When you have spent a lifetime scratching together a life, you actually have something to lose. [...] Once you are forced to deal with the real world, things start to change from your ideal, let's make a utopian society to, let's try to keep my family safe and fed.
When you have "spent a lifetime," period, you should be mature enough to understand that taking sides according to your myopic goals focused on your current time and place in life, does not translate to what's optimal for the society as a whole, which, by the way, includes you.
An Anti-Gun liberal is just someone who's wife/daughter/fiancee hasn't been attacked.
And you are just someone who wasn't born into an impoverished/unjust family/community/society, and didn't have to work or smile four times as much just to earn the same status, respect, or opportunities that other children were born possessing.
If you're willing to say that the "young" don't know what theyr'e doing because they haven't yet experienced certain aspects of life, i.e. their future lives, then why stop there? What makes you think that you know what you're doing, given that you haven't experienced certain aspects of life either, e.g. other people's lives?
Oh, wait, I get it. It's too hard to imagine being born again with a new hand, different family, different culture, and/or different race, and you'll be damned if you ever have to use abstract thought again!
I'm asking because I don't know and I'm curious. How do regulators determine whether an order was "manipulative," e.g. an instance of "flashing"? If there's no outright penalty per entered order, it seems an HFT might be able to subjectively justify (come up with clever, alternate, sound-sounding reasons for) at least a subset of their orders, pretending the orders had a different purpose, or were results of "calculation mistakes," or valid orders whose expected opportunities faded quickly, etc., not acknowledging their main use as manipulations.
With all due respect, as I'm sure you are far more adept than I in reasoning, I think you may be mistaken in this case. GP has already provided some valid defenses in sibling comments, but I'll try to shed some light, in my own words.
"Why not let the parents decide if they want to abandon their newborn?" True, GP has substituted the question, but GP's point is that for some, "newborn" and "embryo" are not distinct. This is the very reason that GP has substituted the question, in order to make more clear the issue of begging the question, and I believe it is a valid substitution, given a hypothetical world where "newborn" is equivalent to "embryo". (For the record, I don't subscribe to that view. I'm only interested in the logical argument, here. GP may very well be on the same page.)
In other words, you say yourself that there is no consensus as to whether or not an embryo has rights. Then, we must consider both branches of hypothetical worlds. In one branch, you would have been correct that GP made a strawman argument--you cannot equivocate "newborn" and "embryo." However, in the other branch, and this is the branch GP was arguing, the substitution was valid, for in that hypothetical world, where an embryo has rights (in the same way that newborns do), it does seem wrong to assert, "Why not let the parents decide if they want to abandon their ___?", regardless whether we replace the blank with "newborn," "embryo," or "newbryo."
That said, I think GP has been dealt some great injustice in being modded Offtopic twice against your (incorrect but +5 Insightful) post.
I thought the advantage of allowing states to choose, was that institutions based on differing beliefs could still co-exist under one country. (I could be wrong though; this has always just been my intuitive guess.) Instead of fighting for one premise to be accepted by the entire country, we could allow people in each state to determine what premise is acceptable to them. For example, Tennessee might pick pro-life, and New York might pick pro-choice. That seems useful to me... I guess I view each state as a sort of sandbox environment for experimenting with laws, adjusted for its people.
(Regretfully, I slept through most social studies, history, government classes in grade school.)
Slashdot Mirror
...no, it's not.
Asking because I have no clue... Is this the kind of information that can be requested via the FOIA?
When you have spent a lifetime scratching together a life, you actually have something to lose. [...] Once you are forced to deal with the real world, things start to change from your ideal, let's make a utopian society to, let's try to keep my family safe and fed.
When you have "spent a lifetime," period, you should be mature enough to understand that taking sides according to your myopic goals focused on your current time and place in life, does not translate to what's optimal for the society as a whole, which, by the way, includes you.
An Anti-Gun liberal is just someone who's wife/daughter/fiancee hasn't been attacked.
And you are just someone who wasn't born into an impoverished/unjust family/community/society, and didn't have to work or smile four times as much just to earn the same status, respect, or opportunities that other children were born possessing.
If you're willing to say that the "young" don't know what theyr'e doing because they haven't yet experienced certain aspects of life, i.e. their future lives, then why stop there? What makes you think that you know what you're doing, given that you haven't experienced certain aspects of life either, e.g. other people's lives?
Oh, wait, I get it. It's too hard to imagine being born again with a new hand, different family, different culture, and/or different race, and you'll be damned if you ever have to use abstract thought again!
See: Rawls.
I'm asking because I don't know and I'm curious. How do regulators determine whether an order was "manipulative," e.g. an instance of "flashing"? If there's no outright penalty per entered order, it seems an HFT might be able to subjectively justify (come up with clever, alternate, sound-sounding reasons for) at least a subset of their orders, pretending the orders had a different purpose, or were results of "calculation mistakes," or valid orders whose expected opportunities faded quickly, etc., not acknowledging their main use as manipulations.
Whoosh...!
Whoosh...!
I hope not to be buried where you live.
With all due respect, as I'm sure you are far more adept than I in reasoning, I think you may be mistaken in this case. GP has already provided some valid defenses in sibling comments, but I'll try to shed some light, in my own words.
"Why not let the parents decide if they want to abandon their newborn?" True, GP has substituted the question, but GP's point is that for some, "newborn" and "embryo" are not distinct. This is the very reason that GP has substituted the question, in order to make more clear the issue of begging the question, and I believe it is a valid substitution, given a hypothetical world where "newborn" is equivalent to "embryo". (For the record, I don't subscribe to that view. I'm only interested in the logical argument, here. GP may very well be on the same page.)
In other words, you say yourself that there is no consensus as to whether or not an embryo has rights. Then, we must consider both branches of hypothetical worlds. In one branch, you would have been correct that GP made a strawman argument--you cannot equivocate "newborn" and "embryo." However, in the other branch, and this is the branch GP was arguing, the substitution was valid, for in that hypothetical world, where an embryo has rights (in the same way that newborns do), it does seem wrong to assert, "Why not let the parents decide if they want to abandon their ___?", regardless whether we replace the blank with "newborn," "embryo," or "newbryo."
That said, I think GP has been dealt some great injustice in being modded Offtopic twice against your (incorrect but +5 Insightful) post.
I thought the advantage of allowing states to choose, was that institutions based on differing beliefs could still co-exist under one country. (I could be wrong though; this has always just been my intuitive guess.) Instead of fighting for one premise to be accepted by the entire country, we could allow people in each state to determine what premise is acceptable to them. For example, Tennessee might pick pro-life, and New York might pick pro-choice. That seems useful to me... I guess I view each state as a sort of sandbox environment for experimenting with laws, adjusted for its people.
(Regretfully, I slept through most social studies, history, government classes in grade school.)