right. the 'local people' set up a new government. We routinely enter other countries... often orchestrating the coup in the first place... so "local people" can be completely free. We have no stake in the governments that arise, of course. Just the "local people" rising up to freedom from our kind, benevolent hand.
So you mean the school shouldn't reflect or engage the community it is in, they shouldn't do anything at all to help poor or rural kids have a chance to get equal education to richer/urban kids, and if you don't immediately rise on your own merits they should do nothing at all to try to help you overcome your problems?
Isn't that what the small schools movement was trying to do?
and that would lose accreditation for the school... assuming, of course, there is any third party or official system for which, that colleges and employers could use to verify that your diploma from East Nowhere, TX means something at least. Which of course there would have to be for any private schooling system.
Or, alternatively, colleges could have their own entrance exams to filter out the kids who don't know what you need to know to go to that school. Ditto for corporations. And then they could totally ignore the GPA question and focus directly on what it is supposed to represent... how much you know and how well you learn.
whether parents are the "worst" people to deal with or not is not the point: parents are THE people who should have the final say in their children's education.
Feel free to answer the question about the revolution.
America did not create Maine out of thin air, nor does Maine exist because of america; the land which is maine was habited long before america was dreamed of. so by what moral justification, exactly, does the most recent landlord demand special privilege to be the final and sole owner now and forever simply because it was the last one strong enough to take it by force by those weaker than it? If you regard that as a moral justification, then you are apparently saying the only morally justifiable way to secede is via war. but that's not what you're saying?
ultimately all I am saying is that if the will of Maine is expressed democratically, it should be respected, rather than requiring the use of violence to sort out the situation (as it was in bygone eras especially). not that our view absolves any and all obligation, but that the details which should be objectionable would be the TERMS of secession... not the secession itself. that is, all the other states should be able to negotiate the price of withdrawal for the non-land assets of the state, but the fact that the state is comprised of land is not, in itself, a reason to prevent a secession. and an unacceptable term of secession (such as no, we are not going to give you the battleship we just built for you, loaded with nuclear missiles) might be cause to declare WAR between two countries...but not a reason to prevent secession itself, just a reason for the seceding country to negotiate in good faith.
that's pretty good, but there are disconnects your analogy as well: the state could return any asset that isn't nailed down or planted. the only thing it can't do is return money already spent or give back infrastructure, but again, that is the same kind of investment a company makes with personnel; if a division were abused by the parent company and everyone DID leave, they are still walking away with lots of value the company invested in them, regardless of how much a company invested in them or would be hurt by their departure: their option to leave trumps that vested interest.
Of course we could extend this metaphor further and argue about copyrights, NDAs and non-compete clauses, and such, and things will get very murky from here on in. I'm satisfied with you having expressed a reasonable point of view on the matter though (thanks, it's more than I expected before and I have a better perspective now), though I still find the underlying idea rather disgusting.
It seems to boil down to this idea of ownership, you see removal of maine as removal of a part of what the united states rightfully owns. So what is your argument that the american revolution was just? Simply the fact that the "tyranny" experienced did not have a somewhat democratic system behind it? Or do you believe it was not just at all and instead, a bunch of thuggery and theft, as you seem to indicate such a move (even peacefully executed) by a state today would be?
obviously we have a disagreement on whose majority is important.
let's put it this way: I have a company. I am 50% owner with another fellow.
For someone to join us, we require full agreement between both of us. I cannot hire someone without his ok. However, for someone to leave, only one of us... OR the employee... has to say so.
this is a direct analog: we have provided the employee with lots of training, educational opportunities, wages, and access to information they are unlikely to get much anywhere else. Being with us is a benefit to them, for sure, and it's a risk for us. Which is why it should be hard to join. But by being hard to join, THAT is the appropriate amount of protection. THAT is the time to go to great lengths you are choosing a new member wisely.
But it is NOT an excuse for me to, stay, force an employee to stay with violence, even if the employee is critical to my current operations. Neither could my other employees, who depend on their now well-trained co-worker to keep this company profitable for their profit sharing checks, force them to stay because his or her leaving would be a detriment to them.
the employee stays because he or she wishes to. It would be called slavery if it were anything else between an individual and a company: it should be called certainly NOTHING LESS if it happens between a town and a state, or a state and a country. If the country does not serve the needs of ALL of its member states, they should.. democratically, on their own terms... be able to "seek employment elsewhere".
I see no way in which this analogy is faulty or not a direct correlation. I'm open to hearing an alternate view of course, but be sure that whatever measure you choose to apply is defensible right down to this personal association level. Otherwise, I suspect a "special standard" which requires some modification to truly fit with anything I would call "moral".
I'm not talking about other states deciding its ok for another state to go. I'm talking about maine people, voting in a maine election, to adopt a new Maine constitution. If the people of maine, as a whole, do not want to be a part of america anymore, by what moral standing does any other state have to force us to stay? Because people associated with massachuesetts were the last ones to steal this land from someone? Because those people had joined the united states? Because PREVIOUS maine residents petitioned to become a state and succeeded, abrogating the rest of us of OUR rights of free association forever?
If Puerto Rico votes to become a state tomorrow, that means they can never choose to change their mind?
I specifically talked about a democratically determined secession for larger groupings. I.E., the people of Maine vote in large enough numbers to change our state constitution, and secede from the union we are currently a part of.
It sounds as if you agree with me that if that requirement is satisfied, then it's ok for states to secede. Yes? That we are a part of this union by our collective free will, which can be revoked. Bear in mind you are talking about a country that violently overthrew the former government which developed and explored this "wild" land for three hundred years before they decided it should, instead, be ruled locally. What gave them the right? Might of arms, apparently. I prefer democratic, non violent determination myself.
As for the smaller scale individual secession, sure, you could make some sort of case for property rights being guaranteed by the state, but in the end, what is the point of violent compulsion? If I decide to take my land and secede, let me. What's the difference? If I can't behave like a real country, on my own, then I fail and can get re-absorbed. So what? Is it really necessary to attack me?
And why on earth does it make things ok because western nations "staked out" land that was previously each other's or other nations' entirely, for them to hold it forever? Whoever stole it first keeps it forever?
I agree that most secessionists (and most idealogues of any sort) have some notion that they are really "the majority" even when they are not, and I harbor no such illusions. However, I do firmly believe in the RIGHT of free association, and the right to revoke that association, and that countries boundaries are not sacrosanct forever just because someone decided to take some amount of land from someone else two hundred years before I was born... or 50... or yesterday.
I think the answer is let them Secede. what makes their land "US soil" if not the will of the people? Then treat them as appropriate. Border off their "country", require duty and taxes paid on imports, or even fail to negotiate a trade treaty or travel agreement with them.
If they are able to stand on their own without those things, then maybe you treat them as a real country. If not, their "country" falls, and you re-annex.
no need whatsoever for violence to make people do things against their will that are, and should be, only a matter of choice.
More important is how do you know if they decide to secede or not? That can only be done in a populace large enough to vote democratically with any moral authority. So if my Town or state holds a vote on the matter, and the people of Maine vote to Secede... at a high enough level to modify the constitution, for example... then who the hell is anyone to say we can't? The feds could then take all of their hardware out of here and let us do our thing.
On what moral grounds, exactly, would the feds be able to stop a democratically justified secession?
interesting, I must not have understood that part of the sterling engine discussion. but would you be able to generate electricity at the rate needed for driving? that would be a fairly large generator, would it not?
You're right that most people don't carpool: my point is, that's the problem, not the lack of car features, but the expectation that we should just always be able to do whatever the hell we please, just because we can, with no regard for the consequence and no willingness to endure any bit of inconvenience to dramatically reduce our impact on the world. Here in maine, if I could stay warm on the way to work and go to and from work on all electricity, which I can purchase from all non-fossil fuel sources, I would be doing a very good thing.
Maybe a plug in hybrid would be that answer, but I believe the cost of a plug in hybrid is unlikely to ever be in my price range. The cost savings of dropping the gas engine *should* make a full on EV much more economical (once we have volume production and we're past the early adopter stage) and much, much easier to maintain than a plug in hybrid. I regard those two features as much more than "10%" of the benefit of an EV.
This is such a boring, shallow point. yes, Humans are natural and we have certain abilities to affect our environment which any reasonable observer should note is far, far beyond that of any other creature on earth. Right? Or are you claiming that massive scale coal power generation and Bone Clubs are really the same as far as life on earth is concerned because I have to say just on shallow, base examing it sure seems like huge amounts of coal smog affects a hell of lot more than a few monkeys in a jungle beating stuff with bones.
Look: most natural stuff is around because it has withstood millenia of evolutionary pressure. most of the bad stuff (bad, meaning "not sustainable" or "not fit for the world") died out. Nature is a tough mistress. She finds flaws and exploits them mercilessly.
What we are calling "unnatural" is really just "new"... or, more to the point, "relatively untested". Not many call cultivated or even naturally cross pollinated plants "unnatural" even though they are not the result of a random combination in nature. But many would call GMO plants unnatural... mainly because we haven't had them for a thousand years to see what happens with people who eat them vs people who don't.
It is absolutely reasonable and correct to trust something (if you're going to massively generalize, at least) that human beings have likely EVOLVED AROUND... such as, naturally grown, organic food... in an unchanged state, rather than some modern innovation which may or may not be better than all that came before, and that we will not know for sure until at least years, probably decades, and maybe even longer to see. Our recent modern history is littered with examples from baby formula to radium clocks to offgassing VOCs as examples of unintended downsides that are much less prevalent in "natural systems"... that is, the systems that have been around nearly as long as human beings themselves, or longer.
That is what it means to call something "natural". Meaning, "it's been around long enough to have a pretty clear understanding of the upsides and downsides" or maybe even "I probably have GENES that formed around this thing in me somewhere". Unnatural does not mean bad.. but it does mean you are much more likely to be unclear on how good or bad it really is, so far.
In other words, the "unnatural stuff" is COMPLETELY UNTESTED from an "evolutionary standpoint", which only cares about things on timeframes far, far longer than anything you in particular care about, since for it to have any evolutionary impact at all, you would have no way of knowing until the NEXT generation... at the earliest!
I don't give a fig about climate change (though I care a lot about environmental toxicity and resource depletion). But I do care when people act like tinkering on massive scales with basic life processes is the same as a monkey with a bone club. An ounce of perspective, please.
so there is a minor inconvenience in choosing a vastly superior technology for cost/cleanliness and maintenance. Assuming of course, that those features are true;)
the point is, having a carpool is inconvenient too. But doing it makes very good sense, and failing to do it if it is possible is silly. Life is not really all about convenience. Granted, it's nice to not have to plan six months groceries for one trip to the "country store" a two day buggy ride away, but still... perhaps we could simply not necessarily demand every possible convenience before we make a better decision once in awhile?
thanks: so that basically indicates that we (america) are better at saving low birthweight babies, and we have a lot more of them than canada does. Neither I suppose is particularly surprising, we have great machines for those situations, and generally more polluted/less healthy lifestyles (as indicated by the mortality rates).
it does note that the study is not definitive and has a small sample size, but it's interesting, and thanks for the link and your contribution to my education.
How do you define "difficult" pregnancy? There are an awful lot of unnecessarily complicated pregnancies here (thanks, pitocin). Do they count as "complicated"?
I would like to see your source on this. Sincerely, as that would be an interesting study to ready.
they have better life expectancy and infant mortality than america: while spending nearly 5.3% less of GDP and 1.8% less of total government revenue, and using that reduced amount to pay 24% more of their citizens health care costs. We do have more physicians and more nurses, but apparently that isn't helping us live longer or saving our babies.
In Canada, you wait when you need care. In America, you wait to find out if you need care until it's an emergency. Is that really an improvement?
You can eliminate taxes entirely, eliminate government control over your life entirely, and give your absolutely maximal freedom simply by moving to the middle of the woods somewhere.
Oddly, most people think that society offers them something a little better, and are willing to deal with taxes, some level of government control over some aspects of life, and some curtailment of their freedoms as a requirement for those benefits.
well that's not really true: again, Nuremberg set the precedent and as far as I know, that precedent has not been overturned or anything. I'm not an international law expert, so maybe I'm wrong, but that was my impression at least. Are you aware of any actual modern cases where it was determined that a person deserve NO guilt or punishment because they were "just following orders"?
Whether it is CORRECT to excuse people for doing great evil in the name of obedience, or not, however... I think that's quite clear and whether international law agrees or not, I think it's wrong. that's an opinion, for sure.
Understood. And being afraid to do what's right for fear of the repercussions is also called, "cowardice".
It is the unthinking submission to authority that I take umbrage with, and while it is useful in a firefight, it is not necessary for less urgent situations, such as the decision to torture someone.
If the chain of command is not able to tolerate conscientious questioning of non-urgent actions, then the chain of command is what needs to change.
I wish you weren't modded flamebait, that's a little unfair.
as noted in my other post, the army field manual is clear on interrogation techniques that are allowed. That should not be difficult for a soldier to figure out. It is not a "fine line" at all.
Superiors ARE guilty and should be tried. But that would not clear me for, say, pulling out someone's fingernails. I could see for violations that are "on the line" and I'm sure a court would not be completely unsympathetic to such arguments. But it is not excusable behavior and would carry some sort of penalty at least... not the same as the superior's, though, not at all.
Obviously. But interrogation techniques ARE detailed in the army field manual. it's very clear.
and frankly, military being a little less effective at committing war crimes is not all bad, IMHO. Perhaps less morally ambiguous orders need to be given in the first place.
I agree that is how it SHOULD work. Sadly, it is not how it DOES work. and this case (torture under orders) should be treated no differently than any other heinous crime. Fix it all or none.
The Nuremberg trials established in international law that it is not an acceptable defense. Justifiable, sure, it's a reasonable thing to say. But it doesn't get you off the hook, and it shouldn't, you should be mindful enough of your own actions to not TORTURE SOMEONE because someone else told you to.
good point, but lynch mob protection is not achieved by obscuring the identity of the perpetrator if the charge is murder. Criminal charges are a matter of public record.
Slashdot Mirror
right. the 'local people' set up a new government. We routinely enter other countries... often orchestrating the coup in the first place... so "local people" can be completely free. We have no stake in the governments that arise, of course. Just the "local people" rising up to freedom from our kind, benevolent hand.
right?
So you mean the school shouldn't reflect or engage the community it is in, they shouldn't do anything at all to help poor or rural kids have a chance to get equal education to richer/urban kids, and if you don't immediately rise on your own merits they should do nothing at all to try to help you overcome your problems?
Isn't that what the small schools movement was trying to do?
and that would lose accreditation for the school... assuming, of course, there is any third party or official system for which, that colleges and employers could use to verify that your diploma from East Nowhere, TX means something at least. Which of course there would have to be for any private schooling system.
Or, alternatively, colleges could have their own entrance exams to filter out the kids who don't know what you need to know to go to that school. Ditto for corporations. And then they could totally ignore the GPA question and focus directly on what it is supposed to represent... how much you know and how well you learn.
whether parents are the "worst" people to deal with or not is not the point: parents are THE people who should have the final say in their children's education.
Feel free to answer the question about the revolution.
America did not create Maine out of thin air, nor does Maine exist because of america; the land which is maine was habited long before america was dreamed of. so by what moral justification, exactly, does the most recent landlord demand special privilege to be the final and sole owner now and forever simply because it was the last one strong enough to take it by force by those weaker than it? If you regard that as a moral justification, then you are apparently saying the only morally justifiable way to secede is via war. but that's not what you're saying?
ultimately all I am saying is that if the will of Maine is expressed democratically, it should be respected, rather than requiring the use of violence to sort out the situation (as it was in bygone eras especially). not that our view absolves any and all obligation, but that the details which should be objectionable would be the TERMS of secession... not the secession itself. that is, all the other states should be able to negotiate the price of withdrawal for the non-land assets of the state, but the fact that the state is comprised of land is not, in itself, a reason to prevent a secession. and an unacceptable term of secession (such as no, we are not going to give you the battleship we just built for you, loaded with nuclear missiles) might be cause to declare WAR between two countries...but not a reason to prevent secession itself, just a reason for the seceding country to negotiate in good faith.
that's pretty good, but there are disconnects your analogy as well: the state could return any asset that isn't nailed down or planted. the only thing it can't do is return money already spent or give back infrastructure, but again, that is the same kind of investment a company makes with personnel; if a division were abused by the parent company and everyone DID leave, they are still walking away with lots of value the company invested in them, regardless of how much a company invested in them or would be hurt by their departure: their option to leave trumps that vested interest.
Of course we could extend this metaphor further and argue about copyrights, NDAs and non-compete clauses, and such, and things will get very murky from here on in. I'm satisfied with you having expressed a reasonable point of view on the matter though (thanks, it's more than I expected before and I have a better perspective now), though I still find the underlying idea rather disgusting.
It seems to boil down to this idea of ownership, you see removal of maine as removal of a part of what the united states rightfully owns. So what is your argument that the american revolution was just? Simply the fact that the "tyranny" experienced did not have a somewhat democratic system behind it? Or do you believe it was not just at all and instead, a bunch of thuggery and theft, as you seem to indicate such a move (even peacefully executed) by a state today would be?
obviously we have a disagreement on whose majority is important.
let's put it this way: I have a company. I am 50% owner with another fellow.
For someone to join us, we require full agreement between both of us. I cannot hire someone without his ok. However, for someone to leave, only one of us... OR the employee... has to say so.
this is a direct analog: we have provided the employee with lots of training, educational opportunities, wages, and access to information they are unlikely to get much anywhere else. Being with us is a benefit to them, for sure, and it's a risk for us. Which is why it should be hard to join. But by being hard to join, THAT is the appropriate amount of protection. THAT is the time to go to great lengths you are choosing a new member wisely.
But it is NOT an excuse for me to, stay, force an employee to stay with violence, even if the employee is critical to my current operations. Neither could my other employees, who depend on their now well-trained co-worker to keep this company profitable for their profit sharing checks, force them to stay because his or her leaving would be a detriment to them.
the employee stays because he or she wishes to. It would be called slavery if it were anything else between an individual and a company: it should be called certainly NOTHING LESS if it happens between a town and a state, or a state and a country. If the country does not serve the needs of ALL of its member states, they should.. democratically, on their own terms... be able to "seek employment elsewhere".
I see no way in which this analogy is faulty or not a direct correlation. I'm open to hearing an alternate view of course, but be sure that whatever measure you choose to apply is defensible right down to this personal association level. Otherwise, I suspect a "special standard" which requires some modification to truly fit with anything I would call "moral".
I'm not talking about other states deciding its ok for another state to go. I'm talking about maine people, voting in a maine election, to adopt a new Maine constitution. If the people of maine, as a whole, do not want to be a part of america anymore, by what moral standing does any other state have to force us to stay? Because people associated with massachuesetts were the last ones to steal this land from someone? Because those people had joined the united states? Because PREVIOUS maine residents petitioned to become a state and succeeded, abrogating the rest of us of OUR rights of free association forever?
If Puerto Rico votes to become a state tomorrow, that means they can never choose to change their mind?
I specifically talked about a democratically determined secession for larger groupings. I.E., the people of Maine vote in large enough numbers to change our state constitution, and secede from the union we are currently a part of.
It sounds as if you agree with me that if that requirement is satisfied, then it's ok for states to secede. Yes? That we are a part of this union by our collective free will, which can be revoked. Bear in mind you are talking about a country that violently overthrew the former government which developed and explored this "wild" land for three hundred years before they decided it should, instead, be ruled locally. What gave them the right? Might of arms, apparently. I prefer democratic, non violent determination myself.
As for the smaller scale individual secession, sure, you could make some sort of case for property rights being guaranteed by the state, but in the end, what is the point of violent compulsion? If I decide to take my land and secede, let me. What's the difference? If I can't behave like a real country, on my own, then I fail and can get re-absorbed. So what? Is it really necessary to attack me?
And why on earth does it make things ok because western nations "staked out" land that was previously each other's or other nations' entirely, for them to hold it forever? Whoever stole it first keeps it forever?
I agree that most secessionists (and most idealogues of any sort) have some notion that they are really "the majority" even when they are not, and I harbor no such illusions. However, I do firmly believe in the RIGHT of free association, and the right to revoke that association, and that countries boundaries are not sacrosanct forever just because someone decided to take some amount of land from someone else two hundred years before I was born... or 50... or yesterday.
I think the answer is let them Secede. what makes their land "US soil" if not the will of the people? Then treat them as appropriate. Border off their "country", require duty and taxes paid on imports, or even fail to negotiate a trade treaty or travel agreement with them.
If they are able to stand on their own without those things, then maybe you treat them as a real country. If not, their "country" falls, and you re-annex.
no need whatsoever for violence to make people do things against their will that are, and should be, only a matter of choice.
More important is how do you know if they decide to secede or not? That can only be done in a populace large enough to vote democratically with any moral authority. So if my Town or state holds a vote on the matter, and the people of Maine vote to Secede... at a high enough level to modify the constitution, for example... then who the hell is anyone to say we can't? The feds could then take all of their hardware out of here and let us do our thing.
On what moral grounds, exactly, would the feds be able to stop a democratically justified secession?
interesting, I must not have understood that part of the sterling engine discussion. but would you be able to generate electricity at the rate needed for driving? that would be a fairly large generator, would it not?
You're right that most people don't carpool: my point is, that's the problem, not the lack of car features, but the expectation that we should just always be able to do whatever the hell we please, just because we can, with no regard for the consequence and no willingness to endure any bit of inconvenience to dramatically reduce our impact on the world. Here in maine, if I could stay warm on the way to work and go to and from work on all electricity, which I can purchase from all non-fossil fuel sources, I would be doing a very good thing.
Maybe a plug in hybrid would be that answer, but I believe the cost of a plug in hybrid is unlikely to ever be in my price range. The cost savings of dropping the gas engine *should* make a full on EV much more economical (once we have volume production and we're past the early adopter stage) and much, much easier to maintain than a plug in hybrid. I regard those two features as much more than "10%" of the benefit of an EV.
This is such a boring, shallow point. yes, Humans are natural and we have certain abilities to affect our environment which any reasonable observer should note is far, far beyond that of any other creature on earth. Right? Or are you claiming that massive scale coal power generation and Bone Clubs are really the same as far as life on earth is concerned because I have to say just on shallow, base examing it sure seems like huge amounts of coal smog affects a hell of lot more than a few monkeys in a jungle beating stuff with bones.
Look: most natural stuff is around because it has withstood millenia of evolutionary pressure. most of the bad stuff (bad, meaning "not sustainable" or "not fit for the world") died out. Nature is a tough mistress. She finds flaws and exploits them mercilessly.
What we are calling "unnatural" is really just "new"... or, more to the point, "relatively untested". Not many call cultivated or even naturally cross pollinated plants "unnatural" even though they are not the result of a random combination in nature. But many would call GMO plants unnatural... mainly because we haven't had them for a thousand years to see what happens with people who eat them vs people who don't.
It is absolutely reasonable and correct to trust something (if you're going to massively generalize, at least) that human beings have likely EVOLVED AROUND... such as, naturally grown, organic food... in an unchanged state, rather than some modern innovation which may or may not be better than all that came before, and that we will not know for sure until at least years, probably decades, and maybe even longer to see. Our recent modern history is littered with examples from baby formula to radium clocks to offgassing VOCs as examples of unintended downsides that are much less prevalent in "natural systems"... that is, the systems that have been around nearly as long as human beings themselves, or longer.
That is what it means to call something "natural". Meaning, "it's been around long enough to have a pretty clear understanding of the upsides and downsides" or maybe even "I probably have GENES that formed around this thing in me somewhere". Unnatural does not mean bad.. but it does mean you are much more likely to be unclear on how good or bad it really is, so far.
In other words, the "unnatural stuff" is COMPLETELY UNTESTED from an "evolutionary standpoint", which only cares about things on timeframes far, far longer than anything you in particular care about, since for it to have any evolutionary impact at all, you would have no way of knowing until the NEXT generation... at the earliest!
I don't give a fig about climate change (though I care a lot about environmental toxicity and resource depletion). But I do care when people act like tinkering on massive scales with basic life processes is the same as a monkey with a bone club. An ounce of perspective, please.
so there is a minor inconvenience in choosing a vastly superior technology for cost/cleanliness and maintenance. Assuming of course, that those features are true ;)
the point is, having a carpool is inconvenient too. But doing it makes very good sense, and failing to do it if it is possible is silly. Life is not really all about convenience. Granted, it's nice to not have to plan six months groceries for one trip to the "country store" a two day buggy ride away, but still... perhaps we could simply not necessarily demand every possible convenience before we make a better decision once in awhile?
thanks: so that basically indicates that we (america) are better at saving low birthweight babies, and we have a lot more of them than canada does. Neither I suppose is particularly surprising, we have great machines for those situations, and generally more polluted/less healthy lifestyles (as indicated by the mortality rates).
it does note that the study is not definitive and has a small sample size, but it's interesting, and thanks for the link and your contribution to my education.
How do you define "difficult" pregnancy? There are an awful lot of unnecessarily complicated pregnancies here (thanks, pitocin). Do they count as "complicated"?
I would like to see your source on this. Sincerely, as that would be an interesting study to ready.
did you read the whole article?
they have better life expectancy and infant mortality than america: while spending nearly 5.3% less of GDP and 1.8% less of total government revenue, and using that reduced amount to pay 24% more of their citizens health care costs. We do have more physicians and more nurses, but apparently that isn't helping us live longer or saving our babies.
In Canada, you wait when you need care. In America, you wait to find out if you need care until it's an emergency. Is that really an improvement?
You can eliminate taxes entirely, eliminate government control over your life entirely, and give your absolutely maximal freedom simply by moving to the middle of the woods somewhere.
Oddly, most people think that society offers them something a little better, and are willing to deal with taxes, some level of government control over some aspects of life, and some curtailment of their freedoms as a requirement for those benefits.
I know, it's bizarre, but there it is.
well that's not really true: again, Nuremberg set the precedent and as far as I know, that precedent has not been overturned or anything. I'm not an international law expert, so maybe I'm wrong, but that was my impression at least. Are you aware of any actual modern cases where it was determined that a person deserve NO guilt or punishment because they were "just following orders"?
Whether it is CORRECT to excuse people for doing great evil in the name of obedience, or not, however... I think that's quite clear and whether international law agrees or not, I think it's wrong. that's an opinion, for sure.
Understood. And being afraid to do what's right for fear of the repercussions is also called, "cowardice".
It is the unthinking submission to authority that I take umbrage with, and while it is useful in a firefight, it is not necessary for less urgent situations, such as the decision to torture someone.
If the chain of command is not able to tolerate conscientious questioning of non-urgent actions, then the chain of command is what needs to change.
I never claimed the level of responsibility was equivalent: only that "following orders" is not an excuse.
In america, it is also illegal to pay, order, or coerce other people into doing illegal things, not just in doing them yourself.
I wish you weren't modded flamebait, that's a little unfair.
as noted in my other post, the army field manual is clear on interrogation techniques that are allowed. That should not be difficult for a soldier to figure out. It is not a "fine line" at all.
Superiors ARE guilty and should be tried. But that would not clear me for, say, pulling out someone's fingernails. I could see for violations that are "on the line" and I'm sure a court would not be completely unsympathetic to such arguments. But it is not excusable behavior and would carry some sort of penalty at least... not the same as the superior's, though, not at all.
Obviously. But interrogation techniques ARE detailed in the army field manual. it's very clear.
and frankly, military being a little less effective at committing war crimes is not all bad, IMHO. Perhaps less morally ambiguous orders need to be given in the first place.
I agree that is how it SHOULD work. Sadly, it is not how it DOES work. and this case (torture under orders) should be treated no differently than any other heinous crime. Fix it all or none.
The Nuremberg trials established in international law that it is not an acceptable defense. Justifiable, sure, it's a reasonable thing to say. But it doesn't get you off the hook, and it shouldn't, you should be mindful enough of your own actions to not TORTURE SOMEONE because someone else told you to.
good point, but lynch mob protection is not achieved by obscuring the identity of the perpetrator if the charge is murder. Criminal charges are a matter of public record.