Even worse, what if you were born attached at the hip to someone, and separating you would kill that other person? Do you have a right to be separated?
Ann Coulter has become THE pinup girl of convervatism, and I have a clue for ya, it ain't just because she has a hot bod, we actually DO respect her mind.
Actually, Coulter isn't nearly as popular among conservatives as the media would have you belive. She's Rush Limbaugh in drag, and she gets a lot of press because 1) the press likes sensationalism, and 2) liberals like arguing against someone who makes the kind of gaffes that she does: it's a whole lot easier to poke holes in her rhetoric than Bill Buckley's.
It goes both ways, of course. We see a lot more of Michael Moore than Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal, since Moore is such an obvious pinko propagandist, and he snivels like a little girl when anyone calls him on his bullshit. That's a lot more fun than actually debating an issue with a competent advocate of the opposing side.
In my area affirmative action actually hurts the cause.
It's not just in your area. Racial discrimination is wrong, no matter whose ox is being gored. Trying to correct past injustice with more injustice is obscene.
I might go beat the crap out of whoever did it. I might kill him/her. I would definitely *want* revenge.
Well, if I were on your jury, I'd probably vote to acquit, as long as I was convinced that you were certain of the identity of the perp. If you killed the wrong guy, I'd vote to hang you.
Personally I still don't want the death penalty for a different reason, because there is a clear racial and financial bias going on in the American legal system
I'm not sure I buy that claim of bias, but for my part, I'm in favor of the death penalty in principle, but opposed to it in practice.
My opposition stems from the fallability of courts and juries. When the state proposes to kill someone for a crime, I want certainty of their guilt. In practice, I think this would limit the death penalty to politicians, or cases like Colin Ferguson (although in Ferguson's case, you can probably make a strong argument for an insanity defense.)
But fetuses are guilty - guilty of the crime of trespassing in a woman's uterus, and of stealing resources from her body.
This just muddies the waters. For there to be a crime, there must be mens rea.
The question here is not one of guiltof the fetus, but rather whether the woman is entitled to decide whether to provide the sustenance the fetus needs.
The way I look at it is, if some other person requires a continuous blood transfusion from me for their survival, I and I alone will decide whether they will get it. The ethical question is the same, whether the other is a fetus or a fully-grown adult.
I don't see a conflict between opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty. The abortion issue hinges on whether the fetus has the rights of a person (ie, a right to life), and the death penalty issue hinges on whether it's just to kill a guilty person.
If the fetus is a person, then it must (ipso facto) be an innocent person, and I've never seen any death penalty advocate call for the execution of an innocent party.
We already had such capitalism in the 19th century, at least in europe, and if history has shown us anything, it's that unbalanced (with social laws and provisions, thus) capitalism is NOT to the benefit of the populace at large.
I think you're a little fuzzy on your history there. People streamed from the farms to the factories, to work in what we consider appalling conditions today, and they did so voluntarily. They went to the factories because it was preferrable to subsistence farming.
The effect of capitalism over time, is to raise the marginal productivity of labor, which results in a higher standard of living, even for the poorest of the poor.
It is rather remarkable that one of the major health problems of the poorest people in America is obesity.
However, a large part of Wal-Mart's business model is elimination of the competition.
No, not really. Wal-Mart just cuts their prices and lets the chips fall where they may. If the competition adapts, they adapt. If they don't, they don't. Wal-Mart and Microsoft are very different animals.
Why does it belong in a philosophy classroom? It's pseudoscience, not philosophy.
I would put it in a history class, along with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Triumph of the Will, and other examples of the practice of propaganda.
The hard part of hiring great programmers is recognizing them in the interview.
Amen. I have so many friends who are very, very good coders, who go into a kind of brain-lock in interviews. Sometimes I think I'd like to try posting a spec for a simple app, and then just hire the person who sends in the best implementation.
They are united with the might of the US government, which has backed what they are doing.
The US government is not a monolith. The idiots at the NLRB have fucked up, and as soon as this issue gets to any court the judge will point out the freedom of association in the constitution, and that will be that for this kind of rule.
Slashdot Mirror
Even worse, what if you were born attached at the hip to someone, and separating you would kill that other person? Do you have a right to be separated?
Yes, absolutely.
-jcr
Ann Coulter has become THE pinup girl of convervatism, and I have a clue for ya, it ain't just because she has a hot bod, we actually DO respect her mind.
Actually, Coulter isn't nearly as popular among conservatives as the media would have you belive. She's Rush Limbaugh in drag, and she gets a lot of press because 1) the press likes sensationalism, and 2) liberals like arguing against someone who makes the kind of gaffes that she does: it's a whole lot easier to poke holes in her rhetoric than Bill Buckley's.
It goes both ways, of course. We see a lot more of Michael Moore than Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal, since Moore is such an obvious pinko propagandist, and he snivels like a little girl when anyone calls him on his bullshit. That's a lot more fun than actually debating an issue with a competent advocate of the opposing side.
-jcr
In my area affirmative action actually hurts the cause.
It's not just in your area. Racial discrimination is wrong, no matter whose ox is being gored. Trying to correct past injustice with more injustice is obscene.
-jcr
If my kid was raped, or my mom was beaten...
I might go beat the crap out of whoever did it. I might kill him/her. I would definitely *want* revenge.
Well, if I were on your jury, I'd probably vote to acquit, as long as I was convinced that you were certain of the identity of the perp. If you killed the wrong guy, I'd vote to hang you.
-jcr
Personally I still don't want the death penalty for a different reason, because there is a clear racial and financial bias going on in the American legal system
I'm not sure I buy that claim of bias, but for my part, I'm in favor of the death penalty in principle, but opposed to it in practice.
My opposition stems from the fallability of courts and juries. When the state proposes to kill someone for a crime, I want certainty of their guilt. In practice, I think this would limit the death penalty to politicians, or cases like Colin Ferguson (although in Ferguson's case, you can probably make a strong argument for an insanity defense.)
-jcr
But fetuses are guilty - guilty of the crime of trespassing in a woman's uterus, and of stealing resources from her body.
This just muddies the waters. For there to be a crime, there must be mens rea.
The question here is not one of guiltof the fetus, but rather whether the woman is entitled to decide whether to provide the sustenance the fetus needs.
The way I look at it is, if some other person requires a continuous blood transfusion from me for their survival, I and I alone will decide whether they will get it. The ethical question is the same, whether the other is a fetus or a fully-grown adult.
-jcr
I don't see a conflict between opposing abortion and supporting the death penalty. The abortion issue hinges on whether the fetus has the rights of a person (ie, a right to life), and the death penalty issue hinges on whether it's just to kill a guilty person.
If the fetus is a person, then it must (ipso facto) be an innocent person, and I've never seen any death penalty advocate call for the execution of an innocent party.
-jcr
I run a real OS.
A real OS doesn't make you do a bunch of pointless busy-work.
-jcr
We already had such capitalism in the 19th century, at least in europe, and if history has shown us anything, it's that unbalanced (with social laws and provisions, thus) capitalism is NOT to the benefit of the populace at large.
I think you're a little fuzzy on your history there. People streamed from the farms to the factories, to work in what we consider appalling conditions today, and they did so voluntarily. They went to the factories because it was preferrable to subsistence farming.
The effect of capitalism over time, is to raise the marginal productivity of labor, which results in a higher standard of living, even for the poorest of the poor.
It is rather remarkable that one of the major health problems of the poorest people in America is obesity.
-jcr
However, a large part of Wal-Mart's business model is elimination of the competition.
No, not really. Wal-Mart just cuts their prices and lets the chips fall where they may. If the competition adapts, they adapt. If they don't, they don't. Wal-Mart and Microsoft are very different animals.
-jcr
Um, Intelligent Design and Creationism are two completely different ideas.
Nope. ID is nothing but a tactic of creationists. It's rather like the veneer that holocaust deniers affect.
-jcr
It's been proven!
Yes it has, by about a century of rigorous examination.
-jcr
Also, once you get away from the small circle of intellectuals peddling ID
That's an oxymoron: intellectuals don't peddle creationism.
-jcr
Why does it belong in a philosophy classroom? It's pseudoscience, not philosophy.
I would put it in a history class, along with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Triumph of the Will, and other examples of the practice of propaganda.
-jcr
Intelligent Design is a collection of holes in evolutionary theory.
No it isn't, it's a religious propaganda campaign.
-jcr
Amen, Brother!
-jcr
since when has Evolution *every* lended itself to the scientific method? It is UNOBSERVABLE...
Guess again. Anyone who's ever dealt with pathogens that develop resistance to antibiotics can tell you different.
Evolutionism is just as much religion as any Christian faith.
Nope. Evolution is a fact. Get used to it.
-jcr
Intelligent Design != Creationism
Bullshit.
Intelligent Design certainly has a place in the classroom.
Not in a science class, it doesn't.
-jcr
The government can't force you not to fraternize with your co-workers, but a private company sure can.
We'll see when it gets to court. I don't expect it to stand.
-jcr
Joel, IIRC, was the program manager for the development of VBA.
Ok, but has he done anything good?
-jcr
The hard part of hiring great programmers is recognizing them in the interview.
Amen. I have so many friends who are very, very good coders, who go into a kind of brain-lock in interviews. Sometimes I think I'd like to try posting a spec for a simple app, and then just hire the person who sends in the best implementation.
-jcr
They are united with the might of the US government, which has backed what they are doing.
The US government is not a monolith. The idiots at the NLRB have fucked up, and as soon as this issue gets to any court the judge will point out the freedom of association in the constitution, and that will be that for this kind of rule.
-jcr
are you offering to fund my defence?
Why would I do that? You're the one who's wrong.
So, I see that you have no intention of putting your money where your mouth is.
-jcr
Any bullshit EULA that may be supplied will be used as kindling or toilet paper, depending on whether I am cold or need a shit at the time.
If you want to test it, knock yourself out: tell Apple legal that you intend to violate the terms of the license, and you just might learn something.
-jcr
I can do whatever I want with my property,
The software isn't your property.
Copyright law doesn't say that I should cowtow to the every whim of the person I bought the software from.
Contract law says you're bound to the terms of the license.
-jcr