Excuse me. I misstated one item, and I will correct it.
When I said, "By definition, the uncaused cause is not in motion.", I misspoke. That's what I get for not rereading my post. Allow me to restate my first paragraph:
The point of the first proof, the proof from motion, is a paradox. It is a proof by contradiction. To boil it down, assume that everything has a cause. But, if everything has to have a cause, then nothing could exist. So, an uncaused cause must exist. So, what I meant to say was "By definition, an uncaused cause could not have been put into motion."
If there can be an uncaused cause, then there is no reason that anything _has_ to have a cause, let alone the universe.
Except that everything in the universe is in a causal chain. The fact that everything appears to follow a causal rule creates the paradox in the first place.
You are a liar.
Really? In addition to being an ass, you have also obviously not read the fourth and fifth proofs, which talk about perfection and intelligence respectively.
Wrong. The premise is not that there can be no uncaused causes. The premise is rather that everything in motion needs a cause. By definition, the uncaused cause is not in motion.
Second, all the proof says is that at some point in the past(causally, not temporally), the chain of causality has to end. So, if there were any intermediate steps between "the universe" and "God," it still wouldn't affect the result of the proof one whit.
Third, your graphic is cute, but is an evasion of the first cause principal.
Finally, you apparently didn't read the full set of proofs. There are other characteristics which are subjects of the other permutations of the proofs.
First of all, cells extracted from an aborted fetus are embryonic cells.
Second, we have already seen evidence of aborted fetus' being sold for parts. Why should we assume that this wouldn't happen to harvest stem cells?
Third, I think you will find that those who oppose embryonic stem cell research also oppose IVF, for the same reasons, that a human is created to be thrown away or processed.
Finally, I would consider it a mark of wisdom to listen to others.
As I mentioned before, they can't afford to bring every Tom, Dick and Harry into court that they find trading their material. That will not happen. They would hemmorage money in lawyer fees.
But, they can afford to spend some money shutting down large scale violators.
My point: if the corporations feel the need to defend themselves, let them do it. They don't need new, stupid legislation to do it, either.
How is that worse? The corporations have a right to defend their copyrights, and it is in their best financial interest(barring stupid legislation) to only attack the worst of the copyright violators. And, if you are targeted for violation unfairly, contest it in court.
I am basically saying, leave things the way they are. The corporations have all of the rights they need to defend themselves. Furthering this agenda will only hurt consumers and the tech industry in general.
Why should Congress be the ones playing traffic cop? The corporations have money. If online pirating is hitting their pocket books in a serious manner, they should do what any other group would do: bring the offenders to court.
Take gnutella for example. How hard would it be to write a client which trolls for people providing my copyrighted information? Log the top X number of abusers, and take them to court. Don't smash them like a bug, that is too expensive. Just hit them up enough that it is no longer worth it to them to distribute copyrighted materials. For every one of these guys slapped on the wrist, you will convince 10 people that it isn't worth the trouble.
Great. So you are saying that society dictates morality. So, when slavery was legal in the US, it was morally acceptable.
A base problem you have is that, by denying any form of absolute morality, you render your own judgements moot as well. For example, you have no basis for complaining if I choose to force you to eat meat, especially if I am backed up by "society." My morality may include forcing you to do things against your will, and without taking a "moral high ground" and proclaiming some sort of absolute morality('it is wrong for you to do this to me'), you can't say a word. Your argument boils down to might makes right, whether the might is wielded by a person or a group(ie. the government, a corp, etc).
Speaking of such moral issues as slavery, it was those people who took the moral high ground who worked to stop slavery.
Finally, your comment about an amorphous "the Church" is wrong. Most of those witch hunting style incidents happened in isolated circumstances . There was no large scale witch hunt involved in the Salem witch trials, for example. That was a small group of people, affected by forces they didn't understand(in this case, LSD).
Finally, I think your whole post can be boiled down to this: "I think that it is a very dangerous slope to be sliding on when we start declaring the necessity of morality."
Why? Is it "morally wrong" to do so? Is it "morally wrong" to allow one group to enforce their morality over you? If not, then I fail to see your point.
Re:Then DO Something! Here are some IDEAS!
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 1
Here is some more information on Boucher's stance.
Then DO Something! Here are some IDEAS!
on
SSSCA Hearing
·
· Score: 3, Informative
First of all, not all of Congress are money- grubbing worms. And the others are afraid of losing support.
I suggest contacting people like Rick Boucher(info here). He seems to have a clue. Get ahold of his office, and find out who else could help out. Then help them organize resistance to this bill.
It's been said a thousand times, but listen anyway: contact your state's Congress memebers. Write down your comments before hand, making them concise and lucid. Leave the vitriol and belly aching on/. and make your case logically. Don't be threatening, just make it clear that this is important to your vote. Yes, you may get a "we need to protect copyrights...blah...blah" response, but I guarantee that if you got a chain of messages going to them, they will listen. You call. Then, have your spouse, mom, dad, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, whatever, call. And get as many of your friends to do the same as you can.
Speaking as a parent, yes, there are many things I would not do to avoid my children's sufferings. I wouldn't kill them, for one. Suffering does not negate the value of a life.
I fully support eliminating genetic disorders. However, I counsel extreme caution. Besides, with the possibility of adoption, you have a choice beyond screening and gene-selection. Have a condition you don't wish to pass to your children? Adopt instead. Cheaper and safer for everyone involved, plus you are helping a child who otherwise might not have a chance.
"I know what the consequences of genetic "super babies" might be, but that's just it -- what it MIGHT be."
No, IS. People are already applying this philosophy to more than eggs. A French musician couple recently aborted their child due to a completely non- life threatening finger disability, because he could never be a musician like mommy and daddy. His worth as a child was dependent on his physical perfection.
"That is what freedom is about, after all? Choice?"
Only when coupled self control. Otherwise it devolves into anarchy. "Can do" and "ought to do" are not synonymous.
Creedo
Eugenics(from Merriam-Webster):
a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed
Oh my, that includes gene selection! It is eugenics on a family level. Welcome to the clue store. Feel free to purchase one.
Creedo
"Besides... for every Stephen Hawking, there are *millions* of people with genetic mental disorders living lives of homelessness, alcoholism, hunger..."
And your point is?
The original poster was not assuming a corollary between intelligence and ALS. Stephen's condition forced him to use his imagination more. I would say that his environment certainly helped shape his creativity.
Creedo
I question the very concept here. I wholeheartedly support eliminating these diseases, but I don't think we, as a society, have the ethical and moral strength to resist the inevitable temptation to abuse this(in fact, there are cases of it already happening). A person's worth is intrinsic, not based on their physical condition. Look at Stephen Hawking or Helen Keller. Imagine if they had been screened, and eliminated.
Until we progress beyond the point of treating "personal responsibility" like a four letter word, we are simply too immature to play with these toys.
I remember reading about a system virtually identical to this several years ago(maybe the same company, even). I was big into VR then, and I thought that this would be a hell of a way to create an immersive system.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me. I misstated one item, and I will correct it.
When I said, "By definition, the uncaused cause is not in motion.", I misspoke. That's what I get for not rereading my post. Allow me to restate my first paragraph:
The point of the first proof, the proof from motion, is a paradox. It is a proof by contradiction. To boil it down, assume that everything has a cause. But, if everything has to have a cause, then nothing could exist. So, an uncaused cause must exist. So, what I meant to say was "By definition, an uncaused cause could not have been put into motion."
If there can be an uncaused cause, then there is no reason that anything _has_ to have a cause, let alone the universe.
Except that everything in the universe is in a causal chain. The fact that everything appears to follow a causal rule creates the paradox in the first place.
You are a liar.
Really? In addition to being an ass, you have also obviously not read the fourth and fifth proofs, which talk about perfection and intelligence respectively.
Creedo
Right. That, my friends, is a truely astounding example of blind faith in the god called "progress."
Creedo
Wrong. The premise is not that there can be no uncaused causes. The premise is rather that everything in motion needs a cause. By definition, the uncaused cause is not in motion.
Second, all the proof says is that at some point in the past(causally, not temporally), the chain of causality has to end. So, if there were any intermediate steps between "the universe" and "God," it still wouldn't affect the result of the proof one whit.
Third, your graphic is cute, but is an evasion of the first cause principal.
Finally, you apparently didn't read the full set of proofs. There are other characteristics which are subjects of the other permutations of the proofs.
Creedo
First of all, cells extracted from an aborted fetus are embryonic cells.
Second, we have already seen evidence of aborted fetus' being sold for parts. Why should we assume that this wouldn't happen to harvest stem cells?
Third, I think you will find that those who oppose embryonic stem cell research also oppose IVF, for the same reasons, that a human is created to be thrown away or processed.
Finally, I would consider it a mark of wisdom to listen to others.
Creedo
As I mentioned before, they can't afford to bring every Tom, Dick and Harry into court that they find trading their material. That will not happen. They would hemmorage money in lawyer fees.
But, they can afford to spend some money shutting down large scale violators.
My point: if the corporations feel the need to defend themselves, let them do it. They don't need new, stupid legislation to do it, either.
How is that worse? The corporations have a right to defend their copyrights, and it is in their best financial interest(barring stupid legislation) to only attack the worst of the copyright violators. And, if you are targeted for violation unfairly, contest it in court.
I am basically saying, leave things the way they are. The corporations have all of the rights they need to defend themselves. Furthering this agenda will only hurt consumers and the tech industry in general.
Why should Congress be the ones playing traffic cop? The corporations have money. If online pirating is hitting their pocket books in a serious manner, they should do what any other group would do: bring the offenders to court.
Take gnutella for example. How hard would it be to write a client which trolls for people providing my copyrighted information? Log the top X number of abusers, and take them to court. Don't smash them like a bug, that is too expensive. Just hit them up enough that it is no longer worth it to them to distribute copyrighted materials. For every one of these guys slapped on the wrist, you will convince 10 people that it isn't worth the trouble.
Just my $0.02.
That is simply wrong.
Here is plenty of proof that the concept preexisted Dante.
nice reference:)
We have taken up Space Ghost names at work. Used to be Pinky and the Brain.
Umm, I seem to recall Tolkein describing this scene in FotR. If I had the book cose by, I would look it up for you.
Creed
Great. So you are saying that society dictates morality. So, when slavery was legal in the US, it was morally acceptable.
A base problem you have is that, by denying any form of absolute morality, you render your own judgements moot as well. For example, you have no basis for complaining if I choose to force you to eat meat, especially if I am backed up by "society." My morality may include forcing you to do things against your will, and without taking a "moral high ground" and proclaiming some sort of absolute morality('it is wrong for you to do this to me'), you can't say a word. Your argument boils down to might makes right, whether the might is wielded by a person or a group(ie. the government, a corp, etc).
Speaking of such moral issues as slavery, it was those people who took the moral high ground who worked to stop slavery.
Finally, your comment about an amorphous "the Church" is wrong. Most of those witch hunting style incidents happened in isolated circumstances . There was no large scale witch hunt involved in the Salem witch trials, for example. That was a small group of people, affected by forces they didn't understand(in this case, LSD).
Finally, I think your whole post can be boiled down to this:
"I think that it is a very dangerous slope to be sliding on when we start declaring the necessity of morality."
Why? Is it "morally wrong" to do so? Is it "morally wrong" to allow one group to enforce their morality over you? If not, then I fail to see your point.
Here is some more information on Boucher's stance.
First of all, not all of Congress are money- grubbing worms. And the others are afraid of losing support.
/. and make your case logically. Don't be threatening, just make it clear that this is important to your vote. Yes, you may get a "we need to protect copyrights...blah...blah" response, but I guarantee that if you got a chain of messages going to them, they will listen. You call. Then, have your spouse, mom, dad, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, whatever, call. And get as many of your friends to do the same as you can.
I suggest contacting people like Rick Boucher(info here). He seems to have a clue. Get ahold of his office, and find out who else could help out. Then help them organize resistance to this bill.
It's been said a thousand times, but listen anyway: contact your state's Congress memebers. Write down your comments before hand, making them concise and lucid. Leave the vitriol and belly aching on
Creedo
"Religion stops a thinking mind." Obviously yours has.
Nietzche was a self- aggrandized idiot. His followers today tend to be the same.
Creedo
Well, this is one convert to Catholicism who would welcome you back with open arms. Creedo
Speaking as a parent, yes, there are many things I would not do to avoid my children's sufferings. I wouldn't kill them, for one. Suffering does not negate the value of a life. I fully support eliminating genetic disorders. However, I counsel extreme caution. Besides, with the possibility of adoption, you have a choice beyond screening and gene-selection. Have a condition you don't wish to pass to your children? Adopt instead. Cheaper and safer for everyone involved, plus you are helping a child who otherwise might not have a chance. "I know what the consequences of genetic "super babies" might be, but that's just it -- what it MIGHT be." No, IS. People are already applying this philosophy to more than eggs. A French musician couple recently aborted their child due to a completely non- life threatening finger disability, because he could never be a musician like mommy and daddy. His worth as a child was dependent on his physical perfection. "That is what freedom is about, after all? Choice?" Only when coupled self control. Otherwise it devolves into anarchy. "Can do" and "ought to do" are not synonymous. Creedo
Eugenics(from Merriam-Webster): a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed Oh my, that includes gene selection! It is eugenics on a family level. Welcome to the clue store. Feel free to purchase one. Creedo
"Besides... for every Stephen Hawking, there are *millions* of people with genetic mental disorders living lives of homelessness, alcoholism, hunger..." And your point is? The original poster was not assuming a corollary between intelligence and ALS. Stephen's condition forced him to use his imagination more. I would say that his environment certainly helped shape his creativity. Creedo
Amazing how few seriously handicapped people disagree with you. Go ahead and ask them if they think they would be better off not existing.
I question the very concept here. I wholeheartedly support eliminating these diseases, but I don't think we, as a society, have the ethical and moral strength to resist the inevitable temptation to abuse this(in fact, there are cases of it already happening). A person's worth is intrinsic, not based on their physical condition. Look at Stephen Hawking or Helen Keller. Imagine if they had been screened, and eliminated.
Until we progress beyond the point of treating "personal responsibility" like a four letter word, we are simply too immature to play with these toys.
Creedo
I remember reading about a system virtually identical to this several years ago(maybe the same company, even). I was big into VR then, and I thought that this would be a hell of a way to create an immersive system.
Creedo
Vmware does this for the VM's it hosts. Works great.
Creed