally to ban nazi stuff was out of line. That should have been dealt with by diplomatic means, through the US, as it had the local jurisdiction.
Alternatively France would have the right to mandate yahoo comply, or to lose their privledge to do business in France, and then it would be up to yahoo to choose whether or not to comply. If they didn't, they could still run auctions outside France, but have to close yahoo.fr. It would be up to them what was preferable, to lose some customers or stand for being bossed around by a government that shouldn't have jurisdiction over their entire market.
In the end, I think it would be best for any country that values freedom over restriction to keep sovereignty and jurisdiction on its own soil. If one country starts placing its bans and restrictions on others, then someday all countries will attempt to do the same, and if its successful, we'll end a global massively restricted society. To that end, I think it best to leave each country to decide what's best for itself in regards to censorship of ideas.
Pollution may require international commitment and cooperation, but censorship (from my yankee american point of view) is wrong and no one country should be able to force another to censor its material simply because they don't like it. I'm sure the pro-censorship people would say that that their goal of censorship requires a global cooperation, but I wonder if they'll want to cooperate when someone else who has different ideas of what's 'right and wrong' comes along and wants to censor them....
I have to agree with you. I consider myself mostly libertarian philosophically, but can not align myself with the current party because of a few key issues, this being one of them.
For me, the essence of libertarianism, is the desire for freedom. Government is not the only thing that can take power and freedom from you. When too much power is vested in any group, be it government, business, religion, whatever, time has shown that again and again individual freedom of those under its control are lost.
It is this loss of freedom that I think the libertarian party should be working to halt. Thus, government does have some place even within a completely libertarian view. The government should be kept as small as possible, to keep it from infringing too much on the freedom of its citizens. But the government may be the only power available to keep business in check, so that it too does not infringe on the rights of the citizens. I think the party has lost sight of this, and the larger picture in its efforts to cut down government.
People would be best served by an unregulated market, if that market stayed competitive and no business tipped the balance of power too far to itself. This doesn't happen. Monopolies take control, business' gather in large associations or merge to form mega-corps, and the market is tipped further and further from a healthy competitive one. Once this happens, there is little to prevent those in control from abusing their power and price gouging, mistreating its employees, or any number of acts that screw over everyone but themselves. Government regulation, while it may not be the most desirable of answers, is just about the only answer to this problem.
The problem occurs because of a slippery slope though. Government interferes, then continues to assert more and more power and control, until it has become the giant choking its citizens freedom. This situation that is happening now, as business' are gaining more and more political clout and control, is bitterly ironic. We end up with laws which are a complete travesty, as they are constructed to benefit a select few, without bearing in mind the good of the public at all. (*cough*DMCA*cough*)
I'd love to see lobbying banned, it'll never happen, but I'd love to see it. I'm also deeply disturbed by trend occuring within the media. I can not see business' merged with media companies as ending well for the public.
Environmental controls are the other area I see government has a place to enforce, in contrast to some of the other libertarian minded folk. Business has shown itself to be incapable of regulating itself, because as you said, capital will move to whatever maximum it can atain, at whatever cost.
The right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", is often quoted. When a business pollutes, it can and often does endanger the health of the resident citizens. This, while it may be within the "Pursuit of Happiness" of the business in order to maximize profits, is violating the right to "Life" for the citizens.
I believe people should be free to do as they like, so long as they do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. The goal of the government should be to preserve and defend that freedom from any power that would threaten it, even itself.
But their speech itself isn't actually limiting the rights of others. It may be inflamatory, it may be despicable, respulsive, and sickening. You may feel it is awful, and completely wrong. But unless they take action other than speaking, their words do not limit the freedom of others. Simply because it makes you feel bad isn't enough. Restrict their actions so they may not take away the freedom of others, do not restrict their freedom to voice their opinion. Trying to stifle their speech in order to forget them and make you feel better won't make them go away. Ignoring them will only serve to make those who will have to deal with them less aware and less capable of dealing with them. Educating and introducing them to better ways to be is the better way to combat them.
"BMG/Napster shouldn't be forced to facilitate the trading of Nazi music any more than you should be forced to listen to it. Granted, the actual implementation of blocking certain material in a Peer to Peer system would possibly be fruitless, but people should just look at the system they have in place and decide whether to use it or not. The major downside is that all the Nazis will be using Gnutella now."
The point is not that they should be forced to facilitate the trading of Nazi music, but that they shouldn't be forced to NOT allow it. They can do whatever the hell they want, but no one should force them to censor their file sharing.
"Many other compulsive hobbies, like reading, poetry, other games, or obviously D&D other hobbies over the years have been used for these purposes. Video Games, in their current incarnation are only slightly more interactive and encompassing, though some would argue less so than D&D."
I think you nailed this dead on. I read voraciously, game quite a bit at times, and use music, and poetry the same way - as an escape from reality. Still I can not understand anyone who would confuse reality with fantasy. Like I said, I used/use it as an escape, usually it was at the times I suffered from depression, where reality was painful. But to cope with that pain, immersing yourself in games is useful in helping to get through it at times. Does it screw up your productivity? Absolutely, but at times like that you're going to have productivity problems anyway. Does it make you a little more anti-social? It may certainly seem that way to outsiders, but the reality is you'd be anti-social anyway, games are just something to occupy your time while you are that way.
I'm not advocating games as a cure-all for mental illness, but many people who suffer self-medicate someway or another. Gaming is certainly physically healthier than developing an addiction to drugs or alcohol.
I don't know how many other people the above is true for, but I've met quite a few: Entertainment , be it gaming, watching sports, reading, music, poetry, alcohol, drugs, etc - is an escape from reality for many people, a coping mechanism to help get through painful times. Are there other ways to help cope? Sure, some people use religion and faith, some people use modern medicine... But the point is, that these things are quite often used for this purpose. Myself, I'm glad to have had gaming for this kind of outlet, it helped me immensely in coping with the symptoms of bi-polar disorder, until I recognized the problem and was able to get medical help for it.
And in the mean time, much of the gaming I've done has helped sharpen my ability at logical and strategic thinking, as well as lay the foundation for my fascination with computers and technology which has led to my career choice. So all things considered, it wasn't a complete waste of time either...
As for the corruption of my morals? Well, reading has done far more for that, than gaming managed at all... Of course, I wouldn't say my morals have become corrupt, simply different, and not necessarily mainstream. But then, ever since I started contemplating my ethics at all, I began to diverge somewhat from the norm. Games had nothing to do with this, and I think a lot of people confuse cause and correlation in respect to this issue.
However, each citizen does not have an equal voice. Individual citizens in more populated states have less power to their voice than those citizens in less populated states.
"Do you agree that citizens don't have a voice in the House or the Senate?"
It's not a matter of not having A voice, I was bringing up the matter of each citizen having an EQUAL voice. But then, I was thinking nationally as a whole country, not as states in a union - as is actually the case.
"Note that this is a state issue, not a federal one."
I realize that the elections are separate state elections, and not really national federal elections. I was simply pointing out some problems with the electoral college as is. Simple majority vote has its own set of problems, but I don't need to get into those.
"Yes, it is. If the Electoral College goes away, the candidates will pander to the large population centers. They do that now, but not to the degree they would with a purely popular vote. The farmers would kiss their representation goodbye. If we abolish the Electoral College, we might was well have population-based representation in the Senate. Why would we want one without the other?"
The point is that each CITIZEN, not each STATE, would have equal representation if we went by a popular vote.
Before anyone jumps all over me though, I think a compromise would be in order. Do not get rid of the electoral college, and maintain the number of electoral votes each state gets. THEN, have the states divide their alloted electoral votes percentage-wise by their own popular vote. That way, if a state has say 30 electoral votes, and one candidate wins the state by a 2 to 1 popular vote, one candidate gets 20 and the other gets 10. If they split 49/49/2 between 3 candidates, then two get 17.15 votes, and one gets.7: Sure this has its problems as we currently don't split a full vote, but it does seem to make more sense to me. Just a thought.
Most pro-abortion people are not as rational as yourself and will take it further and further. Atheists, satanists, and other people of dangerous belief systems are not bound to have respect for life or compassion for their fellow man. In general, they live self-centered lifestyles and do only what best serves themselves, the rights of others be damned.
I happen to take a little offense at your vast generalization here, especially in the context of lumping atheists with satanists. My personal beliefs have swung between atheism and agnosticism for a very long time now, yet I am still the rational minded person that I am. Most other atheists I know are the same way, they are atheist because they ARE so rational. I find it a little sad you think it such a threatening, 'dangerous belief system'. As for 'not being bound to have respect for life or compassion for their fellow man', how do you come up with that? I and most other atheist/agnostics I know (I can not speak for the satanists), have respect for life and compassion for their fellow man because it is in the best interest of society to do so. Many religious people I know only do it out of fear of punishment, or for the value of reward after death... Somehow the later reasoning seems less pure to me. And as far as the religioius being bound to have respect for life and compassion for their fellow man, if we look through history, most of the major atrocities of human against human have been in the name of religion. So much human bloodshed and pain, because of religious intolerance, and people still think the atheists are more 'dangerous'. As far as I'm concerned, dogmatic atheism is as useless as dogmatic religiousness. Tolerance is one of the highest moral values, and the sooner we all learn it, the sooner life might begin to get better.
Insofar as taking it further and further, unfortunately both sides of the issue wish to do the same. There is the perception amongst the anti-abortionists that those in favor would like to make it legal always. There is the perception amongst most pro-abortionists that those opposed want to take it away entirely. The middle ground seems the right road to me morally, and worth the fight to keep either extremist side from taking.
I'm only 24, but I am absolutely terrified to think what my children might do to me when I get old and become an "inconvenience" to take care of (assuming I failed to raise them properly).
You can raise your children any way you see fit. I am only 23, but I am confident that when I raise my children they will have the common sense and capability of rational judgement I'd like to think I posess. I also like to think I am capable of taking care of myself. I don't belief my children should have to take care of me when I'm older, and so there won't be any 'inconvenience', because I will take responsibility for myself. Your fears of this 'trend' seem quite unfounded, and lacking in base to me. You mentioned Dr. Kevorkian and the frail elderly folks. Why should those frail elderly folks not have the right to choose a dignified death, instead of a painful degrading one, if that is their own desire? No one is going to force the sick to be put to death, its simply a matter of giving them the option to do so if they want to do it.
I caution you to be wary of the path that pro-abortionists are going down, and try to imagine what that path's final destination might be.
I caution you to be wary of the path that the anti-abortionists are going down. Try to imagine a world where you lack of the ability to exercise any personal freedom, a world the framers of the U.S. Constitution tried to insure we wouldn't fall back into. Those that would wish to strip the freedoms of others away have their final destination down that path.
I recognize your concerns regarding the degredation of the value of life. But I want to address a couple of things you brought up.
In the case of 'what doctor is going to care?': The answer is that I think we should pass law that draws the line at brain activity and awareness. I can not agree that abortion should be illegal in all cases, or even from conception to the point the embryo develops brain activity. The question IS (at least to me) 'when does an embryo become a baby?' - and the answer that I have come to is that when that embryo has grown enough that it may be conscious, that is when it is a baby. Maybe others will come to a different conclusion, but that is the one that makes sense to me.
As far as the issue of taking responsibility for your actions: Abortion is taking responsibility, and it requires making a difficult decision. You mention the psychological and physical risks that go along with abortion, but facing that and still deciding to do it is making a difficult choice. It is taking responsibility in my opinion, it isn't just the easy way out as so many anti-abortion people would like to have others believe. I know you don't maybe agree with on this, you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine - but think the reality of the situation is that most women who choose abortion make an informed, yet difficult decision.
As for the cartoon, I've never seen it, but I would counter with: How many potential killers, rapists, and otherwise bad people have been aborted and thus we've avoided the pain they might have brought? We'll never know, but you are right, we might be wasting some real potential.
As for other points, I don't advocate abortion as a form of birth control, there are far better more efficient ways to do that, which pose much less risk to the woman involved. I would be wary of entirely taking away the ability to so however.
I think there are other issues to be considered as well though. Global population is rising, very quickly. I don't advocate abortion to be used to keep the population down, but what I think some people fail to realize is that over-population can be a real problem. As such, every abortion, while being made in an informed and responsible way, is only helping by not contributing to this problem. Its at least another point that I'd like to bring up, because its one not many people seem to talk about.
The last thing on my list: 'act decently' and 'accept responsibility' are very subjective things. Objectively, these things aren't well defined. Some people define 'decent' by religious law, some by social law, some by what is best for them personally, some by what is best for society at large, some for a higher moral purpose. There are some things I think are detrimental to society that some mainstream authorities would say is 'good' or 'acceptable' behavior. There are alternately some things that I think are 'good' that some authorities would like to make people believe are detrimental to society. There are many tough questions we need to answer, and we all need to answer them together. Abortion is one of them. I don't know that we have the answer yet, but I've given the issue a great deal of thought, and have found the answer that at least seems acceptable to me.
"Bush said he intends to uphold Americans' right to practice the religion of their choice, and he listed some examples with which he was familiar. How could any person from half-sane to totally rational read that those are the only religions that merit protection under the Constitution? That's a ludicrous assumption -- people should stop putting words into the candidates' mouths, and listen to what they are saying. It does no good to try and twist what a given candidate says, into something you want it to mean, simply based on whether or not you like the given candidate."
Lets take a look at the question:
"What will you do to protect the rights of athiests and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?"
Now the way I see it, this question asked about a few specific minority faiths, AND atheists. The fact that he didnt mention a single one of the religions in the question itself, is glaringly obvious.
Now combine that with his previous statements about Wicca in particular: "I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it." and you REALLY start to wonder.
The fact is Bush isn't in favor of upholding American's right to practice the religion of their choice. It looks more like he is in favor of upholding all American's right to practice christianity.
Now another interesting thought... If Bush is to be the president, and thus the commander in chief of the armed forces, don't you think it'd be a good idea if he didn't persecute those in his army? What kind of reaction do you think he'd get if he was in favor of banning all religious practice in the military, so that it didn't 'promote' any religion? That's the next logical step from the view he's decided to take.
"Well then, it sure is nice to know that we were all parasites, leeching off of our mother's physical resources, so many years ago."
We all were, it has nothing to do with how 'nice' it is to know. If you only bother to learn things that are 'nice' to know, you'll go through life quite ignorant. Of course some people out there still are leeching off their parents resources.
"What has society come to when we elevate the importance of an eagle's egg to a position higher than that of forming human life."
Its come to the point that we finally realize out arrogance, realize that we ARE a part of nature, not above it.
"So go ahead...say "It's my body, I'll do what I want." What if your mother had said that, and flushed your leeching parasite self out of her body? After all, it isn't human until it is outside of the body."
Then I wouldn't be here and I'd have never known, nor cared what this was all about.
"Where and when did we decide that, anyway? Where do we draw the line? It seems like it keeps getting pushed back further and further, all in the name of convenience. Is human life at conception? At six weeks? At seven months? Heck, let's just say that it isn't human until it is outside in the cold, harsh world."
Well if you read my earlier post I advocate calling it human life when it develops enough of a neural network to have brain activity, and protecting it after that point. After the fetus is possibly conscious or aware inside the womb, I don't think it a good idea to have it legal to abort it. Drawing the line at conception however I think ridiculous, as you arent hurting anything that would know - IF you abort before the embryo has developed consciousness.
"I'm assuming you meant to point out that religion values mass conformity and ignorance. Let me assure you that there are religions that teach you to question, search, and educate yourself - such as mine."
No, I purposely left any reference like that out. I hold that most religions, or their leaders at least, would like to perpetuate conformity and ignorance, to keep control. Not all do.
"Do you think that religion exists to control people because you've never found one that doesn't, or because you possess a high-and-mighty "I'm better than religious people because I don't need a religion" attitude?
You seem to infer a lot from my statement that wasnt there. If you must know I think religions original intent was to answer the unanswered questions. I think along the way it became apparent that they were a good way to control people, and so a lot of those in the leadership positions decided to use it for such.
No I don't believe I need religion. Yes, I realize it does some good for some people. I also realize it has done a lot of harm to many people.
"I've spent a few years trying to help people see the benefits of religion, and I've found that most people who don't like religion don't like it because belonging to some type of it would mean a change."
I don't have the problem you describe. I enjoy change. I've changed quite a bit in my religious beliefs over the years. I have my reasons for not liking religion. On a personal level, it doesn't tend to sit right with me. On a societal level, I think the problems it has caused currently outweigh the good it has done. I will not argue that there is nothing good about religion, just that there is a lot that is bad about it too. I would be more than willing to debate this over email if you desire.
"...justify their apathy or stubbornness."
Another funny thing I have found is that most religious people tend to prefer the non-religious stay apathetic, rather than try and change things to be non-religious.
"A real free thinker is free to think of things that suggest he change something about himself."
"Technology can NEVER be a religion, or a salvation, or the answer to our problems. It can be a useful tool..."
What is religion really other than a tool, like any other philosophy, to help control people?
I think the important part of this was not that technology would be our savior, but maybe lead to the creation of a larger culture that valued critical, free thinking - instead of mass conformity and ignorance - as its virtues. Just a thought...
-Nez
"Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves." --Carl Sagan, "The Demon Haunted World"
1. A conceived zygote/embryo isn't a potential human being. It has already been created.
I can't agree with you on this point. There are so many risks between conception and birth, that the zygote/embryo is still only a potential. Perhaps its a difference on how we define 'human being' but for me, a small clump of cells that is an embryo is little different than the sperm or egg that went into creating it, and FAR different than the fully functional organism it can grow into.
2. More importantly, brainwaves are measurable about 6 weeks after conception. The baby can react to stimuli at 3-6 weeks I believe (been a while since I studied it). That might give some leeway for EXTREMELY early abortions, but you wait at all and you're killing someone with feelings.
As for these points, they are well taken, but I'd like to see, if you can point me in the right direction, some evidence for this. The brain waves being measurable after that short a time is the one Im particularly interested in.
The other thing I would caution is that reaction to stimuli doesnt necesitate consciousness, although the brain activity would be a good argument for it. A venus fly trap can respond to physical stimuli, most plants can respond to solar stimulus, a dead frogs leg can respond to electrical stimulus... I know these may seem callous examples, but reaction to stimuli isn't what I would consider the defining characteristic.
I do agree that waiting too long before deciding to have an abortion, and you would be killing someone with feelings, and so at that point they should be illegal. But for the time until that point, it should remain the choice of the potential parents.
So it makes me sick when everyone assumes she has the choice over "what to do with her own body." It's not her own body. It's a completely seperate one, that happens to be living inside her.
Yup, so the answer is, let her do what she wants with her own body, and take out the one that is separate from her. Once its not living inside her anymore, its free to live or die on its own. That it will die is of course inevitable today, but that's the nature of the thing.
While the fetus is inside the woman, its basically a parasite living off her body: I don't see pro-lifers out whining about people getting rid of tapeworms, or taking anti-biotics to kill off millions of bacteria or wart removal. The point is this, most people don't care or even feel bad about killing things that aren't conscious. Everyone eats, even vegans, and inevitably you consume life, its a matter of whether you want to consume conscious life or not. If an embryo at its early stages of development is aborted, it isn't conscious, it can't be if it doesnt even have the neural pathways to be so, so why should you feel bad for it? It wouldn't ever have known. Of course you can argue on grounds of some kind of 'spiritual' entity inside the cells, but then I never understood why people defined spirit entering the cells at conception, rather than when it grows to acheive consciousness, which would at least make more sense. A fetus in later development can have its neural pathways connected, and may be concious inside the womb, at that point, it should be protected.
An aborted embryo with no experience of consciousness is as ridiculous to get upset over as a sperm or egg cell that never becomes an embryo. You want rights for embryo's you might as well get rights for sperm and eggs and make it illegal for a woman to menstruate without gettting pregnant, and make nocturnal seminal emissions in men or any ejaculation that doesn't get a woman pregnant illegal as well. Thats how ridiculous that is.
Abortion is a sticky issue only due to when the decision to choose is acceptable. If you ejaculate or menstruate without giving the egg and sperm a chance to come together and grow into another human, you are making a choice then and there to terminate a potential human, same as with abortion. I personally think the acceptable time to choose is before the potential person gains consciousnes, but then that's just my opinion. Take it for what its worth...
I beg to differ. Science is able to tell us that the baby is a separate and distinct person from the mother because they have different genetic codes. Science is able to tell us that the mother's body recognizes the baby as a foreign entity because of her immunological response to the presence of the baby.
So if its a 'foreign entity' why not let her take it out, and leave it for someone else if they want it? They can implant embryos nowadays, where are all the prolifers lining up to take the 'unborn children' and give them life they want to preserve? They like adoption as an alternative, why aren't they willing to take the embryos and carry them to term?
Why should people be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to any type of murder? Would fvor trusting people to do the right thing when it comes to deciding when Grandma has lived long enough and should be put out of her misery? After all it's a moral and value judgement as to whether an elderly person's life is still worth living. Why should the government be involved with legislating moral and religious issues?
No, it should be Grandma's decision as to when she's lived long enough and puts herself out of her misery, or lets nature take its course. What is 'long enough' should be the individuals personal decision, not anyone elses. Though I don't think you'd advocate that either, since you seem hung up on the 'religious issues'.
On matters of 'trusting people', would you be content to let business pollute the environment, trusting they won't even if it is more financially sound for them to do so?
Bush advocates 'trusting people' and 'small government', if he really meant it he'd be libertarian. Bush wants to give breaks to the big businesses and rich so he can jump in their pockets and harvest more election money. That's his brand of 'trusting people' with their money. Bush's small government apparently would love to be large on enforcing his moral and religious values on the masses, even when it violates their liberties.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And yet Bush want's Wicca not recognized as a religion, and to have it not be worshipped in the Army. Bush want's internet 'filters' (as opposed to censors?), abridging the freedom of speech. The constitution is quite clear on these matters, and Bush is just spewing forth what he thinks the christian religious right will support him on, and pandering for votes. He is no better than he accuses Gore of being, yet somehow he is the more 'moral' candidate. Only by some standards I guess, last time I checked though hatred and intolerance were not what 'morally correct' were all about.
Apparantly, CSS is a weak algorithm. In fact, it's so weak that it can be cracked brute force in a very short time on a PC. The MPAA is trying to stop the spread of INFORMATION that can potentially be used unlawfully. Not only that, but according to the DMCA, they can sue simply because their encryption algorithm was broken!
Why don't we just encrypt DeCSS with a weak encryption where each character is shifted one ascii value or something, then link to that, and if the MPAA manages to break our weak encryption, sue them under the DMCA and anti-circumvention measures? Just a thought, if they want to play why not beat them at their own game...
Also curious what would happen if one of those nasty little email viruses proliferated doing something useful like copying DeCSS to your hard drive, instead of causing real damage. Would everyone who accidentally contracted and passed on the virus be a criminal? Who would the MPAA sue then? Could the MPAA go after M$ to ban Outlook as a means for distributing anti-circumvention material the way they've tried to ban links? Think of the endless possibilities...
Im already voting Libertarian. Its just as a matter of practicality, its either going to be Gore or Bush elected this year. I'd rather see Gore in than Bush, but if Bush did get in I like his stance on S.S. better than Gore's. I like Gore's stance on most other things much better than Bush's though, and I like Browne's and the Libertarians best of all. They're getting my vote.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing I see wrong with this, is that memorabilia isn't different in its symbolism from newly created items. I could go out to the store, buy a patch of cloth and threadm, cut out a swastika, and sew it onto my clothes if I really wanted to. There isn't anything stopping actual Nazi-sympathizers from doing that, unless there are laws to catch them after the fact. You're not going to outlaw all cloth and thread and scissors, just becuase they can be used to make a symbol that might offend someone... So I see your parading argument as rather moot. If France doesn't want them parading their offensive symbols, then they have every right to enforce that. If France doesnt want their citizens to buy any Nazi memorabilia, they have every right to enforce that. If France wants to stop a US company from selling Nazi memorabilia, they can piss off, because its outside their jurisdiction. France would have every right to try and persuade the US to comply, through diplomacy, sanctions, or military if they wanted. But the US doesn't need to comply if the don't want and can defend their right to do so.
Same thing is true vice versa. If the US demands France freeze all terrorists assets, for example... France has every right to refuse if it violates one of their principles. The US would have every right to try and persuade them to comply by whatever means they chose, diplomatic, economic sanctions, whatever (hopefully not military, as its usually the messiest route)... But France could refuse to comply as long as they want, so long as they can defend their right to do so.
On to Afghanistan... The Taliban, being in control had every right to defy US demands to turn over Osama bin Laden, because it violated a principle that they live by. They have every right to do this, and can continue to not comply so long as they can defend their right to do so. They US chose a military response to 'persuade' them to comply. The Taliban now have to defend their right not to turn him over.
I'm not a fan of school yard politics, and 'might makes right', but that is the way of things in all nature, and we aren't above it, as highly as we think of ourselves, and as highly principled we all think we are.
"Anyway, it's all moot AFAIAA, becasue they have pulled those pages, along with certain others such as auctions of body parts, used underwear etc.
Curious how those don't get the free speechers hopping up and down. :^)"
As to this, I would have to agree with the other previous responder. It's probably because most of those people understand it is Yahoo!'s right to govern themselves in what they allow, so long as it complies with local law. The problem is brought about when a foreign power tries to exert jurisdiction where it has none.
I think we should start looking for alternatives more aggressively. Look to conserve, look for renewable resources. Put some effort into that, then we don't need to rely on them for oil. But of course, that won't solve the problem, because if them having oil and control over it doesn't matter to the US any more, the US will just drop them. That would shatter any economies they have. The US would get blamed again, even though they wouldn't meddle there anymore. And the problems wouldn't go away.
Actually we didn't want to get terrorized on 9/11. Actually we don't want to get terrorized ever. There is a problem though, and the problem is that this is war. Al-Qaida declared war on the US. The US has declared war back upon them and any supporters of them. Afghanistan's government, the Taliban, support Al-Qaida, therefore the ally of our enemy is a target. We didn't just fight Germany in WWII, their allies, all the axis powers were targeted. That's the way these things work. The United States Government is looking out for the best interests of its own people. Most all governments do that, unless they are run by tyrants.
It sucks that innocent people die. It sucks when people who don't support their government die because of that government. But this is an unfortunate and inevitable evil in war. Those same people would probably have to die in a revolt against the government they don't support, in order to change it. How many American lives were lost in Vietnam, lives of people who didn't support the war? I'm betting quite a few. No one country has a monopoly when it comes to its citizens getting screwed by assholes being in control of their government. It's happened time and again all over the world. The best thing for them is that their government gets taken out, dismantled, recreated, and stabilized so that the people can begin the reconstruction and healing of their country. It still doesn't change the unfortunate fact that some innocents will die in the mean time, but again, that can't be helped. Sometimes the greater good outweighs the life of an individual. That's no consolation to that individual, but its a fact of this wonderful thing we call life.
I'd be all in favor of a world pacifist order. I can't understand why it is so difficult for us to all just get along, even if we don't like each other, then to just not freaking kill each other. But then that's an idealistic fantasy. The reality of the situation is that as long as one person on this planet will resort to violence to solve their problems, someone else will need to use force to stop them. Perhaps we're all fundamentally flawed as a species, I don't know. But I think it's certain we won't stop fighting each other, until their is some other distinction we can draw to fight on, like a new species (extraterrestrial or something) that threatens us, or perhaps, planetary distinctions if we ever manage to colonize the solar system. Either way, its not going to stop. There are too many people in this world who are either hot-headed, uneducated, stubbornly hard-line or fundamentalist, greedy for money or power, or just plain old followers, for the world to change into a completely peaceful place. This has nothing to do with race, creed, or nationality (though some would like to make it) - it has everything to do with what it fundamentally means to be human. You find hate-mongers, peaceniks, war-hawks, tolerant, intolerant, rational, irrational (I could go on and on) people cross every race, religion, country, state, region, political party ecetera. As a species we're pretty much all the same, as indivduals no, but as a species, yes.
And so they, Al-Qaida will continue to kill US civilians and military for as long as they are able. And so the US government must do what it can to stop their ability to do that. Force is an option, and will be used. Peacful reconstruction is an option, and should be used. Policy changes should be considered, but policy changes need to come from both governments. It will require compromise on both sides - otherwise one side will need to be completely destroyed. That's the reality.
Could be to help in the 2002 Elections for Congressional seats...
(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b) As used in this section -
(1) The term ''robbery'' means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
(2) The term ''extortion'' means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
(3) The term ''commerce'' means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
(c) This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15, sections 52, 101-115, 151-166 of Title 29 or sections 151-188 of Title 45.
Yahoo! should use US law to sue the French government for obstructing commerce, and give them a taste of their own medicine.
The problem perhaps that most of the world will have with this scenario is that the US, by virtue of its military and economic power, has considerable diplomatic weight, usually more so than any other one country. Thus the US can use that weight to get its way, and there would be little the other country could do to prevent that, other than by allying with other countries sympathetic to its cause.
This is how I see the situation should be handled in France. If the French don't want Nazi memorabilia being bought by French citizens, that's fine, and they're within their right to declare it. If their citizen try to sidestep the law by buying the memorabilia outside of France from a company/indivdual who is allowed by the local laws to sell it, then the French government has the right to prosecute its own citizens for breaking the law. The French government also has the right to police its border and check imported items for possible illegal good and confiscate them.
What it doesn't have is any right to dictate what a company/individual can sell where the company/individual is not located in their jurisidiction. Thus, to require yahoo.fr to get rid of Nazi stuff from their auctions is acceptable, since its actually located in France. To require or threaten yahoo globally to ban nazi stuff was out of line. That should have been dealt with by diplomatic means, through the US, as it had the local jurisdiction.
Alternatively France would have the right to mandate yahoo comply, or to lose their privledge to do business in France, and then it would be up to yahoo to choose whether or not to comply. If they didn't, they could still run auctions outside France, but have to close yahoo.fr. It would be up to them what was preferable, to lose some customers or stand for being bossed around by a government that shouldn't have jurisdiction over their entire market.
In the end, I think it would be best for any country that values freedom over restriction to keep sovereignty and jurisdiction on its own soil. If one country starts placing its bans and restrictions on others, then someday all countries will attempt to do the same, and if its successful, we'll end a global massively restricted society. To that end, I think it best to leave each country to decide what's best for itself in regards to censorship of ideas.
Pollution may require international commitment and cooperation, but censorship (from my yankee american point of view) is wrong and no one country should be able to force another to censor its material simply because they don't like it. I'm sure the pro-censorship people would say that that their goal of censorship requires a global cooperation, but I wonder if they'll want to cooperate when someone else who has different ideas of what's 'right and wrong' comes along and wants to censor them....
For me, the essence of libertarianism, is the desire for freedom. Government is not the only thing that can take power and freedom from you. When too much power is vested in any group, be it government, business, religion, whatever, time has shown that again and again individual freedom of those under its control are lost.
It is this loss of freedom that I think the libertarian party should be working to halt. Thus, government does have some place even within a completely libertarian view. The government should be kept as small as possible, to keep it from infringing too much on the freedom of its citizens. But the government may be the only power available to keep business in check, so that it too does not infringe on the rights of the citizens. I think the party has lost sight of this, and the larger picture in its efforts to cut down government.
People would be best served by an unregulated market, if that market stayed competitive and no business tipped the balance of power too far to itself. This doesn't happen. Monopolies take control, business' gather in large associations or merge to form mega-corps, and the market is tipped further and further from a healthy competitive one. Once this happens, there is little to prevent those in control from abusing their power and price gouging, mistreating its employees, or any number of acts that screw over everyone but themselves. Government regulation, while it may not be the most desirable of answers, is just about the only answer to this problem.
The problem occurs because of a slippery slope though. Government interferes, then continues to assert more and more power and control, until it has become the giant choking its citizens freedom. This situation that is happening now, as business' are gaining more and more political clout and control, is bitterly ironic. We end up with laws which are a complete travesty, as they are constructed to benefit a select few, without bearing in mind the good of the public at all. (*cough*DMCA*cough*)
I'd love to see lobbying banned, it'll never happen, but I'd love to see it. I'm also deeply disturbed by trend occuring within the media. I can not see business' merged with media companies as ending well for the public.
Environmental controls are the other area I see government has a place to enforce, in contrast to some of the other libertarian minded folk. Business has shown itself to be incapable of regulating itself, because as you said, capital will move to whatever maximum it can atain, at whatever cost.
The right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", is often quoted. When a business pollutes, it can and often does endanger the health of the resident citizens. This, while it may be within the "Pursuit of Happiness" of the business in order to maximize profits, is violating the right to "Life" for the citizens.
I believe people should be free to do as they like, so long as they do not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. The goal of the government should be to preserve and defend that freedom from any power that would threaten it, even itself.
-Nez
But their speech itself isn't actually limiting the rights of others. It may be inflamatory, it may be despicable, respulsive, and sickening. You may feel it is awful, and completely wrong. But unless they take action other than speaking, their words do not limit the freedom of others. Simply because it makes you feel bad isn't enough. Restrict their actions so they may not take away the freedom of others, do not restrict their freedom to voice their opinion. Trying to stifle their speech in order to forget them and make you feel better won't make them go away. Ignoring them will only serve to make those who will have to deal with them less aware and less capable of dealing with them. Educating and introducing them to better ways to be is the better way to combat them.
The point is not that they should be forced to facilitate the trading of Nazi music, but that they shouldn't be forced to NOT allow it. They can do whatever the hell they want, but no one should force them to censor their file sharing.
-Nez
I think you nailed this dead on. I read voraciously, game quite a bit at times, and use music, and poetry the same way - as an escape from reality. Still I can not understand anyone who would confuse reality with fantasy. Like I said, I used/use it as an escape, usually it was at the times I suffered from depression, where reality was painful. But to cope with that pain, immersing yourself in games is useful in helping to get through it at times. Does it screw up your productivity? Absolutely, but at times like that you're going to have productivity problems anyway. Does it make you a little more anti-social? It may certainly seem that way to outsiders, but the reality is you'd be anti-social anyway, games are just something to occupy your time while you are that way.
I'm not advocating games as a cure-all for mental illness, but many people who suffer self-medicate someway or another. Gaming is certainly physically healthier than developing an addiction to drugs or alcohol.
I don't know how many other people the above is true for, but I've met quite a few: Entertainment , be it gaming, watching sports, reading, music, poetry, alcohol, drugs, etc - is an escape from reality for many people, a coping mechanism to help get through painful times. Are there other ways to help cope? Sure, some people use religion and faith, some people use modern medicine... But the point is, that these things are quite often used for this purpose. Myself, I'm glad to have had gaming for this kind of outlet, it helped me immensely in coping with the symptoms of bi-polar disorder, until I recognized the problem and was able to get medical help for it.
And in the mean time, much of the gaming I've done has helped sharpen my ability at logical and strategic thinking, as well as lay the foundation for my fascination with computers and technology which has led to my career choice. So all things considered, it wasn't a complete waste of time either...
As for the corruption of my morals? Well, reading has done far more for that, than gaming managed at all... Of course, I wouldn't say my morals have become corrupt, simply different, and not necessarily mainstream. But then, ever since I started contemplating my ethics at all, I began to diverge somewhat from the norm. Games had nothing to do with this, and I think a lot of people confuse cause and correlation in respect to this issue.
-Nez
However, each citizen does not have an equal voice. Individual citizens in more populated states have less power to their voice than those citizens in less populated states.
"Do you agree that citizens don't have a voice in the House or the Senate?"
It's not a matter of not having A voice, I was bringing up the matter of each citizen having an EQUAL voice. But then, I was thinking nationally as a whole country, not as states in a union - as is actually the case.
"Note that this is a state issue, not a federal one."
I realize that the elections are separate state elections, and not really national federal elections. I was simply pointing out some problems with the electoral college as is. Simple majority vote has its own set of problems, but I don't need to get into those.
The point is that each CITIZEN, not each STATE, would have equal representation if we went by a popular vote.
Before anyone jumps all over me though, I think a compromise would be in order. Do not get rid of the electoral college, and maintain the number of electoral votes each state gets. THEN, have the states divide their alloted electoral votes percentage-wise by their own popular vote. That way, if a state has say 30 electoral votes, and one candidate wins the state by a 2 to 1 popular vote, one candidate gets 20 and the other gets 10. If they split 49/49/2 between 3 candidates, then two get 17.15 votes, and one gets .7: Sure this has its problems as we currently don't split a full vote, but it does seem to make more sense to me. Just a thought.
I happen to take a little offense at your vast generalization here, especially in the context of lumping atheists with satanists. My personal beliefs have swung between atheism and agnosticism for a very long time now, yet I am still the rational minded person that I am. Most other atheists I know are the same way, they are atheist because they ARE so rational. I find it a little sad you think it such a threatening, 'dangerous belief system'. As for 'not being bound to have respect for life or compassion for their fellow man', how do you come up with that? I and most other atheist/agnostics I know (I can not speak for the satanists), have respect for life and compassion for their fellow man because it is in the best interest of society to do so. Many religious people I know only do it out of fear of punishment, or for the value of reward after death... Somehow the later reasoning seems less pure to me. And as far as the religioius being bound to have respect for life and compassion for their fellow man, if we look through history, most of the major atrocities of human against human have been in the name of religion. So much human bloodshed and pain, because of religious intolerance, and people still think the atheists are more 'dangerous'. As far as I'm concerned, dogmatic atheism is as useless as dogmatic religiousness. Tolerance is one of the highest moral values, and the sooner we all learn it, the sooner life might begin to get better.
Insofar as taking it further and further, unfortunately both sides of the issue wish to do the same. There is the perception amongst the anti-abortionists that those in favor would like to make it legal always. There is the perception amongst most pro-abortionists that those opposed want to take it away entirely. The middle ground seems the right road to me morally, and worth the fight to keep either extremist side from taking.
I'm only 24, but I am absolutely terrified to think what my children might do to me when I get old and become an "inconvenience" to take care of (assuming I failed to raise them properly).
You can raise your children any way you see fit. I am only 23, but I am confident that when I raise my children they will have the common sense and capability of rational judgement I'd like to think I posess. I also like to think I am capable of taking care of myself. I don't belief my children should have to take care of me when I'm older, and so there won't be any 'inconvenience', because I will take responsibility for myself. Your fears of this 'trend' seem quite unfounded, and lacking in base to me. You mentioned Dr. Kevorkian and the frail elderly folks. Why should those frail elderly folks not have the right to choose a dignified death, instead of a painful degrading one, if that is their own desire? No one is going to force the sick to be put to death, its simply a matter of giving them the option to do so if they want to do it.
I caution you to be wary of the path that pro-abortionists are going down, and try to imagine what that path's final destination might be.
I caution you to be wary of the path that the anti-abortionists are going down. Try to imagine a world where you lack of the ability to exercise any personal freedom, a world the framers of the U.S. Constitution tried to insure we wouldn't fall back into. Those that would wish to strip the freedoms of others away have their final destination down that path.
-Nez
I recognize your concerns regarding the degredation of the value of life. But I want to address a couple of things you brought up.
In the case of 'what doctor is going to care?': The answer is that I think we should pass law that draws the line at brain activity and awareness. I can not agree that abortion should be illegal in all cases, or even from conception to the point the embryo develops brain activity. The question IS (at least to me) 'when does an embryo become a baby?' - and the answer that I have come to is that when that embryo has grown enough that it may be conscious, that is when it is a baby. Maybe others will come to a different conclusion, but that is the one that makes sense to me.
As far as the issue of taking responsibility for your actions: Abortion is taking responsibility, and it requires making a difficult decision. You mention the psychological and physical risks that go along with abortion, but facing that and still deciding to do it is making a difficult choice. It is taking responsibility in my opinion, it isn't just the easy way out as so many anti-abortion people would like to have others believe. I know you don't maybe agree with on this, you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine - but think the reality of the situation is that most women who choose abortion make an informed, yet difficult decision.
As for the cartoon, I've never seen it, but I would counter with: How many potential killers, rapists, and otherwise bad people have been aborted and thus we've avoided the pain they might have brought? We'll never know, but you are right, we might be wasting some real potential.
As for other points, I don't advocate abortion as a form of birth control, there are far better more efficient ways to do that, which pose much less risk to the woman involved. I would be wary of entirely taking away the ability to so however.
I think there are other issues to be considered as well though. Global population is rising, very quickly. I don't advocate abortion to be used to keep the population down, but what I think some people fail to realize is that over-population can be a real problem. As such, every abortion, while being made in an informed and responsible way, is only helping by not contributing to this problem. Its at least another point that I'd like to bring up, because its one not many people seem to talk about.
The last thing on my list: 'act decently' and 'accept responsibility' are very subjective things. Objectively, these things aren't well defined. Some people define 'decent' by religious law, some by social law, some by what is best for them personally, some by what is best for society at large, some for a higher moral purpose. There are some things I think are detrimental to society that some mainstream authorities would say is 'good' or 'acceptable' behavior. There are alternately some things that I think are 'good' that some authorities would like to make people believe are detrimental to society. There are many tough questions we need to answer, and we all need to answer them together. Abortion is one of them. I don't know that we have the answer yet, but I've given the issue a great deal of thought, and have found the answer that at least seems acceptable to me.
Regards, John
Lets take a look at the question:
"What will you do to protect the rights of athiests and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?"
Now the way I see it, this question asked about a few specific minority faiths, AND atheists. The fact that he didnt mention a single one of the religions in the question itself, is glaringly obvious.
Now combine that with his previous statements about Wicca in particular: "I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the U.S. military to promote it." and you REALLY start to wonder.
The fact is Bush isn't in favor of upholding American's right to practice the religion of their choice. It looks more like he is in favor of upholding all American's right to practice christianity.
Now another interesting thought... If Bush is to be the president, and thus the commander in chief of the armed forces, don't you think it'd be a good idea if he didn't persecute those in his army? What kind of reaction do you think he'd get if he was in favor of banning all religious practice in the military, so that it didn't 'promote' any religion? That's the next logical step from the view he's decided to take.
"Well then, it sure is nice to know that we were all parasites, leeching off of our mother's physical resources, so many years ago."
We all were, it has nothing to do with how 'nice' it is to know. If you only bother to learn things that are 'nice' to know, you'll go through life quite ignorant. Of course some people out there still are leeching off their parents resources.
"What has society come to when we elevate the importance of an eagle's egg to a position higher than that of forming human life."
Its come to the point that we finally realize out arrogance, realize that we ARE a part of nature, not above it.
"So go ahead...say "It's my body, I'll do what I want." What if your mother had said that, and flushed your leeching parasite self out of her body? After all, it isn't human until it is outside of the body."
Then I wouldn't be here and I'd have never known, nor cared what this was all about.
"Where and when did we decide that, anyway? Where do we draw the line? It seems like it keeps getting pushed back further and further, all in the name of convenience. Is human life at conception? At six weeks? At seven months? Heck, let's just say that it isn't human until it is outside in the cold, harsh world."
Well if you read my earlier post I advocate calling it human life when it develops enough of a neural network to have brain activity, and protecting it after that point. After the fetus is possibly conscious or aware inside the womb, I don't think it a good idea to have it legal to abort it. Drawing the line at conception however I think ridiculous, as you arent hurting anything that would know - IF you abort before the embryo has developed consciousness.
No, I purposely left any reference like that out. I hold that most religions, or their leaders at least, would like to perpetuate conformity and ignorance, to keep control. Not all do.
"Do you think that religion exists to control people because you've never found one that doesn't, or because you possess a high-and-mighty "I'm better than religious people because I don't need a religion" attitude?
You seem to infer a lot from my statement that wasnt there. If you must know I think religions original intent was to answer the unanswered questions. I think along the way it became apparent that they were a good way to control people, and so a lot of those in the leadership positions decided to use it for such.
No I don't believe I need religion. Yes, I realize it does some good for some people. I also realize it has done a lot of harm to many people.
"I've spent a few years trying to help people see the benefits of religion, and I've found that most people who don't like religion don't like it because belonging to some type of it would mean a change."
I don't have the problem you describe. I enjoy change. I've changed quite a bit in my religious beliefs over the years. I have my reasons for not liking religion. On a personal level, it doesn't tend to sit right with me. On a societal level, I think the problems it has caused currently outweigh the good it has done. I will not argue that there is nothing good about religion, just that there is a lot that is bad about it too. I would be more than willing to debate this over email if you desire.
"...justify their apathy or stubbornness."
Another funny thing I have found is that most religious people tend to prefer the non-religious stay apathetic, rather than try and change things to be non-religious.
"A real free thinker is free to think of things that suggest he change something about himself."
Wise words for all...
-Nez
What is religion really other than a tool, like any other philosophy, to help control people?
I think the important part of this was not that technology would be our savior, but maybe lead to the creation of a larger culture that valued critical, free thinking - instead of mass conformity and ignorance - as its virtues. Just a thought...
-Nez
"Avoidable human misery is more often caused not so much by stupidity as by ignorance, particularly our ignorance about ourselves." --Carl Sagan, "The Demon Haunted World"
I can't agree with you on this point. There are so many risks between conception and birth, that the zygote/embryo is still only a potential. Perhaps its a difference on how we define 'human being' but for me, a small clump of cells that is an embryo is little different than the sperm or egg that went into creating it, and FAR different than the fully functional organism it can grow into.
2. More importantly, brainwaves are measurable about 6 weeks after conception. The baby can react to stimuli at 3-6 weeks I believe (been a while since I studied it). That might give some leeway for EXTREMELY early abortions, but you wait at all and you're killing someone with feelings.
As for these points, they are well taken, but I'd like to see, if you can point me in the right direction, some evidence for this. The brain waves being measurable after that short a time is the one Im particularly interested in.
The other thing I would caution is that reaction to stimuli doesnt necesitate consciousness, although the brain activity would be a good argument for it. A venus fly trap can respond to physical stimuli, most plants can respond to solar stimulus, a dead frogs leg can respond to electrical stimulus... I know these may seem callous examples, but reaction to stimuli isn't what I would consider the defining characteristic.
I do agree that waiting too long before deciding to have an abortion, and you would be killing someone with feelings, and so at that point they should be illegal. But for the time until that point, it should remain the choice of the potential parents.
-Nez
Yup, so the answer is, let her do what she wants with her own body, and take out the one that is separate from her. Once its not living inside her anymore, its free to live or die on its own. That it will die is of course inevitable today, but that's the nature of the thing.
While the fetus is inside the woman, its basically a parasite living off her body: I don't see pro-lifers out whining about people getting rid of tapeworms, or taking anti-biotics to kill off millions of bacteria or wart removal. The point is this, most people don't care or even feel bad about killing things that aren't conscious. Everyone eats, even vegans, and inevitably you consume life, its a matter of whether you want to consume conscious life or not. If an embryo at its early stages of development is aborted, it isn't conscious, it can't be if it doesnt even have the neural pathways to be so, so why should you feel bad for it? It wouldn't ever have known. Of course you can argue on grounds of some kind of 'spiritual' entity inside the cells, but then I never understood why people defined spirit entering the cells at conception, rather than when it grows to acheive consciousness, which would at least make more sense. A fetus in later development can have its neural pathways connected, and may be concious inside the womb, at that point, it should be protected.
An aborted embryo with no experience of consciousness is as ridiculous to get upset over as a sperm or egg cell that never becomes an embryo. You want rights for embryo's you might as well get rights for sperm and eggs and make it illegal for a woman to menstruate without gettting pregnant, and make nocturnal seminal emissions in men or any ejaculation that doesn't get a woman pregnant illegal as well. Thats how ridiculous that is.
Abortion is a sticky issue only due to when the decision to choose is acceptable. If you ejaculate or menstruate without giving the egg and sperm a chance to come together and grow into another human, you are making a choice then and there to terminate a potential human, same as with abortion. I personally think the acceptable time to choose is before the potential person gains consciousnes, but then that's just my opinion. Take it for what its worth...
-Nez
So if its a 'foreign entity' why not let her take it out, and leave it for someone else if they want it? They can implant embryos nowadays, where are all the prolifers lining up to take the 'unborn children' and give them life they want to preserve? They like adoption as an alternative, why aren't they willing to take the embryos and carry them to term?
Why should people be trusted to do the right thing when it comes to any type of murder? Would fvor trusting people to do the right thing when it comes to deciding when Grandma has lived long enough and should be put out of her misery? After all it's a moral and value judgement as to whether an elderly person's life is still worth living. Why should the government be involved with legislating moral and religious issues?
No, it should be Grandma's decision as to when she's lived long enough and puts herself out of her misery, or lets nature take its course. What is 'long enough' should be the individuals personal decision, not anyone elses. Though I don't think you'd advocate that either, since you seem hung up on the 'religious issues'. On matters of 'trusting people', would you be content to let business pollute the environment, trusting they won't even if it is more financially sound for them to do so?
Bush advocates 'trusting people' and 'small government', if he really meant it he'd be libertarian. Bush wants to give breaks to the big businesses and rich so he can jump in their pockets and harvest more election money. That's his brand of 'trusting people' with their money. Bush's small government apparently would love to be large on enforcing his moral and religious values on the masses, even when it violates their liberties.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And yet Bush want's Wicca not recognized as a religion, and to have it not be worshipped in the Army. Bush want's internet 'filters' (as opposed to censors?), abridging the freedom of speech. The constitution is quite clear on these matters, and Bush is just spewing forth what he thinks the christian religious right will support him on, and pandering for votes. He is no better than he accuses Gore of being, yet somehow he is the more 'moral' candidate. Only by some standards I guess, last time I checked though hatred and intolerance were not what 'morally correct' were all about.
-Nez
Bah, I meant distributing copyright circumvention materials, not anti-circumvention... Just to clarify.
Why don't we just encrypt DeCSS with a weak encryption where each character is shifted one ascii value or something, then link to that, and if the MPAA manages to break our weak encryption, sue them under the DMCA and anti-circumvention measures? Just a thought, if they want to play why not beat them at their own game...
Also curious what would happen if one of those nasty little email viruses proliferated doing something useful like copying DeCSS to your hard drive, instead of causing real damage. Would everyone who accidentally contracted and passed on the virus be a criminal? Who would the MPAA sue then? Could the MPAA go after M$ to ban Outlook as a means for distributing anti-circumvention material the way they've tried to ban links? Think of the endless possibilities...
-Nez
Im already voting Libertarian. Its just as a matter of practicality, its either going to be Gore or Bush elected this year. I'd rather see Gore in than Bush, but if Bush did get in I like his stance on S.S. better than Gore's. I like Gore's stance on most other things much better than Bush's though, and I like Browne's and the Libertarians best of all. They're getting my vote.