In a fantasy world... the sort of thing they would run as a "false flag" operation to look "strong"
Fantasy indeed. While there's no chance, I trust, of the Australian government running this kind of thing as a "false flag operation," success in politics consists of exploiting those circumstance fate throws in your direction.
Reality appears to be a violent idiot doing something counterproductive to his cause...
In the vaguest sense of 'cause.'
... and a government with no clue what to do about it.
It didn't end particularly well. Whether the LNP is able to extract any political capital from the event remains to be seen.
Balderdash. Judaism proper didn't yet exist in the days of David or Solomon. Prior to the days of Moses, yhvh was likely unknown to the Hebrew people.
During the monarchy there was worship of yhvh, and of Elohim (aka El Shadday... El *) (possibly even the notion central to Judaism that the two were identical) and clearly also other deities. Judaism, as we would understand it, needed to to wait till after the composition of the Torah, which didn't really coalesce until exilic/post-exilic times.
Abraham and Jesus can not accurately be describe as warlords.
Jesus certainly not. As far as Abram/Abraham is concerned, he is clearly described as a warlord in Gen 14.
Judaism is considered as founded byAbraham who precedes Moses by multiple centuries.
You can argue that either way. Your link is too garbled to discuss your source, but if it's the wikipedia article on Judasism that reads "Abraham is hailed as the first Hebrew and the father of the Jewish people..." Whereas "God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai" for which reason it is Moses that is usually considered the legendary "founder" of Judaism.
Yes, Moses can be described as a warlord, but as he was not the founder of Judaism (or any other religion) I fail to see your point!
Well the very historical existence of Moses can't be confirmed. However the character described as Moses, (ie as he appears in the Torah) is clearly the founder of henotheistic Yahwism (remember Abraham worshiped El instead). That is to say that strain of ancient Hebrew religious thought which would eventual win out over Hebrew polytheism (largely by authoring the text in exile) to become monotheistic Judaism.
So Moses can certainly be described as the legendary founder of Judaism.
... except for a couple cases of some lone wacko...
Isn't that very possibly what we are dealing with here? Some lone wacko in the Lindt cafe? I don't think it has been established (yet) that there are any accomplices, much less any organisation behind this.
IMO the high level of publicity given to this, fueled no doubt by our fear of Islam, is itself dangerous. Sure the fact that it's happening in Martin Place was always going to amplify it next to the more usual suburban day(s) hostage dramas. But hang out an Islamic flag and you get to shut down the entire heart of the city?... international press...
What's does that telling serious terror groups? Not it was preventable... reporters will report.
And there's still the possibility that said lone wacko (and friends imaginary or otherwise) could still kill someone of course.
Is it still being anti science when you point out predictions that don't come true ?
It certainly is being "anti-science" when you seek to misrepresent the science as you have done here.
Within the science of climate change that regarding hurricane (and other tropical storm) formation is famously unsettled.
As far as model predictions, these seem to favour a probable decrease in the frequency of formation (along with a possible increase in intensity) (Knutson et. al.). But, in distinct contradistinction to warming itself and its attribution, I doubt any climate scientist would confidently express a relationship between AGW and storm activity at this stage.
Race (as the term is typically used) does not refer to any actual scientifically based genetic lineage, whereas species does. Clan again is not a scientifically based objective criteria for selection.
The purely scientific status of these constructs is of no relevance. You are presuming to answer a legal question --whether a Chimpanzee ought to be regarded as a person at law --not a scientific one.
Suffice that they are cultural constructs by which individuals classify themselves and each other. Thus, in applying your criterion, an individual would be capable of perceiving a self interest ("the only [legal] basis needed") in advancing, over and above other races and clans, the interests of that group to which they belong.
You... refer to a rationale based not on an objective reality but rather a cold legal technicality as satisfying.
This being a question of law no rationale other than a legal one is even appropriate. Seriously!
It will no more do to answer technical questions of law by recourse to biology (as opposed on occasion to legal questions of fact) than it would to attempt to legislate to flatten out the earth. Oh, and I think you'll find the law, though it may not be corporeal, is nonetheless very real.
Your rational[e] would dictate that both the humans and the corporation (which exists only on paper) should have equal rights.
It's not my rationale, "it's the law, stupid." And no, natural persons and corporate persons, though they share many of the aspects of legal personality, do not have equal rights (and are distinct legal classifications for that reason). Specifically there can be no question of habeas corpus applying to a corporation. So your observations regarding corporations here are impertinent.
So, who among us believes a person should be given the death penalty or put in prison for an attempt to "kill" a corporation?
(Speaking of "nonsense"...) Not anyone with the least understanding of law. Do you?
Even the most average 2 yr. old human is vastly more intelligent than the most cultured of monkeys.
And what logical connection does that have to anything under discussion? Oh, sorry I forgot...
Any imbecile can see that the commonality of DNA between two critters is irrelevant to their relative intelligences.
As to what any imbecile might see you may have the advantage. However, were we to consider this logically we should begin by noting that the observation that "[c]himpanzees are genetically closer to us that they are to the other great apes" hardly proves, nor even suggests, the essential irrelevance of genetic factors in making up intelligence, (say for example as between different humans).
Even in considering the "relative intelligences" of humans and chimps, the question of what a "cultured monkey" might be capable of compared to a 2 yr old human has no bearing on the question. Rather the question must be whether the intelligence of the chimpanzee more closely resembles that of the human than do the intelligences of "the other great apes."
s/Animal Life/Non-Human Species/... or better still read "Animal Life" in context (as as that to which humans are being opposed). It's not difficult to comprehend the intended communication here. Really!
That being said parent post is still silly. That is not the "basis" that is needed, and moreover it finds its reductio ad absurdum via race, clan and family in pure sociopathy.
All that was needed was the lack of any precedent whatsoever of an animal being afforded legal personality and the fact that a chimpanzee is not in the nature of a person. For as the court, here quoting Black's explains: "Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes."
... unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions. In our view, it is this incapability to bear any legal responsibilities and societal duties that renders it inappropriate to confer upon chimpanzees the legal rights – such as the fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus – that have been afforded to human beings.
YMMV, but I find that a rather more satisfying rationale than "the only basis needed is self interest."
You will never see any prodigy say, "I played video games all the time."
FWIW, Civilization (IV and V) has inspired my son to take an active interest in history, cartography and languages. What the brain takes from the environment depends on the brain as well.
Yes, yes, i understand you - you don't understand me (and Greek, and Greek Orthodox theology!).
Well I'm glad I've articulated my position more successfully than you.;) As regards Greek Orthodox theology, how would you know what I understand of it? I've not addressed it. Now it is true that I have rather more understanding of Western theology than Gk Orthodox, but for present purposes I'm assumed nothing more about your theology than that you do not believe God (except as incarnated in the person of Jesus) is corporeal.
[B]ut you choose that theoretical accusation because i am Greek?
No, not at all. I wouldn't especially associate paedophilia with Greeks (the etymology of the term notwithstanding). Nor with homosexuality for that matter. Rather the particular infamy of that charge was meant to dramatise the intolerable situation we should descend into, once we were to abandon the ancient precept pertaining to onus.
To call someone an atheist is an accusations of the most heinous crime.
Only where it is a crime to be so enlightened. I think you might find more people might object to being called a paedophile than an atheist (even among believers).
[I]n the Greek Orthodox theology it's not even posible to be without God since... its not posible!
That may be so in G.O theology, but since we have not yet been able to discover God anywhere outside your head, we are getting a little ahead of ourselves to deem it impossible for anyone else to be without him. More to the point it would be a mistake overly to fall back to the Greek etymology of the term when it has a clear meaning (relating to personal belief) in the language we are speaking. Thus the OED defines the 'atheist' in the first sense to mean "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God." Nor need we even use the term. I'm not particularly wedded to the word 'atheist' and actually prefer, when challenged as to my religious affiliation, to call myself simply a 'non-believer.'
Goddsess? blasphemy!
Not to the goddess worshiper, it's not! God, Goddess, it's all the same to me. I just wanted to emphasise that we were speaking about some abstract human-like creator, not in particular that god that is in your head. In any case, being Greek orthodox you surely don't harbour the fervent anti-Marianism of the anglophone churches?
Agnostic: the blind and deaf theist! You - curable
Again the OED has 'agnostic' meaning: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God." Yes agnostics are blind, but unlike all the other blind people possess at least the humility to admit they do not know that which they cannot know.
As far as a cure, from my perspective, it is not I who needs to be cured. It is you who has fallen from the light of truth into the darkness of fable. Not that I should wish to cure you, mind. If a belief is capable of providing succor to a fellow sufferer in the vale of tears, far be it from me to disabuse them thereof. And in any case, were your beliefs to lead you to behave according to the highest ethical standards demanded by Jesus of his followers, (and I must say, I find it difficult to reconcile an admitted racism with those moral imperatives), I should have no ground to complain.
But now to the crux of the matter...
So, because of the "contra principia negantem non est disputandum" YOU must accept that YOU are a theist (having God in you) else we cannot have a discusion!
You are exactly correct. Just as you are to me the barbarian who will not recognise the need to provide proof for your assertion that "God exists," so I am the wild man who regards what is for you axiomatic as the very thing to be established. There is then, on both those sides, little prospect of meaningful dialogue.
I hope at least that you may have benefited from practising your English with me.
... with the exception of the top link or two that shows a very minor environmental group or small numbers of environmentalists in favor of nuclear, most links demonstrate that the environmental movement is still very much anti-nuclear.
It will surprise no one that a majority of people identifying as 'environmentalists' remain opposed to nuclear energy. But that was not what the post I was replying to was claiming. Instead it was denying that those in favour of nuclear energy could be environmentalists, but were instead "conservationists." As the second (as it was when I searched) link [to the Wikipedia list] shows, that us palbably untrue. Indeed there are a number of very high profile environmentalist who are in favour of nuclear energy as among the most practicable means of reducing fossil fuel use.
Before I go, I'd hate to leave you with the impression (as the Wikipedia article might), that penalty clauses will always and in every case be unenforceable. A famous exception flowing from the decision in Peachy v Duke of Somerset (1720) 1 Strange 447 [93 ER 626] where the penalty doctrine will not protect you from a penalty clause should the loss to the other party not be quantifiable in money terms.
The point is that law is never simple. The best wishes of the layperson notwithstanding, the Law cannot easily be intuited, nor even unambiguously discerned from the observation of its apparent operation in everyday life. Even those with legal training are uncertain about its operation (actually we're more uncertain because of our greater knowledge of the uncertainties). The take home lesson here is simply, when you see what might be construed as a penalty clause in a contract, alarm bells should go off. That being the case it should have been obvious to me from the start there was only a vanishingly small possibility that university lawyers would chose any service agreement by which to institute the fines, a fortiori when an explicit statutory power to levy fines exists. My bad.
Oh, good, in that case nobody has to pay early termination penalties.
Are you always this impudent when presented with new information?
As I wrote "... in excess of the loss which could be recovered (here lost potential earnings) or a fair quantity of liquidated damages (via an agreed termination clause)." At common law a clause allowing you to recover, via termination penalties more money that you could have have possibly earned under the entire contract, would be judged to be a penalty clause and would thus be unenforceable. OK? Of course as regards employment law statutory considerations may impinge.
Since 'Christ' specifically addresses the putative divine nature of the person, perhaps "brother in Jesus" is more accurate. But even that would be to overstate it.
But your "affirmanti" and 'neganti" are "not in the right order" plus your "incumbit probatio" is "out of order"... i, the theist, don't have to prove nothing to you, the atheist, because YOU, the A-theist, is the one making the claim that I, the theist, am... A-theist!
I'm sorry but that is simply wrong, perhaps you don't understand my position. I am making no ontological assertion about God. I am not asserting either "God is" nor am I asserting "God is not." As I said, it makes me angry too when atheists claim "God does not exist," for that statement is an assertion (and thus demands proof).
You are asserting "God is," I'm simply denying it, which is to say, demanding proof. My point about paedophilia was not to insult you, but merely to point out that, should we abandon this fundamental principle of the Western canon (that the onus of proof rests with the one making an assertion rather than the one denying that assertion is true), we should all be subject to accusations of the most heinous crimes and should be constantly required to clear our good name. That will not do!
If you are unable to accept this basal principle of rational discourse, then another Latin dictum must come into play, namely, contra principia negantem non est disputandum.
so you are an "agnostic"... hmmm... o.k.! But you are NOT an A-theist
Atheist: one who denies the existence of gods (but not necessarily asserts their non-existence). Agnostic: one who claims all questions of gods and the supernatural are inherently unknowable. While it is possible to be an atheist without being an agnostic, it is not possible to be an agnostic without being an atheist, since in not accepting "God is" as a true statement (and an agnostic does not accept it as true) one satisfies the criterion of atheism.
Remember that my belief in God is not belief without knowledge of God but belief with knowledge of God - that is, i have pesonally met the guy
Of course you have, he is, as you say, "existant" in your head. I've no doubt of that (though I do not accept your belief in God is itself divine), but you still have not addressed where else he could possibly be.
... like some of our "strange" USA brothers that are more "Jewish" -i mean it in a spiritual way- than Christians!
Well I cannot disagree with you there. I once found someone on/. writing (re capital punishment) "I'm a Christian, so I believe in an eye for an eye," to which I responded, "... just keeping reading! There's this character who comes in a little later,... called Jesus, maybe you've heard of him... who has a slightly different gloss on that." It seems that Bible for them is the OT, then they skip over all that embarrassing left-wing loving your neighbour stuff in the Gospels and directly on to Corinthians...." But this is a different story (one that begins with Luther's principle "that faith and not works is the source of grace.")
Exploring God through science...
Assuming for the sake of argument some self-reflective intelligence exists (let's call her Dea) who bears responsibility for the creation of the cosmos: Then science would be the study of the works of Dea Herself. Bible study is inevitably the study of human literature and would therefore add the filter of other self-reflective intelligences obscuring the original intelligence of the creatrix. Study science instead and hear to the voice of the Goddess itself.
And in any case, have you ever studied protein replication?! Our DNA is literally a programming language (containing only 4 symbols
I work to a simple rule, be polite to me and I'll be polite to you.
I see you are good in Latin...
I'm not. I had to learn these legal dicta at Law School.
... "It should suffice to remember that affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio" - when a theist states what he knows it's the atheist that must (only if he disagrees) prove him wrong
No, no, no. Quite the opposite! If I were to say (I'm not) "I know you to be paedophile," it is not the person who disagrees with my claim (the neganti) who must "prove me wrong." It is I (as the affirmanti) upon whom the onus of proof is incumbent (incumbit probatio). That principle (as spelled out in the affirmanti dictum) is essential to any rational intercourse. No positive assertion can lie be above it.
Thus the assertion "God exists" (putting to one side what that might mean for a moment) needs to be proven, not the denial, "I don't accept that God exists."
But even without meeting him the conclusion that "God does not exists because... science/proofs/evil/etc" is illogical, and i confess that i get a little angry when (religious) atheist use these claims pretending to be the logical ones in a conversation
It makes me angry too. Precisely because it is not for the non-believer ever to utter the sentence "God does not exist." It is completely foolish to assert the actual non-existence of something when one means simply to deny it's existence. That may seem like a fine point (which is no doubt why so many fall prey to this error), but it's for the believer to show that "God exists," and the not for non-believer even to make any positive ontological claims regarding the proposed diety. And, assuming for the sake of argument God does not exist, what evidence could one possibly have to establish the non-existence of a non-existing thing with the attributes predicated to this God?
In case this difference is not clear, take this example: Life on other planets. It is a completely different thing to state "I don't accept the existence of extra-terrestrial life" (perhaps because there is no evidence of it) from stating "there is no life on other planets" (and imagine the evidence you would need to prove that!!)
Any reasonable atheist must therefore, IMO, be an agnostic (in the orginal sense of the word, ie. the subject matter of gods and supernatural claims is literally unknowable... being Greek you get that of course). That is the agnostic holds both statements, "God exists," and "God does not exist" as inherently unprovable. An agnostic, in not accepting the statement "God exists" as true, is therefore unavoidably also an atheist.
Best thing for you, a critical thinking person, is to explore God by reading the Bible (start with the New Testament - unfortunatly, even the best English translation is problematic...
With all due respect, as intellectual stimulating as I find the analysis of ancient texts, my reading the Bible, would not involve "exploring God," so much as exploring the cultural and material conditions which gave rise to the various conceptions of gods (as well as other matters of interest that might emerge from the text). Were it my wish to explore God, I should more likely either study quantum physics or protein replication, or listen to Arvo Pärt.;)
Also despite the fact that ethically I'm extremely close to the position outlined by Jesus (sans the supernatural) and I'm not above quoting him, I find the NT no where near as interesting as the OT. I was, some time ago, an avid student of the earlier Hebrew scriptures. A complex multi-layered text and a fascinating window into the iron-age. I agree, transl
[S]o yes, in this case "i treat 'believing' as a synonym for 'knowing,' "
But in the case of, "I believe you are mistaken," you don't? Yes?
In other words 'God' makes this a special privileged belief, not subject to the problematic difference between belief and knowledge which might occupy a rational epistemology. 'God' as the fullstop to inquiry again.
I do not know whether any god "exists" --in fact I don't even understand what kind of existence is being claimed for God --however I do believe you are mistaken to find yourself in possession of definitive knowledge of such putative form of existence, a fortiori the fact that a god, (known as God), enjoys it.
[A]nd no, i don't use 'God' "as a word by which to avoid inquiring into the more profound problems of our existence"... on the contrary
I understand that is how you feel, but you clearly do. Tell me this: Why is there something, rather than nothing.
[From your other post]... AND for recognizing this "Slashdot mindthink"
Heaven forbid one should use one's mind actually to think! If perchance you meant groupthink, well that's a fine accusation to come from the believer of a folie en masse.
... plus the usual illogical claim "if something can't be proven scientifically does not exist"
You would never catch me making that claim, but perhaps you prefer to argue about imaginary beings with imaginary interlocutors?
It should suffice to remember that affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio. That is to say the onus of proof any assertion lies with the party making the assertion. No one should ever be required to prove the non-existence of an object, the existence of which someone asserts but for which evidence of existence is lacking. Moreover, while it is correct to point out (as you have) that lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence, that does not mean it is not evidence of non-existence.
That is the basic logic pertaining to any member of the set of putative objects for which no evidence of their existence exists. In the case of the particular claim "God exists" however, there is an even greater difficulty.
For God, by definition, lacks any material existence (body). No one, neither believer or reasoner, I think, would dispute that God exists in a mental/cultural sense (mind): as a word (for instance as the translation of the 3rd word of the Hebrew scriptures); as a character in that most interesting of texts; as concept; and as a belief in some people's minds. But surely the existence claimed for God, by believers, must be greater than that?
Given we have access (knowledge) only the states of existence of body ('science' as you call it) and mind, what evidence could we even access about this other putative state of existence?! What does 'exist' even mean (to humans) in the statement "God exists"? Thus you face the difficulty in, as I wrote above, both of evidencing a novel state of existence beyond the realm of human apprehension and only then are you in a position even to show that God partakes of it.
Given these --for creatures of mind and body insurmountable --difficulties, God turns out to be an unworkable foundation for knowledge. But if you don't want to think to hard about these problems, 'God' is a good way to stop yourself from doing so.
The single most serious error in your English is to treat 'believing' as a synonym for 'knowing,' as in the statement "anyone with a belief in God knows already..." Rather they believe more than "science" (which is, in this context, I guess you mean material factors), is required to become alive.
Before the usual slashdot crowd start shouting "blasphemy, blasphemy, a believer in God inside our atheistic/. temple" i must remind them that this is about a professor of philosophy writing about stuff that we religious people ardifficult ande experts in, so, here we are...
The mere fact that you imagine yourself an expert in what the good professor is writing about, is no shield from complaints about your lack of epistemological rigour. 'God' is being used here as a word by which to avoid inquiring into the more profound problems of our existence.
They are very clearly collecting a fine not a fee. It is not for goods or services rendered or to be rendered, but as punishment for breach of the university by-laws.
I don't know about NSW, but in other jurisdictions if you knowingly profit from the infringement (charging a fee to the infringer), and you facilitate the infringement (by providing the computer network), then you become liable for the infringement as well, or you may be a contributory infringer.
The fine is an additional punishment to disconnection from the network for the rest of the semester. This is not the kind of situation which an ISP in both collecting a fee, providing access while turning a blind eye might face. Here the university charges a fee for access (via the general fees), obviously does not turn a blind eye, but instead upon breach both removes access and additionally levies a fine.
The by-law enacted and the fines consequently levied are unambiguously for the purpose of augmenting the disincentive unlawfully to download protected materials. This is the very opposite of facilitating infringement.
It's no different from others...
Let me guess, you're not a lawyer are you? It's always different...;)
Slashdot Mirror
In a fantasy world ... the sort of thing they would run as a "false flag" operation to look "strong"
Fantasy indeed. While there's no chance, I trust, of the Australian government running this kind of thing as a "false flag operation," success in politics consists of exploiting those circumstance fate throws in your direction.
Reality appears to be a violent idiot doing something counterproductive to his cause ...
In the vaguest sense of 'cause.'
It didn't end particularly well. Whether the LNP is able to extract any political capital from the event remains to be seen.
Judaism existed prior to Moses.
Balderdash. Judaism proper didn't yet exist in the days of David or Solomon. Prior to the days of Moses, yhvh was likely unknown to the Hebrew people.
During the monarchy there was worship of yhvh, and of Elohim (aka El Shadday ... El *) (possibly even the notion central to Judaism that the two were identical) and clearly also other deities. Judaism, as we would understand it, needed to to wait till after the composition of the Torah, which didn't really coalesce until exilic/post-exilic times.
Abraham and Jesus can not accurately be describe as warlords.
Jesus certainly not. As far as Abram/Abraham is concerned, he is clearly described as a warlord in Gen 14.
Judaism is considered as founded byAbraham who precedes Moses by multiple centuries.
You can argue that either way. Your link is too garbled to discuss your source, but if it's the wikipedia article on Judasism that reads "Abraham is hailed as the first Hebrew and the father of the Jewish people ..." Whereas "God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai" for which reason it is Moses that is usually considered the legendary "founder" of Judaism.
Yes, Moses can be described as a warlord, but as he was not the founder of Judaism (or any other religion) I fail to see your point!
Well the very historical existence of Moses can't be confirmed. However the character described as Moses, (ie as he appears in the Torah) is clearly the founder of henotheistic Yahwism (remember Abraham worshiped El instead). That is to say that strain of ancient Hebrew religious thought which would eventual win out over Hebrew polytheism (largely by authoring the text in exile) to become monotheistic Judaism.
So Moses can certainly be described as the legendary founder of Judaism.
But as soon as this is over, you can bet the poo is going to be flung in all directions in parliament and the media.
This is the sort of event the government needs to leverage if are to have a chance to re-float their electoral prospects.
Isn't that very possibly what we are dealing with here? Some lone wacko in the Lindt cafe? I don't think it has been established (yet) that there are any accomplices, much less any organisation behind this.
IMO the high level of publicity given to this, fueled no doubt by our fear of Islam, is itself dangerous. Sure the fact that it's happening in Martin Place was always going to amplify it next to the more usual suburban day(s) hostage dramas. But hang out an Islamic flag and you get to shut down the entire heart of the city? ... international press ...
What's does that telling serious terror groups? Not it was preventable ... reporters will report.
And there's still the possibility that said lone wacko (and friends imaginary or otherwise) could still kill someone of course.
Hmm. I was pretty sure my maths was sketchy - but now I have actual proof!
It's not that difficult: You choose either (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) or (Problem, Reaction, Solution). Either was you end up with three words. :)
Is it still being anti science when you point out predictions that don't come true ?
It certainly is being "anti-science" when you seek to misrepresent the science as you have done here.
Within the science of climate change that regarding hurricane (and other tropical storm) formation is famously unsettled.
As far as model predictions, these seem to favour a probable decrease in the frequency of formation (along with a possible increase in intensity) (Knutson et. al.). But, in distinct contradistinction to warming itself and its attribution, I doubt any climate scientist would confidently express a relationship between AGW and storm activity at this stage.
Race (as the term is typically used) does not refer to any actual scientifically based genetic lineage, whereas species does. Clan again is not a scientifically based objective criteria for selection.
The purely scientific status of these constructs is of no relevance. You are presuming to answer a legal question --whether a Chimpanzee ought to be regarded as a person at law --not a scientific one.
Suffice that they are cultural constructs by which individuals classify themselves and each other. Thus, in applying your criterion, an individual would be capable of perceiving a self interest ("the only [legal] basis needed") in advancing, over and above other races and clans, the interests of that group to which they belong.
You ... refer to a rationale based not on an objective reality but rather a cold legal technicality as satisfying.
This being a question of law no rationale other than a legal one is even appropriate. Seriously!
It will no more do to answer technical questions of law by recourse to biology (as opposed on occasion to legal questions of fact) than it would to attempt to legislate to flatten out the earth. Oh, and I think you'll find the law, though it may not be corporeal, is nonetheless very real.
Your rational[e] would dictate that both the humans and the corporation (which exists only on paper) should have equal rights.
It's not my rationale, "it's the law, stupid." And no, natural persons and corporate persons, though they share many of the aspects of legal personality, do not have equal rights (and are distinct legal classifications for that reason). Specifically there can be no question of habeas corpus applying to a corporation. So your observations regarding corporations here are impertinent.
So, who among us believes a person should be given the death penalty or put in prison for an attempt to "kill" a corporation?
(Speaking of "nonsense" ...) Not anyone with the least understanding of law. Do you?
Really?
Apparently.
Even the most average 2 yr. old human is vastly more intelligent than the most cultured of monkeys.
And what logical connection does that have to anything under discussion? Oh, sorry I forgot ...
Any imbecile can see that the commonality of DNA between two critters is irrelevant to their relative intelligences.
As to what any imbecile might see you may have the advantage. However, were we to consider this logically we should begin by noting that the observation that "[c]himpanzees are genetically closer to us that they are to the other great apes" hardly proves, nor even suggests, the essential irrelevance of genetic factors in making up intelligence, (say for example as between different humans).
Even in considering the "relative intelligences" of humans and chimps, the question of what a "cultured monkey" might be capable of compared to a 2 yr old human has no bearing on the question. Rather the question must be whether the intelligence of the chimpanzee more closely resembles that of the human than do the intelligences of "the other great apes."
That means DNA is essentially irrelevant to the question of intelligence.
You must have missed out on the logic gene.
s/Animal Life/Non-Human Species/ ... or better still read "Animal Life" in context (as as that to which humans are being opposed). It's not difficult to comprehend the intended communication here. Really!
That being said parent post is still silly. That is not the "basis" that is needed, and moreover it finds its reductio ad absurdum via race, clan and family in pure sociopathy.
All that was needed was the lack of any precedent whatsoever of an animal being afforded legal personality and the fact that a chimpanzee is not in the nature of a person. For as the court, here quoting Black's explains: "Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes."
... unlike human beings, chimpanzees cannot bear any legal duties, submit to societal responsibilities or be held legally accountable for their actions. In our view, it is this incapability to bear any legal responsibilities and societal duties that renders it inappropriate to confer upon chimpanzees the legal rights – such as the fundamental right to liberty protected by the writ of habeas corpus – that have been afforded to human beings.
YMMV, but I find that a rather more satisfying rationale than "the only basis needed is self interest."
I had never heard of "microagression" before this article.
Neither had I. It was the only thing I took away from this sad collection of platitudes.
You will never see any prodigy say, "I played video games all the time."
FWIW, Civilization (IV and V) has inspired my son to take an active interest in history, cartography and languages. What the brain takes from the environment depends on the brain as well.
Yes, yes, i understand you - you don't understand me (and Greek, and Greek Orthodox theology!).
Well I'm glad I've articulated my position more successfully than you. ;) As regards Greek Orthodox theology, how would you know what I understand of it? I've not addressed it. Now it is true that I have rather more understanding of Western theology than Gk Orthodox, but for present purposes I'm assumed nothing more about your theology than that you do not believe God (except as incarnated in the person of Jesus) is corporeal.
[B]ut you choose that theoretical accusation because i am Greek?
No, not at all. I wouldn't especially associate paedophilia with Greeks (the etymology of the term notwithstanding). Nor with homosexuality for that matter. Rather the particular infamy of that charge was meant to dramatise the intolerable situation we should descend into, once we were to abandon the ancient precept pertaining to onus.
To call someone an atheist is an accusations of the most heinous crime.
Only where it is a crime to be so enlightened. I think you might find more people might object to being called a paedophile than an atheist (even among believers).
[I]n the Greek Orthodox theology it's not even posible to be without God since... its not posible!
That may be so in G.O theology, but since we have not yet been able to discover God anywhere outside your head, we are getting a little ahead of ourselves to deem it impossible for anyone else to be without him. More to the point it would be a mistake overly to fall back to the Greek etymology of the term when it has a clear meaning (relating to personal belief) in the language we are speaking. Thus the OED defines the 'atheist' in the first sense to mean "One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God." Nor need we even use the term. I'm not particularly wedded to the word 'atheist' and actually prefer, when challenged as to my religious affiliation, to call myself simply a 'non-believer.'
Goddsess? blasphemy!
Not to the goddess worshiper, it's not! God, Goddess, it's all the same to me. I just wanted to emphasise that we were speaking about some abstract human-like creator, not in particular that god that is in your head. In any case, being Greek orthodox you surely don't harbour the fervent anti-Marianism of the anglophone churches?
Agnostic: the blind and deaf theist! You - curable
Again the OED has 'agnostic' meaning: "A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of immaterial things, especially of the existence or nature of God." Yes agnostics are blind, but unlike all the other blind people possess at least the humility to admit they do not know that which they cannot know.
As far as a cure, from my perspective, it is not I who needs to be cured. It is you who has fallen from the light of truth into the darkness of fable. Not that I should wish to cure you, mind. If a belief is capable of providing succor to a fellow sufferer in the vale of tears, far be it from me to disabuse them thereof. And in any case, were your beliefs to lead you to behave according to the highest ethical standards demanded by Jesus of his followers, (and I must say, I find it difficult to reconcile an admitted racism with those moral imperatives), I should have no ground to complain.
But now to the crux of the matter ...
So, because of the "contra principia negantem non est disputandum" YOU must accept that YOU are a theist (having God in you) else we cannot have a discusion!
You are exactly correct. Just as you are to me the barbarian who will not recognise the need to provide proof for your assertion that "God exists," so I am the wild man who regards what is for you axiomatic as the very thing to be established. There is then, on both those sides, little prospect of meaningful dialogue.
I hope at least that you may have benefited from practising your English with me.
It will surprise no one that a majority of people identifying as 'environmentalists' remain opposed to nuclear energy. But that was not what the post I was replying to was claiming. Instead it was denying that those in favour of nuclear energy could be environmentalists, but were instead "conservationists." As the second (as it was when I searched) link [to the Wikipedia list] shows, that us palbably untrue. Indeed there are a number of very high profile environmentalist who are in favour of nuclear energy as among the most practicable means of reducing fossil fuel use.
Before I go, I'd hate to leave you with the impression (as the Wikipedia article might), that penalty clauses will always and in every case be unenforceable. A famous exception flowing from the decision in Peachy v Duke of Somerset (1720) 1 Strange 447 [93 ER 626] where the penalty doctrine will not protect you from a penalty clause should the loss to the other party not be quantifiable in money terms.
The point is that law is never simple. The best wishes of the layperson notwithstanding, the Law cannot easily be intuited, nor even unambiguously discerned from the observation of its apparent operation in everyday life. Even those with legal training are uncertain about its operation (actually we're more uncertain because of our greater knowledge of the uncertainties). The take home lesson here is simply, when you see what might be construed as a penalty clause in a contract, alarm bells should go off. That being the case it should have been obvious to me from the start there was only a vanishingly small possibility that university lawyers would chose any service agreement by which to institute the fines, a fortiori when an explicit statutory power to levy fines exists. My bad.
Maybe in the 1980s you could be forgiven, but post-interwebs there's really no excuse for this kind of ignorance.
Seeing how humans are animals ...
Those whacky anti-nuke guys ... gotta love 'em.
Oh, good, in that case nobody has to pay early termination penalties.
Are you always this impudent when presented with new information?
As I wrote "... in excess of the loss which could be recovered (here lost potential earnings) or a fair quantity of liquidated damages (via an agreed termination clause)." At common law a clause allowing you to recover, via termination penalties more money that you could have have possibly earned under the entire contract, would be judged to be a penalty clause and would thus be unenforceable. OK? Of course as regards employment law statutory considerations may impinge.
brother in Christ
Since 'Christ' specifically addresses the putative divine nature of the person, perhaps "brother in Jesus" is more accurate. But even that would be to overstate it.
But your "affirmanti" and 'neganti" are "not in the right order" plus your "incumbit probatio" is "out of order"... i, the theist, don't have to prove nothing to you, the atheist, because YOU, the A-theist, is the one making the claim that I, the theist, am... A-theist!
I'm sorry but that is simply wrong, perhaps you don't understand my position. I am making no ontological assertion about God. I am not asserting either "God is" nor am I asserting "God is not." As I said, it makes me angry too when atheists claim "God does not exist," for that statement is an assertion (and thus demands proof).
You are asserting "God is," I'm simply denying it, which is to say, demanding proof. My point about paedophilia was not to insult you, but merely to point out that, should we abandon this fundamental principle of the Western canon (that the onus of proof rests with the one making an assertion rather than the one denying that assertion is true), we should all be subject to accusations of the most heinous crimes and should be constantly required to clear our good name. That will not do!
If you are unable to accept this basal principle of rational discourse, then another Latin dictum must come into play, namely, contra principia negantem non est disputandum.
so you are an "agnostic"... hmmm... o.k.! But you are NOT an A-theist
Atheist: one who denies the existence of gods (but not necessarily asserts their non-existence). Agnostic: one who claims all questions of gods and the supernatural are inherently unknowable. While it is possible to be an atheist without being an agnostic, it is not possible to be an agnostic without being an atheist, since in not accepting "God is" as a true statement (and an agnostic does not accept it as true) one satisfies the criterion of atheism.
Remember that my belief in God is not belief without knowledge of God but belief with knowledge of God - that is, i have pesonally met the guy
Of course you have, he is, as you say, "existant" in your head. I've no doubt of that (though I do not accept your belief in God is itself divine), but you still have not addressed where else he could possibly be.
Well I cannot disagree with you there. I once found someone on /. writing (re capital punishment) "I'm a Christian, so I believe in an eye for an eye," to which I responded, " ... just keeping reading! There's this character who comes in a little later, ... called Jesus, maybe you've heard of him ... who has a slightly different gloss on that." It seems that Bible for them is the OT, then they skip over all that embarrassing left-wing loving your neighbour stuff in the Gospels and directly on to Corinthians ...." But this is a different story (one that begins with Luther's principle "that faith and not works is the source of grace.")
Exploring God through science ...
Assuming for the sake of argument some self-reflective intelligence exists (let's call her Dea) who bears responsibility for the creation of the cosmos: Then science would be the study of the works of Dea Herself. Bible study is inevitably the study of human literature and would therefore add the filter of other self-reflective intelligences obscuring the original intelligence of the creatrix. Study science instead and hear to the voice of the Goddess itself.
And in any case, have you ever studied protein replication?! Our DNA is literally a programming language (containing only 4 symbols
I read your interesting and polite enough answer
I work to a simple rule, be polite to me and I'll be polite to you.
I see you are good in Latin ...
I'm not. I had to learn these legal dicta at Law School.
No, no, no. Quite the opposite! If I were to say (I'm not) "I know you to be paedophile," it is not the person who disagrees with my claim (the neganti) who must "prove me wrong." It is I (as the affirmanti) upon whom the onus of proof is incumbent (incumbit probatio). That principle (as spelled out in the affirmanti dictum) is essential to any rational intercourse. No positive assertion can lie be above it.
Thus the assertion "God exists" (putting to one side what that might mean for a moment) needs to be proven, not the denial, "I don't accept that God exists."
But even without meeting him the conclusion that "God does not exists because... science/proofs/evil/etc" is illogical, and i confess that i get a little angry when (religious) atheist use these claims pretending to be the logical ones in a conversation
It makes me angry too. Precisely because it is not for the non-believer ever to utter the sentence "God does not exist." It is completely foolish to assert the actual non-existence of something when one means simply to deny it's existence. That may seem like a fine point (which is no doubt why so many fall prey to this error), but it's for the believer to show that "God exists," and the not for non-believer even to make any positive ontological claims regarding the proposed diety. And, assuming for the sake of argument God does not exist, what evidence could one possibly have to establish the non-existence of a non-existing thing with the attributes predicated to this God?
In case this difference is not clear, take this example: Life on other planets. It is a completely different thing to state "I don't accept the existence of extra-terrestrial life" (perhaps because there is no evidence of it) from stating "there is no life on other planets" (and imagine the evidence you would need to prove that!!)
Any reasonable atheist must therefore, IMO, be an agnostic (in the orginal sense of the word, ie. the subject matter of gods and supernatural claims is literally unknowable ... being Greek you get that of course). That is the agnostic holds both statements, "God exists," and "God does not exist" as inherently unprovable. An agnostic, in not accepting the statement "God exists" as true, is therefore unavoidably also an atheist.
Best thing for you, a critical thinking person, is to explore God by reading the Bible (start with the New Testament - unfortunatly, even the best English translation is problematic...
With all due respect, as intellectual stimulating as I find the analysis of ancient texts, my reading the Bible, would not involve "exploring God," so much as exploring the cultural and material conditions which gave rise to the various conceptions of gods (as well as other matters of interest that might emerge from the text). Were it my wish to explore God, I should more likely either study quantum physics or protein replication, or listen to Arvo Pärt. ;)
Also despite the fact that ethically I'm extremely close to the position outlined by Jesus (sans the supernatural) and I'm not above quoting him, I find the NT no where near as interesting as the OT. I was, some time ago, an avid student of the earlier Hebrew scriptures. A complex multi-layered text and a fascinating window into the iron-age. I agree, transl
[S]o yes, in this case "i treat 'believing' as a synonym for 'knowing,' "
But in the case of, "I believe you are mistaken," you don't? Yes?
In other words 'God' makes this a special privileged belief, not subject to the problematic difference between belief and knowledge which might occupy a rational epistemology. 'God' as the fullstop to inquiry again.
I do not know whether any god "exists" --in fact I don't even understand what kind of existence is being claimed for God --however I do believe you are mistaken to find yourself in possession of definitive knowledge of such putative form of existence, a fortiori the fact that a god, (known as God), enjoys it.
[A]nd no, i don't use 'God' "as a word by which to avoid inquiring into the more profound problems of our existence"... on the contrary
I understand that is how you feel, but you clearly do. Tell me this: Why is there something, rather than nothing.
[From your other post] ... AND for recognizing this "Slashdot mindthink"
Heaven forbid one should use one's mind actually to think! If perchance you meant groupthink, well that's a fine accusation to come from the believer of a folie en masse.
You would never catch me making that claim, but perhaps you prefer to argue about imaginary beings with imaginary interlocutors?
It should suffice to remember that affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio. That is to say the onus of proof any assertion lies with the party making the assertion. No one should ever be required to prove the non-existence of an object, the existence of which someone asserts but for which evidence of existence is lacking. Moreover, while it is correct to point out (as you have) that lack of evidence is not proof of non-existence, that does not mean it is not evidence of non-existence.
That is the basic logic pertaining to any member of the set of putative objects for which no evidence of their existence exists. In the case of the particular claim "God exists" however, there is an even greater difficulty.
For God, by definition, lacks any material existence (body). No one, neither believer or reasoner, I think, would dispute that God exists in a mental/cultural sense (mind): as a word (for instance as the translation of the 3rd word of the Hebrew scriptures); as a character in that most interesting of texts; as concept; and as a belief in some people's minds. But surely the existence claimed for God, by believers, must be greater than that?
Given we have access (knowledge) only the states of existence of body ('science' as you call it) and mind, what evidence could we even access about this other putative state of existence?! What does 'exist' even mean (to humans) in the statement "God exists"? Thus you face the difficulty in, as I wrote above, both of evidencing a novel state of existence beyond the realm of human apprehension and only then are you in a position even to show that God partakes of it.
Given these --for creatures of mind and body insurmountable --difficulties, God turns out to be an unworkable foundation for knowledge. But if you don't want to think to hard about these problems, 'God' is a good way to stop yourself from doing so.
P.S. sorry for my English
The single most serious error in your English is to treat 'believing' as a synonym for 'knowing,' as in the statement "anyone with a belief in God knows already ..." Rather they believe more than "science" (which is, in this context, I guess you mean material factors), is required to become alive.
Before the usual slashdot crowd start shouting "blasphemy, blasphemy, a believer in God inside our atheistic /. temple" i must remind them that this is about a professor of philosophy writing about stuff that we religious people ardifficult ande experts in, so, here we are...
The mere fact that you imagine yourself an expert in what the good professor is writing about, is no shield from complaints about your lack of epistemological rigour. 'God' is being used here as a word by which to avoid inquiring into the more profound problems of our existence.
[T]hey are collecting a 'fine', or a 'fee'.
They are very clearly collecting a fine not a fee. It is not for goods or services rendered or to be rendered, but as punishment for breach of the university by-laws.
I don't know about NSW, but in other jurisdictions if you knowingly profit from the infringement (charging a fee to the infringer), and you facilitate the infringement (by providing the computer network), then you become liable for the infringement as well, or you may be a contributory infringer.
The fine is an additional punishment to disconnection from the network for the rest of the semester. This is not the kind of situation which an ISP in both collecting a fee, providing access while turning a blind eye might face. Here the university charges a fee for access (via the general fees), obviously does not turn a blind eye, but instead upon breach both removes access and additionally levies a fine.
The by-law enacted and the fines consequently levied are unambiguously for the purpose of augmenting the disincentive unlawfully to download protected materials. This is the very opposite of facilitating infringement.
It's no different from others ...
Let me guess, you're not a lawyer are you? It's always different ... ;)