Only the scientist who has actually performed these experiments. That can't be said for most people...
Of course I get it; I never disputed the point that the layperson hasn't performed the experiments. My point is that it isn't unreasonable to suggest that the scientific method is a more reliable means than "God says so". Sure, it could be that every scientist is wrong, or perhaps there is some conspiracy where they are all lying, but the point is that these extra conditions make it less likely that this is the case. A religious preacher, even if he is being entirely truthful in that he believes God is telling him thse things, is still relying on the method of "I think God says so".
Also note how people following the science route cannot agree on anything, as theories change frequently; there are countless different contradictory scientific theories.
I already covered the "contradictory scientific theories" in my original post by pointing out that it would be irrational for a layperson to say that something like that is true (eg, cold fusion) or something which has made predictions found to be true (eg, string theory). Apart from that, accepted theories are improved when we know more - I cannot think of a case where a scientific theory that was accepted by the entire scientific community was after found to be entirely wrong (as opposed to improved, such as Newtonian gravitation being replaced by general relativity).
I personally find it easier to believe a level-headed religious leader than what gets distored by the news media.
So now we've replaced believing a scientist with believing the media. Sure, there I agree with you, you can't believe the media and I suppose it could be argued that they can't be trusted anymore than religious leaders.
If you truly understand science, you'll know that neither quantum theory nor relativity are actually correct. They are merely the closest we can come to a model that defines the universe based on what observations we've been able to make. These theories, while very valuable for making predictions, will undoubtedly fall prey to a newer and better theory sometime in the future. The best one can hope for is that new theories will merely add to or slightly adjust those that already exist.
In science, there will likely never be a "correct" model in the sense of knowing exactly how things work. I'm aware of what you say - by "correct", I mean whether it is a good approximation of reality, has made predictions confirmed to be true by experiments, and has not been disproven. I do not think it is irrational for a layperson to believe scientists saying that quantum mechanics is a good approximation of reality, and a theory which has yet to be disproven, just because he hasn't personally performed any experiments. I don't believe it's irrational for a person to believe that gravity attracts inversely proportional to the square of distance - even if this were found out to be false in future, it would still be a damn good approximation, and likely to be closer to the truth than many religious claims.
Indeed you have pointed out yet another reason why science is different to religion: scientists put forward theories; religious preachers claim "the truth".
Put it this way - I have no idea about how things like a CPU really work (beyond simple descriptions) and how one would build one. But does this mean that believing my computer runs on "magic" is just as reasonable as believing it runs due to the reasons that scientists tell me?
This is what I'm saying - I'm not saying that science can be 100% trusted all the time, I'm saying that the idea that it is "indistinguishable from religious belief" is absurd, for a great many reasons that I have pointed out.
The difference is when you ask the "prophets" why they believe what they do.
The scientist will tell you they performed experiments to confirm the results; that these experiments have been done repeatedly by different people; that their theories are backed up by evidence. Also note how all those following the scientific method generally come to an agreement on what they claim (in cases where there are disagreements, it would be less rational for a layman to believe one scientific claim over an alternative one).
The religious person will tell you it's true because of his wobbly interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago, or it's true because he claims "God said so". Also note how people following the "God said so" route cannot agree at all on anything; there are countless different contradictory religious viewpoints.
Now sure, it could be that there's a worldwide conspiracy where all the scientists are lying to us. But for those of us who don't subscribe to crackpot beliefs like that, the idea that the believing what scientists say is comparable to believing what one particular religious person says is absurd.
If the scientists are making it up, how does your computer work? Through religious magic?
Science-believers have simply decided, based on what they have heard, that the scientists' explanation makes more sense than the others. Religious fundamentalists have come to the opposite conclusion.
What "others"? There are no "other scientists". Religious fundamentalists however seem to have some reason to believe one small group of religious people over every other group.
Go out onto a street, accost an average-looking housewife, and try to tell her about Jesus. Now accost another one and try to tell her about string theory. Dollars to donuts you'll get the same reaction from both.
The interesting thing is that it's only the Jesus-believers who seem to have a need to force their beliefs on random passerbys..
And string theory isn't a fair example of science - it's something new and (AFAIK) untestable; if a layman went around saying that string theory was correct, I would say he was being irrational. But this is not the same at all of more accepted and tested science (eg, quantum theory or relativity).
It wasn't made against "Christians", it was made against "creationists who protest against evolution and have indirectly caused films to stop showing". There are surely plenty of negative comments on Slashdot made against non-Christians which also get modded up.
I see nothing that suggests that a "law" is something that a "theory" progresses onto when we have more evidence.
If there is a difference, in my experience it is that a law refers to a single statement which is very specific. Consider Kepler's laws, Newton's laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, gas laws.
A theory is not just a single statement, but a much larger description; a model which describes how things (eg, theory of relativity, quantum theory).
Consider how quantum theory is one of the most successful models we have, but it will never become a "law".
Consider how the gas laws are known to be wrong (there is no such thing as an "ideal gas"), but we still call them laws.
However, if a woman had no choice in the matter (rape/incest/etc) then you can argue the woman didnt have a choice, and althoguh i woudl not advice FOR abortion, I would not fault it if the woman chose that path.
In additional to the AC's reply, a problem with this is that a rape trial may take longer than the pregnancy. In addition, often in rape cases there is little evidence, basically one person's word against the other. Obviously it is important that we only convict people if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but it seems unfair if a rape victim cannot get an abortion because there isn't enough evidence.
If alternatively all it requires is the woman's say so that it was rape, and not a conviction, then you have the risk of women making false rape claims just because they want an abortion (which isn't nice for the guy, even if ultimately he is found not guilty).
Furthermore, I suppose you have performed every science experiment to verify that what you were taught in school is true
No, but I know that many people have repeatedly verified the experiments. Now sure, it could be some global conspiracy, but trusting this is a lot more reasonable that trusting documents thousands of years old, which claim things which no one can reproduce or test.
If you want something that makes sense -- When I die that is either 1) the end of me. Period. 2) a stopping point before another realm/life/whatever you want to call it.
If 2 is true, but the punishment for not believing in it is eternal damnation, I sure as hell am going to try to believe in #2!
Didn't you hear? God sends followers of false religions such as Christianity to hell, but other people such as atheists live in eternal paradise. Now maybe God doesn't exist in which case it doesn't matter, but if he does, I sure as hell am going to try to not be a Christian!
And yet how many thousands of Christians are there who are on the front lines of scientific research, pioneering new breakthroughs in science?
That's twice you've mentioned this, so I'm curious: What creationists have been working on scientific research, and produced breakthroughs in science?
As for the rest of your post - I don't know about the US, but here in the UK museums (be they science or history) present information under a general theme of "this is what we currently know". This has nothing to do with your absurd idea that theories backed up by evidence should give equal time to made up stories.
The scientists themselves are the ones saying, "this is completely impossible by the known laws of the universe", which is the same as saying, "The only way to explain this currently is by God's hand".
Not really. You seem to be viewing laws as being some thing which must be true and must be followed, hence if something breaks them, it must require some all-powerful being.
But "laws" are just are description of how the Universe works. If something is happening that seems impossible by our scientific theories, then those theories are wrong. We might not know what on earth is going wrong, but this doesn't mean God, angels, invisible unicorns or anything else is responsible.
You said you like Eudora, so you're "beholden" to them trusting their stuff isn't spying on you.
How? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but surely if Eudora had any back doors that allowed spying on the email it would have been found out (eg, by using a firewall, or by people who run their own mail server)? Not that I'm saying I agree with the original poster, but I can't see how a client puts you at the same risk - a better comparison would probably be that you have to trust your mail server (but some people run their own, or use a friend's, or in general someone that they can trust more than Google).
Comparing to Outlook is hardly fair though - in my opinion, that's the worst email client around. In my client of choice (Eudora), I can search and find what I'm looking for. I have far more space too. Accessing all your email from anywhere is certainly an advantage, but many people probably only use one main computer, so it's understandable that this isn't enough of an advantage to switch to it (also I'd have to have one computer downloading all my mail anyway, since I dislike the idea of not being able to access it offline, or worse, gmail suddenly closing and losing all my email, as sometimes happens with free email accounts).
Well I was only talking about what I thought that the original poster was arguing - that abortion is okay when the fetus is dependant on a living host, rather than any host. I won't argue that point any further as it is not my personal way of arguing when abortion is acceptable - but I find it hard to believe that you cannot see a difference between a living host and a machine. The point is not whether it makes a difference to the fetus, but that it makes a difference to the person who might be the host.
The right question is, "Given that babies are alive, why should it ever be okay to have an abortion?"
Sure, there are plenty of ways to rephrase a question, I'm not sure what your point is. Though I think your way is a lot less general than mine, since it focuses solely on the issue of whether something being "alive" matters when it comes to abortion (short answer: clearly it doesn't, otherwise we'd be worried about eating plants, as others have pointed out in this thread).
Please don't be careless in your thinking. I said: AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE
Yes, they're living, human, and pretty individual if you ask me.
Nope, that's the point at which you can first say, these cells belong to a different human being - distinct from the mother and the father.
The problem here is that a sperm or ovum only have half the DNA of normal cells, so they cannot be considered identical genetically to the parent. And if you consider that to be enough, the problem is that the sperm or ovum still contains those 23 chromosomes of the parent when it joins to make a zygote. So I still don't see some magical life starting event here - just a series of stages that are all part of life.
If you are honest, you will see where this process leads -- that the only *safe* time to labels cells as not an individual human life is *before* the conception occurs.
As you say, "KEEP GOING BACK SOME MORE". What about the sperm and ovum? They're living individual human cells too.
If not, where is the arbitrary line in the sand that you draw?
Well personally I base it on sentience rather than life. I don't see that this is necessarily arbitrary - it's why we give rights to animals (even though they're not human), but not plants.
And realise that your decision to draw the line at conception is just as arbitrary as anyone else's - life doesn't "begin" anywhere.
A sperm cell is obviously alive too. A sperm cell is also obviously a human being. I mean, it's not going to grow up to be a salmon or a hummingbird or a hydrangea bush.
So why is the question of whether we should be allowed to kill people even a question? Isn't the answer obvious on its face?
Every man on the planet should be charged with the mass murder of millions of human beings!
Add to that, any woman is guilty of murder every month that they didn't get pregnant.
And any child who had an injury is guilty of mass manslaughter - think of all those poor dead cells.
Or perhaps something having human DNA isn't the same as being a "human being"?
That position can't work because, by that logic, anybody on a ventilator is no longer a human being. Christopher Reeve -- whose poor name has already been dragged through the mud enough on this; it's the cross he had to bear being the world's most famous quadriplegic -- could not breathe on his own, therefore by your reasoning he was not alive.
I think the important point in the original post was "without the assistance of a host". Now I wouldn't say that something which is a parasite is non-living (clearly parasites are still living things), but it does seem a reasonable answer to the question "When is it okay to have an abortion?".
People who need machines to live don't come under this - the issue is being dependant on a living host. And if it ever happened that technology advanced such that fetuses could be kept in an artificial womb, then I can imagine some people arguing that abortion should no longer be allowed, and instead the fetus should be transferred to the artificial womb.
Life doesn't "begin" anywhere, since living things are involved at every stage. Even before conception, the sperm and ovum cells are living.
People who are against any form of abortion by saying "life begins at conception" seem to miss this point in my opinion - if killing any form of living cells is bad, then that includes embryos, sperm, and a bunch of skin cells I might scrape off my arm.
The only important thing which can be said to "begin" as far as I can see is consciousness. Whilst we can't be sure when exactly it begins, we can be reasonably sure of some stages where something is not conscious, for example, when a brain has not yet developed, or when its complexity is still on the level of that of an ant (at least, no one ever defends against killing ants on the basis that they are sentient).
I'm not sure how my arguments were circular. To rephrase my second question: Either a 14 year old girl's LiveJournal causes legal problems that require journalist protections, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter whether we consider it "Journalism" or not for these purposes. If it does, then I think it is something which should be considered "Journalism".
Perhaps the question should be rephrased from "Are blogs an example of journalism?" to "Should journalist protections apply to blogs?" The only important thing as far as the former question is is whether it is Journalism for the purposes of these laws, and not whether it might be considered Journalism in some more general sense.
When we talk about things such as free speech for example, I never see a whole load of people making jokes about "Oh, so now a 14 year old LiveJournal user has the legal right to post what she had for breakfast! How stupid! Why do we need to waste space in the Constitution for that?" - clearly free speech laws are there not just for trivial things. But everytime something comes up about rights with respect to blogs, that's exactly what seems to happen..
A Blog is an online journal? Is it always? I think there are probably about a zillion different types of blogs out there. Placing the livejournal of a fourteen year old girl under the same category as a constantly updated analysis of political strategies written by some forty year old DC resident doesn't accomplish anything productive.
But journals of 14 year old girls aren't going to need journalist protections in the first place, so whether it is Journalism or not is a irrelevant.
The question is, if she did post something that caused legal problems, and where she would benefit from journalist protections, why should she not be allowed them simply because she writes on LiveJournal, or doesn't write things like an "updated analysis of political strategies "?
At least here in the UK, and in some places elsewhere in Europe, there was a time when the Amiga was the most popular home computer. If you decided to stick a virus on some cracked game, and you decided to choose the games platform with a large market share, the Amiga would be the obvious choice.
Yes, overall, due to the vast number of PCs used in business, the market share was low, but the point is that the Amiga was a prime target for virus writers because of it's market share in the home market. Meanwhile, the PC was also a target due to its dominance in business. No one cared about writing viruses for Macs, because it was dominant in neither.
Now we have a situation where Windows is dominant both in business and the home, so it's even more of a target.
I don't see what Internet connectivity has to do with it. Firstly the Amiga most certainly did have Internet connectivity, including "when it was popular", and I believe this was one method that viruses were distributed. Few people used Amigas with the Internet, but then few people used any home computer with the Internet, so obviously virus writers targetted other methods (eg, copied games on floppies).
EULAs have been tested, and enforced,many times many times in court.
Maybe I missed something, but as far as I could tell, the cases listed were either cases of copyright violation (ie, copying the CD and distributing it was illegal, rather than because it was in the EULA), or online services where you pay a monthly fee or whatever.
"In all instances, the user has the option of not accepting the EULA, subsequently surrendering the rights and ability to use the software."
I would like to see a court case where it was shown that someone's right and ability to use software they legally purchased was terminated at a later date simply because of the EULA.
You don't need to sign every contract with a pen. People sign the FAFSA all the time without ever touching a mouse, and verbal contracts are also seen as legally binding in many places.
Yes, but it also has to be reasonable that the person intended to agree to the terms. Since they have to click "I Agree" in order to use the software they have a legal right to use, it is not reasonable to assume this at all. It's like me saying "Anyone who posts to this thread agrees to pay me $100" - in reality, it would be ludicrous to suggest that people posting agreed to that; they simply want to post to the forum, and they have every right to do so.
Well, I know that if I stuck "Anyone fancy coming down the pub?" on my homepage, then even if I had implemented a fancy comments system, and even though my friends know of my homepage, I wouldn't receive any replies (except perhaps weeks or months later when someone happens to look). Also I'd have no way of making it so that only some people can see.
Yet, organising such social activities works on LiveJournal.
Whilst what you say might apply to standalone blogs (although it's not just the ease of updating, but also things like a comments system), things like LiveJournal add a lot more of a social element, via things like friends lists, security settings and communities (as you should presumably be aware). For me at least, LiveJournal has almost entirely replaced email as a means of online communication with my friends, and it also seems to have been responsible for killing off several mailing lists I'm on, so whilst I won't argue whether it's the next big thing, it has to be something more than simply having a homepage.
Although this is one of many advantages that things like LiveJournal have over traditional homepages. If I'm reading via my "friends page" (or RSS, or whatever else), then I only see new entries as they appear. People who haven't updated in years don't bother me.
Compare this to the problem with homepages where you'd have to manually check to see if there was any new content.
Of course, this assumes that you're taking advantage of new features offered by blogs (friends pages, RSS or whatever). If you're just browsing them manually like you would a normal homepage, then it should be obvious you get the same disadvantages that occur with homepages.
And since talking about what happened before the big bang is meaningless, the same logic means that the Universe needs no creator. We can't even talk about a creator if talking about "before the big bang" is meaningless.
But no one claims that evolution disproves the idea that a God created the Universe, and then life evolved gradually, which would be the analogy to people kicking off this evolving software.
Creationists believe that God created all life directly himself.
so why don't you just move into an apartment, then?
sheesh, i can't help but despair at the utter decadence of some people. whats wrong with cutting the grass? its a grand activity, supposed to remind you of the vigors of life.. same with chasing snakes! i do that for fun!
Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that the only value in having a lawn is for the "fun" in cutting it. Clearly, this isn't true
I take it that you don't own any labour saving devices like ovens or washing machines?
I might as well as you why do you bother having a house, if you couldn't be bothered building it yourself? To respond to your later post: every brick of your house should represent one of the billions of people alive, at the same time as you, who can only dream of such luxury.
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously didn't get it...
Only the scientist who has actually performed these experiments. That can't be said for most people...
Of course I get it; I never disputed the point that the layperson hasn't performed the experiments. My point is that it isn't unreasonable to suggest that the scientific method is a more reliable means than "God says so". Sure, it could be that every scientist is wrong, or perhaps there is some conspiracy where they are all lying, but the point is that these extra conditions make it less likely that this is the case. A religious preacher, even if he is being entirely truthful in that he believes God is telling him thse things, is still relying on the method of "I think God says so".
Also note how people following the science route cannot agree on anything, as theories change frequently; there are countless different contradictory scientific theories.
I already covered the "contradictory scientific theories" in my original post by pointing out that it would be irrational for a layperson to say that something like that is true (eg, cold fusion) or something which has made predictions found to be true (eg, string theory). Apart from that, accepted theories are improved when we know more - I cannot think of a case where a scientific theory that was accepted by the entire scientific community was after found to be entirely wrong (as opposed to improved, such as Newtonian gravitation being replaced by general relativity).
I personally find it easier to believe a level-headed religious leader than what gets distored by the news media.
So now we've replaced believing a scientist with believing the media. Sure, there I agree with you, you can't believe the media and I suppose it could be argued that they can't be trusted anymore than religious leaders.
If you truly understand science, you'll know that neither quantum theory nor relativity are actually correct. They are merely the closest we can come to a model that defines the universe based on what observations we've been able to make. These theories, while very valuable for making predictions, will undoubtedly fall prey to a newer and better theory sometime in the future. The best one can hope for is that new theories will merely add to or slightly adjust those that already exist.
In science, there will likely never be a "correct" model in the sense of knowing exactly how things work. I'm aware of what you say - by "correct", I mean whether it is a good approximation of reality, has made predictions confirmed to be true by experiments, and has not been disproven. I do not think it is irrational for a layperson to believe scientists saying that quantum mechanics is a good approximation of reality, and a theory which has yet to be disproven, just because he hasn't personally performed any experiments. I don't believe it's irrational for a person to believe that gravity attracts inversely proportional to the square of distance - even if this were found out to be false in future, it would still be a damn good approximation, and likely to be closer to the truth than many religious claims.
Indeed you have pointed out yet another reason why science is different to religion: scientists put forward theories; religious preachers claim "the truth".
Put it this way - I have no idea about how things like a CPU really work (beyond simple descriptions) and how one would build one. But does this mean that believing my computer runs on "magic" is just as reasonable as believing it runs due to the reasons that scientists tell me?
This is what I'm saying - I'm not saying that science can be 100% trusted all the time, I'm saying that the idea that it is "indistinguishable from religious belief" is absurd, for a great many reasons that I have pointed out.
The difference is when you ask the "prophets" why they believe what they do.
The scientist will tell you they performed experiments to confirm the results; that these experiments have been done repeatedly by different people; that their theories are backed up by evidence. Also note how all those following the scientific method generally come to an agreement on what they claim (in cases where there are disagreements, it would be less rational for a layman to believe one scientific claim over an alternative one).
The religious person will tell you it's true because of his wobbly interpretation of a book written thousands of years ago, or it's true because he claims "God said so". Also note how people following the "God said so" route cannot agree at all on anything; there are countless different contradictory religious viewpoints.
Now sure, it could be that there's a worldwide conspiracy where all the scientists are lying to us. But for those of us who don't subscribe to crackpot beliefs like that, the idea that the believing what scientists say is comparable to believing what one particular religious person says is absurd.
If the scientists are making it up, how does your computer work? Through religious magic?
Science-believers have simply decided, based on what they have heard, that the scientists' explanation makes more sense than the others. Religious fundamentalists have come to the opposite conclusion.
What "others"? There are no "other scientists". Religious fundamentalists however seem to have some reason to believe one small group of religious people over every other group.
Go out onto a street, accost an average-looking housewife, and try to tell her about Jesus. Now accost another one and try to tell her about string theory. Dollars to donuts you'll get the same reaction from both.
The interesting thing is that it's only the Jesus-believers who seem to have a need to force their beliefs on random passerbys..
And string theory isn't a fair example of science - it's something new and (AFAIK) untestable; if a layman went around saying that string theory was correct, I would say he was being irrational. But this is not the same at all of more accepted and tested science (eg, quantum theory or relativity).
It wasn't made against "Christians", it was made against "creationists who protest against evolution and have indirectly caused films to stop showing". There are surely plenty of negative comments on Slashdot made against non-Christians which also get modded up.
I see nothing that suggests that a "law" is something that a "theory" progresses onto when we have more evidence.
If there is a difference, in my experience it is that a law refers to a single statement which is very specific. Consider Kepler's laws, Newton's laws of motion, laws of thermodynamics, gas laws.
A theory is not just a single statement, but a much larger description; a model which describes how things (eg, theory of relativity, quantum theory).
Consider how quantum theory is one of the most successful models we have, but it will never become a "law".
Consider how the gas laws are known to be wrong (there is no such thing as an "ideal gas"), but we still call them laws.
However, if a woman had no choice in the matter (rape/incest/etc) then you can argue the woman didnt have a choice, and althoguh i woudl not advice FOR abortion, I would not fault it if the woman chose that path.
In additional to the AC's reply, a problem with this is that a rape trial may take longer than the pregnancy. In addition, often in rape cases there is little evidence, basically one person's word against the other. Obviously it is important that we only convict people if there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but it seems unfair if a rape victim cannot get an abortion because there isn't enough evidence.
If alternatively all it requires is the woman's say so that it was rape, and not a conviction, then you have the risk of women making false rape claims just because they want an abortion (which isn't nice for the guy, even if ultimately he is found not guilty).
Furthermore, I suppose you have performed every science experiment to verify that what you were taught in school is true
No, but I know that many people have repeatedly verified the experiments. Now sure, it could be some global conspiracy, but trusting this is a lot more reasonable that trusting documents thousands of years old, which claim things which no one can reproduce or test.
If you want something that makes sense --
When I die that is either
1) the end of me. Period.
2) a stopping point before another realm/life/whatever you want to call it.
If 2 is true, but the punishment for not believing in it is eternal damnation, I sure as hell am going to try to believe in #2!
Didn't you hear? God sends followers of false religions such as Christianity to hell, but other people such as atheists live in eternal paradise. Now maybe God doesn't exist in which case it doesn't matter, but if he does, I sure as hell am going to try to not be a Christian!
And yet how many thousands of Christians are there who are on the front lines of scientific research, pioneering new breakthroughs in science?
That's twice you've mentioned this, so I'm curious: What creationists have been working on scientific research, and produced breakthroughs in science?
As for the rest of your post - I don't know about the US, but here in the UK museums (be they science or history) present information under a general theme of "this is what we currently know". This has nothing to do with your absurd idea that theories backed up by evidence should give equal time to made up stories.
The scientists themselves are the ones saying, "this is completely impossible by the known laws of the universe", which is the same as saying, "The only way to explain this currently is by God's hand".
Not really. You seem to be viewing laws as being some thing which must be true and must be followed, hence if something breaks them, it must require some all-powerful being.
But "laws" are just are description of how the Universe works. If something is happening that seems impossible by our scientific theories, then those theories are wrong. We might not know what on earth is going wrong, but this doesn't mean God, angels, invisible unicorns or anything else is responsible.
You said you like Eudora, so you're "beholden" to them trusting their stuff isn't spying on you.
How? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but surely if Eudora had any back doors that allowed spying on the email it would have been found out (eg, by using a firewall, or by people who run their own mail server)? Not that I'm saying I agree with the original poster, but I can't see how a client puts you at the same risk - a better comparison would probably be that you have to trust your mail server (but some people run their own, or use a friend's, or in general someone that they can trust more than Google).
Comparing to Outlook is hardly fair though - in my opinion, that's the worst email client around. In my client of choice (Eudora), I can search and find what I'm looking for. I have far more space too. Accessing all your email from anywhere is certainly an advantage, but many people probably only use one main computer, so it's understandable that this isn't enough of an advantage to switch to it (also I'd have to have one computer downloading all my mail anyway, since I dislike the idea of not being able to access it offline, or worse, gmail suddenly closing and losing all my email, as sometimes happens with free email accounts).
Well I was only talking about what I thought that the original poster was arguing - that abortion is okay when the fetus is dependant on a living host, rather than any host. I won't argue that point any further as it is not my personal way of arguing when abortion is acceptable - but I find it hard to believe that you cannot see a difference between a living host and a machine. The point is not whether it makes a difference to the fetus, but that it makes a difference to the person who might be the host.
The right question is, "Given that babies are alive, why should it ever be okay to have an abortion?"
Sure, there are plenty of ways to rephrase a question, I'm not sure what your point is. Though I think your way is a lot less general than mine, since it focuses solely on the issue of whether something being "alive" matters when it comes to abortion (short answer: clearly it doesn't, otherwise we'd be worried about eating plants, as others have pointed out in this thread).
Please don't be careless in your thinking. I said:
AN *INDIVIDUAL* *HUMAN* LIFE
Yes, they're living, human, and pretty individual if you ask me.
Nope, that's the point at which you can first say, these cells belong to a different human being - distinct from the mother and the father.
The problem here is that a sperm or ovum only have half the DNA of normal cells, so they cannot be considered identical genetically to the parent. And if you consider that to be enough, the problem is that the sperm or ovum still contains those 23 chromosomes of the parent when it joins to make a zygote. So I still don't see some magical life starting event here - just a series of stages that are all part of life.
If you are honest, you will see where this process leads -- that the only *safe* time to labels cells as not an individual human life is *before* the conception occurs.
As you say, "KEEP GOING BACK SOME MORE". What about the sperm and ovum? They're living individual human cells too.
If not, where is the arbitrary line in the sand that you draw?
Well personally I base it on sentience rather than life. I don't see that this is necessarily arbitrary - it's why we give rights to animals (even though they're not human), but not plants.
And realise that your decision to draw the line at conception is just as arbitrary as anyone else's - life doesn't "begin" anywhere.
A sperm cell is obviously alive too. A sperm cell is also obviously a human being. I mean, it's not going to grow up to be a salmon or a hummingbird or a hydrangea bush.
So why is the question of whether we should be allowed to kill people even a question? Isn't the answer obvious on its face?
Every man on the planet should be charged with the mass murder of millions of human beings!
Add to that, any woman is guilty of murder every month that they didn't get pregnant.
And any child who had an injury is guilty of mass manslaughter - think of all those poor dead cells.
Or perhaps something having human DNA isn't the same as being a "human being"?
That position can't work because, by that logic, anybody on a ventilator is no longer a human being. Christopher Reeve -- whose poor name has already been dragged through the mud enough on this; it's the cross he had to bear being the world's most famous quadriplegic -- could not breathe on his own, therefore by your reasoning he was not alive.
I think the important point in the original post was "without the assistance of a host". Now I wouldn't say that something which is a parasite is non-living (clearly parasites are still living things), but it does seem a reasonable answer to the question "When is it okay to have an abortion?".
People who need machines to live don't come under this - the issue is being dependant on a living host. And if it ever happened that technology advanced such that fetuses could be kept in an artificial womb, then I can imagine some people arguing that abortion should no longer be allowed, and instead the fetus should be transferred to the artificial womb.
Life doesn't "begin" anywhere, since living things are involved at every stage. Even before conception, the sperm and ovum cells are living.
People who are against any form of abortion by saying "life begins at conception" seem to miss this point in my opinion - if killing any form of living cells is bad, then that includes embryos, sperm, and a bunch of skin cells I might scrape off my arm.
The only important thing which can be said to "begin" as far as I can see is consciousness. Whilst we can't be sure when exactly it begins, we can be reasonably sure of some stages where something is not conscious, for example, when a brain has not yet developed, or when its complexity is still on the level of that of an ant (at least, no one ever defends against killing ants on the basis that they are sentient).
I'm not sure how my arguments were circular. To rephrase my second question: Either a 14 year old girl's LiveJournal causes legal problems that require journalist protections, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter whether we consider it "Journalism" or not for these purposes. If it does, then I think it is something which should be considered "Journalism".
Perhaps the question should be rephrased from "Are blogs an example of journalism?" to "Should journalist protections apply to blogs?" The only important thing as far as the former question is is whether it is Journalism for the purposes of these laws, and not whether it might be considered Journalism in some more general sense.
When we talk about things such as free speech for example, I never see a whole load of people making jokes about "Oh, so now a 14 year old LiveJournal user has the legal right to post what she had for breakfast! How stupid! Why do we need to waste space in the Constitution for that?" - clearly free speech laws are there not just for trivial things. But everytime something comes up about rights with respect to blogs, that's exactly what seems to happen..
A Blog is an online journal? Is it always? I think there are probably about a zillion different types of blogs out there. Placing the livejournal of a fourteen year old girl under the same category as a constantly updated analysis of political strategies written by some forty year old DC resident doesn't accomplish anything productive.
But journals of 14 year old girls aren't going to need journalist protections in the first place, so whether it is Journalism or not is a irrelevant.
The question is, if she did post something that caused legal problems, and where she would benefit from journalist protections, why should she not be allowed them simply because she writes on LiveJournal, or doesn't write things like an "updated analysis of political strategies "?
You're confusing your markets.
At least here in the UK, and in some places elsewhere in Europe, there was a time when the Amiga was the most popular home computer. If you decided to stick a virus on some cracked game, and you decided to choose the games platform with a large market share, the Amiga would be the obvious choice.
Yes, overall, due to the vast number of PCs used in business, the market share was low, but the point is that the Amiga was a prime target for virus writers because of it's market share in the home market. Meanwhile, the PC was also a target due to its dominance in business. No one cared about writing viruses for Macs, because it was dominant in neither.
Now we have a situation where Windows is dominant both in business and the home, so it's even more of a target.
I don't see what Internet connectivity has to do with it. Firstly the Amiga most certainly did have Internet connectivity, including "when it was popular", and I believe this was one method that viruses were distributed. Few people used Amigas with the Internet, but then few people used any home computer with the Internet, so obviously virus writers targetted other methods (eg, copied games on floppies).
EULAs have been tested, and enforced,many times many times in court.
Maybe I missed something, but as far as I could tell, the cases listed were either cases of copyright violation (ie, copying the CD and distributing it was illegal, rather than because it was in the EULA), or online services where you pay a monthly fee or whatever.
"In all instances, the user has the option of not accepting the EULA, subsequently surrendering the rights and ability to use the software."
I would like to see a court case where it was shown that someone's right and ability to use software they legally purchased was terminated at a later date simply because of the EULA.
You don't need to sign every contract with a pen. People sign the FAFSA all the time without ever touching a mouse, and verbal contracts are also seen as legally binding in many places.
Yes, but it also has to be reasonable that the person intended to agree to the terms. Since they have to click "I Agree" in order to use the software they have a legal right to use, it is not reasonable to assume this at all. It's like me saying "Anyone who posts to this thread agrees to pay me $100" - in reality, it would be ludicrous to suggest that people posting agreed to that; they simply want to post to the forum, and they have every right to do so.
Well, I know that if I stuck "Anyone fancy coming down the pub?" on my homepage, then even if I had implemented a fancy comments system, and even though my friends know of my homepage, I wouldn't receive any replies (except perhaps weeks or months later when someone happens to look). Also I'd have no way of making it so that only some people can see.
Yet, organising such social activities works on LiveJournal.
Whilst what you say might apply to standalone blogs (although it's not just the ease of updating, but also things like a comments system), things like LiveJournal add a lot more of a social element, via things like friends lists, security settings and communities (as you should presumably be aware). For me at least, LiveJournal has almost entirely replaced email as a means of online communication with my friends, and it also seems to have been responsible for killing off several mailing lists I'm on, so whilst I won't argue whether it's the next big thing, it has to be something more than simply having a homepage.
Although this is one of many advantages that things like LiveJournal have over traditional homepages. If I'm reading via my "friends page" (or RSS, or whatever else), then I only see new entries as they appear. People who haven't updated in years don't bother me.
Compare this to the problem with homepages where you'd have to manually check to see if there was any new content.
Of course, this assumes that you're taking advantage of new features offered by blogs (friends pages, RSS or whatever). If you're just browsing them manually like you would a normal homepage, then it should be obvious you get the same disadvantages that occur with homepages.
And since talking about what happened before the big bang is meaningless, the same logic means that the Universe needs no creator. We can't even talk about a creator if talking about "before the big bang" is meaningless.
But no one claims that evolution disproves the idea that a God created the Universe, and then life evolved gradually, which would be the analogy to people kicking off this evolving software.
Creationists believe that God created all life directly himself.
so why don't you just move into an apartment, then?
sheesh, i can't help but despair at the utter decadence of some people. whats wrong with cutting the grass? its a grand activity, supposed to remind you of the vigors of life.. same with chasing snakes! i do that for fun!
Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that the only value in having a lawn is for the "fun" in cutting it. Clearly, this isn't true
I take it that you don't own any labour saving devices like ovens or washing machines?
I might as well as you why do you bother having a house, if you couldn't be bothered building it yourself? To respond to your later post: every brick of your house should represent one of the billions of people alive, at the same time as you, who can only dream of such luxury.