Not to mention the fact that cloning is embarassingly similar to the process God gave us in the first place to perpetuate the species (although without all the fun parts;-).
The other difference, of course, being that most organisms are born with genetic material from two other organisms. I believe this is an important part of the design. Even from a strictly secular, evolutionary perspective, aren't there good reasons why sexual reproduction is favored over asexual reproduction?
(And yes, I'm all in favor of the fun parts, as well.)
I think most people would be uneasy with the most extreme cloning scenario: paying folks for killing newborns to harvest their stem cells for cloning research
Of shortly before they're born? Say a week, or a month, or...
Until there is a more reliable technique it's irresponsible to clone humans.
In my opinion, cloning should still be illegal even if it does become reliable and "safe". Because anyone arrogant enough to think "what this world really needs is an exact genetic duplicate of me" is someone I really don't want to see duplicate him or herself.
(This coming from someone who gave his firstborn the same name as himself (and his grandfather), so maybe I fit my own critique.)
Actually, if you were to strike the ball against the wall in such a way that the return went out of bounds, you would defeat it quite easily. Also, the wall would need to figure out how to generate a serve.
If roles were reversed, and everybody used a Mac, would the EU be telling Apple that they should unbundle Quicktime with their os due to monopolistic practices??
democratic elections conducted by secret ballot, in which any citizen may participate;
dignity and 'social security' (not the pension plan);
work without discrimination, and to form unions;
reasonable work hours;
medical care and social services, and support in the event of misfortune beyond one's control;
education--primary education will be compulsory (parents may decide the type of education that their children receive), higher education will be accessible on the basis of merit;
participate in culture, science, and the arts;
"... a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized";
Article 29 notes that all of the above must take place within a framework of just laws.
Holy unfunded mandates Batman!
What the heck does "reasonable work hours" mean? Are we going to mandate that the entire world becomes France, where no matter how much you would like to put in that overtime and get ahead, you're not allowed?
"medical care and social services, and support in the event of misfortune beyond one's control" Paid by who, and how much? Who decides how much "misfortune" qualifies one for compensation? Who decides whether or not that "misfortune" was beyond that one's control? What are "social services"? Who qualifies? And for those who don't qualify, why are you discriminating against them?
"higher education will be accessible on the basis of merit" How much merit qualifies you? What about means testing? Does government get to determine what tuition will be at various schools, or is government forced to pay whatever schools demand, or does government just pay the tuition for the school who is the "lowest bidder"?
"participate in culture, science, and the arts" What the heck does this mean? Does it mean we allow people to do chalk art on their own driveway, or that the state provides easels, paint and paint brushes to all it's citizens, or something else? How is this different than the better understood notion of free speech?
Who gets to have the authority to determine what constitutes "... a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized"?
"Article 29 notes that all of the above must take place within a framework of just laws" Same question regarding who gets to decide the meaning of "just".
This is why I just can't bring myself to take liberalism seriously. There's always this idea of taking anything that seems like it would make the world a better place and making a law out of it, or at least some kind of manifesto. But someone always has to pay the bill for those ideas, and someone always has to decide the meaning of concepts like "fair", "just", etc. Everything has a cost, and human beings can not be trusted to impartially interpret abstract mandates, no matter how noble they seem.
That's why the U.S. Bill of Rights actually enumerates individual FREEDOMS that the State may not abridge. Not a list of economic handouts to which citizens are entitled. And that's why the U.S. Constitution presents a system where in one power checks another, and doesn't rely on human interpretation of subjective notions.
So contrary to you intention, your post makes me even more afraid to entrust the U.N. with greater sovereignty.
They represent what the world is. I think it is better that the UN includes all the world's countries, rather just the ones whose governments we (or our government) happens to like.
You could argue that the U.N. serves a useful function as a body where countries can air their grievances and discuss their differences. But does it really make any sense to allow people like Castro, Qadaffi, Iranian mullahs, Saudi princes, Chinese Communists, and yes, even the Great Satan itself, power to decide how your country conducts it's affairs?
If you're from one of those countries, the point still stands if you just take your country out of the list and replace it with some other country you don't like.
No, I maintain that Bush is dumb, because he isn't intelligent.
I must admit this statement leaves me speechless and amazed. I'm left responseless by your eloquence and brilliance. The sheer weight of your withering logic has overcome me.
Pursuing a painless and popular policy doesn't require intelligence.
Ok, I think I got it now. Because Bush's policies are popular, he must be dumb, and because the Democrats' policies are unpopular, that makes them smart.
And proves nothing about the President's intelligence: when the economy looked good, he wanted tax cuts, when the economy was bad, he wanted tax cuts. When the economy shows one quarter of growth, he wants tax cuts.
Hey, I WANT my tax cut. If YOU want to donate more of your money to the government voluntarily, go right ahead. But, personally, I prefer keeping mine.
So that makes this President pretty darn intelligent in my eyes.
Here's another question. If Bush is so stupid, how is it he always gets exactly what he wants? I suppose you could still believe he's evil. But he must be a heck of a lot smarter than all those Democrats, cause somehow he gets what he wants and the Democrats are always left wondering what just happened.
Granted, saying Bush is smarter than most Democrats is not a huge compliment.
By buying a heavily subsidized $200 game machine from Microsoft, and then adding a pirated disk drive, the Xbox can be used as a "poor man's PC, turning a $200 game machine into a $600 personal computer, which Microsoft doesn't like at all," Doherty said.
That may have led Microsoft to the PowerPC platform developed by IBM.
Now Apple will be upset when the new XBox is hacked into a $200 iMac.
Now, the fact that the U.S. president has no mental capacity to understand this, and believes the electorate is at least as stupid as he is, do not change the underlying truth.
Wow, that's, like, wicked economic analysis, dude. And here I thought we Americans actually wanted to sell more stuff overseas and reduce our trade deficit. But now I see I was wrong.
Jack Chick can be hilarious to read if you're in the right mood.
Which is a healthier approach than trying to stop him from being published.
Maybe what I'm really arguing against is the way Mr. Gaiman seems to not quite trust readers to understand his work. If you write a powerful, nuanced work, I think you need to have faith in your readers to see the nuances and not be persuaded by a third party that tries to over simplify what you said. I think trusting your readers in that way is more courageouse than fearing that someone might be able to twist what you say. There will always be people trying to do that, no matter what you do.
I don't know why you keep getting modded as flamebait.
Well, thanks. I'm trying to stick to debatable points, and away from ad hominem attacks. Oh, well. I guess this whole topic is flamebait for some moderators, regardless of how it's presented.
Slashdot Mirror
fact is that the US acted in Iraq against international law
Evidence for this? Unpopular, yes. But I'm pretty sure no one has been able to make stick the charge that the war violated international law.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
The current US administration acts as if they believe that the UN is an organization somewhere between the Three Stooges and the Devil Incarnate
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
And besides it is unstoppable.
Theft, murder, rape, war, etc. are all unstoppable too. So what's your point?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Can a termite comprehend that it is eating a thing called a "house"? No. Does that mean God built the house?
From the termite's perspective, that may very well be true. It's all relative, you know.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Not to mention the fact that cloning is embarassingly similar to the process God gave us in the first place to perpetuate the species (although without all the fun parts ;-).
The other difference, of course, being that most organisms are born with genetic material from two other organisms. I believe this is an important part of the design. Even from a strictly secular, evolutionary perspective, aren't there good reasons why sexual reproduction is favored over asexual reproduction?
(And yes, I'm all in favor of the fun parts, as well.)
I think most people would be uneasy with the most extreme cloning scenario: paying folks for killing newborns to harvest their stem cells for cloning research
Of shortly before they're born? Say a week, or a month, or...
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Until there is a more reliable technique it's irresponsible to clone humans.
In my opinion, cloning should still be illegal even if it does become reliable and "safe". Because anyone arrogant enough to think "what this world really needs is an exact genetic duplicate of me" is someone I really don't want to see duplicate him or herself.
(This coming from someone who gave his firstborn the same name as himself (and his grandfather), so maybe I fit my own critique.)
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Examples?
Can't have a good debate (or flamefest) without specifics.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
murdering a killer is still murder.
Eye for an eye, life for a life. This is how many people look at it, and have for centuries.
Also, are you against war, then, in all circumstances?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Watch this get +4 insightful.
+5 as it turns out.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Actually, if you were to strike the ball against the wall in such a way that the return went out of bounds, you would defeat it quite easily. Also, the wall would need to figure out how to generate a serve.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
In all fairness, Mr. Gates is seriously attacking the problem of third world immunizations, which is just as important a problem, I think.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
If roles were reversed, and everybody used a Mac, would the EU be telling Apple that they should unbundle Quicktime with their os due to monopolistic practices??
Yes.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
This will make the court favor us, as we can show a lack of true orginization on the defendants part
Is there now a federal law against being disorganized?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
then what do you call Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay? Shining beacon of "freedom" and "due process"?
So extending this idea to the whole world under the auspices of the U.N. is an even better idea?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Holy unfunded mandates Batman!
What the heck does "reasonable work hours" mean? Are we going to mandate that the entire world becomes France, where no matter how much you would like to put in that overtime and get ahead, you're not allowed?
"medical care and social services, and support in the event of misfortune beyond one's control" Paid by who, and how much? Who decides how much "misfortune" qualifies one for compensation? Who decides whether or not that "misfortune" was beyond that one's control? What are "social services"? Who qualifies? And for those who don't qualify, why are you discriminating against them?
"higher education will be accessible on the basis of merit" How much merit qualifies you? What about means testing? Does government get to determine what tuition will be at various schools, or is government forced to pay whatever schools demand, or does government just pay the tuition for the school who is the "lowest bidder"?
"participate in culture, science, and the arts" What the heck does this mean? Does it mean we allow people to do chalk art on their own driveway, or that the state provides easels, paint and paint brushes to all it's citizens, or something else? How is this different than the better understood notion of free speech?
Who gets to have the authority to determine what constitutes "... a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized"?
"Article 29 notes that all of the above must take place within a framework of just laws" Same question regarding who gets to decide the meaning of "just".
This is why I just can't bring myself to take liberalism seriously. There's always this idea of taking anything that seems like it would make the world a better place and making a law out of it, or at least some kind of manifesto. But someone always has to pay the bill for those ideas, and someone always has to decide the meaning of concepts like "fair", "just", etc. Everything has a cost, and human beings can not be trusted to impartially interpret abstract mandates, no matter how noble they seem.
That's why the U.S. Bill of Rights actually enumerates individual FREEDOMS that the State may not abridge. Not a list of economic handouts to which citizens are entitled. And that's why the U.S. Constitution presents a system where in one power checks another, and doesn't rely on human interpretation of subjective notions.
So contrary to you intention, your post makes me even more afraid to entrust the U.N. with greater sovereignty.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
They represent what the world is. I think it is better that the UN includes all the world's countries, rather just the ones whose governments we (or our government) happens to like.
You could argue that the U.N. serves a useful function as a body where countries can air their grievances and discuss their differences. But does it really make any sense to allow people like Castro, Qadaffi, Iranian mullahs, Saudi princes, Chinese Communists, and yes, even the Great Satan itself, power to decide how your country conducts it's affairs?
If you're from one of those countries, the point still stands if you just take your country out of the list and replace it with some other country you don't like.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
No, I maintain that Bush is dumb, because he isn't intelligent.
I must admit this statement leaves me speechless and amazed. I'm left responseless by your eloquence and brilliance. The sheer weight of your withering logic has overcome me.
I concede the battle.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Pursuing a painless and popular policy doesn't require intelligence.
Ok, I think I got it now. Because Bush's policies are popular, he must be dumb, and because the Democrats' policies are unpopular, that makes them smart.
Is that about right?
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
And proves nothing about the President's intelligence: when the economy looked good, he wanted tax cuts, when the economy was bad, he wanted tax cuts. When the economy shows one quarter of growth, he wants tax cuts.
Hey, I WANT my tax cut. If YOU want to donate more of your money to the government voluntarily, go right ahead. But, personally, I prefer keeping mine.
So that makes this President pretty darn intelligent in my eyes.
Here's another question. If Bush is so stupid, how is it he always gets exactly what he wants? I suppose you could still believe he's evil. But he must be a heck of a lot smarter than all those Democrats, cause somehow he gets what he wants and the Democrats are always left wondering what just happened.
Granted, saying Bush is smarter than most Democrats is not a huge compliment.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
By buying a heavily subsidized $200 game machine from Microsoft, and then adding a pirated disk drive, the Xbox can be used as a "poor man's PC, turning a $200 game machine into a $600 personal computer, which Microsoft doesn't like at all," Doherty said.
That may have led Microsoft to the PowerPC platform developed by IBM.
Now Apple will be upset when the new XBox is hacked into a $200 iMac.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Now, the fact that the U.S. president has no mental capacity to understand this, and believes the electorate is at least as stupid as he is, do not change the underlying truth.
Here's the result of this President's stupidity: Economy Grew at 7.2% Rate in 3rd Quarter, Fastest Since 1984
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Wow, that's, like, wicked economic analysis, dude. And here I thought we Americans actually wanted to sell more stuff overseas and reduce our trade deficit. But now I see I was wrong.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
The politically correct always consider political correctness tact.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
Jack Chick can be hilarious to read if you're in the right mood.
Which is a healthier approach than trying to stop him from being published.
Maybe what I'm really arguing against is the way Mr. Gaiman seems to not quite trust readers to understand his work. If you write a powerful, nuanced work, I think you need to have faith in your readers to see the nuances and not be persuaded by a third party that tries to over simplify what you said. I think trusting your readers in that way is more courageouse than fearing that someone might be able to twist what you say. There will always be people trying to do that, no matter what you do.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
I don't know why you keep getting modded as flamebait.
Well, thanks. I'm trying to stick to debatable points, and away from ad hominem attacks. Oh, well. I guess this whole topic is flamebait for some moderators, regardless of how it's presented.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo