You didn't read that correctly. What he said was that if there is no US Law requiring something, then the USA should not try to develop a Treaty incorporating the idea into US Law.
That is, if its not a crime in the USA to do something, the USA has no business trying to make it a crime under international law.
As long as you're not tresspassing while taking those photos, you're 100% in the legal right if you take pics of her naked in the bedroom with a zoom lense.
No. You don't. MOst, if not all, States have "peeping tom" laws. Many have added new laws to deal with some of the possibilities inherent in modern technology for improved peeping.
Today, we have the situation where our representatives no longer represent us (and definitely do not deserve the title of "statesman") - instead, at best, they look after their own interests, and damn the citizenry! They are corrupt, and this has changed the game significantly.
/laughs hysterically
This has been said, slightly paraphrased, in every generation of American politics. I suspect it has been said of every Legislative body in the history of the world.
The Electoral College was not invented to prevent the people from making a mistake. It was invented to give smaller states enough influence in the Presidential elections that their concerns could not be ignored by the Presidential candidates. It does that nicely.
Also, note its secondary purpose - to convince the smaller states that their interests would not be ignored so that they would ratify the Constitution. Which it also did nicely.
If you believe that the Electoral College no longer serves a useful purpose, I suggest you write to your representative and senators, asking them to introduce a Constitutional Amendment abolishing same, and requiring the direct election of President/Vice. Then wait for the process to work - if enough people agree, it will eventually happen.
Not, mind you, that I think it is a good idea, or that you will ever convince the majority of 38 Legislatures that it is a good idea....
The UN is accountable to its member states and its member states are accountable to its citizens. Don't think so shallowly, such is unwelcome.
A member state is accountable to its citizens to the extent that its citizens can either vote or shoot the bastards out of office. Note that many, if not most, member states are set up so as to prevent either option.
As to the UN being accountable to its member states, to what extent is that really true? Is the UN obligated to operate in an open manner? Does it require open bidding for contracts? Any of the things that more liberal countries require to ensure oversight of their governments?
The Geneva Convention is designed to safeguard the right of everyone involved in a shooting war. Even those poor sods who get captured.
That said, I find little to argue in your post. I disagree with a few minor points, but they're "two beer issues" (IOW, if we were at home arguing this, a couple more beers, and I might agree fully with you, or vice versa)
I doubt that Powell would have threatened to sue the Bush Administration if he did not have a case.
Hmm, does that mean that SCO must've had a case? They threatened to sue, and did. By your logic, they must've had a case. Threatening to sue with the intention of coercing your opponent is Barratry, I think. Illegal, but done all the time nonetheless, since most settle rather than risk the lawsuit...
No, but we did, at least in theory, apply prisoner of war rights to them. THis is something that the Bush administration tries to refuse to do at every opportunity.
Prisoner of War Rights? We certainly did that in WW2. We are doing it now. Keep in mind that the Geneva Convention gives no rights to any combatant that is not a member of a military organization. If you're fighting, and not in uniform, you're a spy, and can be shot out of hand. This would pretty much apply to all the Afghani prisoners we hold, and many of the Iraqi ones. We may choose to be more generous than the Geneva Convention requiers us to be if we wish. But make no mistake in thinking that a guerrilla is accorded ANY rights under the Geneva Convention, much less the same rights as a captured soldier.
Note, however, that the Geneva Convention doesn't properly cover the case of foreign government prisoners. That is, prisoners who happen to be members of a foreign government, but are non-military. This is an oversight in the Convention, probably existing because the idea of capturing and trying members of a foreign government never occurred to the people who developed the Convention.
The Nuremburg Trials set a nasty precedent. We should never have gone there, in spite of the fact that refusing to try Nazi war-criminals would have meant that the people who slaughtered 6 million Jews (and ~50 million other soldiers and civilians) getting away scot-free. As is, the world has just now gotten around to even trying to formalize the idea of an International War Crimes Tribunal. And done it badly enough that it will likely never achieve its intended purpose.
To be sure that data is irretrievable you need to physically destroy the disk, which includes at least chopping up the platters and preferably melting them down.
I believe I have a copy of the NSA rules on sanitizing hard disks and such around the house. As I recall, you have to reduce it to pieces no more than 0.5mm in diameter.
No, they were all conditioned and believed firmly they are being attacked and threatened by the Jewish minority. No kidding, they would have sworn it was them who began the aggression and could have counted a looong list what they had done to them. That it all was faked and made up by the regime to incite hate and to create a scapegoat would not have sprung to their minds. And yes, they believed their newspapers were still independent. They believed anti-semitism and the assault on neighboring Poland was a kind of revenge on those who attacked them.
Umm, no. The whole "Jews are teh debhil" thing in Nazi Germany was based on WW1. The German Army was quite nicely winning that particular war up till 1918. Then they made a couple of assinine mistakes (attacking when they should have been defending), and the German High Command told the Kaisar that the war could not be won. Long story short, the Kaisar abdicated, the Germans surrendered. But the common people couldn't see the underlying causes - what they saw is that their still victorious army surrendered. So it had to be the Bankers and Industrialists (the Germans had as many "war-profiteering" myths as everyone else). And those Bankers and Industrialists were largely Jewish (due to a medeival peculiarity, the really rich people in Germany were largely Jewish), or appeared to be.
Hence, "we lost the Great War because the Jews betrayed us!" It was a widely held belief before the Nazis got going. Hitler, of course, had personal issues with the Jews. And Himmler had even bigger personal issues with the Jews. Hence the Concentration Camps. (If you're ever feeling really comfortable about civilization, visit one....)
Also, most Germans didn't believe that their newspapers/radio/other news were "independent". Especially since, historically, they had never been entirely independent. And many Germans thought Hitler was slime (quietly, of course). I once read that the Berliners referred to Hitler by an acronym that translated as "The Greatest General of All Time", but which sounded rather rude in German....;)
Poland, of course, is a whole other issue. Poland was attacked (really) because the Treaty of Versailles gave a good-sized chunk of Germany to Poland, and the Germans wanted it back. Ostensibly, Poland was attacked because of repeated border violations in preparation for attack on Germany. These border incidents were manufactured by the Germans, but most Germans didn't know that. Also, Poland was not "weak" then. Its army was smaller than Germany's, but not much smaller. It was considerably larger than the USArmy of 1939, and probably comparable in size (if not quality, which wasn't as bad as legend would have it) to the combined British/American Armies of 1939.
As to the "War on Terror". Do you actually know someone who believes that torturing prisoners is "fair revenge"? I don't. Even the bigots I know think that the people doing the torturing should be taken outside and shot.
And it probably would offend you no end to know that most German and Japanese POW's were kept in "prison camps outside the borders". And we didn't let them talk to lawyers either. By the way, the Concentration Camps were mostly in Poland because Poland had the biggest Jewish population. More efficient to not have to ship them so far....
And you forgot to mention gun control. American gun control laws are remarkably similar to the laws used to disarm the Jews in Germany (not that there were all that many armed Jews in Germany) before the war....
As for the difference between Lutherans and Baptists, yes it's trivial, and they'd be the first to tell you that. Both believe that Christ is the holy, living, died-and-resurrected Son of God, that He lived a perfect life, and died to pay for our sins, that His ressurection is a sign of our (Lutheran's and Baptist's and all other's who trust in Him) salvation. Quibbles over the Eucharist are trivial to those who believe that. They agree, for sound reasons, that they worship the same God.
My, you should read more history. The 30-Years War was fought over details as trivial as this (this ignoring the political reasons for that war, which reduce to the usual avarice on the part of rulers). Most of the Crusades were fought over details this trivial (note that "most crusades" were NOT against the Muslims).
Also note that not all Christians believe(d) that Jesus of Nazareth lived a "perfect life". See Arian Heresy, as an example. I tend to lean in that direction myself, which would, no doubt, shock the pastor....
The central mystery of Christianity is the Resurrection. "Without it, your faith is in vain". The rest of it is (relatively) trivial. Including the divinity of Christ. No doubt most theologians would argue that the "royal sacrifice" represented by the crucifiction could not be valid if Christ were less than divine. They are entitled to their own opinion on the subject, just as I am.
Just curious aout something almost unrelated. How do you feel about Joan of Arc? At her trial, it was reported (by her) that her Angels addressed her as "Daughter of God"....
Either Jesus is wrong, or Muhammed is wrong, therefore God is not Allah?
Perhaps I should have put that more clearly:... therefore His (Jesus's) Father is not Allah. Jesus said that His father was the God of the Jews.
Ahh! What you really mean is that if they are both RIGHT, then Allah is not God! I'll concede that when you show me the verse of the Koran which asserts that Jesus was not the Son of God. It has been many years since I pulled my own copy out (English, so not considered a valid copy by purists), but I don't recall that part.
I concede that Christians and Muslims fundamental incompatibility is the status of Jesus of Nazareth. I do not consider that fundamental disagreement to imply that they worship different Gods. Lutherans and Baptists have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the Eucharist, but that doesn't mean they worship different Gods. And before you say that that latter difference is trivial, it was important enough to get burned at the stake at one time. And important enough to cause crusades (not all crusades were directed at the Muslims - some were against the French;) )
No. You might be confusing "unbeliever" with "heretic" though. Muslims traditionally have dim views of that sort of thing. As do Christians and Jews, though "heresy" has been reduced to "we agree to disagree" in recent centuries.
Jesus might have been wrong in his claim to be the Son of God, or Mohammed might have been wrong in saying that he was merely a prophet, but both cannot be right. Therefore, Allah cannot be the God described in the bible and torah.
This one went right by me. Either Jesus is wrong, or Muhammed is wrong, therefore God is not Allah? That makes no sense whatsoever. Note that "merely" doesn't usually describe the prophets. They were, by definition, people whom God spoke to directly. They were also, by definition, people who told the truth about what God said to them. Neither of these is a "merely" sort of thing.
I knew a muslim once who approached the "son of God" thing this way: "If God wanted a son, he would have one. That's what all-powerful is all about. We don't believe He needs a son, but who are we to tell God what he can and cannot do?" Course, this particular Muslim also said "There are things we are told not to do as Muslims. I don't do them. There are also things we are told to do as Muslims. I don't do them either," so you can take his opinions with a grain of salt....
And, no, Peoples of the Book cannot be unbelievers. Unless you count the Peoples of the Book as having some genetic basis. A genetic basis for being considered a Jew is certainly valid, and the Muslims at least started that way, but it doesn't apply so well to the Christians. Doesn't even apply all that well to the Muslims anymore, since both Christianity and Islam are evangelical religions (unlike Judaism). The fact that your mother is Christian does NOT make you Christian. Same for your father. What makes you Christian is your beliefs! You either believe, or you don't. If you don't, you're not one of the "Peoples of the Book".
Yes, I know that Mohammed quoted the bible: he did so mostly in order to refute it. He claimed that the Jews had gotten their history wrong in the Pentateuch (he said that the Jews were descendents of Ishmael, rather than Isaac), and that Christ was not the Son of Allah. That last one shows us that whatever Allah might be, he's not the God described in the Christian bible. Please notice that I'm not telling you who's right; I'm telling you that it's one or the other (or neither, but definitely not both).
Well, no. The Koran (or Quran, for purists) seems to agree that Christians and Jews are descended from Isaac, and that Muslims are descended from Ishmael.
Some Muslims believe that Ishmael was the sacrificial lamb that Abraham offered to God. This is based on the fact that Ishmael was the elder son of Abraham (true), and thus the more valuable sacrifice. This latter point is debatable, however, and I don't want to debate it. Suffice it to say, different cultures place different values on the children of wives and the children of concubines. How Abraham would have chosen is likely entirely based on how his own people valued such things.
Muslims do, in general, believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet. They do not believe he was the Messiah. Since the Jews also disbelieve that Jesus (note that I do not use Christ, which is a title for the Messiah) of Nazareth was the Messiah, I do not see this as a reason for holding that Islam believes in a different God.
And, no, the Jews and Christians are NOT the "unbelievers" - the pagans are. And the Zarathutrans. And the Hindus. Though the latter two are technically pagans, I include them as they represent a sizable chunk of the pagans early Mulsims would have encountered.
Note that Islam considers all three (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) "Peoples of the Book". The Book in question is what Christians call the Old Testament.
Much of the animosity between Islam and the other "Peoples of the Book" stems from historical incidents in Muhammed's lifetime. Muhammed didn't get too far with the leaders of either religion when he asked them to recognise the kinship of Judaism/Christianity and Islam....
I never said I agree with the popular criteria of child porn.
And I never suggested that you do. Neither, for that matter, have I said that I either agree or disagree with the popular definition of child porn.
I agree that just looking like a child doesn't make it child porn.
Actually, under US law, it does. Whether this is as it should be is another question entirely.
"Porn" and "bad science" seem to go hand in hand. Unfortunately, child porn is a subject that, one way or another, sets people off. Bad science is almost inevitable when the researchers have strong opinions going in - and almost everyone has strong opinions about porn, and child porn in particular.
Every year some guy had to recite all the laws from memory in Iceland.
One third the law every year.
The Norse were a fascinating people - widely considered uncouth savages, with a bent toward destroying churches, but their epics contain more lawsuits than duels....
And you prove that someone has been "forced into consent" how?
It is likely that some people are incapable of "consent". It is by no means certain that it can be demonstrated that a line can be drawn based on age (or any other single characteristic) where "consent" is possible on one side, and "inability to give consent" is required on the other.
"Child porn" presumes that such a line can be drawn. To go further, "child porn" assumes that if someone appears to be under the "age of consent", then that person cannot take part in production of pornography (as an actor - presumably there would be no problem if he/she wished to direct or produce).
As to "proving" that children "can be influenced far more than adults" without setting an exact age border - ANYTHING can be proven by a careful selection of data. The setting of a precise age border (or the appearance of someone above/below that border) is the premise for the concept of "child porn".
Interestingly enough, the assumption is that porn involving people below the age of consent (without regard to appearances) is "child porn", AND that porn involving people above the age of consent, but appearing to be below the age of consent is "child porn".
Ahh, but the Supremes' ruling I spoke of declared that "damage" was unnecessary in determining whether harassment had occurred.
Also, you should know that it has been ruled that sex between smployer/employee or supervisor/worker is presumed to be nonconsensual if either party brings a harassment claim.
Actually, that wasn't one of the original uses. When "broadcast" was first conceived, it was discounted, since the only use that could be foreseen was to broadcast Sunday sermons. It was felt that there was not sufficient audience to make broadcast worthwhile.
Later, some bright boy decided to start doing sports coverage...that's when it really took off....
Free speach should only be limited if it poses a real thread to the public.
Things like child porn.
If you argued that the goat.cx picture would in severe mental problems with those who saw it you might have a point.
But simply cesnoring because the majority doesn't like it is completly wrong.
Alright, I'll bite. How is "child porn" a "real threat to the public"?
And how is censoring "child porn" not a case of "censoring because the majority doesn't like it"?
The old "consent" arguments don't really hold water here - you can't prove that the people involved are not consenting.
It could be argued that a child is incapable of "consent", but "age of consent" is a government-imposed idea.
The argument that "child porn" leads to assaults on children is no more realistic than the argument that "porn" (in general) leads to assaults on women.
Basicly the only rules you need are those that ensure that a society runs well: e.g
- killing is bad
- stealing is bad
- free speach is good
- x isn't allowed because it is dangerous to you or the public
A society that "runs well" requires both more and less than you might expect.
"Killing is bad" isn't required, for instance. Most historical societies had rules about who you could kill, and when, without societal sanctions. But very few took the stance that "killing is bad". I note that a Code Duello existed in many (if not most) societies up to the 19th century. Killing was allowed, and even encouraged, in some specific conditions. The societies didn't especially suffer from this lack of "killing is bad".
Likewise for stealing. Some societies forbid it (USA, as an example), some allow it under certain conditions (England in the 1500's, as regards Spanish property), some encourage it (most Plains Indian cultures respected horse-thieves). Whether the society ran well was irrelevant to its stand on "stealing is bad".
That said, societial rules, in general, reduce to
(1)who you can kill, and when,
(2)who you can screw, and when,
(3)what you can own, and under what circumstances,
(4)what you can say, and to whom,
(5)who you can turn to for redress of grievance in case any of the above are violated by anyone. (some societies require you to turn to the government, at one level or another for redress, some allow you to seek redress personally)
Note that case (3) actually creates the largest part of "law" in almost all societies. The rest of it, no matter the specific implementation, is really quite straightforward.
Note also that a society can "run well" with almost any answer to those five cases, if the people of the society accept the "rules" (~90% acceptance is typical in a stable society).
Issues come up when there are divisions within a society where a very large minority cannot, in good conscience, accept one or more rules. An example - slavery in the nineteenth century USA. ~2/3 of the population did not support it, ~1/3 did. Both sides considered their positions to be a matter of "rights". Result - Lincoln's election, secession, War Between the States (I refuse to call it the Civil War - there was nothing "civil" about it).
Note that up till the nineteenth century, slavery was legal, if not common, in virtually all societies. There were, in almost all societies, minor elements who considered slavery "evil/wrong/sinful" (pick one), but not so many as to force the issue into contention.
Since then, slavery has been illegal in almost all societies. There are minor elements who consider slavery "good" (or at least acceptable), but not enough to force the issue into contention.
And, finally "x isn't allowed because it is dangerous to you or the public" is probably a far broader concept than you thought when you proposed it. It includes such things as smoking (dangerous to the smoker, at least), fast food (dangerous to the fat slob who overindulges, though that is true of any food), lack of exercise (dangerous, I expect, to most of/.). Did you really think that the "basic rules for society" should allow the government to regulate the amount/kind of food/exercise you must get?
There is one major difference. Homer was writing about events set in historical time, only 400 years or so before in fact, involving historical people whom many people at the time of writing could clearly and accurately trace their own lineage to, in a land not only accessable but well known and colonized. A story of his own culture's recent history.
Homer wasn't writing - oral tradition, remember?
As to the historicity (is that a word?) of events 400 years before "the time of writing", I should point out that it is VERY difficult to pin down ancestry 400 years into the past - some of my more determined relatives have been trying for decades, and there are still holes in their lists that one could drive a truck through. And our records of such things are more thorough than the bronze-age Greek records.
Do you consider 400 years ago "recent history"? Just curious, since 400 years ago includes things like the 30-Years War, Jamestown, and the Armada - hardly things most would consider "recent". Though no doubt archeologists define "recently" more liberally than most of us....
And leave Clinton out of this - like it or not he a damn good President, the adultery has nothing to do with any of this (And shouldn't have led to the attempted impeachment nor morons like you bitching about it - the man has a private life to and is entitled to it.)
Sure, no problem. He's entitled to a private life. He is NOT, however, entitled to lie about it to a judge. And, in case you've never read any Supreme Court rulings on Sexual Harassment, the man's history IS relevant in such cases.
Interestingly, right after the Paula Jones case was thrown out, the Supreme Court made a ruling on another, completely unrelated, harassment case that would have, if it had come two weeks earlier, prevented the Paula Jones case from being tossed on the grounds it was tossed.
"The air traffic service has been beset by problems since it was partially privatized in 2001. A $484 million center at Swanwick in southern England opened five years late in 2002.
What a nice little non sequiter. The system is having problems because it was privatised, but the Swanwick Center has nothing to do with that, since it was five years late one year after the privatization.
Sounds like the non-privatised system was having problems all on its own....
Slashdot Mirror
That is, if its not a crime in the USA to do something, the USA has no business trying to make it a crime under international law.
No. You don't. MOst, if not all, States have "peeping tom" laws. Many have added new laws to deal with some of the possibilities inherent in modern technology for improved peeping.
/laughs hysterically
This has been said, slightly paraphrased, in every generation of American politics. I suspect it has been said of every Legislative body in the history of the world.
The Electoral College was not invented to prevent the people from making a mistake. It was invented to give smaller states enough influence in the Presidential elections that their concerns could not be ignored by the Presidential candidates. It does that nicely.
Also, note its secondary purpose - to convince the smaller states that their interests would not be ignored so that they would ratify the Constitution. Which it also did nicely.
If you believe that the Electoral College no longer serves a useful purpose, I suggest you write to your representative and senators, asking them to introduce a Constitutional Amendment abolishing same, and requiring the direct election of President/Vice. Then wait for the process to work - if enough people agree, it will eventually happen.
Not, mind you, that I think it is a good idea, or that you will ever convince the majority of 38 Legislatures that it is a good idea....
A member state is accountable to its citizens to the extent that its citizens can either vote or shoot the bastards out of office. Note that many, if not most, member states are set up so as to prevent either option.
As to the UN being accountable to its member states, to what extent is that really true? Is the UN obligated to operate in an open manner? Does it require open bidding for contracts? Any of the things that more liberal countries require to ensure oversight of their governments?
The Geneva Convention is designed to safeguard the right of everyone involved in a shooting war. Even those poor sods who get captured. That said, I find little to argue in your post. I disagree with a few minor points, but they're "two beer issues" (IOW, if we were at home arguing this, a couple more beers, and I might agree fully with you, or vice versa) I doubt that Powell would have threatened to sue the Bush Administration if he did not have a case. Hmm, does that mean that SCO must've had a case? They threatened to sue, and did. By your logic, they must've had a case. Threatening to sue with the intention of coercing your opponent is Barratry, I think. Illegal, but done all the time nonetheless, since most settle rather than risk the lawsuit...
Prisoner of War Rights? We certainly did that in WW2. We are doing it now. Keep in mind that the Geneva Convention gives no rights to any combatant that is not a member of a military organization. If you're fighting, and not in uniform, you're a spy, and can be shot out of hand. This would pretty much apply to all the Afghani prisoners we hold, and many of the Iraqi ones. We may choose to be more generous than the Geneva Convention requiers us to be if we wish. But make no mistake in thinking that a guerrilla is accorded ANY rights under the Geneva Convention, much less the same rights as a captured soldier.
Note, however, that the Geneva Convention doesn't properly cover the case of foreign government prisoners. That is, prisoners who happen to be members of a foreign government, but are non-military. This is an oversight in the Convention, probably existing because the idea of capturing and trying members of a foreign government never occurred to the people who developed the Convention.
The Nuremburg Trials set a nasty precedent. We should never have gone there, in spite of the fact that refusing to try Nazi war-criminals would have meant that the people who slaughtered 6 million Jews (and ~50 million other soldiers and civilians) getting away scot-free. As is, the world has just now gotten around to even trying to formalize the idea of an International War Crimes Tribunal. And done it badly enough that it will likely never achieve its intended purpose.
I believe I have a copy of the NSA rules on sanitizing hard disks and such around the house. As I recall, you have to reduce it to pieces no more than 0.5mm in diameter.
Umm, no. The whole "Jews are teh debhil" thing in Nazi Germany was based on WW1. The German Army was quite nicely winning that particular war up till 1918. Then they made a couple of assinine mistakes (attacking when they should have been defending), and the German High Command told the Kaisar that the war could not be won. Long story short, the Kaisar abdicated, the Germans surrendered. But the common people couldn't see the underlying causes - what they saw is that their still victorious army surrendered. So it had to be the Bankers and Industrialists (the Germans had as many "war-profiteering" myths as everyone else). And those Bankers and Industrialists were largely Jewish (due to a medeival peculiarity, the really rich people in Germany were largely Jewish), or appeared to be.
Hence, "we lost the Great War because the Jews betrayed us!" It was a widely held belief before the Nazis got going. Hitler, of course, had personal issues with the Jews. And Himmler had even bigger personal issues with the Jews. Hence the Concentration Camps. (If you're ever feeling really comfortable about civilization, visit one....)
Also, most Germans didn't believe that their newspapers/radio/other news were "independent". Especially since, historically, they had never been entirely independent. And many Germans thought Hitler was slime (quietly, of course). I once read that the Berliners referred to Hitler by an acronym that translated as "The Greatest General of All Time", but which sounded rather rude in German....;)
Poland, of course, is a whole other issue. Poland was attacked (really) because the Treaty of Versailles gave a good-sized chunk of Germany to Poland, and the Germans wanted it back. Ostensibly, Poland was attacked because of repeated border violations in preparation for attack on Germany. These border incidents were manufactured by the Germans, but most Germans didn't know that. Also, Poland was not "weak" then. Its army was smaller than Germany's, but not much smaller. It was considerably larger than the USArmy of 1939, and probably comparable in size (if not quality, which wasn't as bad as legend would have it) to the combined British/American Armies of 1939.
As to the "War on Terror". Do you actually know someone who believes that torturing prisoners is "fair revenge"? I don't. Even the bigots I know think that the people doing the torturing should be taken outside and shot.
And it probably would offend you no end to know that most German and Japanese POW's were kept in "prison camps outside the borders". And we didn't let them talk to lawyers either. By the way, the Concentration Camps were mostly in Poland because Poland had the biggest Jewish population. More efficient to not have to ship them so far....
And you forgot to mention gun control. American gun control laws are remarkably similar to the laws used to disarm the Jews in Germany (not that there were all that many armed Jews in Germany) before the war....
My, you should read more history. The 30-Years War was fought over details as trivial as this (this ignoring the political reasons for that war, which reduce to the usual avarice on the part of rulers). Most of the Crusades were fought over details this trivial (note that "most crusades" were NOT against the Muslims).
Also note that not all Christians believe(d) that Jesus of Nazareth lived a "perfect life". See Arian Heresy, as an example. I tend to lean in that direction myself, which would, no doubt, shock the pastor....
The central mystery of Christianity is the Resurrection. "Without it, your faith is in vain". The rest of it is (relatively) trivial. Including the divinity of Christ. No doubt most theologians would argue that the "royal sacrifice" represented by the crucifiction could not be valid if Christ were less than divine. They are entitled to their own opinion on the subject, just as I am.
Just curious aout something almost unrelated. How do you feel about Joan of Arc? At her trial, it was reported (by her) that her Angels addressed her as "Daughter of God"....
Either Jesus is wrong, or Muhammed is wrong, therefore God is not Allah? Perhaps I should have put that more clearly: ... therefore His (Jesus's) Father is not Allah. Jesus said that His father was the God of the Jews.
Ahh! What you really mean is that if they are both RIGHT, then Allah is not God! I'll concede that when you show me the verse of the Koran which asserts that Jesus was not the Son of God. It has been many years since I pulled my own copy out (English, so not considered a valid copy by purists), but I don't recall that part.
I concede that Christians and Muslims fundamental incompatibility is the status of Jesus of Nazareth. I do not consider that fundamental disagreement to imply that they worship different Gods. Lutherans and Baptists have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of the Eucharist, but that doesn't mean they worship different Gods. And before you say that that latter difference is trivial, it was important enough to get burned at the stake at one time. And important enough to cause crusades (not all crusades were directed at the Muslims - some were against the French ;) )
No. You might be confusing "unbeliever" with "heretic" though. Muslims traditionally have dim views of that sort of thing. As do Christians and Jews, though "heresy" has been reduced to "we agree to disagree" in recent centuries.
This one went right by me. Either Jesus is wrong, or Muhammed is wrong, therefore God is not Allah? That makes no sense whatsoever. Note that "merely" doesn't usually describe the prophets. They were, by definition, people whom God spoke to directly. They were also, by definition, people who told the truth about what God said to them. Neither of these is a "merely" sort of thing.
I knew a muslim once who approached the "son of God" thing this way: "If God wanted a son, he would have one. That's what all-powerful is all about. We don't believe He needs a son, but who are we to tell God what he can and cannot do?" Course, this particular Muslim also said "There are things we are told not to do as Muslims. I don't do them. There are also things we are told to do as Muslims. I don't do them either," so you can take his opinions with a grain of salt....
And, no, Peoples of the Book cannot be unbelievers. Unless you count the Peoples of the Book as having some genetic basis. A genetic basis for being considered a Jew is certainly valid, and the Muslims at least started that way, but it doesn't apply so well to the Christians. Doesn't even apply all that well to the Muslims anymore, since both Christianity and Islam are evangelical religions (unlike Judaism). The fact that your mother is Christian does NOT make you Christian. Same for your father. What makes you Christian is your beliefs! You either believe, or you don't. If you don't, you're not one of the "Peoples of the Book".
Neither of my grandfathers worked in a mine, ever. Neither made it to 80.
60-80 years to kill you?? Wow! that means if you start working in the mines at 15, your average life expectancy might only be 75-95.
As opposed to the 77 it is now in the USA....
Well, no. The Koran (or Quran, for purists) seems to agree that Christians and Jews are descended from Isaac, and that Muslims are descended from Ishmael.
Some Muslims believe that Ishmael was the sacrificial lamb that Abraham offered to God. This is based on the fact that Ishmael was the elder son of Abraham (true), and thus the more valuable sacrifice. This latter point is debatable, however, and I don't want to debate it. Suffice it to say, different cultures place different values on the children of wives and the children of concubines. How Abraham would have chosen is likely entirely based on how his own people valued such things.
Muslims do, in general, believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet. They do not believe he was the Messiah. Since the Jews also disbelieve that Jesus (note that I do not use Christ, which is a title for the Messiah) of Nazareth was the Messiah, I do not see this as a reason for holding that Islam believes in a different God.
And, no, the Jews and Christians are NOT the "unbelievers" - the pagans are. And the Zarathutrans. And the Hindus. Though the latter two are technically pagans, I include them as they represent a sizable chunk of the pagans early Mulsims would have encountered.
Note that Islam considers all three (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) "Peoples of the Book". The Book in question is what Christians call the Old Testament.
Much of the animosity between Islam and the other "Peoples of the Book" stems from historical incidents in Muhammed's lifetime. Muhammed didn't get too far with the leaders of either religion when he asked them to recognise the kinship of Judaism/Christianity and Islam....
Three Stooges syndrome - stupidity is fun to watch.
And I never suggested that you do. Neither, for that matter, have I said that I either agree or disagree with the popular definition of child porn.
I agree that just looking like a child doesn't make it child porn.
Actually, under US law, it does. Whether this is as it should be is another question entirely.
"Porn" and "bad science" seem to go hand in hand. Unfortunately, child porn is a subject that, one way or another, sets people off. Bad science is almost inevitable when the researchers have strong opinions going in - and almost everyone has strong opinions about porn, and child porn in particular.
One third the law every year.
The Norse were a fascinating people - widely considered uncouth savages, with a bent toward destroying churches, but their epics contain more lawsuits than duels....
And you prove that someone has been "forced into consent" how?
It is likely that some people are incapable of "consent". It is by no means certain that it can be demonstrated that a line can be drawn based on age (or any other single characteristic) where "consent" is possible on one side, and "inability to give consent" is required on the other.
"Child porn" presumes that such a line can be drawn. To go further, "child porn" assumes that if someone appears to be under the "age of consent", then that person cannot take part in production of pornography (as an actor - presumably there would be no problem if he/she wished to direct or produce).
As to "proving" that children "can be influenced far more than adults" without setting an exact age border - ANYTHING can be proven by a careful selection of data. The setting of a precise age border (or the appearance of someone above/below that border) is the premise for the concept of "child porn".
Interestingly enough, the assumption is that porn involving people below the age of consent (without regard to appearances) is "child porn", AND that porn involving people above the age of consent, but appearing to be below the age of consent is "child porn".
Ahh, but the Supremes' ruling I spoke of declared that "damage" was unnecessary in determining whether harassment had occurred.
Also, you should know that it has been ruled that sex between smployer/employee or supervisor/worker is presumed to be nonconsensual if either party brings a harassment claim.
2) entertainment broadcasts,
Actually, that wasn't one of the original uses. When "broadcast" was first conceived, it was discounted, since the only use that could be foreseen was to broadcast Sunday sermons. It was felt that there was not sufficient audience to make broadcast worthwhile.
Later, some bright boy decided to start doing sports coverage...that's when it really took off....
Free speach should only be limited if it poses a real thread to the public. Things like child porn. If you argued that the goat.cx picture would in severe mental problems with those who saw it you might have a point. But simply cesnoring because the majority doesn't like it is completly wrong.
Alright, I'll bite. How is "child porn" a "real threat to the public"?
And how is censoring "child porn" not a case of "censoring because the majority doesn't like it"?
The old "consent" arguments don't really hold water here - you can't prove that the people involved are not consenting.
It could be argued that a child is incapable of "consent", but "age of consent" is a government-imposed idea.
The argument that "child porn" leads to assaults on children is no more realistic than the argument that "porn" (in general) leads to assaults on women.
So, how is it a real threat to the public?
Basicly the only rules you need are those that ensure that a society runs well: e.g - killing is bad - stealing is bad - free speach is good - x isn't allowed because it is dangerous to you or the public
A society that "runs well" requires both more and less than you might expect.
"Killing is bad" isn't required, for instance. Most historical societies had rules about who you could kill, and when, without societal sanctions. But very few took the stance that "killing is bad". I note that a Code Duello existed in many (if not most) societies up to the 19th century. Killing was allowed, and even encouraged, in some specific conditions. The societies didn't especially suffer from this lack of "killing is bad".
Likewise for stealing. Some societies forbid it (USA, as an example), some allow it under certain conditions (England in the 1500's, as regards Spanish property), some encourage it (most Plains Indian cultures respected horse-thieves). Whether the society ran well was irrelevant to its stand on "stealing is bad".
That said, societial rules, in general, reduce to
(1)who you can kill, and when,
(2)who you can screw, and when,
(3)what you can own, and under what circumstances,
(4)what you can say, and to whom,
(5)who you can turn to for redress of grievance in case any of the above are violated by anyone. (some societies require you to turn to the government, at one level or another for redress, some allow you to seek redress personally)
Note that case (3) actually creates the largest part of "law" in almost all societies. The rest of it, no matter the specific implementation, is really quite straightforward.
Note also that a society can "run well" with almost any answer to those five cases, if the people of the society accept the "rules" (~90% acceptance is typical in a stable society).
Issues come up when there are divisions within a society where a very large minority cannot, in good conscience, accept one or more rules. An example - slavery in the nineteenth century USA. ~2/3 of the population did not support it, ~1/3 did. Both sides considered their positions to be a matter of "rights". Result - Lincoln's election, secession, War Between the States (I refuse to call it the Civil War - there was nothing "civil" about it).
Note that up till the nineteenth century, slavery was legal, if not common, in virtually all societies. There were, in almost all societies, minor elements who considered slavery "evil/wrong/sinful" (pick one), but not so many as to force the issue into contention.
Since then, slavery has been illegal in almost all societies. There are minor elements who consider slavery "good" (or at least acceptable), but not enough to force the issue into contention.
And, finally "x isn't allowed because it is dangerous to you or the public" is probably a far broader concept than you thought when you proposed it. It includes such things as smoking (dangerous to the smoker, at least), fast food (dangerous to the fat slob who overindulges, though that is true of any food), lack of exercise (dangerous, I expect, to most of /.). Did you really think that the "basic rules for society" should allow the government to regulate the amount/kind of food/exercise you must get?
There is one major difference. Homer was writing about events set in historical time, only 400 years or so before in fact, involving historical people whom many people at the time of writing could clearly and accurately trace their own lineage to, in a land not only accessable but well known and colonized. A story of his own culture's recent history.
Homer wasn't writing - oral tradition, remember?
As to the historicity (is that a word?) of events 400 years before "the time of writing", I should point out that it is VERY difficult to pin down ancestry 400 years into the past - some of my more determined relatives have been trying for decades, and there are still holes in their lists that one could drive a truck through. And our records of such things are more thorough than the bronze-age Greek records.
Do you consider 400 years ago "recent history"? Just curious, since 400 years ago includes things like the 30-Years War, Jamestown, and the Armada - hardly things most would consider "recent". Though no doubt archeologists define "recently" more liberally than most of us....
Sure, no problem. He's entitled to a private life. He is NOT, however, entitled to lie about it to a judge. And, in case you've never read any Supreme Court rulings on Sexual Harassment, the man's history IS relevant in such cases.
Interestingly, right after the Paula Jones case was thrown out, the Supreme Court made a ruling on another, completely unrelated, harassment case that would have, if it had come two weeks earlier, prevented the Paula Jones case from being tossed on the grounds it was tossed.
What a nice little non sequiter. The system is having problems because it was privatised, but the Swanwick Center has nothing to do with that, since it was five years late one year after the privatization.
Sounds like the non-privatised system was having problems all on its own....