not the hysteria of those who rendered a verdict on this reprehensible woman
the hysteria of the slashdot crowd who thinks this case sets precedents that it does not actually set
there is no slippery slope
this case is such an extreme outlier, you have to be complete fool to confuse it with your typcial internet troll douchebaggery
the woman:
attacked a minor that she KNEW that she KNEW was emotionally sick and did so over an EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME it was carefully planned it was directly and uniquely targetted it was designed for emotional manipulation degradation the cruelty went on for an extended period of time she even suggested suicide to this emotionally disturbed minor, who she KNEW, and KNEW she was a minor and emotionally disturbed
no folks, this in absolutely NO way resembles any garden variety trolling situation, by any remote stretch of imagination
there is no slippery slope. there is no scary precedent
really. here's brown paper bag. breathe into it, stop with the idiotic hysterics over this case slashdot
in the "advanced" parts of the west, a criminal has more rights than the victim, and the criminal must be empathized with and coddled for being a victim too. awww
isn't this the only way to ensure the survival of our species?
show me a roomful of intelligent, platonic, perfectly personality matched non sex addicted couples, and i'l show you the extinction of homo sapiens in 1.4 generations
show me a roomful of sex addicted drunk raving idiots, and i'll show you 6 billion homo sapiens in a couple thousand generations
oooh, its the universal bogeyman of the far right and the far left: "the media"
it spreads lies, its biased, its stupid, its harmful
blah blah blah
we're social animals. we communicate. we get information from the world this way. some of what we hear is bullshit, some of it is not. we have a bullshit meter, and we filter out the bullshit
have you found a magical fountain of information which is omnipotent, completely unbiased, and always on topic? where do you get your information from? voices in your head? random gossipy ladies in the street because she's not corporate media?
but don't worry about my cynicism. you found my voice on slashdot, which is part of "the media", right? you can safely dismiss me as a propagandized sheeple victim of "the media"
anyone remember that csi episode about the chimera?
incredibly rare, but sometimes two fraternal twins will fuse while still blastocysts. so the dna of two seperate individuals form different organ lines in one individual. so your blood and kidneys and stomach might be from one person, while your brain, skin and lungs might be from another. most chimeras go through life never knowing what they are, but every once in awhile, a blood test reveals that, for example, a mother isn't even the mother of her own children (her womb is from a nonexistent twin):
Lydia Fairchild was pregnant with her third child, when she and the father of her children, Jamie Townsend, separated. When Fairchild applied for welfare support in 2002, she was requested to provide DNA evidence that Townsend was the father of her children. While the results showed Townsend was certainly the father of the children, the DNA tests indicated that she was not their mother.
This resulted in Fairchild being taken to court for fraud for claiming benefit for other people's children or taking part in a surrogacy scam. Hospital records of her prior births were disregarded. Prosecutors called for her two children to be taken into care. As time came for her to give birth to her third child, the judge ordered a witness be present at the birth. This witness was to ensure that blood samples were immediately taken from both the child and Fairchild. Two weeks later, DNA tests indicated that she was not the mother of that child either.
A breakthrough came when a lawyer for the prosecution found an article[2] in the New England Journal of Medicine about a similar case that had happened in Boston, and realised that Fairchild's case might also be caused by chimerism. In 1998, 52-year old Boston teacher Karen Keegan was in need of a kidney transplant. When her three adult sons were tested for suitability as donors, it was discovered that two of them did not match her DNA to the extent that her biological children should. Later testing showed that Keegan was a chimera, a combination of two separate sets of cell lines with two separate sets of chromosomes, when a second set of DNA was found in other tissues[3] This DNA presumably came from a different embryo from the one that gave rise to the rest of her tissues.
anyway, in csi, the aberation was used to good effect: the killer knew he would get away with the crimes because his dna from the crime scene would not match the dna from his lab tests. but of course, the dna would indicate the killer was a brother of the prime suspect, because half the dna would match his phantom brother (which puts a twist on the subject of this story: if relative dna banks enjoy common use, a lot more chimeras out there are going to come to light)
most of the episode the csi investigators run after one brother of the suspect after another, in a fruitless red herring chase to find the dna of a brother who did not exist, except inside that of the killer
Todd has four living brothers, and one who died, named Joss. Sara questions fraternal twins Larry and Roger Coombs, who own a car repair shop together. Brass talks to one of the brothers who is a police officer, but the CSIs are unable to locate Kevin Coombs, another brother....
Sara locates Kevin living on the edge of town in a trailer. He is called in for questioning, but the CSIs attention again alights on Todd. A strand of hair was found on Lindley's jacket, and the DNA is an exact match for Todd. When Grissom examines him, he notices some odd markings on his back.
Grissom hits the books and reads up on fraternal twins and Chimeras. He brings Todd into the interrogation room: he's cracked the case. Todd is a Chimera. He should have had
While performing the autopsy on Newlands' body, Warner finds a plastic tube of blood in his upper arm. He was the father of Morris' baby, but he wasn't the Honey Rapist. He put the tube with someone else's blood in his arm to beat the paternity test. Unfortunately for him, that someone else was a previously unidentified child rapist.
apparently, like much of law and order, based on a real life case of a canadian doctor in 1992 implanting a blood tube in his arm to beat a dna test (and also the basis for a movie):
Rape case On the night of 31 October 1992, Schneeberger sedated his 23-year-old patient, Candice, and raped her. While Versed -- the anesthetic he used -- has strong amnesiac effect, Candice was still able to remember the rape. She reported the crime to the police.
Schneeberger's blood sample was, however, found not to match the samples of the alleged rapist's semen, thus clearing him of suspicion. In 1993, at the victim's request, the test was repeated, but the result was negative, as well. In 1994, the case was closed.
Candice, still convinced that her reminiscences were true, hired Larry O'Brien, a private detective, to investigate the case. He broke into Schneeberger's car and obtained another DNA sample, which, this time, matched the semen on victim's panties and pants. As a result, a third official test was organized. The obtained blood sample was, however, found to be too small and of too poor quality to be useful for analysis.
In 1997, Lisa Schneeberger found out that her husband had repeatedly drugged and raped her 15-year-old daughter from her first marriage. She reported him to the police, which ordered a fourth DNA test. This time, multiple samples were taken: blood, mouth swab, and hair follicle. All three matched the rapist's semen.
[edit] Conviction During his 1999 trial, Schneeberger revealed the method he used to foil the DNA tests. He implanted a 15 cm Penrose drain filled with another man's blood and anticoagulants in his arm. During tests, he tricked the laboratory technician to obtain blood sample from the place the tube was planted.
He was found guilty of sexual assault, of administering a noxious substance, and of obstruction of justice, and received a six-year prison sentence.
well, it seems the romance is over. we're hung over with gridlock, polluted air, and oil-funded latin american gasbags/ russian neoimperialists/ saudi wahabbism
but the usa is less densely populated than japan or europe. their adherence to rail more than us makes sense. don't poopoo our poor rail planning: our population density sealed our fate
but times they are a changing. rail is going to come back strong. our romance with the car is over
robots can't think creatively. some of the best ways to fight is via jujitsu: rerouting the enemies own attacks/ strengths against itself. give me a pack of desperate determined poor guys in the middle of a desert and a pack of mean lean advanced killing robot machines, and my money is on the poor guys in the middle of a desert, any time
you win wars with intelligence and creativity and determination. not with force
1. godzilla is decades old. ip law should time out after a decade, at worst
2. this is corporate takeover of our culture. its our culture. not their ip. we need to hammer this point home
3. ip law exists to serve us. but it has been pervered to extort money for decades, even way after the artist is long gone. ip law doesn't even serve the artist, it serves the distributor
the story of the 21st century will be the story of the death of ip law. it is simply morally unsound
animals with canines eat meat. they are for grasping and tearing animal flesh. those teeth are shaped like that in your mouth because you have evolved in the natural world to subsist on animal flesh
you're a carnivore
you eat meat
that's your nature
go ahead and argue against that all you want. doesn't matter what vast castles of logic and reaosn and empathy and persuasion. you're still a carnivore. a lion cannot convince itself it is a grazing animal. a shark cannot convince itself that it eats algae. it is the way you are made by god or evolution or the fsm (ramen) or for whatever reason you want to ascribe the truth of your existence, but it IS the truth of your existence: you are made to eat meat
you. are. a. meat. eating. animal. you are made to do that, to be that. accept reality
not in the least. this is the fundamental failure of the animal rights groups: "animals are people too". no. they simply are not. this is a divide across which communication ceases if you continue to put forth that absurdity
i understand where you are coming from: its an extension of empathy onto nonhumans. which makes sense in away, animals are popular in childrens books and films, for example. and we are after all animals ourselves. and empathy is actually one of mankind's greatest strengths (animals for example, don't have it)
but its really not an arbitrary drawing of the line in the sand. saying drawing the line at the end of our race is the same thing as drawing the line at the end of our species is like saying drawing the line at shoplifting is the same thing as drawing the line at genocide. no. many orders of magnitude in terms of scope and scale of difference
the problem is, we eat them, and the fact that we eat them is something implicit in our physicality, our biochemistry, and our natural evolutionary history. that's kind of a big deal. and not something you are simply going to dispel with a rosy feelgood simpleton's morality
sure, you'll recruit children to the cause, because it is a childlike simplistic morality that can consider eating animals to be bad. but an adult understands some deeper nuances about what we are as human beings that rosy one dimensional morality does not address. such as: the compulsion to eat meat overwhelms all higher mental faculties
for example: you can make a reasonable argument to a teenager why they shouldn't have sex. the teenager can even agree and understand. and then they'll get in the backseat of a car two hours later and go at it like jackrabbits. because the compulsion exists in greater force and overwhelms any judgments we make. its about what we are: sexual beings. that can't be reasoned with and explained away, it just is, and always will be, and implicit behavior about what and who we are, deeper and higher than any higher faculty can ever muster
likewise, you could convince me not to eat meat. i'll understand the argument, and feel the empathic draw. but then i'll go get a hamburger. because i'm a carnivore, and this is what i crave, and the higher mental faculties simply don't veto or control that compulsion
this is what you are up against. if you belittle this observation, you will fail. if you take this observation very seriously, then you will begin to understand what you are really up against when it comes to meat eating. sure, some people, like you, can do without. just like a few oddballs can go easily without sex. but outliers do not define the human condition
but i think you will find that your lifestyle doesn't have any legs. that is, to convince people who currently eat meat, to not eat meat. i think where you are different is you can cut it out of your diet, and its no big deal. well, there are also people who are asexual, that is, they don't have sex. its easy for them, but such people are hardly the majority. most of us crave sex. most of us crave meat. in other words, you are making a cool logical rational argument against a prime directive, a bit of evolutionary programming in most us to crave meat
again, for you, its been easy to get over that. likewise, for a few, not having sex is easy too. but for most of us, these very human compulsions are insurmountable, and pretty much define the human condition. so all of your well-crafted arguments carry no weight. logic and reason do not defeat the stomach. all of your reasoning, taken together, does not provide much real incentive to ignore what the stomach asks for, and has been getting, since before we were even human
that cow in the pasture is a bovine. grass grazing creatures going back to the dinosaurs and to the ocean life before the dinosaurs have died horrible terrifying deaths every second going back billions of years simply to fill a carnivore's stomach. for eons of time beyond which you can comprehend, before anything resembling homo sapiens remotely existed, this is the way it was, and is, and will be
who are you to judge against that?
stop extending human morality on to creatures that are not human
touch your top front teeth. feel the third, fourth, fifth teeth out from the middle. feel that? the pointed jagged quality? those are called your canines. you're a carnivore. you eat meat. that's your nature. natural morality has absolutely zero problem with that fact
i mean, why don't we stop having that "temporary fad of evolution" called sex? its messy, it spreads disease, we can raise people in vats instead, so its unnecessary, and besides, it hurts peoples feelings and creates suffering
well i can think of a good reason not to stop having sex: its our nature
like being a carnivore is our nature
now, you go ahead and fight that rock of gibraltar of a fact, good luck to you. when you are done stopping people from eating meat, you should argue against tides and the rising and setting of the sun. you'll have the same track record i think
feel the third, fourth, fifth teeth out from the middle. feel that? the pointed jagged quality?
those are called your canines
you're a carnivore
you eat meat
that's your nature
natural morality has absolutely zero problem with that fact. that cow in the pasture is a bovine. grass grazing creatures going back to the dinosaurs and to the ocean life before the dinosaurs have died horrible terrifying deaths every second going back billions of years simply to fill a carnivore's stomach. for eons of time beyond which you can comprehend, before anything resembling homo sapiens remotely existed, this is the way it was, and is, and will be
who are you to judge against that?
stop extending human morality on to creatures that are not human
some context: birds that migrate, like ducks, will prepare for migration by gorging themselves and storing the accumulated energy in their livers as fat (rather than adipose tissue like us). in other words, while no one is asking the bird's permission, gorging until your liver is bloated with fat is not a horrible alien treatment for a migrating bird, it is actually a natural mode of their life. in other words, forcing a man to grow a 10 pound tumor in his abdomen in nine months sounds like a weird torture, but this is pregnancy that every woman experiences. of course, forced impregnantion is evil, and force feeding is evil. my whole point is simply that this whole gorging until your liver bursts with fat is not really an alien biological experience for a duck
its about being disconnected from the sources of your food, about being coccooned from the roots of the highly processed products that define your life from infancy, and having no bearings or anchor to the larger, natural world
we eat animals, we evolved that way. if you want to talk morality, that's natural morality. vile horrendous forms of suffering happens every minute on this globe, predators squeezing the air out of animals as they slowly suffocate, bovines having their throats ripped out after a terrifying all out race across the grasslands, baby birds being swallowed alive whole... its all completely normal and natural. what is there to argue with about that?
how we treat other human beings matters, because it forms a basis for human morality. morality is important in the realm of HUMAN interaction, to maintain social coherence and cohesion. if humans break moral codes amongst themselves, they represent dangers to us all that must be punished. this is the reason for human morality
but extending morality outside human-human interaction is some sort of rich isolated child's game
its the kid in their SUV driving by a mack truck hauling pigs and looking in the slats and making eye contact with the swine, and having an auschwitz moment. its contrived, maudlin, self-pitying foolishness from feeble minds unaware of the larger world
we need to care more about human beings in the third world, a million times longer before we even care one tiny bit about some future hamburger. now THAT'S a moral statement
i saw a chick walking down the sidewalk once in manhattan, wearing a t-shir that read "animals are people too"
if you wiretap someone who respects your privacy, as a matter of public policy, no, you're the asshole, you deserve to be fired
it's a matter of who abridges whose rights first
if you break someone's rights, your rights are broken in return, as a matter of justice, fair play, and to make an example of you
its not possible, on a number of levels and for a number of reasons, both philosophicla and practical, to respect the rights of someone who does not respect your rights in return
freedom and basic rights are a natural right in sofar as your responsibility to respect the freedom and rights of others are respected in return
there is no freedom you have in this world that does not also carry with it a responsibility. if you don't live up to that complementary responsibility, consider it open season on your freedoms. and its your fault
Slashdot Mirror
not the hysteria of those who rendered a verdict on this reprehensible woman
the hysteria of the slashdot crowd who thinks this case sets precedents that it does not actually set
there is no slippery slope
this case is such an extreme outlier, you have to be complete fool to confuse it with your typcial internet troll douchebaggery
the woman:
attacked a minor that she KNEW
that she KNEW was emotionally sick
and did so over an EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME
it was carefully planned
it was directly and uniquely targetted
it was designed for emotional manipulation degradation
the cruelty went on for an extended period of time
she even suggested suicide to this emotionally disturbed minor, who she KNEW, and KNEW she was a minor and emotionally disturbed
no folks, this in absolutely NO way resembles any garden variety trolling situation, by any remote stretch of imagination
there is no slippery slope. there is no scary precedent
really. here's brown paper bag. breathe into it, stop with the idiotic hysterics over this case slashdot
in the "advanced" parts of the west, a criminal has more rights than the victim, and the criminal must be empathized with and coddled for being a victim too. awww
is it possible to be a sex addict?
aren't we all sex addicts?
isn't this the only way to ensure the survival of our species?
show me a roomful of intelligent, platonic, perfectly personality matched non sex addicted couples, and i'l show you the extinction of homo sapiens in 1.4 generations
show me a roomful of sex addicted drunk raving idiots, and i'll show you 6 billion homo sapiens in a couple thousand generations
oooh, its the universal bogeyman of the far right and the far left: "the media"
it spreads lies, its biased, its stupid, its harmful
blah blah blah
we're social animals. we communicate. we get information from the world this way. some of what we hear is bullshit, some of it is not. we have a bullshit meter, and we filter out the bullshit
have you found a magical fountain of information which is omnipotent, completely unbiased, and always on topic? where do you get your information from? voices in your head? random gossipy ladies in the street because she's not corporate media?
but don't worry about my cynicism. you found my voice on slashdot, which is part of "the media", right? you can safely dismiss me as a propagandized sheeple victim of "the media"
dun duh DUNNN
look out!
it's "the media"
pfffffffffffft
prior art:
thousands of years of asian fire breathing dragon myth
trademark nullified
anyone remember that csi episode about the chimera?
incredibly rare, but sometimes two fraternal twins will fuse while still blastocysts. so the dna of two seperate individuals form different organ lines in one individual. so your blood and kidneys and stomach might be from one person, while your brain, skin and lungs might be from another. most chimeras go through life never knowing what they are, but every once in awhile, a blood test reveals that, for example, a mother isn't even the mother of her own children (her womb is from a nonexistent twin):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Fairchild
anyway, in csi, the aberation was used to good effect: the killer knew he would get away with the crimes because his dna from the crime scene would not match the dna from his lab tests. but of course, the dna would indicate the killer was a brother of the prime suspect, because half the dna would match his phantom brother (which puts a twist on the subject of this story: if relative dna banks enjoy common use, a lot more chimeras out there are going to come to light)
most of the episode the csi investigators run after one brother of the suspect after another, in a fruitless red herring chase to find the dna of a brother who did not exist, except inside that of the killer
http://www.csifiles.com/reviews/miami/bloodlines.shtml
if you are transporting things like coal, or timber, or trash, and many times more effective because rail is so much cheaper than truck
http://www.tv.com/law-and-order-special-victims-unit/serendipity/episode/278851/recap.html?tag=overview;recap
apparently, like much of law and order, based on a real life case of a canadian doctor in 1992 implanting a blood tube in his arm to beat a dna test (and also the basis for a movie):
http://books.google.com/books?id=62uFtPQOegwC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=law+and+order+implanted+blood&source=web&ots=tAMxawCqEz&sig=3jV_E2vL-Xe4UFhG7hH5wCkJQk8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Schneeberger
the car was like heroin for the usa
well, it seems the romance is over. we're hung over with gridlock, polluted air, and oil-funded latin american gasbags/ russian neoimperialists/ saudi wahabbism
but the usa is less densely populated than japan or europe. their adherence to rail more than us makes sense. don't poopoo our poor rail planning: our population density sealed our fate
but times they are a changing. rail is going to come back strong. our romance with the car is over
battery exchange stations, i didn't think of that
when mentally strategizing electric powered vehicles you are struck by the onerous amount of time it would take to recharge
but this scheme skips that problem entirely, by having service stations stocked with fresh batteries
of course, you'd then need some sort of airtight battery integrity system, so someone doesn't get stuck with a tampered or faulty one
but battery exchange is a fabulous conceptual leap, for me at least (what, has everyone else in the room already figured this out 5 years ago? ;-)
robots can't think creatively. some of the best ways to fight is via jujitsu: rerouting the enemies own attacks/ strengths against itself. give me a pack of desperate determined poor guys in the middle of a desert and a pack of mean lean advanced killing robot machines, and my money is on the poor guys in the middle of a desert, any time
you win wars with intelligence and creativity and determination. not with force
ip law between corporate entities is still sound, and always will be sound
ip law as applied to civilians, civic organizations, parody, hobbyist websites, etc.: dead
1. godzilla is decades old. ip law should time out after a decade, at worst
2. this is corporate takeover of our culture. its our culture. not their ip. we need to hammer this point home
3. ip law exists to serve us. but it has been pervered to extort money for decades, even way after the artist is long gone. ip law doesn't even serve the artist, it serves the distributor
the story of the 21st century will be the story of the death of ip law. it is simply morally unsound
the riaa's extortion model is under legal attack
there is a difference between natural morality and human morality
which is exactly what i said above
feel back to the third, fourth, fifth tooth on either side out from the middle
feel that? the pointed jagged quality?
what those teeth are called is: your canines
animals with canines eat meat. they are for grasping and tearing animal flesh. those teeth are shaped like that in your mouth because you have evolved in the natural world to subsist on animal flesh
you're a carnivore
you eat meat
that's your nature
go ahead and argue against that all you want. doesn't matter what vast castles of logic and reaosn and empathy and persuasion. you're still a carnivore. a lion cannot convince itself it is a grazing animal. a shark cannot convince itself that it eats algae. it is the way you are made by god or evolution or the fsm (ramen) or for whatever reason you want to ascribe the truth of your existence, but it IS the truth of your existence: you are made to eat meat
you. are. a. meat. eating. animal. you are made to do that, to be that. accept reality
not in the least. this is the fundamental failure of the animal rights groups: "animals are people too". no. they simply are not. this is a divide across which communication ceases if you continue to put forth that absurdity
i understand where you are coming from: its an extension of empathy onto nonhumans. which makes sense in away, animals are popular in childrens books and films, for example. and we are after all animals ourselves. and empathy is actually one of mankind's greatest strengths (animals for example, don't have it)
but its really not an arbitrary drawing of the line in the sand. saying drawing the line at the end of our race is the same thing as drawing the line at the end of our species is like saying drawing the line at shoplifting is the same thing as drawing the line at genocide. no. many orders of magnitude in terms of scope and scale of difference
the problem is, we eat them, and the fact that we eat them is something implicit in our physicality, our biochemistry, and our natural evolutionary history. that's kind of a big deal. and not something you are simply going to dispel with a rosy feelgood simpleton's morality
sure, you'll recruit children to the cause, because it is a childlike simplistic morality that can consider eating animals to be bad. but an adult understands some deeper nuances about what we are as human beings that rosy one dimensional morality does not address. such as: the compulsion to eat meat overwhelms all higher mental faculties
for example: you can make a reasonable argument to a teenager why they shouldn't have sex. the teenager can even agree and understand. and then they'll get in the backseat of a car two hours later and go at it like jackrabbits. because the compulsion exists in greater force and overwhelms any judgments we make. its about what we are: sexual beings. that can't be reasoned with and explained away, it just is, and always will be, and implicit behavior about what and who we are, deeper and higher than any higher faculty can ever muster
likewise, you could convince me not to eat meat. i'll understand the argument, and feel the empathic draw. but then i'll go get a hamburger. because i'm a carnivore, and this is what i crave, and the higher mental faculties simply don't veto or control that compulsion
this is what you are up against. if you belittle this observation, you will fail. if you take this observation very seriously, then you will begin to understand what you are really up against when it comes to meat eating. sure, some people, like you, can do without. just like a few oddballs can go easily without sex. but outliers do not define the human condition
but i think you will find that your lifestyle doesn't have any legs. that is, to convince people who currently eat meat, to not eat meat. i think where you are different is you can cut it out of your diet, and its no big deal. well, there are also people who are asexual, that is, they don't have sex. its easy for them, but such people are hardly the majority. most of us crave sex. most of us crave meat. in other words, you are making a cool logical rational argument against a prime directive, a bit of evolutionary programming in most us to crave meat
again, for you, its been easy to get over that. likewise, for a few, not having sex is easy too. but for most of us, these very human compulsions are insurmountable, and pretty much define the human condition. so all of your well-crafted arguments carry no weight. logic and reason do not defeat the stomach. all of your reasoning, taken together, does not provide much real incentive to ignore what the stomach asks for, and has been getting, since before we were even human
there is a difference between natural morality and human morality. that's exactly what i said above
please make a note for your future reference: a turkey is not a homo sapiens
natural morality for animals, human morality for humans. is there anything remotely confusing about that to you?
that cow in the pasture is a bovine. grass grazing creatures going back to the dinosaurs and to the ocean life before the dinosaurs have died horrible terrifying deaths every second going back billions of years simply to fill a carnivore's stomach. for eons of time beyond which you can comprehend, before anything resembling homo sapiens remotely existed, this is the way it was, and is, and will be
who are you to judge against that?
stop extending human morality on to creatures that are not human
touch your top front teeth. feel the third, fourth, fifth teeth out from the middle. feel that? the pointed jagged quality? those are called your canines. you're a carnivore. you eat meat. that's your nature. natural morality has absolutely zero problem with that fact
i mean, why don't we stop having that "temporary fad of evolution" called sex? its messy, it spreads disease, we can raise people in vats instead, so its unnecessary, and besides, it hurts peoples feelings and creates suffering
well i can think of a good reason not to stop having sex: its our nature
like being a carnivore is our nature
now, you go ahead and fight that rock of gibraltar of a fact, good luck to you. when you are done stopping people from eating meat, you should argue against tides and the rising and setting of the sun. you'll have the same track record i think
feel the third, fourth, fifth teeth out from the middle. feel that? the pointed jagged quality?
those are called your canines
you're a carnivore
you eat meat
that's your nature
natural morality has absolutely zero problem with that fact. that cow in the pasture is a bovine. grass grazing creatures going back to the dinosaurs and to the ocean life before the dinosaurs have died horrible terrifying deaths every second going back billions of years simply to fill a carnivore's stomach. for eons of time beyond which you can comprehend, before anything resembling homo sapiens remotely existed, this is the way it was, and is, and will be
who are you to judge against that?
stop extending human morality on to creatures that are not human
some context: birds that migrate, like ducks, will prepare for migration by gorging themselves and storing the accumulated energy in their livers as fat (rather than adipose tissue like us). in other words, while no one is asking the bird's permission, gorging until your liver is bloated with fat is not a horrible alien treatment for a migrating bird, it is actually a natural mode of their life. in other words, forcing a man to grow a 10 pound tumor in his abdomen in nine months sounds like a weird torture, but this is pregnancy that every woman experiences. of course, forced impregnantion is evil, and force feeding is evil. my whole point is simply that this whole gorging until your liver bursts with fat is not really an alien biological experience for a duck
its about being disconnected from the sources of your food, about being coccooned from the roots of the highly processed products that define your life from infancy, and having no bearings or anchor to the larger, natural world
we eat animals, we evolved that way. if you want to talk morality, that's natural morality. vile horrendous forms of suffering happens every minute on this globe, predators squeezing the air out of animals as they slowly suffocate, bovines having their throats ripped out after a terrifying all out race across the grasslands, baby birds being swallowed alive whole... its all completely normal and natural. what is there to argue with about that?
how we treat other human beings matters, because it forms a basis for human morality. morality is important in the realm of HUMAN interaction, to maintain social coherence and cohesion. if humans break moral codes amongst themselves, they represent dangers to us all that must be punished. this is the reason for human morality
but extending morality outside human-human interaction is some sort of rich isolated child's game
its the kid in their SUV driving by a mack truck hauling pigs and looking in the slats and making eye contact with the swine, and having an auschwitz moment. its contrived, maudlin, self-pitying foolishness from feeble minds unaware of the larger world
we need to care more about human beings in the third world, a million times longer before we even care one tiny bit about some future hamburger. now THAT'S a moral statement
i saw a chick walking down the sidewalk once in manhattan, wearing a t-shir that read "animals are people too"
that succinctly sums up the delusions of peta
we need some advice for not going extinct ourselves
its fair play, to reveal his hypocrisy
if you wiretap someone who respects your privacy, as a matter of public policy, no, you're the asshole, you deserve to be fired
it's a matter of who abridges whose rights first
if you break someone's rights, your rights are broken in return, as a matter of justice, fair play, and to make an example of you
its not possible, on a number of levels and for a number of reasons, both philosophicla and practical, to respect the rights of someone who does not respect your rights in return
freedom and basic rights are a natural right in sofar as your responsibility to respect the freedom and rights of others are respected in return
there is no freedom you have in this world that does not also carry with it a responsibility. if you don't live up to that complementary responsibility, consider it open season on your freedoms. and its your fault