I would like to protest all this spacial profiling. We do not have a right to apply an arbitrary set of standards to decide who gets to be a planet, and who does not. These heavenly bodies have rights, and we are trampling on them. Once we start applying arbitrary standards, then we've lost morally. Why, with all the threats of meteors in the solar system, we're just asking to be attacked.
"Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa."
Yes, because those living in Africa are less evolved than those living further away--or blacks really are sub-human. At least, that's what Darwin's contemporaries said at the time. Eugenics is/was the logical conclusion of Darwin's prediction. Hitler was merely the political manifestation of that conclusion. There was an American text-book that taught evolution in the 20s that had a five-tier system for which race was more evolved--Black, Brown, Yellow, Red, White (or was it Black, Brown, Red, Yellow White--I can't remember, but I know Black was least and White most).
Accepting evolution as true assumes that some humans are less evolved than others, which allows for value assignment.
"Changes of species over time is a fact, in the sense that we've observed it."
Okay, I'll bite. When was mutation from one species to another conclusively proven such that we observed it? Last I heard, there were still some missing links.
I'll ask you to allow me to wax religious here and make assertions based on Christianity. I'm not here to do anything more than explain why I can accept the death penalty.
FWIW, Moses introduced the series of Jewish laws that covered a wide gamit of when death was the acceptable penalty. Having sex with your daughter/sister/mother was one of them, as was being a witch, or accidently killing your neighbor with the head of an axe that flew off the handle. In the latter case, the accused could flee to certain cities and plead his case before the elders for admittance. If they admitted him, then he was protected from the death penalty (usually enforced by relatives of the deceased).
Jesus "came not to replace the law but fulfill it." The nature of the Law was one that eventually convicted everybody of a violation, which led to death ("for all have sinned"). Jesus sacrifice allows those called to him to be forgiven of those sins. Christians are called to love the sinner and pray for his salvation. However, that does not remove from the murderer the consequence of his crime. It is debatable if a sociopathic murderer (as an extreme example) can repent (I've seen a recent scientific study which shows that religious people generally are lower on the sociopathic scale). If he can, then the time from conviction to execution is ample time for him to come to terms with his sinful nature.
Contrast that with the life of Saul/Paul. Here's a fellow who actively hunted Christians. He was present for the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 8). Tradition suggests he was involved with Christ's execution. However, he was confronted by God and he repented---becoming one of the most influential evangelicals in Christian history. So, anything is possible.
However, I look at things a little pragmatically. First, looking to the Old Testament, I see that God has ultimate authority, but that he assigns authority over my behavior first to my parents. If I refuse that authority, then parents resign their authority and society assumes responsibility for my behavior. If I refuse to accept society's authority, then society must resign its authority and hand me over to the ultimate authority.
Second, the rampant criminality we have today would not exist with a more rigorous enforcement of the death penalty. Child-molesting predators are the de jure news topic, but I contend that a sexual preditor dead is less likely to molest again. First, molestation appears to be somewhat vampiric in nature--those molested tend to become molestors (at least, molestors have typically been molested--this does not say all molested children become molestors). So, preventing molestation by the death penalty would reduce the likelihood of future molesters by reducing the pool of potential molestors. A bit hard to follow, but this is Slashdot.
In conclusion, I accept the death penalty because those who have commited murder, rape, or molestation have shown a flagrant disregard for human life. In many cases they have stripped the innocence from a living victim. By their actions, those criminals have abdicated the protection of our society (once convicted) and should not be allowed to enjoy benefits of society again. While some would suggest life-imprisionment, I believe society should not be burdened with providing three-hots-and-a-cot to one who has rejected society.
While I as an individual may forgive a criminal for harming me, society cannot tolerate the behavior. It's like a cancer--left unharmed it would kill society.
"The problem with religious people is that they have an agenda, and logic usually takes a back seat."
And, um, atheists are sans agenda? I mean, if you're going to use a ad hominem logical fallacy, you should at least realize when you're putting logic in the back seat.
"Show me a single person who is both an aetheist AND against evolution."
Well, that proves evolution, doesn't it? I mean, since you claim religious people have an agenda and imply that atheists do not, and since (assuming your right) all atheists believe in macro-evolution, then evolution must be true. Appealing to the majority is another logical fallacy you've employed. At least you're not putting it in the back seat--you've left it on the side of the road. However, I should point out that if atheists did not believe in evolution, then how could they deny the existance of a god?
You point to a few birds on an island that can't mate, but that begs the question---another logical fallacy (c.f "Gentlement prefer blonds. I know this because a gentleman told me. I know he's a gentleman because he prefers blonds." with "Macro-evolution happens. I know this because there are some birds on an island that can't mate. I know they can't mate because of macro-evolution."). Actually, the fact that atheists believe in evolution is also a begging the question fallacy. So far, you've not only not put logic in the back seat, but she's off on the side of the road a few miles back.
Darwin had a problem (when he is alive) with the fossil record and macro-evolution. That is, there should be loads of evidence to show the migrations between species. Today, after over 140 years, there is still insufficent fossil evidence to show the trans-species move. Still can't prove the evolution of the eye conclusively. However, we have tons of evidence of intra-species (micro-evolution). In order to take what is known and create macro-evolution, scientists have to make firm belief in something for which there is insufficient proof. In English we call this taking something on faith. Faith of this nature tends to be more descriptive of a religious view.
When accusing a religious person of being illogical, at least have the decency of being logical yourself. The fact is that neither creation nor evolution can be proven, which means both arguements belong to metaphysics. Oddly enough, that's the realm of religion and philosopy---no place for an atheist here. (If you hope it may one day be proven, remember that Christians also hope for the return of the Saviour.)
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." -- Francis Bacon
Having read the depo, the RIAA is not going to depose the dead. They are extending the deadlines of all depos, but the depo of the Plaintiff is, as a matter of law, off the schedule. RIAA's attorneys are hoping that the other depos will bear fruit from the tantalization they got from the kid. Although, FWIW, the kid's attorney might have been wrapping a "everybody's doing it" argument that RIAA attorney's picked up on as a chance to find out who everybody is. Perhaps the follow up might have accompanied the local area telephone book.
So, what we have is essentially a news article twisted to stir up angst against the Plaintiff (RIAA)---sort of like the media raging against Israel, who is a plaintiff in a different court. Apart from the typical media hyperbole, there is nothing much to see here.
"Artists who allow free downloading of their music find that is *INCREASES* sales. Independant studies [washingtonpost.com] show that show P2P increases sales."
Irrelevant. If a copyright holder does not want his work being stolen by others, he has a right to press the matter. The RIAA (by proxy) is a copyright holder. Therefore, RIAA has the right to hunt down theives. The fact that some copyright holders accept free downloading of music does not mean that all do or should. Your assertion that some do so all should is a logical fallacy.
For those who don't like what RIAA is doing, I have a suggestion: stop listening to that music. I have a second suggestion: stop stealing music. Since there are artists who encourage free downloads, patronize them instead. If we all stop buying music from RIAA-represented artists, while at the same time not stealing the music, then 1) the business model you complain about will fail and 2) they can't legitimately blame theft.
"Anyone who thinks they could place the Khmer Rouge on higher moral ground than Hezbollah has no business criticising others for having agendas.
"You'd have to be a grandmaster of spin to credibly equate a terrorist group that has killed fewer than a thousand people in its 20+ year existence with a regime that executed hundreds of thousands of its own people (and caused the deaths hundreds of thousands more) in the space of a few years, and not have any regard for the disservice such an odious comparison does to the memory of those who died in the Cambodian genocide."
All that does is show the KR was more successful. If Hebollah got its way, they'd make KR's killing fields look like a picnic. That's not a disservice to those slaughtered by the KR, it should serve to remind everyone what godless hate can do.
The Nazis, Soviets, Chicoms, KR and other atheist groups are guilty for the murder of tens of millions combined.
I have to say I'm surprised by your interest in my separating stats by skin color. The newspapers seem to always separate these statistics that way. Remember that Central High received some noteriety back in 1957. The settlement is not monetary, but equitable in nature---fix the system so there is not a disparate impact on blacks. This case is just like the other legion desegregation cases.
The per-head cost is a separate issue. There is another school district, almost completely black, that sued about 20 years ago over unfair distribution of education money which resulted in some school districts (read black) being paid less per-pupil than white students. IIRC, education spending is primarily a county function, but the state was sued. The Arkansas State Supreme Court ordered a minimum per-student expenditure because our state constitution was amended to provide equal education for all---which seems to be a way of ensuring teachers always get paid fairly. I say teachers being paid fairly because the Court said education should be paid first---before any other necessary expenditure. This is because education is in the Constitution, while other programs are statutory.
The Little Rock School District spends twice the Court mandated amount per pupil. When adjusted for cost-of-living, it is among the highest spending school districts in the U.S. Yet, Seatle, which spends less per actual dollar that we do, does a better job educating its students (regardless of racial background). I did the math a while back, but I think the LRSD spends (adjusted for COL) 3-4 times as much per pupil to accomplish less. I've interpreted this to mean that it's not how much is spent per pupil that matters.
I call B.S. on that one. I live in Little Rock presently. I've been told by several sources that half the white students in the city attend private school to avoid Little Rock public schools. Central High is but one of several high schools in that school district. The district is plagued by legal bills going back most of my life (and I'm in my 30s), has insane bussing (I've watched small children dropped off after 6p in a rundown neighborhoos), and has one of the highest per-pupil spending (~$12k)---but student testing has white students only being average and black students well below-average. They must be using some of that "New Math" I keep hearing about.
"Really? I saw 'freedom of the press shall not be abbridged.' It didn't say anything about it only covering your ability to print something. 'The press' pretty clearly referes to journalists, and forcing phone records out of them seems to abridge their freedom to do their job effectively. After all, if the government can get any journalists phone records, who would talk to them?"
"Press" does not refer to journalists. "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."[1] Speech means your ability to stand out in public and criticize your government. Press means the same thing in print. So, a letter written to your Aunt Flo saying "Bush is a ninny" could not be silenced by Congress any more than a letter to the editor. While you're pointing out the "clear meaning" of the Constitution, how about the fact that the First Amendment only applies to Congress? Therefore, states are free to shut you up at will. I know that this has been extended to states via the 14th Amendment by the Courts, but that's not clear in the clear meaning of that amendment, either.
Of course, while going on about how press applies to journalists, how about the next amendment? ". . . [T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Pretty clear to me. Load me up, Brother.
[1]: U.S. Const. Amend. I. [2]: U.S. Const. Amend. II.
"The intent was to have every person (note: not every citizen, every PERSON) Free to do as they will, both in Speech and using the Press."
Sorry, but I doubt that was the intent. I believe the intent was to give each citizen the right to express opposition to his government. The Founders were not as liberated as you would have us believe. Slaves were not given freedom of the press.
"From my experience, the reason there are not many 18 year old bartenders is that they cannot be trusted. . . . You don't want an irresponsible child handling the most profitable aspect of your business."
"you showed copyright infringement is a crime, but where did you show it was *theft*?"
First, you were not asking to prove copyright infringement is theft. You said, in the GPP, "[s]how me a passage in any lawbook that _equates_ copyright infringement with theft." (Emphasis mine.) So, I only have to show you that both are criminal and both can result in jail time. I have done that. You're trying to claim some argument victory where there is none.
Also, in your post (GPP) you emphasized that infringement was a _tort_ not _crime_. I pointed out that infringement is both tort and crime. While the law gives the term "theft" a very precise meaning, it is obvious from your post (and its parent post) that you were claiming it is not criminal to infringe---especially when you say "equates." Copyright infringement can get you up to ten years in prison. That makes it a felony. While not all theft is felony, serious enough theft (i.e. grand theft) is. Not all copyright infringement is feloneous---only serious enough theft.
According to Meriam-Webster, theft "is an unlawful taking . . . of property." According to Wikipedia, "[c]opyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material. . . . often referred to as piracy or _theft_ . . .." Sounds pretty synonymous to me.
"'If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged'. - Cardinal Richelieu"
Ok. Cite a despotic priest during the waxing years to the French Revolution and it is immediately applicable today? Besides, that's Europe, where people can be tried again if he's innocent, or retried if guilty for a higher sentence. In the U.S., a criminal can be caught red-handed in broad daylight with hundreds of witnesses, but can be released because of a technicality. So what if the state passes a law that helps put the criminal behind bars? The only use of a camera phone photo is to give the defense some excuse to let a guilty man go free because of some technicality.
Most crimes carry with them a requisite intent. Some like murder require specific intent, but others require general intent (e.g. burglary is specific, but B&E is general). Some crimes are strict liability, such as parking in a handicap zone, statutory rape, or being a liberal--no intent required. But, the strict liability crimes tend to carry only fines. So, while we as citizens might inadvertantly engage in activity that is criminal in nature, because we lack intent we are not liable.
This event happened in New Hampshire. Isn't that one of those Blue states? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vo te2004/countymap.htm)
"Oh is it? Show me a passage in any lawbook that equates copyright infringement with theft."
17 U.S.C.A. 506(a) - Criminal infringement of copyright - Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed for commercial gain, of copyrighted works up to $1000, OR making available a work in production (including movies, music and software) on a computer network against the copyright holder's wishes. There are a total of four criminal offenses under this section.
18 U.S.C.A. 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright - Sets out that you can be imprisoned for up to ten years, depending on the natureof the infrignement.
So, while there are civil remedies to copyright infringement, there is also the bite of criminal penalties.
"Also, in many jurisdictions copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime."
Except in the United States, where there is really only one jurisdiction that matters. The Federal copyright law preempts all state laws by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
If you'd read my quote in context, you would see that the parent poster said "assuming science proved every word in the bible (sic) true. [So what]" I did not myself say that science could prove---I was operating logically from his assumption.
My point, which you obtusely missed, was that the parent post said that scientists such as he would not allow their preconceived notions to allow them to miss the truth when proven scientifically. In the same post he stated that a scientific proving of the existance of God would not change his POV. Therefore, he contradicted himself---I was merely underscoring that. Of course, when one sets the criteria of proof, anything can be avoided.
What Science can't do is prove God exists? I disagree. It is a logical fallacy to force the other side to prove a negative, but Science can't prove God does not exist any more than it can. Science cannot provide direct evidence of a lot of things which it infers. Fossil records are used to support Evolution, yet there is no direct evidence proving evolution. If there is a single gap in the evidence that requires an inference, then the evidence becomes inferential. Science in the case of evolution asks its adherents to reach a conclusion by looking at evidence and making an inference. Heck, Science requires this in many fields---we cannot prove the existance of dark matter, which is presently indetectible, however by looking at surrounding facts we infer that it must exist.
I put it to you that my belief in God is no less an inferential investigation. I look at the same evidence you do and conclude that a being superior to the Universe had to have been involved. The great logical fallacy of Science is you have to believe that the energy composing the Universe is eternal, while likewise declaring that a supernatural being cannot exist. Both require leaps of faith. I'm willing to admit that, atheists are not.
"Ignoring the fact that your entire post is false . .."
And, you have proven this via a scientific finding? You're concluding falsity without it having been proven. Pot, meet kettle.
"it wouldn't matter if scientific findings DID prove the bible correct word for word. That would simply be the way the universe is. So be it."
Hmm, if scientific findings proved the Bible correct, then:
1. God exists---based on scientific finding;
2. Man screwed the pooch in Eden---based on scientific finding;
3. Jesus was the redeemer---based on scientific finding.
4. The "way the universe is" would hold that we owe allegiance to God.
So, you're asserting an assumption that the Bible is true on scientific footing then shruging off the necessary conclusion. That is not intellectually honest. At least those who adhere to religion admit they are accepting a conclusion absent fully-formed facts. How is Evolution any different? Since Evolution is a continuing process, could you please demonstrate an intermediate step where one lower-order species is becoming a higher species? And, I would like to point out that the nature of life is to harmonize with the environment, and we are not doing that---which suggests we are an evolutionary dead-end.
"Unlike religionists, real scientists just want to know the truth, and they're not scared that it might shatter their own preconcieved notions . .."
But, applying your assumption as to the scientific validity of the Bible's message, the truth would require you to shatter your own preconceived notion. This is something your post shows you are not willing to do. Of course, truth is allegedly subjective. So, by your reckoning, scientists just want to know "truth," which is not always consistent with facts. Adherents to religion accept a truth and admit that truth is accepted without all the facts---we accept the truth based on inferences.
"[Scientists] don't 'shift' the truth." Happens all the time. Global cooling---no, wait. Global warming. Well, we know it's global and it's all our fault. What? Evidence that volcanoes are a greater contributer? Must be flaky research, because it's all our fault. That's the truth, now let's find evidence to prove it.
IMO, Science differs from religion only in that religion admits there's a higher power in play upon which we are accountable. Science assumes there's a cosmic, random power upon which we are not accountable. While I cannot deny that there are those who for the sake of religion do evil (such as flying planes into buildings to prove a point), _if_ we operated honestly compliant with the precepts of religion, then there would be a lot less suffering. The problem is that we as humans tend to prefer to satisfy our own self-interest. I'm not denying that there is some good that produces from science, but that science needs to accept there is a moral authority. To fail to do this is to become little better than Nazi scientists who tested on humans with total disregard of the moral implications.
As to the argument about Evolution, I do not see how that does anything to help us feed the poor, or care for our families. It seems premised on a need to prove humanity came here via a means wherein we are not liable to any higher power. Now we have an unproven theory that snakes caused us to evolve the way we did. Heck, why didn't the same stimulus help all those other species to develop color vision and depth perception? This is unfounded speculation. A poster points out the ironic comparison with the Bible, and you stomp on his post as false. Kettle, meet pot---which I say to myself as well.
"The program does indeed break the law. Only two points remain in-the-air - Who authorized it, and will Congress make similar future programs legal."
Saying it does not make it so. Specifically, how does this program violate the law? First, state the law. Second, provide the facts that show how the law is violated.
Don't have the facts? That might be due to the investigation not being complete. The assertion here is that Bush is blocking said investigation. The truth is we don't even have all the facts about why the block occurred---and so some assume that it's about a cover up. This is a correlation implies causation logical fallacy. It's like saying that breathing outside swampy air at twilight results in malaria because you contracted malaria while outside during twilight. (Derevation of "malaria") Of course, it was the air and not the mosquitos.
When it comes to top secret security clearances, they aren't just handed out like they were passes to Disney World. There is a background investigation necessary that delves back seven years. In some cases, there are polygraphic examinations. Every part of your character is scrutinized. There is no privacy. It's not unheard of for somebody not to pass those rigors. Just because the current wave of lawyers weren't accepted does not mean that Bush is summarily blocking all. And, such investigations can take up to a year. Heck, I've even known of people failing who had a clearance and needed a reinvestigation for specific access. This is not unusual. This is a mosquito. The article suggests it is the night air.
The great thing about news stories is we believe they are as factual as possible---like actually being there. In truth, news is just the telephone game masked in authority. In some cases, stories are colored so as to favor a specific side of an issue. This is either done by the side coloring, the reporter, or the paper. It's natural to favor your chosen side. So, this entire paragraph should be one, big "duh."
"Constitutionally, only congress can declare war. Congress has not declared war."
Wrong.
"But congress has abdicated their responsibility to declare war, so the president has engaged in an unprecedented, extraconstitutional, and arguably illegal consolidation of executive power."
Wrong.
I rebutt your wild-eyed acusations with the opening sentence to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: "Pursuant to Congress' Joint Resolution authorizing the President to 'use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided," the' September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks (AUMF) . .."
Translation: Congress gave the Executive full access to his War Power in the AUMF. The Constitution does not have a pro forma requirement for declaring war---only that Congress must enact legislation empowering the President to do so in a way that puts the opponent on notice. When Congress gave the President "use of _all_ necessary and appropriate force [against those that] he determines [were actively involved in 9/11]," then the there is a declaration of war. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld did not challenge the AUMF as a declaration of war is very telling. That decision operated under the conclusion that the AUMF was a valid conveying of War Power---that is, all eight justices rendering an opinion agreed in valid conveyance. (Roberts recused as he was on the lower appellate court's panel in that case.)
A declaration of war is essentially a public statement putting the "warred against" nation(s) on-notice of war. Compare the bombing of Pearl Harbor, which was done without formal declaration of war, with U.S. entry into WWI, where Germany knew we were coming. AUMF tells all those actively involved that the President has the power to punish them. As they were actively involved, they knew AUMF refers to them---so they are on notice.
Therefore, because Congress has declared war, it has not abdicated its responsibility. Also, the President has not engaged in "an unprecedented, extraconstitutional, and arguably illegal consolidation of executive power," because Congress declared war.
Of course, the operative word in this is "consolidation." All your adjectives apply to that. Omitting them, you're stating that the President has enaged in consolidation of executive power. FWIW, Executive power is consolidated in the President. That's like saying that Wal-Mart is consolidating management of its stores---of course it is. There's nothing illegal about the President exerting his power.
It is no more "extraconstitutional" for the President to rightfully exercise his War Powers than it is for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to invent a fundamental right not in the Constitution---and that has happened repeatedly. To conjure a right for a woman to have unprotected sex with a man she doesn't like very much, SCOTUS has operated extraconstitutionally. In fact, in cases such as Lawrence v. Texas (legalizing homosexual sodomy), SCOTUS operated, as you say, in an "unprecedented" fashion (they did reverse a precedent from 20 years ago). Of course, when Courts operate in a way that favors your cause, you'll applaude the breach of precedent. However, when you think the President has usurped his authority, you will cite the breach is unprecedented and, therefore, illegal. You can't have it both ways.
More importantly, the plurality in Hamdan operated extraconsitutionally--don't forget SCOTUS can still violate the Constitution as can any government Branch. Over 135 years of presedent, in "every anglo-american case," when Congress enacts legislation stripping SCOTUS of appellate jurisdiction, SCOTUS has refused to continue with a case.
The earliest example was 1869, where an appeal had been argued and SCOTUS was about to render its opinion (in the afternoon). That morning, Congress stripped SCOTUS of its appellate jurisdiction, and the Court said, "when Congress has removed our appellate jur
"I would find that a true delta configuration would be unlikely as there would be little evolutionary advantage to developing an inherently less stable "wing" configuration for the low speed flying that this creature would be doing."
Yes, yes. Please remember that this is an extinct critter. Obviously, the wing configuration could not withstand the rigors of natural selection. After all, why are all fossils found examples of improvement of a species? Why aren't there more examples of critters that were obvious genetic dead ends?
Besides, how do you know this was a low speed---or even flying---critter? It could have either been flightless, or perhaps been capable of speeds much closer to MACH than we anticipate. Perhaps the critter swooped down from great heights, attained amazing speed, and caught its prey completely off guard.
We should be embracing the design by figuring out what it means, rather than discounting it because of some aerodynamic engineering psychobabbly claptrap. I mean, one bone makes this design very compelling and so it-must-have-been-so.
"Are you sure about that? that they're actually throttling people?"
I can attest that Netflix throttles people. I have a friend two doors up who kept churning his three-movie queue, copying DVDs so he could view them whenever he actually had time to view them, and would report a DVD missing so Netflix would send a movie before the one he returned was received.
Then one day, three Netflix "technicians" showed up---two had baseball bats. The two beat my friend severely, then the third guy grabbed him by the throat and throttled him until he promised to play nice. He'll be out of the hospital next week.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to protest all this spacial profiling. We do not have a right to apply an arbitrary set of standards to decide who gets to be a planet, and who does not. These heavenly bodies have rights, and we are trampling on them. Once we start applying arbitrary standards, then we've lost morally. Why, with all the threats of meteors in the solar system, we're just asking to be attacked.
"It's called a fork in development. Consider OpenBSD and FreeBSD."
A clear example of intelligent design. I'm sure OBSD and FBSD would not have forked without a conscious decision-maker.
Republican != Conservative.
I'm sure you're also pro-marital monogamy, but wouldn't mind if your wife got pregant with your best-friend's child.
"Darwin predicted, based on homologies with African apes, that human ancestors arose in Africa."
Yes, because those living in Africa are less evolved than those living further away--or blacks really are sub-human. At least, that's what Darwin's contemporaries said at the time. Eugenics is/was the logical conclusion of Darwin's prediction. Hitler was merely the political manifestation of that conclusion. There was an American text-book that taught evolution in the 20s that had a five-tier system for which race was more evolved--Black, Brown, Yellow, Red, White (or was it Black, Brown, Red, Yellow White--I can't remember, but I know Black was least and White most).
Accepting evolution as true assumes that some humans are less evolved than others, which allows for value assignment.
"Changes of species over time is a fact, in the sense that we've observed it."
Okay, I'll bite. When was mutation from one species to another conclusively proven such that we observed it? Last I heard, there were still some missing links.
I'll ask you to allow me to wax religious here and make assertions based on Christianity. I'm not here to do anything more than explain why I can accept the death penalty.
FWIW, Moses introduced the series of Jewish laws that covered a wide gamit of when death was the acceptable penalty. Having sex with your daughter/sister/mother was one of them, as was being a witch, or accidently killing your neighbor with the head of an axe that flew off the handle. In the latter case, the accused could flee to certain cities and plead his case before the elders for admittance. If they admitted him, then he was protected from the death penalty (usually enforced by relatives of the deceased).
Jesus "came not to replace the law but fulfill it." The nature of the Law was one that eventually convicted everybody of a violation, which led to death ("for all have sinned"). Jesus sacrifice allows those called to him to be forgiven of those sins. Christians are called to love the sinner and pray for his salvation. However, that does not remove from the murderer the consequence of his crime. It is debatable if a sociopathic murderer (as an extreme example) can repent (I've seen a recent scientific study which shows that religious people generally are lower on the sociopathic scale). If he can, then the time from conviction to execution is ample time for him to come to terms with his sinful nature.
Contrast that with the life of Saul/Paul. Here's a fellow who actively hunted Christians. He was present for the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 8). Tradition suggests he was involved with Christ's execution. However, he was confronted by God and he repented---becoming one of the most influential evangelicals in Christian history. So, anything is possible.
However, I look at things a little pragmatically. First, looking to the Old Testament, I see that God has ultimate authority, but that he assigns authority over my behavior first to my parents. If I refuse that authority, then parents resign their authority and society assumes responsibility for my behavior. If I refuse to accept society's authority, then society must resign its authority and hand me over to the ultimate authority.
Second, the rampant criminality we have today would not exist with a more rigorous enforcement of the death penalty. Child-molesting predators are the de jure news topic, but I contend that a sexual preditor dead is less likely to molest again. First, molestation appears to be somewhat vampiric in nature--those molested tend to become molestors (at least, molestors have typically been molested--this does not say all molested children become molestors). So, preventing molestation by the death penalty would reduce the likelihood of future molesters by reducing the pool of potential molestors. A bit hard to follow, but this is Slashdot.
In conclusion, I accept the death penalty because those who have commited murder, rape, or molestation have shown a flagrant disregard for human life. In many cases they have stripped the innocence from a living victim. By their actions, those criminals have abdicated the protection of our society (once convicted) and should not be allowed to enjoy benefits of society again. While some would suggest life-imprisionment, I believe society should not be burdened with providing three-hots-and-a-cot to one who has rejected society.
While I as an individual may forgive a criminal for harming me, society cannot tolerate the behavior. It's like a cancer--left unharmed it would kill society.
"The problem with religious people is that they have an agenda, and logic usually takes a back seat."
And, um, atheists are sans agenda? I mean, if you're going to use a ad hominem logical fallacy, you should at least realize when you're putting logic in the back seat.
"Show me a single person who is both an aetheist AND against evolution."
Well, that proves evolution, doesn't it? I mean, since you claim religious people have an agenda and imply that atheists do not, and since (assuming your right) all atheists believe in macro-evolution, then evolution must be true. Appealing to the majority is another logical fallacy you've employed. At least you're not putting it in the back seat--you've left it on the side of the road. However, I should point out that if atheists did not believe in evolution, then how could they deny the existance of a god?
You point to a few birds on an island that can't mate, but that begs the question---another logical fallacy (c.f "Gentlement prefer blonds. I know this because a gentleman told me. I know he's a gentleman because he prefers blonds." with "Macro-evolution happens. I know this because there are some birds on an island that can't mate. I know they can't mate because of macro-evolution."). Actually, the fact that atheists believe in evolution is also a begging the question fallacy. So far, you've not only not put logic in the back seat, but she's off on the side of the road a few miles back.
Darwin had a problem (when he is alive) with the fossil record and macro-evolution. That is, there should be loads of evidence to show the migrations between species. Today, after over 140 years, there is still insufficent fossil evidence to show the trans-species move. Still can't prove the evolution of the eye conclusively. However, we have tons of evidence of intra-species (micro-evolution). In order to take what is known and create macro-evolution, scientists have to make firm belief in something for which there is insufficient proof. In English we call this taking something on faith. Faith of this nature tends to be more descriptive of a religious view.
When accusing a religious person of being illogical, at least have the decency of being logical yourself. The fact is that neither creation nor evolution can be proven, which means both arguements belong to metaphysics. Oddly enough, that's the realm of religion and philosopy---no place for an atheist here. (If you hope it may one day be proven, remember that Christians also hope for the return of the Saviour.)
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." -- Francis Bacon
Having read the depo, the RIAA is not going to depose the dead. They are extending the deadlines of all depos, but the depo of the Plaintiff is, as a matter of law, off the schedule. RIAA's attorneys are hoping that the other depos will bear fruit from the tantalization they got from the kid. Although, FWIW, the kid's attorney might have been wrapping a "everybody's doing it" argument that RIAA attorney's picked up on as a chance to find out who everybody is. Perhaps the follow up might have accompanied the local area telephone book.
So, what we have is essentially a news article twisted to stir up angst against the Plaintiff (RIAA)---sort of like the media raging against Israel, who is a plaintiff in a different court. Apart from the typical media hyperbole, there is nothing much to see here.
"Artists who allow free downloading of their music find that is *INCREASES* sales. Independant studies [washingtonpost.com] show that show P2P increases sales."
Irrelevant. If a copyright holder does not want his work being stolen by others, he has a right to press the matter. The RIAA (by proxy) is a copyright holder. Therefore, RIAA has the right to hunt down theives. The fact that some copyright holders accept free downloading of music does not mean that all do or should. Your assertion that some do so all should is a logical fallacy.
For those who don't like what RIAA is doing, I have a suggestion: stop listening to that music. I have a second suggestion: stop stealing music. Since there are artists who encourage free downloads, patronize them instead. If we all stop buying music from RIAA-represented artists, while at the same time not stealing the music, then 1) the business model you complain about will fail and 2) they can't legitimately blame theft.
"Dvorak isn't libelous or hurtful, for the most part, wheras Coulter almost exclusively is."
Except, you can't libel public figures, whom Coulter targets.
"Anyone who thinks they could place the Khmer Rouge on higher moral ground than Hezbollah has no business criticising others for having agendas.
"You'd have to be a grandmaster of spin to credibly equate a terrorist group that has killed fewer than a thousand people in its 20+ year existence with a regime that executed hundreds of thousands of its own people (and caused the deaths hundreds of thousands more) in the space of a few years, and not have any regard for the disservice such an odious comparison does to the memory of those who died in the Cambodian genocide."
All that does is show the KR was more successful. If Hebollah got its way, they'd make KR's killing fields look like a picnic. That's not a disservice to those slaughtered by the KR, it should serve to remind everyone what godless hate can do.
The Nazis, Soviets, Chicoms, KR and other atheist groups are guilty for the murder of tens of millions combined.
I have to say I'm surprised by your interest in my separating stats by skin color. The newspapers seem to always separate these statistics that way. Remember that Central High received some noteriety back in 1957. The settlement is not monetary, but equitable in nature---fix the system so there is not a disparate impact on blacks. This case is just like the other legion desegregation cases.
The per-head cost is a separate issue. There is another school district, almost completely black, that sued about 20 years ago over unfair distribution of education money which resulted in some school districts (read black) being paid less per-pupil than white students. IIRC, education spending is primarily a county function, but the state was sued. The Arkansas State Supreme Court ordered a minimum per-student expenditure because our state constitution was amended to provide equal education for all---which seems to be a way of ensuring teachers always get paid fairly. I say teachers being paid fairly because the Court said education should be paid first---before any other necessary expenditure. This is because education is in the Constitution, while other programs are statutory.
The Little Rock School District spends twice the Court mandated amount per pupil. When adjusted for cost-of-living, it is among the highest spending school districts in the U.S. Yet, Seatle, which spends less per actual dollar that we do, does a better job educating its students (regardless of racial background). I did the math a while back, but I think the LRSD spends (adjusted for COL) 3-4 times as much per pupil to accomplish less. I've interpreted this to mean that it's not how much is spent per pupil that matters.
"20 Little Rock Central Little Rock Ark."
I call B.S. on that one. I live in Little Rock presently. I've been told by several sources that half the white students in the city attend private school to avoid Little Rock public schools. Central High is but one of several high schools in that school district. The district is plagued by legal bills going back most of my life (and I'm in my 30s), has insane bussing (I've watched small children dropped off after 6p in a rundown neighborhoos), and has one of the highest per-pupil spending (~$12k)---but student testing has white students only being average and black students well below-average. They must be using some of that "New Math" I keep hearing about.
"Really? I saw 'freedom of the press shall not be abbridged.' It didn't say anything about it only covering your ability to print something. 'The press' pretty clearly referes to journalists, and forcing phone records out of them seems to abridge their freedom to do their job effectively. After all, if the government can get any journalists phone records, who would talk to them?"
"Press" does not refer to journalists. "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."[1] Speech means your ability to stand out in public and criticize your government. Press means the same thing in print. So, a letter written to your Aunt Flo saying "Bush is a ninny" could not be silenced by Congress any more than a letter to the editor. While you're pointing out the "clear meaning" of the Constitution, how about the fact that the First Amendment only applies to Congress? Therefore, states are free to shut you up at will. I know that this has been extended to states via the 14th Amendment by the Courts, but that's not clear in the clear meaning of that amendment, either.
Of course, while going on about how press applies to journalists, how about the next amendment? ". . . [T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Pretty clear to me. Load me up, Brother.
[1]: U.S. Const. Amend. I.
[2]: U.S. Const. Amend. II.
"The intent was to have every person (note: not every citizen, every PERSON) Free to do as they will, both in Speech and using the Press."
Sorry, but I doubt that was the intent. I believe the intent was to give each citizen the right to express opposition to his government. The Founders were not as liberated as you would have us believe. Slaves were not given freedom of the press.
"From my experience, the reason there are not many 18 year old bartenders is that they cannot be trusted. . . . You don't want an irresponsible child handling the most profitable aspect of your business."
Yes, but in the U.S., you can trust them to vote.
"you showed copyright infringement is a crime, but where did you show it was *theft*?"
." Sounds pretty synonymous to me.
First, you were not asking to prove copyright infringement is theft. You said, in the GPP, "[s]how me a passage in any lawbook that _equates_ copyright infringement with theft." (Emphasis mine.) So, I only have to show you that both are criminal and both can result in jail time. I have done that. You're trying to claim some argument victory where there is none.
Also, in your post (GPP) you emphasized that infringement was a _tort_ not _crime_. I pointed out that infringement is both tort and crime. While the law gives the term "theft" a very precise meaning, it is obvious from your post (and its parent post) that you were claiming it is not criminal to infringe---especially when you say "equates." Copyright infringement can get you up to ten years in prison. That makes it a felony. While not all theft is felony, serious enough theft (i.e. grand theft) is. Not all copyright infringement is feloneous---only serious enough theft.
According to Meriam-Webster, theft "is an unlawful taking . . . of property." According to Wikipedia, "[c]opyright infringement is the unauthorized use of copyrighted material. . . . often referred to as piracy or _theft_ . . .
Game. Set. Match.
"'If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged'. - Cardinal Richelieu"
o te2004/countymap.htm)
Ok. Cite a despotic priest during the waxing years to the French Revolution and it is immediately applicable today? Besides, that's Europe, where people can be tried again if he's innocent, or retried if guilty for a higher sentence. In the U.S., a criminal can be caught red-handed in broad daylight with hundreds of witnesses, but can be released because of a technicality. So what if the state passes a law that helps put the criminal behind bars? The only use of a camera phone photo is to give the defense some excuse to let a guilty man go free because of some technicality.
Most crimes carry with them a requisite intent. Some like murder require specific intent, but others require general intent (e.g. burglary is specific, but B&E is general). Some crimes are strict liability, such as parking in a handicap zone, statutory rape, or being a liberal--no intent required. But, the strict liability crimes tend to carry only fines. So, while we as citizens might inadvertantly engage in activity that is criminal in nature, because we lack intent we are not liable.
This event happened in New Hampshire. Isn't that one of those Blue states? (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/v
"Oh is it? Show me a passage in any lawbook that equates copyright infringement with theft."
17 U.S.C.A. 506(a) - Criminal infringement of copyright - Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed for commercial gain, of copyrighted works up to $1000, OR making available a work in production (including movies, music and software) on a computer network against the copyright holder's wishes. There are a total of four criminal offenses under this section.
18 U.S.C.A. 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright - Sets out that you can be imprisoned for up to ten years, depending on the natureof the infrignement.
So, while there are civil remedies to copyright infringement, there is also the bite of criminal penalties.
"Also, in many jurisdictions copyright infringement is a tort, not a crime."
Except in the United States, where there is really only one jurisdiction that matters. The Federal copyright law preempts all state laws by virtue of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
"Nonsense. Scientists cannot prove that God"
If you'd read my quote in context, you would see that the parent poster said "assuming science proved every word in the bible (sic) true. [So what]" I did not myself say that science could prove---I was operating logically from his assumption.
My point, which you obtusely missed, was that the parent post said that scientists such as he would not allow their preconceived notions to allow them to miss the truth when proven scientifically. In the same post he stated that a scientific proving of the existance of God would not change his POV. Therefore, he contradicted himself---I was merely underscoring that. Of course, when one sets the criteria of proof, anything can be avoided.
What Science can't do is prove God exists? I disagree. It is a logical fallacy to force the other side to prove a negative, but Science can't prove God does not exist any more than it can. Science cannot provide direct evidence of a lot of things which it infers. Fossil records are used to support Evolution, yet there is no direct evidence proving evolution. If there is a single gap in the evidence that requires an inference, then the evidence becomes inferential. Science in the case of evolution asks its adherents to reach a conclusion by looking at evidence and making an inference. Heck, Science requires this in many fields---we cannot prove the existance of dark matter, which is presently indetectible, however by looking at surrounding facts we infer that it must exist.
I put it to you that my belief in God is no less an inferential investigation. I look at the same evidence you do and conclude that a being superior to the Universe had to have been involved. The great logical fallacy of Science is you have to believe that the energy composing the Universe is eternal, while likewise declaring that a supernatural being cannot exist. Both require leaps of faith. I'm willing to admit that, atheists are not.
"Ignoring the fact that your entire post is false . . ."
."
And, you have proven this via a scientific finding? You're concluding falsity without it having been proven. Pot, meet kettle.
"it wouldn't matter if scientific findings DID prove the bible correct word for word. That would simply be the way the universe is. So be it."
Hmm, if scientific findings proved the Bible correct, then:
1. God exists---based on scientific finding;
2. Man screwed the pooch in Eden---based on scientific finding;
3. Jesus was the redeemer---based on scientific finding.
4. The "way the universe is" would hold that we owe allegiance to God.
So, you're asserting an assumption that the Bible is true on scientific footing then shruging off the necessary conclusion. That is not intellectually honest. At least those who adhere to religion admit they are accepting a conclusion absent fully-formed facts. How is Evolution any different? Since Evolution is a continuing process, could you please demonstrate an intermediate step where one lower-order species is becoming a higher species? And, I would like to point out that the nature of life is to harmonize with the environment, and we are not doing that---which suggests we are an evolutionary dead-end.
"Unlike religionists, real scientists just want to know the truth, and they're not scared that it might shatter their own preconcieved notions . .
But, applying your assumption as to the scientific validity of the Bible's message, the truth would require you to shatter your own preconceived notion. This is something your post shows you are not willing to do. Of course, truth is allegedly subjective. So, by your reckoning, scientists just want to know "truth," which is not always consistent with facts. Adherents to religion accept a truth and admit that truth is accepted without all the facts---we accept the truth based on inferences.
"[Scientists] don't 'shift' the truth." Happens all the time. Global cooling---no, wait. Global warming. Well, we know it's global and it's all our fault. What? Evidence that volcanoes are a greater contributer? Must be flaky research, because it's all our fault. That's the truth, now let's find evidence to prove it.
IMO, Science differs from religion only in that religion admits there's a higher power in play upon which we are accountable. Science assumes there's a cosmic, random power upon which we are not accountable. While I cannot deny that there are those who for the sake of religion do evil (such as flying planes into buildings to prove a point), _if_ we operated honestly compliant with the precepts of religion, then there would be a lot less suffering. The problem is that we as humans tend to prefer to satisfy our own self-interest. I'm not denying that there is some good that produces from science, but that science needs to accept there is a moral authority. To fail to do this is to become little better than Nazi scientists who tested on humans with total disregard of the moral implications.
As to the argument about Evolution, I do not see how that does anything to help us feed the poor, or care for our families. It seems premised on a need to prove humanity came here via a means wherein we are not liable to any higher power. Now we have an unproven theory that snakes caused us to evolve the way we did. Heck, why didn't the same stimulus help all those other species to develop color vision and depth perception? This is unfounded speculation. A poster points out the ironic comparison with the Bible, and you stomp on his post as false. Kettle, meet pot---which I say to myself as well.
"The program does indeed break the law. Only two points remain in-the-air - Who authorized it, and will Congress make similar future programs legal."
Saying it does not make it so. Specifically, how does this program violate the law? First, state the law. Second, provide the facts that show how the law is violated.
Don't have the facts? That might be due to the investigation not being complete. The assertion here is that Bush is blocking said investigation. The truth is we don't even have all the facts about why the block occurred---and so some assume that it's about a cover up. This is a correlation implies causation logical fallacy. It's like saying that breathing outside swampy air at twilight results in malaria because you contracted malaria while outside during twilight. (Derevation of "malaria") Of course, it was the air and not the mosquitos.
When it comes to top secret security clearances, they aren't just handed out like they were passes to Disney World. There is a background investigation necessary that delves back seven years. In some cases, there are polygraphic examinations. Every part of your character is scrutinized. There is no privacy. It's not unheard of for somebody not to pass those rigors. Just because the current wave of lawyers weren't accepted does not mean that Bush is summarily blocking all. And, such investigations can take up to a year. Heck, I've even known of people failing who had a clearance and needed a reinvestigation for specific access. This is not unusual. This is a mosquito. The article suggests it is the night air.
The great thing about news stories is we believe they are as factual as possible---like actually being there. In truth, news is just the telephone game masked in authority. In some cases, stories are colored so as to favor a specific side of an issue. This is either done by the side coloring, the reporter, or the paper. It's natural to favor your chosen side. So, this entire paragraph should be one, big "duh."
"Constitutionally, only congress can declare war. Congress has not declared war."
."
Wrong.
"But congress has abdicated their responsibility to declare war, so the president has engaged in an unprecedented, extraconstitutional, and arguably illegal consolidation of executive power."
Wrong.
I rebutt your wild-eyed acusations with the opening sentence to Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: "Pursuant to Congress' Joint Resolution authorizing the President to 'use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided," the' September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorist attacks (AUMF) . .
Translation: Congress gave the Executive full access to his War Power in the AUMF. The Constitution does not have a pro forma requirement for declaring war---only that Congress must enact legislation empowering the President to do so in a way that puts the opponent on notice. When Congress gave the President "use of _all_ necessary and appropriate force [against those that] he determines [were actively involved in 9/11]," then the there is a declaration of war. The fact that the U.S. Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld did not challenge the AUMF as a declaration of war is very telling. That decision operated under the conclusion that the AUMF was a valid conveying of War Power---that is, all eight justices rendering an opinion agreed in valid conveyance. (Roberts recused as he was on the lower appellate court's panel in that case.)
A declaration of war is essentially a public statement putting the "warred against" nation(s) on-notice of war. Compare the bombing of Pearl Harbor, which was done without formal declaration of war, with U.S. entry into WWI, where Germany knew we were coming. AUMF tells all those actively involved that the President has the power to punish them. As they were actively involved, they knew AUMF refers to them---so they are on notice.
Therefore, because Congress has declared war, it has not abdicated its responsibility. Also, the President has not engaged in "an unprecedented, extraconstitutional, and arguably illegal consolidation of executive power," because Congress declared war.
Of course, the operative word in this is "consolidation." All your adjectives apply to that. Omitting them, you're stating that the President has enaged in consolidation of executive power. FWIW, Executive power is consolidated in the President. That's like saying that Wal-Mart is consolidating management of its stores---of course it is. There's nothing illegal about the President exerting his power.
It is no more "extraconstitutional" for the President to rightfully exercise his War Powers than it is for the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to invent a fundamental right not in the Constitution---and that has happened repeatedly. To conjure a right for a woman to have unprotected sex with a man she doesn't like very much, SCOTUS has operated extraconstitutionally. In fact, in cases such as Lawrence v. Texas (legalizing homosexual sodomy), SCOTUS operated, as you say, in an "unprecedented" fashion (they did reverse a precedent from 20 years ago). Of course, when Courts operate in a way that favors your cause, you'll applaude the breach of precedent. However, when you think the President has usurped his authority, you will cite the breach is unprecedented and, therefore, illegal. You can't have it both ways.
More importantly, the plurality in Hamdan operated extraconsitutionally--don't forget SCOTUS can still violate the Constitution as can any government Branch. Over 135 years of presedent, in "every anglo-american case," when Congress enacts legislation stripping SCOTUS of appellate jurisdiction, SCOTUS has refused to continue with a case.
The earliest example was 1869, where an appeal had been argued and SCOTUS was about to render its opinion (in the afternoon). That morning, Congress stripped SCOTUS of its appellate jurisdiction, and the Court said, "when Congress has removed our appellate jur
"I would find that a true delta configuration would be unlikely as there would be little evolutionary advantage to developing an inherently less stable "wing" configuration for the low speed flying that this creature would be doing."
Yes, yes. Please remember that this is an extinct critter. Obviously, the wing configuration could not withstand the rigors of natural selection. After all, why are all fossils found examples of improvement of a species? Why aren't there more examples of critters that were obvious genetic dead ends?
Besides, how do you know this was a low speed---or even flying---critter? It could have either been flightless, or perhaps been capable of speeds much closer to MACH than we anticipate. Perhaps the critter swooped down from great heights, attained amazing speed, and caught its prey completely off guard.
We should be embracing the design by figuring out what it means, rather than discounting it because of some aerodynamic engineering psychobabbly claptrap. I mean, one bone makes this design very compelling and so it-must-have-been-so.
"Are you sure about that? that they're actually throttling people?"
I can attest that Netflix throttles people. I have a friend two doors up who kept churning his three-movie queue, copying DVDs so he could view them whenever he actually had time to view them, and would report a DVD missing so Netflix would send a movie before the one he returned was received.
Then one day, three Netflix "technicians" showed up---two had baseball bats. The two beat my friend severely, then the third guy grabbed him by the throat and throttled him until he promised to play nice. He'll be out of the hospital next week.