The answer is buried but simple if you think about it.
the reason for requiring lecture attendance is to teach a certain 'ethical' attitude and types morality to the students. ( which of coarse is illegal because of separation of church and state in the U.S. but the 'custom' still hangs over university).
In old universities there were actually 'debates' not lectures, but that is a different issue.
I always wanted an answer to the question: If the test proves I deserve the grade then why do I have to go to class to get the grade? Why can't I just take all the test ( when I'm ready for them. The first day of class if I can) and receive the grade?
If the test doesn't prove I deserve the grade then why are you giving the grade or the test?
Ok did a little research on my own as well. ECU's , even the stock ones, allow you to start and drive a car 10 times before they start looking for the ref ID. They also have a way of programming the new ECU with a new refID code.
Is swapping out a refID hard. No. They are roughly the size of a hard drive. They have one or two cables coming out of them that look like power supply hookups and are just as easily plugged and unplugged.
Getting a new one isn't hard. Modifying the software in them isn't all that hard either.
My conclusion is this technology stops joyrides and junkies , but it isn't going to slow down professionals and organized crime much if at all.
Also, I guess there has been a rise in people deciphering the 40bit encryption used in many of these tokens in Europe where they are more prevalent.
still , there was an impressive 90% drop in thefts. My suspicion is that probably accounts for the joyride / junkie crowd.
Excuse my ignorance but could somebody explain to me what is so magical about these refid vehicles as to cause one to expect the impossibility of starting them after they are broken into?
Exactly what parts of the car are disabled when refid token is not present? More over how do those parts KNOW it isn't present?
I mean unless the refid reader is somehow coupled to the spark control computer so that it is impossible to interpose between the refid receiver and the spark control computer I don't see what would stop someone from simply jumpering around the detector.
Even if the spark control computer was in fact coupled tightly to the refid receiver in one apoxy sealed unit so you couldn't interfere, last time I checked replacing the spark control computer could be done in under 15 min if you were good at it. I mean it's not that much different then replacing a hard drive. Even a less compatible control computer would probably allow the vehicle to run (poorly) for a while if I'm not mistaken.
This reminds me vaugly of the standford or was it princton professor of ecology who went before the state North Dakota assembly an seriously presented a proposal to clear the states population and turn the whole place into a buffalow commons.
needless to say he was laughed out of the state senate.
so often you are right... one of the reasons I no longer work in that industry.
Did you know the standard for bank ot bank encryption of transaction is des 8 and or 16
des symetric key exchanged before the transaction. sad really but the cost of changing the infastructure isn't worth it to the bank and most customers would bach at the fees they'd change to do it right as well.
from letting insurance companies find missing cars to letting the employ of the insurance company stock and rape is next victim.
Such ability to track movement should be limited to the fewest people who require it for the purposes of supporting law and order not made available to anyone who can profit from it. That is if you are going to collect it at all.
The biggest problem with biometrics is after it is compromised it cannot be changed.
sure you have 10 figures and 2 eyes, but when it comes too it you will never get ADDED security with a biometric only system. biometric + password + keycard is the securest solution.
something you are, something you know, something you have
As the phrase goes in the banking security industry. Those have always been the only 3 options for establishing 'trust' with an unknown entity.
As I recall there was a Russian programmer arrested in the united states from violating the DMCA when he was in RUSSIA under the direction of his employer for the actual purpose of COMPLYING with RUSSIAN law. ( although I suppose arguably he was arrested for telling people about it on U.S. soil)
If I'm not mistaken we also went into a small country called Panama and arrested it's dictator( read the guy who made the laws in that country and couldn't be accused of breaking his own laws) for trafficking Drugs in the country HE ran. We then took said president, ran him through a trial for crimes he DID NOT COMMIT ON US SOIL OR US JERISTICTION and he is now permanently in Jail for drug trafficking.
still it seems to me that it is IMPOSSIBLE to teach children to 'behave' and 'get along' without violating the religious views of certain sects.
for instance what is taught to a child who parents ascribe to radical Islam when the teacher insists that he should have respect for the views of others and be kind to the homosexual student in the class?
The school is teaching something counter to the Childs religion.
Actually the idea that you should 'get along with people you don't agree with' is if anything a derivative of Christian ideology ( although it is really a toned down one off equivalent that has been robbed of it's moral context depending on who is using the phrase).
The idea has it's origins in thinking that revolves around things like: The unique dignity of the human being The existence of free will and it's sovergnty The unalienable rights of man.
Many religions ideologies and philosophies that do not ascribe to any of these ideas and really have little or no interest and or emphasis on 'getting along with people who don't agree with you'.
consider the Hindu cast system? Does that match the idea taught in schools about getting along?
consider again Islam in it's radical forms including jihad , how does tolerance fit into that system?
What about the type and branches of Christianity that have given rise to the KKK? Does the state have the right to discourage and regulate those types of religion through the use of public schools?
I have no doubt there are public schools in this country that tend to support vs diminish the last category by their social environment. I have little doubt you could find schools in other country that do the same for the other categories.
My point is that the enjoinment in a school and the social interactions of students and teachers ( usually called socialization ) DOES teach something and that something is directly related to morals if not faith specifically.
So , you can't just make the blanket statement that 'socialization' is good in schools. You have to ask which school and what is the nature of the socialization.
Unfortunately I'd say a large number of schools and have poorly addressed this issue and teach many things that are bad for society at large. Part of the reason is because it is nearly impossible to address the subject in public. Those that do almost always address it in the negative by lawsuits which has the result of forcing the public education system to basically teach a type of egalitarian atheism. It would be much better if there could be a conscious decision of the parents and teaches as to which values can be taught.
That I doubt will ever happen so long is the federal government remains involved. Public schools should be funded and administered on the local level for precisely those reasons.
My point I guess is just because there is 'socializing' going on at a school you are making a false assumption if you think it is good or useful or positive 'socializing'.
A person's peer group can just as easily 'socialize' them into accepting drugs abuse and cheating on exams (perhaps a pre-curser to later forging research papers) are good as into thinking critically and evaluating evidence independently.
Unfortunately because the environment has not been intentionally shaped in most schools it tends to do a great deal of the former and little or none of the latter.
In the end I find generic arguments that children NEED the socialization that can 'best' be provided by public schools weak, naive , and over simplistic.
As a parent you have to take into account the school itself and weather or not it's social environment is at least non-hostile to moral values you want to teach your children. If you find it inadequate you need to seek alternative.
All of this is of coarse not addressing the fact that public schools are not very efficient at actually educating because they have to acco
I can think of at least one major problem with this who line of reasoning.
It should NEVER be the STATES responsibility to socialize and teach morality an or philosophy and or religion to it's students.
The whole separation of church and state thing ( a good idea btw) prevents them from doing any such thing efficiently or officially. Not to mention the fact that even if they were supposed to be teaching morality they would still be the wrong people to do it.
The whole 'children need to learn social skills' argument basically is a round about way of saying 'we need to teach people how to behave properly'. Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately for the school and the argument what does and does not constitute 'proper' behavior is a moral issue they have no right to teach about.
What the argument really comes down to is that the state wants the right to indoctrinate children in whatever the prevailing culture believes is correct behavior.
This indoctrinization is usually termed 'socializing'.
I've known plenty of home schooled children who were well 'socialized' they spent time in various church groups, did ballet and played sports, all of which 'socialize' much more efficiently and effectively.
You are correct in your assumption about my belief concerning other methods.
My argument though was based on something a little deeper then commoditizing children. artificial insemination methods treat people like animals and a philosophy tolerant of that is counter to the proper value for human life needed to build a sustainable and peaceful world. It promotes a materialistic world view which if taken to it's logical extreme is about anarchy and destruction. So the damage it does to the whole is not worth the benefit is provides to the few.
Indecently I would be one of those few. My wife and I are having fertility problems , but after much research concluded that artificial insemination and like procedures are flatly immoral.
Did I miss something or do you just completely ignore what I said and respond with absolutely irrationally.
Let me try and simply:
Given the statement: (premise)
"human beings are purely biological"
(logic)
it logically follows that human choice is a consequence of biology and the environment that biology is responding too. \ there is nothing free about it. freedom must be concluded to be an illusion.
The reason is simple: if "human beings are purely biological" which variables can change to influence choice 1) biology 2) environment 3) history ( conditioning)
Conclusion: You do not choose ANY of those three things and the choices you make are in no way independent of them because that is all there is. There is nothing free about it. It is deterministic. ( not to say that it is predictable as chaos theory demonstrates it is possible to have an entirely deterministic system that is not predictable because you cannot sufficiently track the initial state.)
If my conclusion is wrong. Which is what you claim either my premise or my logic must be wrong.
If my logic is wrong please explain to me why that is?
I claim the premise is wrong. You have twice claimed it was not. So I assume you must have some problem with the logic. As you have also asserted as have I that the conclusion is wrong. In order for the conclusion to be wrong either the premise or the logic must be wrong.
Are you being intentionally difficult or do you really not understand this? Giving you the benefit of a doubt.
Let me explain it then: You cannot buy something from someone who does not have it. As you pointed out buying something represents and 'exchange'.
To keep it simple let me start with U.S. adoptions.
If the child is in the custody of the state the state gives you the child free of charge and sometimes will pay you to care for the child ( if they have special needs).
Who actually has possession of the child you claim is being sold. The mother. It is her and her alone that decides weather or not anyone gets to adopt that child.
It is illegal to give her money. So there can be no exchange of money for a child.
You can in some limited circumstance cover doctors fees that relate directly to the child, but even that is very limited. In that case however you are helping a child you HOPE to parent directly and the mother only indirectly. There is no legal agreement or obligation that the mother will give the perspective adoptive parent the child at all. ( often times they choose not to even when medical bills have been covered for them).
So who gets the money: Money is paid for: 1) a home study 2) a lawyer who files paper work with the court 3) people who provide the service of helping mothers who think they MIGHT want to give up their child for adoption find parents who are willing to adopt.
once again you cannot buy something from someone who doesn't have it.
the adoption agency does not have a baby. ( they MIGHT eventually gain knowledge of where someone is how has one who MIGHT want to give it to you) the person who does the home study does not have a baby. the lawyer does not have a baby. yet these are the people who you give money.
The mother actually has the baby. Even after the baby is born, no matter what the mother has told the adoption agency or the perspective adoptive parents she can ( and often does) decide NOT to give anyone the baby or to give the baby to someone else ( like a parent ) who was not been helped by the agency. She receives NO money. There is NO 'exchange' of money for the child. Nothing is bought from her.
All of this is before the judge decides if they are going to permit the adoption. If the judge decides NOT to permit the adoption you are out whatever money you spent and will receive no child.
Foreign adoptions are pretty much the same but usually have a lot of added cost because you need to : 1) buy tickets to travel to a foreign country sometimes twice 2) need a more expensive type of home study 3) need to stay in a foreign country ( sometimes more then a month) 4) need to higher interpreters and translators. The advantage of foreign adoption being that often times the child is already in the custody of the state and the state less likely to say no.
So how exactly is adoption the same as a sale again? you see there is NO exchange and no matter how much money you pay there is no guarantee.
Saying you can buy a child in adoption is kind of like saying you can pay to win the jack pot in the lottery. Even if I try to be as favorable to the way you argue as it is possible, you can pay for the chance to win the lottery or the chance to adopt a child, but you cannot pay for the child or for the jack pot.
Even that is a stretch because like I say you cannot pay someone for something they do not have and in the case of the lottery at lest there is definitely a jack pot someone will get. In the case of adoption there is no guarantee anyone , other then the person who currently has him/her will ever get them.
No either you freely choose ( in which case your original statement was false, because there is a supernatural part to a human being YOU are unable to create) OR you screwed based on stimuli and biology and there was no 'choice' of any kind made. You do everything you do because it is what your environment and conditioning dictate and there is not 'choice' being made at all. You only respond and have the false illusion of choice.
So if the first statement is true the second option must also be true.
I don't believe there is any logical third option.
It suspect I would be getting too far off topic to go into a long discussion of 'free will' suffice it to say that there can be no free will if there is no idea of a divine creator or at least an existence that is supernatural="above / beyond natural). If only the material(natural) world is all that exists then our decisions are precisely the sum of the matter we are created of and the various states ( environment) it has passed through over our lifetime, we do not choose to believe anything nor do we have the ability to actually decide to DO or NOT to do anything, we do what we are conditioned to do on our environment. free will, judgment and autonomy are illusions best discarded.(Pavlov the psychologist ascribe to this kind of belief).
This logically leads you to the question of why is it that we posses a concept of 'self'. how is it we come to posses a concept of self. Either self independent of environment is a real thing that exist capable of make real decisions or it is not. If self is only an illusion it is by far one of the cruelest illusions that could come of nature, because without it there can be no concept of injustice, unfairness or abuse.
if there is no 'me' independent of my environment then why should I be concerned if I experience various stimuli? pain and pleasure are simply different external stimuli and neither is 'good' or 'bad'. Evil is an illusion. there is nothing 'wrong' about slavery, murder or war and no logical reason to be against any of these things. The only answer is because I am preconditioned to be concerned. The same is even more true about concern for someone else. It is irrational to be concerned either about yourself or somewhat else. It is simply your preconditioned response to external stimuli. If it is an unconvinced it is therefore better to retrain yourself to not be bothered.
The fact that I can even discuss 'deciding' weather or not to be concerned about pain or to ignore it is an indicator 'if not a proof' that there is something called a 'self' capable of deciding independently how I respond to stimuli regardless of my environment.
Human language and experience contradict the notion that there is no self. There is almost no one who does not believe in right and wrong and the existence of self, but if there is no supernatural. No god of any kind then all those things are illusions.
We also all also have experienced other selves, capable of 'choosing' and taking delight in the 'pain' of others or of 'choosing' to be indifferent towards the suffering they cause others.
I personally believe human beings are something more then just what is scientifically observable that they have the ability to 'choose' to try and know the absolute reality in which they exist more perfectly. That there is something within each of us that is attracted towards doing what we feel is 'good'. What we choose is weather to follow that feeling or to deaden and ignore it. That feeling I believe is based on reality a reality deeper the physics. The physical world being only a cause dependant on deeper reality, a reality that can be named 'truth' and is called by many people 'God'.
As such it is wrong to treat people like there are nothing but so much matter without recognition that there is a supernatural component to the human person more valuable then any part of a person.
So like I said I think it is sad that people are even trying to invent this kind of thing. It goes against the idea that people are valuable. If people are not valuable then there is no reason to treat them like they are. If people are of no value then why would we advocate a government that make the false assumption people have autonomy to vote and decide. It seems some kind of feudal system where the stronger control the weaker would be easier to maintain and discourage this illusion of self.
Having considered and researched adoption I can tell you this. No matter how much money you give an adoption agency they CANNOT guarantee you that you will ever receive a child. So there is no purchase. You are paying for the service of helping you find a child and fill out paper work. If for some reason ( usually having to do with unfitness detected during what is called a home study) you are deemed unfit by what ever custodial agent has current custody of the child.
If what you are saying is true then there is no such thing as free will. It is an illusion.
If human beings are nothing more then biology and enviornment then they are no more free to choose what they believe or do then a tree or a rock. matter responding to stimuli and nothing futher.
the creation of a human being requires something beyond a natural process if you believe human beings have free will, because a human being with free will must be more then the some of thier parts conditioned by past history.
Idealy adoption cost no money. there are some adoptions for which little or no money is nessary. The ones that do involve money involve paying people to do the paperwork to prove you are not a nut case that will abuse a child.
No adoption is not buying a child. Still, if you want to argue they should cost less you'll get no argument from me.
also , the child was still hopefully brought into existance by an act of passion if not love. ( rape being already illegal and unlikely to cause childern)
It is sad you believe that. What you believe is false, but that discussion is off topic.
The word 'pro-creation' comes from Greek ' to create with ' and until modern times was exclusively understood to mean parents created a child 'with god'.
regardless of ones belief in God or god however it seems to me that each person should have the right to be produced out of an act of passion and love instead of out of an act of mental skill and laboratory science bought and paid for. The latter being dehumanizing and the other much superior.
Slavery is dehumanizing because people are bought and paid for like property. Isn't it just as dehumanizing to bring a person into life like they are just so much chemistry no different then a car or a computer?
As can be seen by several post here this is sad news, it is degrading to males. It is also degrading to babies.
Such technology is degrading to human beings. It treats procreation as being nothing more then a biological process. It makes something that should be held as a honor and a privilege ( being a parent ) into a commodity bought and sold in the laboratory.
When you reduce procreation to a commodity you reduce people to being a commodity. Honestly this kind of technology is evil for the same reason slavery is evil. people are not a commodity.
Slashdot Mirror
The answer is buried but simple if you think about it.
the reason for requiring lecture attendance is to teach a certain 'ethical' attitude and types morality to the students.
( which of coarse is illegal because of separation of church and state in the U.S. but the 'custom' still hangs over university).
In old universities there were actually 'debates' not lectures, but that is a different issue.
I always wanted an answer to the question:
If the test proves I deserve the grade then why do I have to go to class to get the grade? Why can't I just take all the test ( when I'm ready for them. The first day of class if I can) and receive the grade?
If the test doesn't prove I deserve the grade then why are you giving the grade or the test?
too much hypocrisy.
Not really it is still possible to breach an exported service ( FTP or WWW or VPN ) and get past the firewall itself.
I learned that 70% of security breaches come from INSIDE the firewall.
protecting corprate data from the inside requires a whole different level of thought then most companies even consider.
and this is how the world ends
;) (IMHO)
and this is how the world ends
not with a bang, but with a wimper
(showdowlands T.S. Elliot).
read it it is cool
Ok did a little research on my own as well.
ECU's , even the stock ones, allow you to start and drive a car 10 times before they start looking for the ref ID. They also have a way of programming the new ECU with a new refID code.
Is swapping out a refID hard. No.
They are roughly the size of a hard drive.
They have one or two cables coming out of them that look like
power supply hookups and are just as easily plugged and unplugged.
Getting a new one isn't hard.
Modifying the software in them isn't all that hard either.
My conclusion is this technology stops joyrides and junkies , but it isn't going to slow down professionals and organized crime much if at all.
Also, I guess there has been a rise in people deciphering the 40bit encryption
used in many of these tokens in Europe where they are more prevalent.
still , there was an impressive 90% drop in thefts. My suspicion is that probably accounts for the joyride / junkie crowd.
Excuse my ignorance but could somebody explain to me what is so magical about these refid vehicles as to cause one to expect the impossibility of starting them after they are broken into?
Exactly what parts of the car are disabled when refid token is not present?
More over how do those parts KNOW it isn't present?
I mean unless the refid reader is somehow coupled to the spark control computer so that it is impossible to interpose between the refid receiver and the spark control computer I don't see what would stop someone from simply jumpering around the detector.
Even if the spark control computer was in fact coupled tightly to the refid receiver in one apoxy sealed unit so you couldn't interfere, last time I checked replacing the spark control computer could be done in under 15 min if you were good at it. I mean it's not that much different then replacing a hard drive. Even a less compatible control computer would probably allow the vehicle to run (poorly) for a while if I'm not mistaken.
This reminds me vaugly of the standford or was it princton professor of ecology who went before the state North Dakota assembly an seriously presented a proposal to clear the states population and turn the whole place into a buffalow commons.
needless to say he was laughed out of the state senate.
so often you are right ... one of the reasons I no longer work in that industry.
Did you know the standard for bank ot bank encryption of transaction
is des 8 and or 16
des symetric key exchanged before the transaction.
sad really but the cost of changing the infastructure isn't worth it to the bank and most customers would bach at the fees they'd change to do it right as well.
from letting insurance companies find missing cars to letting the employ of the insurance company stock and rape is next victim.
Such ability to track movement should be limited to the fewest people who require it for the purposes of supporting law and order not made available to anyone who can profit from it. That is if you are going to collect it at all.
The biggest problem with biometrics is after it is compromised it cannot be changed.
sure you have 10 figures and 2 eyes, but when it comes too it you will never get ADDED security with a biometric only system.
biometric + password + keycard is the securest solution.
something you are, something you know, something you have
As the phrase goes in the banking security industry.
Those have always been the only 3 options for establishing 'trust' with an unknown entity.
Ok went back and reread. should have said MEANT dictator.
I used dictator in one place and president in the other.
the point is still stands regardless. sorry for the confusion.
didn't say he was president, dictator. He was a military dictator in control at the time.
Not like we haven't done it before.
As I recall there was a Russian programmer arrested in the united states from violating the DMCA when he was in RUSSIA under the direction of his employer for the actual purpose of COMPLYING with RUSSIAN law.
( although I suppose arguably he was arrested for telling people about it on U.S. soil)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov
If I'm not mistaken we also went into a small country called Panama and arrested it's dictator( read the guy who made the laws in that country and couldn't be accused of breaking his own laws) for trafficking Drugs in the country HE ran. We then took said president, ran him through a trial for crimes he DID NOT COMMIT ON US SOIL OR US JERISTICTION and he is now permanently in Jail for drug trafficking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega
Ever heard of the Roosevelt corollary to the Monroe doctrine.
The U.S. has been disrespecting autonomy of other nations for years.
I'm by no means a libertarian.
still it seems to me that it is IMPOSSIBLE to teach children to 'behave' and 'get along' without violating the religious views of certain sects.
for instance what is taught to a child who parents ascribe to radical Islam when the teacher insists that he should have respect for the views of others and be kind to the homosexual student in the class?
The school is teaching something counter to the Childs religion.
Actually the idea that you should 'get along with people you don't agree with' is if anything a derivative of Christian ideology ( although it is really a toned down one off equivalent that has been robbed of it's moral context depending on who is using the phrase).
The idea has it's origins in thinking that revolves around things like:
The unique dignity of the human being
The existence of free will and it's sovergnty
The unalienable rights of man.
Many religions ideologies and philosophies that do not ascribe to any of these ideas and really have little or no interest and or emphasis on 'getting along with people who don't agree with you'.
consider the Hindu cast system? Does that match the idea taught in schools about getting along?
consider again Islam in it's radical forms including jihad , how does tolerance fit into that system?
What about the type and branches of Christianity that have given rise to the KKK?
Does the state have the right to discourage and regulate those types of religion through the use of public schools?
I have no doubt there are public schools in this country that tend to support vs diminish the last category by their social environment. I have little doubt you could find schools in other country that do the same for the other categories.
My point is that the enjoinment in a school and the social interactions of students and teachers ( usually called socialization ) DOES teach something and that something is directly related to morals if not faith specifically.
So , you can't just make the blanket statement that 'socialization' is good in schools.
You have to ask which school and what is the nature of the socialization.
Unfortunately I'd say a large number of schools and have poorly addressed this issue and teach many things that are bad for society at large. Part of the reason is because it is nearly impossible to address the subject in public. Those that do almost always address it in the negative by lawsuits which has the result of forcing the public education system to basically teach a type of egalitarian atheism. It would be much better if there could be a conscious decision of the parents and teaches as to which values can be taught.
That I doubt will ever happen so long is the federal government remains involved.
Public schools should be funded and administered on the local level for precisely those reasons.
My point I guess is just because there is 'socializing' going on at a school you are making a false assumption if you think it is good or useful or positive 'socializing'.
A person's peer group can just as easily 'socialize' them into accepting drugs abuse and cheating on exams (perhaps a pre-curser to later forging research papers) are good as into thinking critically and evaluating evidence independently.
Unfortunately because the environment has not been intentionally shaped in most schools it tends to do a great deal of the former and little or none of the latter.
In the end I find generic arguments that children NEED the socialization that can 'best' be provided by public schools weak, naive , and over simplistic.
As a parent you have to take into account the school itself and weather or not it's social environment is at least non-hostile to moral values you want to teach your children.
If you find it inadequate you need to seek alternative.
All of this is of coarse not addressing the fact that public schools are not very efficient at actually educating because they have to acco
I can think of at least one major problem with this who line of reasoning.
It should NEVER be the STATES responsibility to socialize and teach morality an or philosophy and or religion to it's students.
The whole separation of church and state thing ( a good idea btw) prevents them from doing any such thing efficiently or officially. Not to mention the fact that even if they were supposed to be teaching morality they would still be the wrong people to do it.
The whole 'children need to learn social skills' argument basically is a round about way of saying 'we need to teach people how to behave properly'.
Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately for the school and the argument what does and does not constitute 'proper' behavior is a moral issue they have no right to
teach about.
What the argument really comes down to is that the state wants the right to indoctrinate children in whatever the prevailing culture believes is correct behavior.
This indoctrinization is usually termed 'socializing'.
I've known plenty of home schooled children who were well 'socialized' they spent time in various church groups, did ballet and played sports, all of which 'socialize' much more efficiently and effectively.
You are correct in your assumption about my belief concerning other methods.
My argument though was based on something a little deeper then commoditizing children. artificial insemination methods treat people like animals and a philosophy tolerant of that is counter to the proper value for human life needed to build a sustainable and peaceful world. It promotes a materialistic world view which if taken to it's logical extreme is about anarchy and destruction. So the damage it does to the whole is not worth the benefit is provides to the few.
Indecently I would be one of those few. My wife and I are having fertility problems , but after much research concluded that artificial insemination and like procedures are flatly immoral.
Did I miss something or do you just completely ignore what I said and respond with absolutely irrationally.
Let me try and simply:
Given the statement:
(premise)
"human beings are purely biological"
(logic)
it logically follows that human choice is a consequence of biology and the environment that biology is responding too. \
there is nothing free about it.
freedom must be concluded to be an illusion.
The reason is simple:
if "human beings are purely biological"
which variables can change to influence choice
1) biology
2) environment
3) history ( conditioning)
Conclusion:
You do not choose ANY of those three things and the choices you make are in no way independent of them because that is all there is. There is nothing free about it. It is deterministic. ( not to say that it is predictable as chaos theory demonstrates it is possible to have an entirely deterministic system that is not predictable because you cannot sufficiently track the initial state.)
If my conclusion is wrong. Which is what you claim either my premise or my logic must be wrong.
If my logic is wrong please explain to me why that is?
I claim the premise is wrong. You have twice claimed it was not. So I assume you must have some problem with the logic. As you have also asserted as have I that the conclusion is wrong. In order for the conclusion to be wrong either the premise or the logic must be wrong.
You say the premise is correct.
How is the logic wrong?
Are you being intentionally difficult or do you really not understand this?
Giving you the benefit of a doubt.
Let me explain it then:
You cannot buy something from someone who does not have it.
As you pointed out buying something represents and 'exchange'.
To keep it simple let me start with U.S. adoptions.
If the child is in the custody of the state the state gives you the child free of charge and sometimes will pay you to care for the child ( if they have special needs).
Who actually has possession of the child you claim is being sold.
The mother. It is her and her alone that decides weather or not
anyone gets to adopt that child.
It is illegal to give her money.
So there can be no exchange of money for a child.
You can in some limited circumstance cover doctors fees that relate directly to the child, but even that is very limited. In that case however you are helping a child you HOPE to parent directly and the mother only indirectly. There is no legal agreement or obligation that the mother will give the perspective adoptive parent the child at all. ( often times they choose not to even when medical bills have been covered for them).
So who gets the money:
Money is paid for:
1) a home study
2) a lawyer who files paper work with the court
3) people who provide the service of helping mothers who think they MIGHT want to give up their child for adoption find parents who are willing to adopt.
once again you cannot buy something from someone who doesn't have it.
the adoption agency does not have a baby. ( they MIGHT eventually gain knowledge of where someone is how has one who MIGHT want to give it to you)
the person who does the home study does not have a baby.
the lawyer does not have a baby.
yet these are the people who you give money.
The mother actually has the baby. Even after the baby is born, no matter what the mother has told the adoption agency or the perspective adoptive parents she can ( and often does) decide NOT to give anyone the baby or to give the baby to someone else ( like a parent ) who was not been helped by the agency.
She receives NO money. There is NO 'exchange' of money for the child.
Nothing is bought from her.
All of this is before the judge decides if they are going to permit the adoption. If the judge decides NOT to permit the adoption you are out whatever money you spent and will receive no child.
Foreign adoptions are pretty much the same but usually have a lot of added cost because you need to :
1) buy tickets to travel to a foreign country sometimes twice
2) need a more expensive type of home study
3) need to stay in a foreign country ( sometimes more then a month)
4) need to higher interpreters and translators.
The advantage of foreign adoption being that often times the child is already in the custody of the state and the state less likely to say no.
So how exactly is adoption the same as a sale again?
you see there is NO exchange and no matter how much money you pay there is
no guarantee.
Saying you can buy a child in adoption is kind of like saying you can pay to win the jack pot in the lottery. Even if I try to be as favorable to the way you argue as it is possible, you can pay for the chance to win the lottery or the chance to adopt a child, but you cannot pay for the child or for the jack pot.
Even that is a stretch because like I say you cannot pay someone for something they do not have and in the case of the lottery at lest there is definitely a jack pot someone will get. In the case of adoption there is no guarantee anyone , other then the person who currently has him/her will ever get them.
No either you freely choose ( in which case your original statement was false, because there is a supernatural part to a human being YOU are unable to create) OR
you screwed based on stimuli and biology and there was no 'choice' of any kind made. You do everything you do because it is what your environment and conditioning dictate and there is not 'choice' being made at all. You only respond and have the false illusion of choice.
So if the first statement is true the second option must also be true.
I don't believe there is any logical third option.
It suspect I would be getting too far off topic to go into a long discussion of 'free will' suffice it to say that there can be no free will if there is no idea of a divine creator or at least an existence that is supernatural="above / beyond natural). If only the material(natural) world is all that exists then our decisions are precisely the sum of the matter we are created of and the various states ( environment) it has passed through over our lifetime, we do not choose to believe anything nor do we have the ability to actually decide to DO or NOT to do anything, we do what we are conditioned to do on our environment. free will, judgment and autonomy are illusions best discarded.(Pavlov the psychologist ascribe to this kind of belief).
This logically leads you to the question of why is it that we posses a concept of 'self'. how is it we come to posses a concept of self. Either self independent of environment is a real thing that exist capable of make real decisions or it is not. If self is only an illusion it is by far one of the cruelest illusions that could come of nature, because without it there can be no concept of injustice, unfairness or abuse.
if there is no 'me' independent of my environment then why should I be concerned if I experience various stimuli? pain and pleasure are simply different external stimuli and neither is 'good' or 'bad'. Evil is an illusion. there is nothing 'wrong' about slavery, murder or war and no logical reason to be against any of these things. The only answer is because I am preconditioned to be concerned. The same is even more true about concern for someone else. It is irrational to be concerned either about yourself or somewhat else. It is simply your preconditioned response to external stimuli. If it is an unconvinced it is therefore better to retrain yourself to not be bothered.
The fact that I can even discuss 'deciding' weather or not to be concerned about pain or to ignore it is an indicator 'if not a proof' that there is something called a 'self' capable of deciding independently how I respond to stimuli regardless of my environment.
Human language and experience contradict the notion that there is no self.
There is almost no one who does not believe in right and wrong and the existence of self, but if there is no supernatural. No god of any kind then all those things are illusions.
We also all also have experienced other selves, capable of 'choosing' and taking delight in the 'pain' of others or of 'choosing' to be indifferent towards the suffering they cause others.
I personally believe human beings are something more then just what is scientifically observable that they have the ability to 'choose' to try and know the absolute reality in which they exist more perfectly. That there is something within each of us that is attracted towards doing what we feel is 'good'. What we choose is weather to follow that feeling or to deaden and ignore it. That feeling I believe is based on reality a reality deeper the physics. The physical world being only a cause dependant on deeper reality, a reality that can be named 'truth' and is called by many people 'God'.
As such it is wrong to treat people like there are nothing but so much matter without recognition that there is a supernatural component to the human person more valuable then any part of a person.
So like I said I think it is sad that people are even trying to invent this kind of thing.
It goes against the idea that people are valuable. If people are not valuable then there is no reason to treat them like they are. If people are of no value then why would we advocate a government that make the false assumption people have autonomy to vote and decide. It seems some kind of feudal system where the stronger control the weaker would be easier to maintain and discourage this illusion of self.
Having considered and researched adoption I can tell you this.
No matter how much money you give an adoption agency they CANNOT guarantee you that you will ever receive a child. So there is no purchase. You are paying for the service of helping you find a child and fill out paper work. If for some reason ( usually having to do with unfitness detected during what is called a home study) you are deemed unfit by what ever custodial agent has current custody of the child.
If what you are saying is true then there is no such thing as free will. It is an
illusion.
If human beings are nothing more then biology and enviornment then they are no more free to choose what they believe or do then a tree or a rock. matter responding to stimuli and nothing futher.
the creation of a human being requires something beyond a natural process if you believe human beings have free will, because a human being with free will must be more then the some of thier parts conditioned by past history.
Idealy adoption cost no money. there are some adoptions for which little or no money is nessary. The ones that do involve money involve paying people to do the paperwork to prove you are not a nut case that will abuse a child.
No adoption is not buying a child. Still, if you want to argue they should cost less you'll get no argument from me.
also , the child was still hopefully brought into existance by an act of passion if not love. ( rape being already illegal and unlikely to cause childern)
So the two are very different situatations
It is sad you believe that. What you believe is false, but that discussion is off topic.
The word 'pro-creation' comes from Greek ' to create with ' and until modern times was exclusively understood to mean parents created a child 'with god'.
regardless of ones belief in God or god however it seems to me that each person should have the right to be produced out of an act of passion and love instead of out of an act of mental skill and laboratory science bought and paid for. The latter being dehumanizing and the other much superior.
Slavery is dehumanizing because people are bought and paid for like property. Isn't it just as dehumanizing to bring a person into life like they are just so much chemistry no different then a car or a computer?
As can be seen by several post here this is sad news, it is degrading to males.
It is also degrading to babies.
Such technology is degrading to human beings.
It treats procreation as being nothing more then a biological process.
It makes something that should be held as a honor and a privilege ( being a parent )
into a commodity bought and sold in the laboratory.
When you reduce procreation to a commodity you reduce people to being a commodity.
Honestly this kind of technology is evil for the same reason slavery is evil.
people are not a commodity.