As for your question as to why it is morally wrong, well, if you really did read the Bible cover to cover, you should already have your answer.
You seem to have missed the part where a great many of us don't believe in either your god or your bible. Why should I give a rats ass what your religion has to say on the matter?
Which they don't. Whether you like it or not, embryos don't have any rights in this country, nor are they legally recognized as people. And if popular opinion is any indication, such recognition isn't going to be granted in any conceivable future.
Given that, you might be better served concentrating your life-saving efforts on actual, real, living human beings in the here-and-now. There are more than enough of them to keep you busy for the rest of your days.
is it OK to destroy potential beings in order to potentially create a potential extension for other lives
Absolutely, in my world. Embryos aren't human beings and as I'm not a religious fanatic I see no reason to treat them as such. And in any event, I see no difference between this argument against using embryos in the lab and the argument against abortion, which is really just an off-side attempt to try to put half of the human race 'back in their place' as unwilling baby-machines.
On the other hand, there is no reason that other kinds of genetic research can't yield the same results.
If that were true there'd be no need for the use of human embryos in science. Obviously your statement is false.
is that nature has (seemingly) designed us to die
Nature designs nothing. Evolution is random; there is no 'guiding hand'.
so, is it right to deny a full life to someone in order to (maybe) marginally extend the life or quality of life of another person or another class of people?
This questions is irrelevent to me and anyone who thinks like me, because we don't put stock in the idea that embryos are people.
That, at any rate, is the moral basis (the question of the pc) for that part of this year's State of the Union address.
There was nothing more about it. The entire address was political pandering, pure and simple.
Maybe the terrorists are not rational. Maybe they just hate us.
And so the fuck what? There is no international X-Files-ish conspiracy of evil "terrorists" looking to destroy the United States of America by, uh, the incredibly stupid tactic of blowing up one building at a time. All there are is a few crazed criminals, here and there, some of which, some of the time, manage to cooperate with one another long enough to destroy something. Usually something pretty fucking irrelevent, like two office buildings. Oooh, look how close they came to wiping out the United States when they wasted the Twin Towers! Woe is us!
Really, if our nation can be overthrown by the simple expedient of knocking down a couple of skyscrapers then we don't deserve to exist in the first place. A nation that overwhelmed by cowardice is just begging for a good beating.
Let the sheep whine and run for cover every time some government hack starts screaming about color warnings. Let them live their lives in fear, as if some maniac actually gave a shit about some no-name Joe who actually thinks he's important enough to warrant the attention of the Boogeyman.
There are no terrorists; just crazed loons looking to wreak a little havoc. The assholes who hit the Twin Towers aren't any different than any other bunch of mass murderers; they just managed to make the Guiness Book of World Records on body count. And the people who're using that incident to amass power hit the jackpot big-time with that incident, not because of what those criminals did but because Americans have become spineless fucking pansies pissing their shorts at the sight of their own shadow.
It isn't wrong. It's a message to our politicians - y'know, the folks who're supposedly running the most powerful country in the world at the moment - that we expect them to act in a mature fashion in ALL aspects of their lives, and that the same is required of the idiots they hire to assist them. If we expect our politicans to act like the lowest common denominator and excuse their trollish behavior then that's exactly what we'll get - or already have, depending on how cynical you are.
The staffers are the ones who set up the toys and give the congressfolks the simplest instructions possible for using them. Actual understanding of even the most basic concepts is well beyond most elected officials. Perhaps in another 20 years it'll be different, but right now that certainly isn't the case. As with 95% of any elected officials job, the bulk of anything is done by someone else and passed along to said official in "talking points" form, distilled to the level that even a politician can understand - most of the time, anyway.
Like most Americans, I will not be purchasing a VCR in the future; it is a colossally useless device.
What the hell are you talking about? You set the timer to record the shows you want when they air, then watch them whenever you want, skipping by the commercials while you do so. Better yet you don't have to play "uber-geek" with computer/TV connections, nor do you have to watch the show sans couch on your LCD screen. It's about as simple as it gets.
There's this new-fangled device called the "VCR" you might try looking into. Not only can you watch the show whenever you want, you can skip right past the commercials!
It is still impeded by big corporations throught cartels, monopolistic behaviours and all the other perks a free market brings with it.
Monopolies have nothing to do with the free market. You can't have a monopoly, or monopolistic behavior, without government backing. It requires power from the barrel of a government gun (via laws) in order for corporations to enforce a monopoly; without that power no corporation on Earth can have a monopoly unless they're willing to engage in other forms of illegal behavior, e.g., murdering anyone who creates a competing product - and we already have laws discouraging activities like murder.
Monopolies are a sign of an *unfree* market, not a free one.
I don't even know why you're arguing this. We already have both worlds: you can use copyright to protect your works from unauthorized distribution, or you can release your works into the public domain. No one is "forcing" you to adopt a certain copyright model for your own works. Choose what you want; just don't pretend you get to make the same choice for someone else, because you don't.
The public also has the choice to either buy the work, or not buy the work. It's entirely up to them. If they don't like copyright they can always refuse to buy anything that's copyrighted. If they don't mind copyright (and it certainly seems that they don't) they can choose to buy the work.
Everyone gets a choice, except for those who want what they want for free, and insist that the law be changed to accommodate them at the expense of what everyone else seems to prefer.
I don't want face time with you; like most people who buy books I could give two shits about the author. It's the *book* I'm interested in, not you.
Copyrights serve a useful function. They allow writers (like me) to do things like, oh, pay the rent, or buy food, and they allow readers to pay for the stuff churned out by writers that they like. Free market uber alles, and all that; the writers put their stuff up on the auction block, and you're perfectly free to buy (encouraging the writer towards future efforts) or not to buy (telling him not to quit his day job).
Without any form of copyright writing is just a hobby, and like any hobby it takes a distant back seat to the real job - the one that allows you to pay the aforementioned rent, or buy the aforementioned food. If I had to work a 9-5 do you honestly think I'd spend what little spare time I'd have after that writing books which'll do absolutely nothing other than encourage a few gits to send "nice job" emails? Shit no, I sure as hell won't; I'm not that stupid. Instead, I'll spend that time with friends and family, or towards hobbies that have a higher reward value. I have no burning desire to piss away my life just to provide you with a few hours of free entertainment.
Copyright encourages people like me and millions of others to participate in the free market by induling our hobbies as professions. Without the ability to turn that hobby into a profession we don't have the motivation to even try; there are only 24 hours in the day, and only a complete fucking loon would sacrifice his time for the "greater good" of potential fans.
Remember that under the copyright system as proposed by our founding fathers, the idea was to temporarily turn certain forms of thought into property in order to encourage thinkers to, well, think more, and communicate those thoughts with others. They labored under the impression that more thinking and communicating could only be good things in a republic, especially when even commoners like Joe Smith had a shot of making something of a career out of it without having to secure the backing of some wealthy patron. Of course, some people want us all to go back to the days when you had to have such a patron to do anything other than shovel shit, but last I checked those "good ol' days" weren't nearly as rosy as the reactionaries paint them.
This isn't exactly a new development. President Andrew Jackson did the exact same thing, ignoring a Supreme Court ruling with the words "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.
When the Executive runs amok, the Judicial branch is powerless to stop them.
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." --- Alexander Hamilton 1788-01-10
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." --- Richard H. Lee
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" --- Patrick Henry
"The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people'. See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ('Congress shall make no law... abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble'); Art. I, s 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States'). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. 110 S. Ct. at 1061." --- William H. Rehnquist 1990 US v Verdugo-Urquidez 110 S. Ct. 1839
The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country... -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms. -- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
Who are the militia? are they not ourselves...congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788
First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided. --- Patrick Henry
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty....Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
Now, you and I know that in this day and age, in a country with a professional military, civil insurrection is largely futile anyway.
No, it isn't. There are less than a million combat-ready troops in all branches of the military, and that's being pretty fucking liberal with the label "combat-ready". The adult citizenry outnumbers these troops more than a hundred to one, and it's likely that much of the fighting would take place in urban centers - notorious for their ability to even the odds.
And then you have to take into account that if real fighting broke out and became widespread, it's quite likely that a number of these troops would refuse to gun down their fellow citizens. Only the worst extremists in the liberal camp think the entire armed forces consist of kill-crazy zombies who'll stack American bodies like cordwood when given the word "go". From my own experience in the military I'd say that in the case of widespread fighting across most of the country you'd see enormous desertion rates, refusals to engage, 'tactical redeployments' (e.g., unordered retreats), not to mention groups (especially among the officer corps) who'd throw in with the 'enemy' because they'd class any government who told them to slaughter their fellow citizens as far more dangerous and anti-American than any bunch of revolutionaries.
The government can handle rebellious soldiers, officers, and units. It can't handle rebellious soldiers, officers, and units in combination with millions of armed militia bent on throwing it out of office. A modern rebellion would most likely be measured in days or weeks, until the situation got so out of hand the Joint Chiefs 'retired' the president et. al. to keep the entire country from falling into chaos.
The modern army is more than capable of putting down any local revolt. It is entirely incapable of dealing with a country-wide rebellion, and a good chunk of it would either refuse to do so outright or even switch sides.
Because they don't believe that citizens should be able to own whatever they want, as they're not interested in abstract black-and-white issues but instead in what would make the USA a better place.
Which by your definition would make them just another agenda-driven politics-promoting trash group, no different from any other.
I agree with the parent. The ACLU does the job 99% of the time; the other 1% of the time they're conspicuously absent, e.g., anything whatsoever to do with the right of citizens to own firearms, a right guaranteed by both the Constitution AND Supreme Court rulings, so it sure as hell isn't 'up for interpretation'. They just don't like that bit of the Constitution so they ignore it.
But we have the NRA to fill in the gap there, so I'm not too concerned.
Riiiight. I'm sure they allow the local Wiccans or Pagans to come in and do their thing, or allow the local atheists to give a short speech on why religion sucks when they get their turn at the prayer lottery. Yep, I'm sure they give every APPROVED group a turn...and that's free enough for you, eh?
I personally have never understood the statement of being uncomfortable with people praying
And I've never understood why the religious feel compelled to express their zealotry during government functions or while holding a government office. They could just keep their mouths shut and do their voodoo on their own time, but they seem to get inordinately threatened when they realize that other people just don't give a flying fuck about them, their mantras, or their Spaghetti Monster worship, driving them to be all the more obnoxious.
Separation of church and state is completely beyond these mouth-breathers. Too bad breeding isn't out of their reach as well.
but IMO the justice and the lack of transparency shares the same spirit.
Slashdot is a private site and can operate by whatever rules the owners see fit to impose, no matter how wacky they seem to be. You have the choice of either a) abiding by those rules, or b) pissing off and going someplace else. It's their choice how to run the site, and yours whether or not you want to abide by those rules so you can post. This has nothing whatsoever to do with 'injustice'; you're not being forced into doing anything. You have no 'rights' where Slashdot is concerned; you've never had any rights here, or on any other piece of private property on the web. This is a *good* thing; its one of the few places left where you actually get to act as if you own the property that's supposedly yours.
but I think his point was that maybe rape would be less traumatic if we didn't stigmatize it as much as we do.
And after ol' Stan gets ass-raped by a half-dozen bikers looking for a little fun with a stupid suburbanite in the wrong part of town, he can get back to us on whether or not being a victim would be any less traumatic if ass-rape weren't such a big deal.
And USians wonder why the rest of the world hates them.
Hey, kimosabe, you're the one who made yourself look like a fucking idiot to the entire slashdot audience. Perhaps the person who should "shut his pie hole" is the one who keeps sticking his foot in it.
And that's "Americans", for the Webster-deprived. Only sexually frustrated teen Eurotrash actually think that "USian" is a word.
I not only disagree with it, I'll merrily lock up anyone advocating it and trying to teach it to the weakest members of our community, children. Still with me?
Sure am. You're just another asshole who'd enforce his own personal standards on everyone he doesn't happen to agree with. Seems like you and those douchebag neo-Nazis have something in common.
Yes, and you enjoy your corporate controlled, company regulated search engine.
As compared to your socialist wonderland, where the will of the majority is used to oppress the minority. But hey! So long as it's a minority you don't happen to like it's perfectly okay, right?
Thats why we hit them with truncheons
So what exactly differentiates you from any other group of fucks who use violence against groups they don't like? Nothing, so far as I can see. Just another bunch of self-righteous assholes.
Thank the gods I don't live in whatever shithole you call home.
I would venture to say that all faults in our society come from the control of information
So if I decide to take my 12-gauge to your house and blow your fucking brains all over the wall, that unfortunate incident is somehow due to the "control of information"? Can't wait to hear how the total freedom of information is supposed to prevent murder.
Slashdot Mirror
it was secular physicians and the modern science of embryology which showed that the embryo is alive from its earlier moments
So are bacteria and skin cells. Neither are sentient.
Max
As for your question as to why it is morally wrong, well, if you really did read the Bible cover to cover, you should already have your answer.
You seem to have missed the part where a great many of us don't believe in either your god or your bible. Why should I give a rats ass what your religion has to say on the matter?
Max
If embryos have rights
Which they don't. Whether you like it or not, embryos don't have any rights in this country, nor are they legally recognized as people. And if popular opinion is any indication, such recognition isn't going to be granted in any conceivable future.
Given that, you might be better served concentrating your life-saving efforts on actual, real, living human beings in the here-and-now. There are more than enough of them to keep you busy for the rest of your days.
Max
is it OK to destroy potential beings in order to potentially create a potential extension for other lives
Absolutely, in my world. Embryos aren't human beings and as I'm not a religious fanatic I see no reason to treat them as such. And in any event, I see no difference between this argument against using embryos in the lab and the argument against abortion, which is really just an off-side attempt to try to put half of the human race 'back in their place' as unwilling baby-machines.
On the other hand, there is no reason that other kinds of genetic research can't yield the same results.
If that were true there'd be no need for the use of human embryos in science. Obviously your statement is false.
is that nature has (seemingly) designed us to die
Nature designs nothing. Evolution is random; there is no 'guiding hand'.
so, is it right to deny a full life to someone in order to (maybe) marginally extend the life or quality of life of another person or another class of people?
This questions is irrelevent to me and anyone who thinks like me, because we don't put stock in the idea that embryos are people.
That, at any rate, is the moral basis (the question of the pc) for that part of this year's State of the Union address.
There was nothing more about it. The entire address was political pandering, pure and simple.
Max
Maybe the terrorists are not rational. Maybe they just hate us.
And so the fuck what? There is no international X-Files-ish conspiracy of evil "terrorists" looking to destroy the United States of America by, uh, the incredibly stupid tactic of blowing up one building at a time. All there are is a few crazed criminals, here and there, some of which, some of the time, manage to cooperate with one another long enough to destroy something. Usually something pretty fucking irrelevent, like two office buildings. Oooh, look how close they came to wiping out the United States when they wasted the Twin Towers! Woe is us!
Really, if our nation can be overthrown by the simple expedient of knocking down a couple of skyscrapers then we don't deserve to exist in the first place. A nation that overwhelmed by cowardice is just begging for a good beating.
Let the sheep whine and run for cover every time some government hack starts screaming about color warnings. Let them live their lives in fear, as if some maniac actually gave a shit about some no-name Joe who actually thinks he's important enough to warrant the attention of the Boogeyman.
There are no terrorists; just crazed loons looking to wreak a little havoc. The assholes who hit the Twin Towers aren't any different than any other bunch of mass murderers; they just managed to make the Guiness Book of World Records on body count. And the people who're using that incident to amass power hit the jackpot big-time with that incident, not because of what those criminals did but because Americans have become spineless fucking pansies pissing their shorts at the sight of their own shadow.
Max
It isn't wrong. It's a message to our politicians - y'know, the folks who're supposedly running the most powerful country in the world at the moment - that we expect them to act in a mature fashion in ALL aspects of their lives, and that the same is required of the idiots they hire to assist them. If we expect our politicans to act like the lowest common denominator and excuse their trollish behavior then that's exactly what we'll get - or already have, depending on how cynical you are.
Max
The staffers are the ones who set up the toys and give the congressfolks the simplest instructions possible for using them. Actual understanding of even the most basic concepts is well beyond most elected officials. Perhaps in another 20 years it'll be different, but right now that certainly isn't the case. As with 95% of any elected officials job, the bulk of anything is done by someone else and passed along to said official in "talking points" form, distilled to the level that even a politician can understand - most of the time, anyway.
Max
Like most Americans, I will not be purchasing a VCR in the future; it is a colossally useless device.
What the hell are you talking about? You set the timer to record the shows you want when they air, then watch them whenever you want, skipping by the commercials while you do so. Better yet you don't have to play "uber-geek" with computer/TV connections, nor do you have to watch the show sans couch on your LCD screen. It's about as simple as it gets.
Max
and arrange to be at a TV at that particular time
There's this new-fangled device called the "VCR" you might try looking into. Not only can you watch the show whenever you want, you can skip right past the commercials!
Max
It is still impeded by big corporations throught cartels, monopolistic behaviours and all the other perks a free market brings with it.
Monopolies have nothing to do with the free market. You can't have a monopoly, or monopolistic behavior, without government backing. It requires power from the barrel of a government gun (via laws) in order for corporations to enforce a monopoly; without that power no corporation on Earth can have a monopoly unless they're willing to engage in other forms of illegal behavior, e.g., murdering anyone who creates a competing product - and we already have laws discouraging activities like murder.
Monopolies are a sign of an *unfree* market, not a free one.
Max
I don't even know why you're arguing this. We already have both worlds: you can use copyright to protect your works from unauthorized distribution, or you can release your works into the public domain. No one is "forcing" you to adopt a certain copyright model for your own works. Choose what you want; just don't pretend you get to make the same choice for someone else, because you don't.
The public also has the choice to either buy the work, or not buy the work. It's entirely up to them. If they don't like copyright they can always refuse to buy anything that's copyrighted. If they don't mind copyright (and it certainly seems that they don't) they can choose to buy the work.
Everyone gets a choice, except for those who want what they want for free, and insist that the law be changed to accommodate them at the expense of what everyone else seems to prefer.
Max
I don't want face time with you; like most people who buy books I could give two shits about the author. It's the *book* I'm interested in, not you.
Copyrights serve a useful function. They allow writers (like me) to do things like, oh, pay the rent, or buy food, and they allow readers to pay for the stuff churned out by writers that they like. Free market uber alles, and all that; the writers put their stuff up on the auction block, and you're perfectly free to buy (encouraging the writer towards future efforts) or not to buy (telling him not to quit his day job).
Without any form of copyright writing is just a hobby, and like any hobby it takes a distant back seat to the real job - the one that allows you to pay the aforementioned rent, or buy the aforementioned food. If I had to work a 9-5 do you honestly think I'd spend what little spare time I'd have after that writing books which'll do absolutely nothing other than encourage a few gits to send "nice job" emails? Shit no, I sure as hell won't; I'm not that stupid. Instead, I'll spend that time with friends and family, or towards hobbies that have a higher reward value. I have no burning desire to piss away my life just to provide you with a few hours of free entertainment.
Copyright encourages people like me and millions of others to participate in the free market by induling our hobbies as professions. Without the ability to turn that hobby into a profession we don't have the motivation to even try; there are only 24 hours in the day, and only a complete fucking loon would sacrifice his time for the "greater good" of potential fans.
Remember that under the copyright system as proposed by our founding fathers, the idea was to temporarily turn certain forms of thought into property in order to encourage thinkers to, well, think more, and communicate those thoughts with others. They labored under the impression that more thinking and communicating could only be good things in a republic, especially when even commoners like Joe Smith had a shot of making something of a career out of it without having to secure the backing of some wealthy patron. Of course, some people want us all to go back to the days when you had to have such a patron to do anything other than shovel shit, but last I checked those "good ol' days" weren't nearly as rosy as the reactionaries paint them.
Max
Somehow I doubt the vast majority of browser users could give a shit what blog authors do or do not want.
Max
This isn't exactly a new development. President Andrew Jackson did the exact same thing, ignoring a Supreme Court ruling with the words "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.
When the Executive runs amok, the Judicial branch is powerless to stop them.
Max
"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." --- Alexander Hamilton 1788-01-10
...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. -- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." --- Richard H. Lee
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" --- Patrick Henry
"The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms', and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people'. See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ('Congress shall make no law... abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble'); Art. I, s 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States'). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. 110 S. Ct. at 1061." --- William H. Rehnquist 1990 US v Verdugo-Urquidez 110 S. Ct. 1839
The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country... -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, 8 June 1789
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms. -- Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169
Who are the militia? are they not ourselves...congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. -- Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788
First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided. --- Patrick Henry
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.
That the powers of government may
Now, you and I know that in this day and age, in a country with a professional military, civil insurrection is largely futile anyway.
No, it isn't. There are less than a million combat-ready troops in all branches of the military, and that's being pretty fucking liberal with the label "combat-ready". The adult citizenry outnumbers these troops more than a hundred to one, and it's likely that much of the fighting would take place in urban centers - notorious for their ability to even the odds.
And then you have to take into account that if real fighting broke out and became widespread, it's quite likely that a number of these troops would refuse to gun down their fellow citizens. Only the worst extremists in the liberal camp think the entire armed forces consist of kill-crazy zombies who'll stack American bodies like cordwood when given the word "go". From my own experience in the military I'd say that in the case of widespread fighting across most of the country you'd see enormous desertion rates, refusals to engage, 'tactical redeployments' (e.g., unordered retreats), not to mention groups (especially among the officer corps) who'd throw in with the 'enemy' because they'd class any government who told them to slaughter their fellow citizens as far more dangerous and anti-American than any bunch of revolutionaries.
The government can handle rebellious soldiers, officers, and units. It can't handle rebellious soldiers, officers, and units in combination with millions of armed militia bent on throwing it out of office. A modern rebellion would most likely be measured in days or weeks, until the situation got so out of hand the Joint Chiefs 'retired' the president et. al. to keep the entire country from falling into chaos.
The modern army is more than capable of putting down any local revolt. It is entirely incapable of dealing with a country-wide rebellion, and a good chunk of it would either refuse to do so outright or even switch sides.
Max
Because they don't believe that citizens should be able to own whatever they want, as they're not interested in abstract black-and-white issues but instead in what would make the USA a better place.
Which by your definition would make them just another agenda-driven politics-promoting trash group, no different from any other.
I agree with the parent. The ACLU does the job 99% of the time; the other 1% of the time they're conspicuously absent, e.g., anything whatsoever to do with the right of citizens to own firearms, a right guaranteed by both the Constitution AND Supreme Court rulings, so it sure as hell isn't 'up for interpretation'. They just don't like that bit of the Constitution so they ignore it.
But we have the NRA to fill in the gap there, so I'm not too concerned.
Max
There is nothing un-constitutional here.
Riiiight. I'm sure they allow the local Wiccans or Pagans to come in and do their thing, or allow the local atheists to give a short speech on why religion sucks when they get their turn at the prayer lottery. Yep, I'm sure they give every APPROVED group a turn...and that's free enough for you, eh?
Max
I personally have never understood the statement of being uncomfortable with people praying
And I've never understood why the religious feel compelled to express their zealotry during government functions or while holding a government office. They could just keep their mouths shut and do their voodoo on their own time, but they seem to get inordinately threatened when they realize that other people just don't give a flying fuck about them, their mantras, or their Spaghetti Monster worship, driving them to be all the more obnoxious.
Separation of church and state is completely beyond these mouth-breathers. Too bad breeding isn't out of their reach as well.
Max
but IMO the justice and the lack of transparency shares the same spirit.
Slashdot is a private site and can operate by whatever rules the owners see fit to impose, no matter how wacky they seem to be. You have the choice of either a) abiding by those rules, or b) pissing off and going someplace else. It's their choice how to run the site, and yours whether or not you want to abide by those rules so you can post.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with 'injustice'; you're not being forced into doing anything. You have no 'rights' where Slashdot is concerned; you've never had any rights here, or on any other piece of private property on the web. This is a *good* thing; its one of the few places left where you actually get to act as if you own the property that's supposedly yours.
Max
but I think his point was that maybe rape would be less traumatic if we didn't stigmatize it as much as we do.
And after ol' Stan gets ass-raped by a half-dozen bikers looking for a little fun with a stupid suburbanite in the wrong part of town, he can get back to us on whether or not being a victim would be any less traumatic if ass-rape weren't such a big deal.
Max
And USians wonder why the rest of the world hates them.
Hey, kimosabe, you're the one who made yourself look like a fucking idiot to the entire slashdot audience. Perhaps the person who should "shut his pie hole" is the one who keeps sticking his foot in it.
And that's "Americans", for the Webster-deprived. Only sexually frustrated teen Eurotrash actually think that "USian" is a word.
Max
I not only disagree with it, I'll merrily lock up anyone advocating it and trying to teach it to the weakest members of our community, children. Still with me?
Sure am. You're just another asshole who'd enforce his own personal standards on everyone he doesn't happen to agree with. Seems like you and those douchebag neo-Nazis have something in common.
Yes, and you enjoy your corporate controlled, company regulated search engine.
As compared to your socialist wonderland, where the will of the majority is used to oppress the minority. But hey! So long as it's a minority you don't happen to like it's perfectly okay, right?
Thats why we hit them with truncheons
So what exactly differentiates you from any other group of fucks who use violence against groups they don't like? Nothing, so far as I can see. Just another bunch of self-righteous assholes.
Thank the gods I don't live in whatever shithole you call home.
Max
I would venture to say that all faults in our society come from the control of information
So if I decide to take my 12-gauge to your house and blow your fucking brains all over the wall, that unfortunate incident is somehow due to the "control of information"? Can't wait to hear how the total freedom of information is supposed to prevent murder.
Max
Information wants to be free, deal with it.
Information doesn't want shit, deal with it.
Max