The only fly in your ointment is that you don't seem to have taken the media content providers into account. 'Ad removal'? You just lost your media providers right there.
Good luck delivering nonexistent content
And what would that other force be that matter is interacting with outside of atoms, other than gravity?
I believe the fundamental forces are magnetic, electrostatic, gravity, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Any quantum physicists in the house may feel free to prompt me if I'm forgetting any.
The particle physicist above (The_Wilschon) forgot to clarify one point. The GP was right when he only listed two forces by which matter interacts outside of atoms. Strong and weak nuclear forces do exist, but they pretty much stick to the inside of an atom's nucleus.
"Just" a shift in population ratios? Nice attempt to drive a wedge into the non-existent space between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution".
For the record:
Shift in population ratios = change in allele frequencies = evolution.
In this case, it's not exactly an artificial wedge. At least, there really are two kinds of evolution in view.
A shift in population ratios == change in allele frequencies == evolution, yes. But that would be true even if there were no mutations--just shift in ratios of what was already there. Evolution-to-allow-common-descent requires mutations.
This is a common misconception. Think about a society were there is no tea or car (somewere in africa). Do you think their children would choose tea set and car toys based on gender?
If they don't know what dishes and cars are? Almost certainly not. But that's not really a valid test, is it? They would just be meaningless objects. And no one says that boys & girls choose shapes based on gender.
Now, if they also knew what a tea set was, but without any cultural expectations about it... I don't know how that could happen.
I've never met someone who is pro-abortion. What do they look like?
I think the issue of "pro-___" terminology is more complex than you realize. Unless you would actually answer "no" to each of the following:
If I think that guns should be legal--even though I don't like them myself, and would never own one--am I pro-gun?
If I think that it should be legal to form corporations--even though I never would--am I pro-corporation?
If I think that it should be legal to form unions--even though I never would--am I pro-union?
If I think that it should be legal to own slaves--even though I never would--am I pro-slavery?
If I think that it should be legal to kill in self-defense--even though I never would--am I pro-justifiable-homicide?
If I think that it should be legal to carry a concealed handgun--even though I never would--am I pro-carry-conceal?
If I think that it should be legal to get plastic surgery--even though I never would--am I pro-plastic-surgery?
I'm not sure what I think about some of these. But the pro-gun, pro-carry-conceal, and pro-slavery cases seem right. I mean, that seems like accurate terminology.
There's already a treatment guaranteed to prevent the expression of these symptoms: abortion.
Oh, I know the every sperm is sacred types will whine about this, but consider the desires of the child. Wouldn't you prefer never to have existed if you knew you would be subjected to mental retardation, health complications, and a short lifespan?
Abortion doesn't prevent the expression of those symptoms. Contraception would.
Abortion doesn't prevent you from ever having existed. It ends your existence.
That platform backfired on them, when their "This is Real America" small-town speeches pissed off the (according to them) educated "Fake Americans" living in suburbs and cities.
Hey. It pissed off this religious nutjob, too.
-- A right-wing, pro-gun, pro-life-without-exception, evangelical, biblical-inerrantist Christian.
OK, you seem to agree with the major point I wanted to make: That given pro-life premises about the personhood of a fetus, pro-life policy might be progressive/Liberal/whatever.
That takes the discussion to other aspects of the situation, as you did. Each to be considered on its merits. I'm not going to grant you, "Agree with the wisdom of each of measures or you're not serious about the 'abortion==murder' equivalence", and I'm also not going to comment on the whole list--but I do see some excellent stuff in it.
Miscellaneous thoughts:
1.) Hung up about sex between consenting adults? I'm not sure whether you would say that I am. I don't think it's any of the government's business. I am a Christian, and as part of that, I do think there's something messed up about sex outside marriage. But I regard that as a "don't judge those outside the church" issue. (That doesn't mean I think it's morally relative. It means that I don't expect non-Christians to follow Christian morality--and it means that I don't see extra-marital sex as one that a secular government should be involved in.) Would you call that "hung up"? Any dissenting view that something has moral ramifications which you do not recognize?
2.) I definitely think that society has a responsibility to care for those who need it. Figuring out the boundaries of "those who need it" isn't always straightforward, but I do want pregnant women to be taken care of. (Incidentally, I have a friend involved with the hyper-conservative, hyper-active Colorado Right To Life--and she was just telling me about some young pregnant girls they're taking care of. My friend is possibly the most caring person I've ever met.)
3.) "Society" doesn't always translate to "government-run programs". Private charities do a hell of a lot, and if they can get it done--actually get it done--then I would much prefer that over a government solution. Same goes for "caring for the poor/hungry" in general. But if a society lets people like that fall through the cracks--we're morally bankrupt. So if I don't think private groups are going to cut it--then I'll look at government programs. (Though there are also things the government can do to encourage private endeavors.)
In a nutshell, I regard government intervention as more of a last resort than you seem to. But that's a difference of pragmatic approach--not values. (Assuming that I'm not using that as an excuse to avoid doing anything, that is. Assuming I really mean it, and aren't just mouthing the words.)
On miscarriages, we are obviously in agreement: they are a tragedy no one should have to go through. Prosecuting the woman who suffered though it is obviously horribly wrong, but I still maintain that that is precisely the logical conclusion of believing that an embryo is equivalent to a 4 year old child.
Why just repeat that, without interacting with what I said about negligence?
That analogy would work if it were the case that every time a child dies, it's involuntary manslaughter on the part of the parents. But that's absurd.
Also, we're not quite in perfect agreement. There are circumstances where--even in the face of tragedy--it would be appropriate to prosecute parents for gross negligence in the death of their child. That's true for 4-year-olds, and true for fetuses. (But I'm really not informed enough about the details & statistics & causality of miscarriage to offer good commentary on when that would be.)
My last word: as cold as "it's not murder, but the embryo won't feel it anyway" may sound, how much colder does "we could end all these murders, but it costs too much" sound?
Did you mean to say, "it is murder, but the embryo won't feel it anyway"?
I live in the universe where it is widely known that miscarriage isn't exactly the same as involuntary manslaughter.
Please, tell me. Do you honestly think I was implying such a thing? Because what I actually think is that a miscarriage is exactly the same as an infant dying from a medical problem. Involuntary manslaughter doesn't enter into the parallel, unless we're talking about a miscarriage resulting from negligent behavior of the mother.
And that's a difficult topic, whether we're talking about miscarriage or infants who die. A dead infant is as tragic & heart-rending as a miscarriage--or more so. The thought of prosecuting a mother is instinctively horrible--and it takes something significant to justify prosecution. If there's actual abandonment of children or failure to feed them, that's obvious. But the real world is a tad more complex than you seem to want it to be--if you want to say that "miscarriage would be the same as involuntary manslaughter if pro-life people are right". If a mother fails to give her children vitamins and that contributes to their deaths, is that prosecutable negligence? How about trying to care for a sick baby on her own--without realizing the severity of the illness--resulting in the baby's death?
In the average miscarriage, there's no obvious issue of negligence or culpability. There's just the tragedy of the death. (It would be tragic even when there is culpability, mind you.) If a woman was working with arsenic or other dangerous chemicals, without safety equipment, while knowing she was pregnant, then the question of culpability becomes more significant.
But you can't make an automatic "miscarriage==involuntary manslaughter" connection.
And then you pre-defined the answer such that it can only come out one way:
My if's did not "pre-define the answer". They laid out the point of contention--because you're trying to pre-define the answer by assuming that the if isn't true. My point is that if that "if" is true, then being pro-choice isn't the only Liberal position.
So what do you what an answer to? Why is a progressive pro choice? Or why -- in a fantasy universe where an implanted embryo is exactly the same as a 4-year-old child -- anyone would choose to kill it?
Eh? Does that mean you interpreted my question along the lines of, "If you consider yourself progressive and are pro-choice, can you explain why you are pro-choice?"
If so, that's not the question I asked. My question was more along the lines of, "Where do pro-choice people get off thinking that being progressive implies being pro-choice?"
One of the basic points of contention between pro-choice and pro-life people is precisely whether an implanted embryo is as much a human person as a 4-year-old child. So, if you want to say that "progressive implies pro-choice", then it seems that you're saying either:
1.) Being progressive inherently implies concluding that an embryo is not a human person--that a pregnant woman is a would-be mother, not a mother yet. Or, if don't make that assumption:
2.) Being progressive implies concluding that this kind of homicide should not be prevented.
Now, your argument about volunteering at least attempts to address #2. But the automatic, unspoken, undefended assumption of "embryo!=person" means that you're not even attempting to engage in rationale discourse with people who disagree with you.
P.S. This comment was just silly. "The most accurate summary of the pro-life movement is that pregnancy is seen as a fair punishment for wanton sex."
I reject the notion that a child is punishment. That's certainly what some pro-choice people seem to think, but I reject it--Obama's comment along those lines aggravated me. And--except for Catholics and a minority of others--pro-life people
We're talking about disagreement over whether a homicide is acting--or, for some people, whether or not the homicide is justifiable. That is the kind of morality that we're talking about legislating--and homicide is an issue that everyone agrees is within the purview of government.
Re: Legislating in the face of disagreement
OK, I understand your rationale for your position.
Almost. I understand the logic, but I'm not clear on whether anyone consistently applies it to their willingness of lobby for legislation on other issues.
Take wife-beating. Or slavery. Both are issues where (in the past or now), significant numbers of people have disagreed over whether it was wrong. When William Wilberforce was fighting to end the slave trade in England, the government was not 100% certain that slavery was wrong. But he fought to persuade, to gain support, to gain votes.
If I understand you correctly, you're trying to tell me that advancing pro-life policy is a bad thing because not everyone agrees--because the government isn't certain. It seems that by your logic, the same criticism applies to Wilberforce.
So, would you apply the same criticism to Wilberforce? If not, what's the difference between the two situations?
I have a side question for you in particular. One of your comments makes me wonder.
I support legalization of marijuana (inside your own home) and same-sex marriages (it's your bedroom; do whatever you want).
I'm with you on the legalization of marijuana. (At the very least, allow people to grow for personal use. Distribution...Hmm, it's a separate discussion. Not sure on that.)
But your comment about same-sex marriage is odd. What makes you say that changing marriage laws is about the bedroom? Isn't the situation already that people can do what they want in their own bedroom? (With the possible exception that there's a state law against sodomy still on the books somewhere.)
People can already live together, have a community celebration of their relationship, etc. The issue is over marriage licenses and societal approval, isn't it? Whatever your view, it's not about "do what you want in your own bedroom", is it?
Furthermore, I'm sick of the label "conservative".
Amen.
Now, you didn't bring up abortion, but you could have. Can someone explain to me just what, in the classical sense of the word, is more "Liberal" about being pro-abortion rights than being anti-abortion rights?
This is an honest question. Please give it more consideration than, "Duh, you just said 'anti-rights', so that's less Liberal."
Now, I'll stipulate that if we assume a fetus is fundamentally different from a newborn, then pro-choice is more Liberal. But if a fetus is fundamentally the same--if an abortion is homicide--then what do people think is more liberal about allowing it? If abortion is only a personal decision, I understand--but if it's an interpersonal decision? If it's not a decision about whether to become a mother, but a decision to stop being a mother? I can see two options:
1.) Say that abortion rights are "more Liberal" even if it's homicide.
2.) Say it's "more Liberal" for the government not to form any conclusions about whether abortion is homicide.
The first seems obviously ridiculous. The second is where people want to go--"I'm personally against it but I wouldn't force that on other people"--but I'm genuinely at a loss to understand it. It translates to, "Yes, I think that a million children are being killed every year in the US, but I don't think the government should get involved--because some people don't think that they are children."
Any reason you feel like mentioning McCain but not Hillary, or the fact that they were merely co-sponsors? Or the fact that the vote was in fact, unanimous?
Well... Wired says that McCain wrote the bill. That's why the editors mentioned McCain.
But your link throws that into question. There's no indication at the govtrack site that McCain had anything to do with writing it--Schumer is the main sponsor, and McCain shows up in a list of co-sponsors along with Obama.
Also, Schumer said in his speech that he authored the bill, and doesn't mention McCain.
With 'religion in schools,' the real issue is that she supports radical fundamentalist Dominionism, the far right goal of establishing the US as a Christian Theocracy (minus any real elements of Christianity) that will spread Jesus over the earth (minus the teaching of Jesus).
Reference? In what way does she support radical fundamentalist Dominionism, the far right goal of establishing the US as a Christian Theocracy?
Seriously, you give no reason to think that's a serious concern instead of left-wing alarmism about politics you disagree with.
Give me a break, when was the last time you heard of a clinic getting bombed? It was a handful of nut jobs, and they are in prison. Clinton tightened the regulations on distance from the clinic, and protests kind of faded. They have adopted less confrontational approaches.
Are you associating protests outside abortion clinics with bombing abortion clinics?
Interesting that you should ask such an ignorant question. (I call it ignorant because--what the hell are you talking about? What videos? Extreme Islamic aggression is a widespread movement with thousands upon thousands of adherents worldwide and active training campaigns. The bombing of abortion clinics and the slaying of doctors is a matter of the occasional nutjob, not a significant social movement.)
Will this prohibition be limited to violent groups? Or will it be applied to any video discussing non-violent protests by unpopular groups? I hope not.
Your comment about gruesome abortion footage highlights the question I intended to ask. Who's going to be in charge of classifying things as terrorism? Will others follow you in your classification of abortion images as "terrorism"? (A classification which far exceeds "copyright violation==piracy" in its absurdity.)
There is a long history of using disturbing images to raise social awareness of disturbing realities. (It is very easy to dismiss a situation if you do not know what is actually happening. IIRC, when the first photos of the brutality of the American Civil War reached the public, it had a significant impact on public support.) Disturbing images can be used the replace rational discourse, sure--but they can also be used to supplement it.
There's more to be said about proper contexts. There is honest debate over the appropriate use of gruesome images in the pro-life movement. For instance, I would say these images certainly shouldn't be shown to children. And there's reasonable debate over whether they should be shown in public, on the sides of trucks. But calling this terrorism is silly.
1.) I'm a theologically conservative Christian, too. (The word "evangelical" has lost much of its meaning, so I don't know how useful it is anymore.) As far as I know, I completely share the theology of the AC's mother-in-law.
2.) I didn't say that I believe it's a real prospect. I said that her attitude is irrational. It doesn't make sense to dismiss the possibility of man-made global warming or other potential disasters on the theory that God won't let the world end till he's ready. We should judge such things on their merits, and take action where it makes sense.
Would be funny if it wasn't true - my mother-in-law just told me that global warming doesn't matter because when the world ends it will be an act of God and there will be nothing we can do about it anyway. The implications of this worldview are frightening.
It doesn't even make sense within the worldview.
Even assuming that the world won't end until God's ready, that leaves plenty of room for us to screw up the planet and make life hard. If the entire east coast of America is submerged under the sea, the world isn't ended, now is it?
That kind of thing is moral & intellectual laziness in any worldview.
Slashdot Mirror
WHOOSH!!!
The particle physicist above (The_Wilschon) forgot to clarify one point. The GP was right when he only listed two forces by which matter interacts outside of atoms. Strong and weak nuclear forces do exist, but they pretty much stick to the inside of an atom's nucleus.
Are you kidding? Them puppies are great for cheap manual labor!
In this case, it's not exactly an artificial wedge. At least, there really are two kinds of evolution in view.
A shift in population ratios == change in allele frequencies == evolution, yes. But that would be true even if there were no mutations--just shift in ratios of what was already there. Evolution-to-allow-common-descent requires mutations.
If they don't know what dishes and cars are? Almost certainly not. But that's not really a valid test, is it? They would just be meaningless objects. And no one says that boys & girls choose shapes based on gender.
Now, if they also knew what a tea set was, but without any cultural expectations about it... I don't know how that could happen.
Yeah. Inanimate object hate being anthropomorphized.
I think the issue of "pro-___" terminology is more complex than you realize. Unless you would actually answer "no" to each of the following:
I'm not sure what I think about some of these. But the pro-gun, pro-carry-conceal, and pro-slavery cases seem right. I mean, that seems like accurate terminology.
Abortion doesn't prevent the expression of those symptoms. Contraception would.
Abortion doesn't prevent you from ever having existed. It ends your existence.
Yeah! Draconian nazis. We need alcohol for those situations!
Hey. It pissed off this religious nutjob, too.
-- A right-wing, pro-gun, pro-life-without-exception, evangelical, biblical-inerrantist Christian.
OK, you seem to agree with the major point I wanted to make: That given pro-life premises about the personhood of a fetus, pro-life policy might be progressive/Liberal/whatever.
That takes the discussion to other aspects of the situation, as you did. Each to be considered on its merits. I'm not going to grant you, "Agree with the wisdom of each of measures or you're not serious about the 'abortion==murder' equivalence", and I'm also not going to comment on the whole list--but I do see some excellent stuff in it.
Miscellaneous thoughts:
1.) Hung up about sex between consenting adults? I'm not sure whether you would say that I am. I don't think it's any of the government's business. I am a Christian, and as part of that, I do think there's something messed up about sex outside marriage. But I regard that as a "don't judge those outside the church" issue. (That doesn't mean I think it's morally relative. It means that I don't expect non-Christians to follow Christian morality--and it means that I don't see extra-marital sex as one that a secular government should be involved in.) Would you call that "hung up"? Any dissenting view that something has moral ramifications which you do not recognize?
2.) I definitely think that society has a responsibility to care for those who need it. Figuring out the boundaries of "those who need it" isn't always straightforward, but I do want pregnant women to be taken care of. (Incidentally, I have a friend involved with the hyper-conservative, hyper-active Colorado Right To Life--and she was just telling me about some young pregnant girls they're taking care of. My friend is possibly the most caring person I've ever met.)
3.) "Society" doesn't always translate to "government-run programs". Private charities do a hell of a lot, and if they can get it done--actually get it done--then I would much prefer that over a government solution. Same goes for "caring for the poor/hungry" in general. But if a society lets people like that fall through the cracks--we're morally bankrupt. So if I don't think private groups are going to cut it--then I'll look at government programs. (Though there are also things the government can do to encourage private endeavors.)
In a nutshell, I regard government intervention as more of a last resort than you seem to. But that's a difference of pragmatic approach--not values. (Assuming that I'm not using that as an excuse to avoid doing anything, that is. Assuming I really mean it, and aren't just mouthing the words.)
Why just repeat that, without interacting with what I said about negligence?
That analogy would work if it were the case that every time a child dies, it's involuntary manslaughter on the part of the parents. But that's absurd.
Also, we're not quite in perfect agreement. There are circumstances where--even in the face of tragedy--it would be appropriate to prosecute parents for gross negligence in the death of their child. That's true for 4-year-olds, and true for fetuses. (But I'm really not informed enough about the details & statistics & causality of miscarriage to offer good commentary on when that would be.)
Did you mean to say, "it is murder, but the embryo won't feel it anyway"?
If not, I don't follow. If so, then I agree.
Please, tell me. Do you honestly think I was implying such a thing? Because what I actually think is that a miscarriage is exactly the same as an infant dying from a medical problem. Involuntary manslaughter doesn't enter into the parallel, unless we're talking about a miscarriage resulting from negligent behavior of the mother.
And that's a difficult topic, whether we're talking about miscarriage or infants who die. A dead infant is as tragic & heart-rending as a miscarriage--or more so. The thought of prosecuting a mother is instinctively horrible--and it takes something significant to justify prosecution. If there's actual abandonment of children or failure to feed them, that's obvious. But the real world is a tad more complex than you seem to want it to be--if you want to say that "miscarriage would be the same as involuntary manslaughter if pro-life people are right". If a mother fails to give her children vitamins and that contributes to their deaths, is that prosecutable negligence? How about trying to care for a sick baby on her own--without realizing the severity of the illness--resulting in the baby's death?
In the average miscarriage, there's no obvious issue of negligence or culpability. There's just the tragedy of the death. (It would be tragic even when there is culpability, mind you.) If a woman was working with arsenic or other dangerous chemicals, without safety equipment, while knowing she was pregnant, then the question of culpability becomes more significant.
But you can't make an automatic "miscarriage==involuntary manslaughter" connection.
My if's did not "pre-define the answer". They laid out the point of contention--because you're trying to pre-define the answer by assuming that the if isn't true. My point is that if that "if" is true, then being pro-choice isn't the only Liberal position.
Eh? Does that mean you interpreted my question along the lines of, "If you consider yourself progressive and are pro-choice, can you explain why you are pro-choice?"
If so, that's not the question I asked. My question was more along the lines of, "Where do pro-choice people get off thinking that being progressive implies being pro-choice?"
One of the basic points of contention between pro-choice and pro-life people is precisely whether an implanted embryo is as much a human person as a 4-year-old child. So, if you want to say that "progressive implies pro-choice", then it seems that you're saying either:
1.) Being progressive inherently implies concluding that an embryo is not a human person--that a pregnant woman is a would-be mother, not a mother yet. Or, if don't make that assumption:
2.) Being progressive implies concluding that this kind of homicide should not be prevented.
Now, your argument about volunteering at least attempts to address #2. But the automatic, unspoken, undefended assumption of "embryo!=person" means that you're not even attempting to engage in rationale discourse with people who disagree with you.
P.S. This comment was just silly. "The most accurate summary of the pro-life movement is that pregnancy is seen as a fair punishment for wanton sex."
I reject the notion that a child is punishment. That's certainly what some pro-choice people seem to think, but I reject it--Obama's comment along those lines aggravated me. And--except for Catholics and a minority of others--pro-life people
It's fairly frustrating to read such a long reply, which entirely ignored a fundamental part of the question I asked.
I asked about "If it's not a decision about whether to become a mother, but a decision to stop being a mother?"
But you blithely proceed to talk about "would-be mothers".
From here, it looks like you're either being non-responsive, or the disconnect is subconscious.
Re: Legislating morality
We're talking about disagreement over whether a homicide is acting--or, for some people, whether or not the homicide is justifiable. That is the kind of morality that we're talking about legislating--and homicide is an issue that everyone agrees is within the purview of government.
Re: Legislating in the face of disagreement
OK, I understand your rationale for your position.
Almost. I understand the logic, but I'm not clear on whether anyone consistently applies it to their willingness of lobby for legislation on other issues.
Take wife-beating. Or slavery. Both are issues where (in the past or now), significant numbers of people have disagreed over whether it was wrong. When William Wilberforce was fighting to end the slave trade in England, the government was not 100% certain that slavery was wrong. But he fought to persuade, to gain support, to gain votes.
If I understand you correctly, you're trying to tell me that advancing pro-life policy is a bad thing because not everyone agrees--because the government isn't certain. It seems that by your logic, the same criticism applies to Wilberforce.
So, would you apply the same criticism to Wilberforce? If not, what's the difference between the two situations?
I'm with you on the legalization of marijuana. (At the very least, allow people to grow for personal use. Distribution...Hmm, it's a separate discussion. Not sure on that.)
But your comment about same-sex marriage is odd. What makes you say that changing marriage laws is about the bedroom? Isn't the situation already that people can do what they want in their own bedroom? (With the possible exception that there's a state law against sodomy still on the books somewhere.)
People can already live together, have a community celebration of their relationship, etc. The issue is over marriage licenses and societal approval, isn't it? Whatever your view, it's not about "do what you want in your own bedroom", is it?
Amen.
Now, you didn't bring up abortion, but you could have. Can someone explain to me just what, in the classical sense of the word, is more "Liberal" about being pro-abortion rights than being anti-abortion rights?
This is an honest question. Please give it more consideration than, "Duh, you just said 'anti-rights', so that's less Liberal."
Now, I'll stipulate that if we assume a fetus is fundamentally different from a newborn, then pro-choice is more Liberal. But if a fetus is fundamentally the same--if an abortion is homicide--then what do people think is more liberal about allowing it? If abortion is only a personal decision, I understand--but if it's an interpersonal decision? If it's not a decision about whether to become a mother, but a decision to stop being a mother? I can see two options:
1.) Say that abortion rights are "more Liberal" even if it's homicide.
2.) Say it's "more Liberal" for the government not to form any conclusions about whether abortion is homicide.
The first seems obviously ridiculous. The second is where people want to go--"I'm personally against it but I wouldn't force that on other people"--but I'm genuinely at a loss to understand it. It translates to, "Yes, I think that a million children are being killed every year in the US, but I don't think the government should get involved--because some people don't think that they are children."
Well... Wired says that McCain wrote the bill. That's why the editors mentioned McCain.
But your link throws that into question. There's no indication at the govtrack site that McCain had anything to do with writing it--Schumer is the main sponsor, and McCain shows up in a list of co-sponsors along with Obama.
Also, Schumer said in his speech that he authored the bill, and doesn't mention McCain.
So... I call Shenanigans on Wired.
He's the one who said we needed change!
Reference? In what way does she support radical fundamentalist Dominionism, the far right goal of establishing the US as a Christian Theocracy?
Seriously, you give no reason to think that's a serious concern instead of left-wing alarmism about politics you disagree with.
The two that I read were quite good, I thought...
Are you associating protests outside abortion clinics with bombing abortion clinics?
Interesting that you should ask such an ignorant question. (I call it ignorant because--what the hell are you talking about? What videos? Extreme Islamic aggression is a widespread movement with thousands upon thousands of adherents worldwide and active training campaigns. The bombing of abortion clinics and the slaying of doctors is a matter of the occasional nutjob, not a significant social movement.)
Will this prohibition be limited to violent groups? Or will it be applied to any video discussing non-violent protests by unpopular groups? I hope not.
Your comment about gruesome abortion footage highlights the question I intended to ask. Who's going to be in charge of classifying things as terrorism? Will others follow you in your classification of abortion images as "terrorism"? (A classification which far exceeds "copyright violation==piracy" in its absurdity.)
There is a long history of using disturbing images to raise social awareness of disturbing realities. (It is very easy to dismiss a situation if you do not know what is actually happening. IIRC, when the first photos of the brutality of the American Civil War reached the public, it had a significant impact on public support.) Disturbing images can be used the replace rational discourse, sure--but they can also be used to supplement it.
There's more to be said about proper contexts. There is honest debate over the appropriate use of gruesome images in the pro-life movement. For instance, I would say these images certainly shouldn't be shown to children. And there's reasonable debate over whether they should be shown in public, on the sides of trucks. But calling this terrorism is silly.
You ought to educate people and openly speak against believing what you're told instead of questioning authority and thinking for yourself.
You ought to speak against promotion of unrestrained population growth or other forms of environmental mismanagement.
And speaking as a theologically conservative "evangelical" Christian, I would join you in both.
1.) I'm a theologically conservative Christian, too. (The word "evangelical" has lost much of its meaning, so I don't know how useful it is anymore.) As far as I know, I completely share the theology of the AC's mother-in-law.
2.) I didn't say that I believe it's a real prospect. I said that her attitude is irrational. It doesn't make sense to dismiss the possibility of man-made global warming or other potential disasters on the theory that God won't let the world end till he's ready. We should judge such things on their merits, and take action where it makes sense.
It doesn't even make sense within the worldview.
Even assuming that the world won't end until God's ready, that leaves plenty of room for us to screw up the planet and make life hard. If the entire east coast of America is submerged under the sea, the world isn't ended, now is it?
That kind of thing is moral & intellectual laziness in any worldview.