As long as the community has to pay for the consequences of your actions, the community is going to (attempt to) regulate your behavior. What Caesar pays for, Caesar controls. The more socialized this country becomes, the less free it will be.
Why is it easier for Slashdotters to believe in dark matter than it is to accept another's believe in a God?
Dark matter doesn't make a claim on one's life. The other replier who said, "dark matter doesn't damn you to hell for wanting to have sex", while wrong, illustrates this point. "If God doesn't want what I want then screw Him/Her/It/Them".
Parent is not flamebait. The title is misleading. Parent is not a comparison of features of native Linux vs. Windows, it is a comparison of Linux under Parallels vs. Windows under Parallels. I have the same issues running Fedora Core 5 under Parallels (couldn't get FC6 to work, despite how-to notes on the net). No copy & paste, no sharing of folders (except via network), no resizing of the VM window, etc. (Note: I just installed the latest Parallels beta and haven't run Linux yet...)
My instinctive reaction would be to say that the preservation of the established sentience must take priority.
I would say, if only one can be saved, save the one. But abortion, by and large, isn't about saving the mother. It's about convenience.
I don't agree that nature is in itself a viable source of morality...
An astute observation. Morality is solely a product of self-awareness. But here's where I think we'll fundamentally differ: I would argue that nature is the by product of design and we can learn from that design. I'm not going to be overly concerned about the loss of an unfertilized egg, because that is a part of nature's design. But it is also a part of nature's design that a fertilized egg, all other things being equal, come to term. If there is no design to nature, then there's no point in anyone arguing about anything; let the stronger impose their will on the weaker.
Simple: women have this right because they already end development all the time using just the natural functions of their body and mind.
Just curious, but what role does the mind play in a spontaneous abortion? You claim: the chance that an implantation actually happens is lower the less the woman wants to be pregnant. I'd be interested in seeing supporting documentation for this.
But the only property my abstraction fails to take into account is the potential for sentience, which is still under debate as an important property. So we're right back to this.
You think the potential for sentience isn't important, I do. I don't know how to resolve this.
And why do you dispute that? They do both have the potential to become a full human being.
I would argue that preventing fertilization is not equivalent to actively terminating a fertilized egg from growing. One is letting nature take it's course; the other is to actively prevent nature from taking its course. (Note that this argument borders on the religious; if there is no purpose to nature, then who cares?) One objection might be that medicine prevents nature from taking its course; so why not forbid medicine? And I have to fall back on what I think is self-evident, that life is better than death. The direction in which we turn the arrow is important.
For starters: to acknowledge that there is a war, to identify who/what the enemy is, and to agree that something must be done.
What the hell is an appeaser
Someone who placates an enemy. while incorrectly hoping that said placation will remove the source of enmity.
... because you refuse to acknowledge than people can disagree with you on whether or not a particular strategy will help or hurt the efforts against terrorism.
I did? Where?
Many, many people have seen the obvious, and acknowledge that our occupation of Iraq is a galvanizing force that draws people INTO the war against us. Our actions in Iraq are helping recruit people for a long war against us. Several government-funded studies have already arrived at this conclusion.
And why is this a bad thing? One could argue, for example, that flypaper is an effective tactic against flies. Once could also argue from history that the West has been at war with Islam for a long time and that the longer we delay, the less successful we will be. Please note that I don't necessarily agree with these statements, but they have been made. What I will say is that I believe that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the Western liberties of freedom of speech and religion. I will also say that Islam is an expansionist state building religion. In the long run, the two systems cannot co-exist and the world is getting smaller every day.
Don't fall for the talking-head BS that tells you that anyone who opposes the war in Iraq must be a terrorist appeaser. The idea that "liberals" are sitting around saying "how can we help the terrorists" may sell for Coulter, but it's stupid on its face. I can disagree with you on whether or not we should be in Iraq, just as I opposed our coddling and financing of Saddam in the 80s, without it meaning that I hate America. I realize that talking heads like Coulter and O'Reilly entertain their audiences with grossly oversimplified worldviews like that, but in reality hardly anyone who disagrees with you on something as complex as the occupation of a country is trying to "appease" the opponent.
You've put words into my mouth that I would not say -- and have not said.
I'm a Rational Atheist and I will not submit to _ANY_ religious law. Not those imposed by the Koran, the Torah, or the Bible.
If you were truly a "rational atheist" then you would have to agree that the only basis for morality, and therefore law, is personal preference. The direct corollary to this is "might makes right" (since individual personal preference is trumped by force -- you can't provide a preference if you are dead). This is why atheistic states are invariably totalitarian. Another factor to consider is that, if you believe the evolutionary biologists, man is hardwired for religion. That means that atheists will always be in the minority. Therefore, the only way for you to not submit to any religious law is to impose your own. But, since you're in the minority, you can't do that without force. So, once again, you're back to totalitarianism.
BTW, you might find it somewhat disconcerting to know that one of the foundational teachings of Christianity is that law does not work. There is no law, whether human or divine, that man will not break. This isn't unique to Christianity. Lao-Tzu said, "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be." In any case, the cure for this, obviously, is not more law.
If it doesn't have a nervous system, scoop it out. You don't feel bad when you swat a mosquito, do you?
Mosquito's have a nervous system. And, yes, I do feel bad. I'm not particularly fond of killing, regardless of the species. There was a mouse in our garage a few weeks ago. I had used a 2x4 to move back some of the clutter and saw it. My wife wanted me to bash it's little head in (she doesn't like them). I wouldn't do it and let it go.
I think you missed the point. There are lots of ways to fight philosophies. The ACLU is using one tactic. Al Qaeda another. It doesn't matter what side you're on; it is part of human nature to want to impose your particular worldview on someone else.
The only things that separate a dead human from a living human are a lack of sentience, and 'minor' things like cell damage and so on
I would argue that this isn't the correct abstraction. The better abstraction is the direction of life's "arrow". Unless you're God or Dr. Frankenstein, the flight of the arrow has ended and it cannot be reversed. This is not true for the embryo; the direction of it's arrow is toward life and sentience. It is therefore not our place to stop it.
Since the number of women out there having periods is far greater than the number of women having abortions, you should therefore focus your energies on preventing this tragedy
Might as well focus on stopping masturbation, too, since it's a waste of perfectly good semen (and kittens!). Are you sure you want to take this position? Your argument leads to the notion that nature itself is a tragedy.
Chemical plant worker scenario...
Are there any Jesuit readers who would like to comment on the intricacies of "sins of commission and sins of omission"?
It is an objective scientific fact that an embryo or a blastocyst has no neural structure. It is not sentient.
We agree.
It will become sentient if allowed to grow,
We'll come back to this in a moment...
it is not sentient, and that means it is not equivalent in value to a full human being.
Here's where your argument fails. Why is sentience the measure of the value of a human being? You've just injected your own personal view into the argument under the guise of science. But not only does science say no such thing, science can not validly say such a thing. Science deals with "is"; it is wholly incapable of dealing with "ought". Value judgments are not under the purview of science.
So why is something that, by your own words, "will become sentient if allowed to grow", of no value to you?
If you think a blastocyst or an embryo is actually equivalent to a full human life, you really should re-examine some facts.
What "facts" do you want me to re-examine? Human life is a continuum from conception to death. And if you disagree with that, that there is a discontinuity, you still have to answer why we have the right to end development before that point is passed.
You didn't say "-Islam", you said terror. Terror *is* an intangible.
Terror is a tactic.
And... do you seriously think there is anyone with the capability of actually forcing sharia law on us?
Today? No. But Europe will be fully Muslim within a generation or two (European birthrates are below the replacement threshold). And if you'll study your history, you'll find that Islam is a state building religion. They won't stop with Europe. It remains to be seen if Islam can be transformed into something compatible with Western notions of liberty.
How can the government possibly be small if they involve themselves with personal issues rooted in subjective morality like a woman's reproductive rights First, nobody is stopping a woman from having sex or becoming pregnant. What should be stopped is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. Second, that one of the functions of government is to prevent the strong from preying on the weak does not mean that government has to be involved in all areas. For example, I would wholeheartedly support the disbanding of the Department of Education, for example.
how can an open-ended war on an intangible opponent be considered fiscally responsible? First, I don't consider (insert politically correct modifier here)-Islam to be an intangible opponent. I will live under the U. S. Constitution; I will not submit to sharia law. Second, do you know what percentage of GDP is spent on the war? There is far more fiscal irresponsibility in the budget (the damned prescription drug plan, for example, not to mention social security and medicare).
Either you have a government that... I think you've offered up a false dilemma.
You (and people like you) are exactly why we are in this mess to begin with. Excuse me? We're in this mess because the candidates I once supported broke their promises and forsook their principles?
You "despise Democrats" and are "angry at the Republicans" rather than looking at the individuals in the various parties as individuals. That's because I have looked at the individuals that are on the ballot. There is one who I'll vote for without holding my nose (Rep. John Linder, author of the FairTax). If Zell Miller were running, he's one Democrat that I could support. If you haven't listened to his speech at the '04 Republican National Convention, I recommend it and it's free on iTunes.
For example, I have the choice of an incumbent "republican" governor who wants to end state income tax on seniors -- which in my view is fiscally irresponsible and a transparent effort to buy votes; or a democrat who wants to spend even more. A pox on both of them.
Worse, you don't even seem willing to vote for third-party candidates Give me a fiscally responsible, small government, pro-life candidate who supports the war on terror (appeasers need not apply) and I'll consider voting for them.
(their presence next election depends upon their votes in this one) And their votes depend on the stand they take on the issues today. It isn't my fault if they take positions that I cannot support.
That is the true disease of American politics: a combination of partisan behavior and apathy The true disease of American politics is that too many American's are welded to the public teat. They don't deserve to be called adults.
Me running for office is about as sensible as me trying out for American Idol. There are some things that I know I'm not good at. Dealing with people is one of them. I don't do well around incompetence, b.s., and politics. But I repeat myself.
Yes, we can write in candidates in the US. I may try it just to see how the thrice-cursed Diebold machines handle it. Now you've got me going on another reason to hate the idiots in government in Georgia. Voting machines with no paper trail. I've been writing software professionally for 34 years; I'll be damned if I'm going to trust a machine.
I don't know why parent was modded funny. As a right winger I'm so mad at the big spending, big government Republicans that I've almost talked myself into staying home in November. I don't know which is worse: how much I absolutely despise the Democrats or my anger at the Republicans. I wish ballots had "none of the above" which, if it "won", would force new elections with new candidates.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as the community has to pay for the consequences of your actions, the community is going to (attempt to) regulate your behavior. What Caesar pays for, Caesar controls. The more socialized this country becomes, the less free it will be.
Technology absent intelligence doesn't do anything. We're the problem, not the things we develop. "Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up."
Why is it easier for Slashdotters to believe in dark matter than it is to accept another's believe in a God?
Dark matter doesn't make a claim on one's life. The other replier who said, "dark matter doesn't damn you to hell for wanting to have sex", while wrong, illustrates this point. "If God doesn't want what I want then screw Him/Her/It/Them".
Parent is not flamebait. The title is misleading. Parent is not a comparison of features of native Linux vs. Windows, it is a comparison of Linux under Parallels vs. Windows under Parallels.
I have the same issues running Fedora Core 5 under Parallels (couldn't get FC6 to work, despite how-to notes on the net). No copy & paste, no sharing of folders (except via network), no resizing of the VM window, etc. (Note: I just installed the latest Parallels beta and haven't run Linux yet...)
Sleep well. Thanks for the excellent discussion.
BTW, you might find it somewhat disconcerting to know that one of the foundational teachings of Christianity is that law does not work. There is no law, whether human or divine, that man will not break. This isn't unique to Christianity. Lao-Tzu said, "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be." In any case, the cure for this, obviously, is not more law.
Mosquito's have a nervous system. And, yes, I do feel bad. I'm not particularly fond of killing, regardless of the species. There was a mouse in our garage a few weeks ago. I had used a 2x4 to move back some of the clutter and saw it. My wife wanted me to bash it's little head in (she doesn't like them). I wouldn't do it and let it go.
I think you missed the point. There are lots of ways to fight philosophies. The ACLU is using one tactic. Al Qaeda another. It doesn't matter what side you're on; it is part of human nature to want to impose your particular worldview on someone else.
So why is something that, by your own words, "will become sentient if allowed to grow", of no value to you?
How can the government possibly be small if they involve themselves with personal issues rooted in subjective morality like a woman's reproductive rights
First, nobody is stopping a woman from having sex or becoming pregnant. What should be stopped is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life. Second, that one of the functions of government is to prevent the strong from preying on the weak does not mean that government has to be involved in all areas. For example, I would wholeheartedly support the disbanding of the Department of Education, for example.
how can an open-ended war on an intangible opponent be considered fiscally responsible?
First, I don't consider (insert politically correct modifier here)-Islam to be an intangible opponent. I will live under the U. S. Constitution; I will not submit to sharia law. Second, do you know what percentage of GDP is spent on the war? There is far more fiscal irresponsibility in the budget (the damned prescription drug plan, for example, not to mention social security and medicare).
Either you have a government that...
I think you've offered up a false dilemma.
You (and people like you) are exactly why we are in this mess to begin with.
Excuse me? We're in this mess because the candidates I once supported broke their promises and forsook their principles?
You "despise Democrats" and are "angry at the Republicans" rather than looking at the individuals in the various parties as individuals.
That's because I have looked at the individuals that are on the ballot. There is one who I'll vote for without holding my nose (Rep. John Linder, author of the FairTax). If Zell Miller were running, he's one Democrat that I could support. If you haven't listened to his speech at the '04 Republican National Convention, I recommend it and it's free on iTunes.
For example, I have the choice of an incumbent "republican" governor who wants to end state income tax on seniors -- which in my view is fiscally irresponsible and a transparent effort to buy votes; or a democrat who wants to spend even more. A pox on both of them.
Worse, you don't even seem willing to vote for third-party candidates
Give me a fiscally responsible, small government, pro-life candidate who supports the war on terror (appeasers need not apply) and I'll consider voting for them.
(their presence next election depends upon their votes in this one)
And their votes depend on the stand they take on the issues today. It isn't my fault if they take positions that I cannot support.
That is the true disease of American politics: a combination of partisan behavior and apathy
The true disease of American politics is that too many American's are welded to the public teat. They don't deserve to be called adults.
You can probably make the military take the gloves off against Iraq because, after all, they don't look like 'us'.
Given that the U.S. is the world's melting-pot, just what does 'us' look like?
Dehumanising the enemy is very important to this kind of thing
Which cannot be done without dehumanizng yourself.
Me running for office is about as sensible as me trying out for American Idol. There are some things that I know I'm not good at. Dealing with people is one of them. I don't do well around incompetence, b.s., and politics. But I repeat myself.
Yes, we can write in candidates in the US. I may try it just to see how the thrice-cursed Diebold machines handle it. Now you've got me going on another reason to hate the idiots in government in Georgia. Voting machines with no paper trail. I've been writing software professionally for 34 years; I'll be damned if I'm going to trust a machine.
That's only because we care to try and limit civilian casualties. If we took the gloves off, they wouldn't stand a chance.
I don't know why parent was modded funny. As a right winger I'm so mad at the big spending, big government Republicans that I've almost talked myself into staying home in November. I don't know which is worse: how much I absolutely despise the Democrats or my anger at the Republicans. I wish ballots had "none of the above" which, if it "won", would force new elections with new candidates.