Doing this to a human being is in my eyes not any better than the medical experiments conducted by the Nazis.
But what if that human is yourself? I imagine that's the logic that the cult would use. The baby gave permission because it's 'older' self accepted the procedure with full understanding of it's concequences. But I do agree with you, that would be like saying the older twin could make decisions for the younger because he's the same person with a little more experience.
Yeah, I get easily carried away, and sometimes make dumb statements (like the 17 year old one.. I know it's flimsy). Thanks for reading my other comments before blasting me. I appreciate that.
I always had access to *my* rifle, since I was about 8. And you know, I never took it out without my father with me, and never did anything irresponsible with it when he wasn't around.
Good for you, that's how it should be done. But what about when your childs *friend* comes over, decides to look for some pornos around the bed, finds a gun (I'm not saying you keep yours there, but a lot do), points it at *your* child, then when he pulls the trigger it goes click, because you had previously set the gun to only work with members of the household that you've educated. Good job, I'm proud of you.
S/he can, however, understand that guns are really scary things that make lots of loud noise, cause a lot of pain, crying, hospitals, doctors, and will make mommy and daddy very, very upset and angry. And that you're never, ever to touch them.
And a five year old also learns by emulating their parents. If the parent is a gun collector, and loves their weapons (nothing wrong with that if you're safe), you have to weigh the 'I want to be a grown-up now' factor against the lessons you try to teach them. And just because you can educate them about the dangers, what harm does placing another safegaurd do? How many people have lost their lives because they didn't realize the saftey lock was on, compared to how many lives the saftey has saved. That's all this is, a new mechanism to make guns safer.
Because I wouldn't want to give our children a world that had been made completely 'child proof' when they grow up.
You don't want to live in a world where its childproof for accidental deaths? What?!? Children will still be able to learn how tough life is with less lethal activities. But if you can make it safer against *death* then what's the problem? Sounds like a utopia to me. Face it, natural selection just doesn't apply in this case, guns are not natural, we aren't going to move to a higher state of evolution because dumb people are killing themselves (or more likely their friends).
In two days, more child die from backyard pool drowning accidents than die all year from gun accidents. It appears you are using faulty math.
Not to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that you would be against a mechanism that made pools safer because there's something else out there that's more lethal? Why bother with safety at all then?
Sorry, I didn't mean to be condoncending, I just love debates and get carried away. I understand what you meant now, and agree. I was just running from post to post with too many ideas in my head. I can't imagine they would release a product that was messed up by sweating hands, but there's been dumber things out there. I'm just showing my enthusiasm for the idea (when the tech is reliable).
1. 5 gallong buckets kill far more kids than guns.
Oh good, 5 gallon buckets are more lethal than guns. Why bother making guns safer then.
And you have to understand that when kids are killed by guns per statistics, that *inlcudes* the drug crazed 17 year old broke into your house and killed your (dog, son, daughter, wife) and is raping the same.
And this device would make it much harder for the 17 year old to get the gun. Most children (or teenagers) get their guns from home. What's the harm in making it so that it won't shoot for them?
The fact is that guns work reliably as they are, and you cannot make them 'safer' by outlawing stupidity. There are and always have been bad people. The only thing you can do is defend yourself.
Okay, so then we should just get rid of the safety too. Who knows how many people haven't been able to defend themselves because they didn't know the saftey lock was on (sorry about the sarcasm). This is just another mechanism to make guns inherently safer, what's your beef with that?
I'm glad you have well educated friends, that's good for everyone. But do you also know their kids friends, and their parents? Kids can be very curious, I never had guns in my house while I was growing up, and although my parents still taught me about them, some parents might not because 'hey, we don't have a gun in our house'. These can be responsible parents who just aren't considering all the possibilities (there are so many). And what kid hasn't searched around their parents (or friends parents) beds for pornos (I know I did). And in this case it's your kid that gets killed (not the unintentionally ignorant one) because he's the one that picks up the gun and starts pointing it around. Not to mention the child that idolizes his parent and wants to be just like him, affection for guns and all, so he goes out of his way to find it.
Again. The guns would still fire. Noone is taking your guns away. Unless you're saying that this is just the first step to that point. But if that's what you're saying, then try to show us how we get there because of this law. I'm curious.
Would a lawsuit like you describe be valid when the law requires the manufacturer to include such a device? I suppose I could see it happening if the gun is proved defective and it is shown that the gun manufacturer knew that it could become defective.
Yes, but now we live in a world where a lawsuit against McDonalds because they 'made me fat' isn't automatically thrown out of the courts.
Hate to inform you but Associate is right. By discovering general relativity and giving the universe shape, he showed that there is no center to the universe, and that any point could plausibly be called the center (i.e. NJ). Copernicus showed that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, which is cool.. but you're wrong.
Okay, so you propose a way that this mechanism *might* work, and then go into the problems associated with your hypothetical... great arguing.. yep, I'm convinced. As for the exception, it's so that they can prosecute anyone found with a non-modified gun (i.e. criminals).
Heh, I think that HanzoSan is a case in point. You can't convince the crackpot, the only thing we can do is try to protect virgin minds from them. This is what, the 3rd time you've replied to him? He's not going to change his mind no matter how well you present your argument.
Good point, but even that could change as we learn more about our universe. For example, we used to believe that the angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees. Then einstien showed us that gravity bends space, and can either add degree's or remove them (depending on whether the bending is concave or convex respectively). Now how the hell could you predict that? Well, you and I can't, it took a special person to figure it out.. and just because we can't see any reason that 2 + 2 = 4 could become 2 + 2 = 3.9999999999 doesn't mean it can't. Not to mention mathematics is just a framework that we created, and it's a lot harder to prove 2 + 2 = 4 than you would think.
Yes, but all that is in the old testiment, leviticus and the old covenant. Christains are under the new covenant, which is why you don't see girls getting ex-communicated for having an earing.
Similarly, I'm against smoking, but also favor people having the choice whether to smoke or not.
Yes but are you for forcing people to be in a room with that smoker? Smoking affects the person that's doing the smoking. With abortion you're making this decision for someone else (i.e. the fetus).
The question really comes down to where you draw the line. If you don't consider the fetus a person, then you aren't harming anyone. Or if you are in doubt as (as I am) then you are making someone elses choice. If the stakes weren't life or death then I wouldn't be so cautious. We always talk about the Womans choice, but what is a choice next to a life? Granted it still comes down to what you consider a life.
I have no problem with experimenting with non-embryonic stem cells, provided that they are not eventually used to create new human beings.
Agreed. An exception would be to use the embryos that are going to be thrown out anyway. But again this raises ethical concerns, because what do we do once embryos become valuable, and people start getting paid to have abortions just to havest the stem cells.
I would agree. I think my biggest fear, and ethical concern would be the unathorized use of my DNA. It's inevitable that we will eventually clone a human being, if the United States doesn't do it, then some other country will.
My fear is espoused in many science fiction stories. The idea that someone could get ahold of my genetic material and then start creating clones for the purpose of organ havesting. I can just picture hundreds of 'myself' being raised in a hellish environment just to be killed for their organs. Granted I wouldn't be directly experiencing that hell, but just knowing it exists is enough. I'm very good at empathizing with myself.
Slashdot Mirror
Doing this to a human being is in my eyes not any better than the medical experiments conducted by the Nazis.
But what if that human is yourself? I imagine that's the logic that the cult would use. The baby gave permission because it's 'older' self accepted the procedure with full understanding of it's concequences. But I do agree with you, that would be like saying the older twin could make decisions for the younger because he's the same person with a little more experience.
How long and how much did it cost to get your trade certificate in massage therapy? I'm just curious.
Yeah, I get easily carried away, and sometimes make dumb statements (like the 17 year old one.. I know it's flimsy). Thanks for reading my other comments before blasting me. I appreciate that.
I always had access to *my* rifle, since I was about 8. And you know, I never took it out without my father with me, and never did anything irresponsible with it when he wasn't around.
Good for you, that's how it should be done. But what about when your childs *friend* comes over, decides to look for some pornos around the bed, finds a gun (I'm not saying you keep yours there, but a lot do), points it at *your* child, then when he pulls the trigger it goes click, because you had previously set the gun to only work with members of the household that you've educated. Good job, I'm proud of you.
S/he can, however, understand that guns are really scary things that make lots of loud noise, cause a lot of pain, crying, hospitals, doctors, and will make mommy and daddy very, very upset and angry. And that you're never, ever to touch them.
And a five year old also learns by emulating their parents. If the parent is a gun collector, and loves their weapons (nothing wrong with that if you're safe), you have to weigh the 'I want to be a grown-up now' factor against the lessons you try to teach them. And just because you can educate them about the dangers, what harm does placing another safegaurd do? How many people have lost their lives because they didn't realize the saftey lock was on, compared to how many lives the saftey has saved. That's all this is, a new mechanism to make guns safer.
Agreed. I misread his statement.
Because I wouldn't want to give our children a world that had been made completely 'child proof' when they grow up.
You don't want to live in a world where its childproof for accidental deaths? What?!? Children will still be able to learn how tough life is with less lethal activities. But if you can make it safer against *death* then what's the problem? Sounds like a utopia to me. Face it, natural selection just doesn't apply in this case, guns are not natural, we aren't going to move to a higher state of evolution because dumb people are killing themselves (or more likely their friends).
In two days, more child die from backyard pool drowning accidents than die all year from gun accidents. It appears you are using faulty math.
Not to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that you would be against a mechanism that made pools safer because there's something else out there that's more lethal? Why bother with safety at all then?
Touche! Forgot about that, not to mention last I heard, we've decided it's flat, so I'm doubly wrong by current standards.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be condoncending, I just love debates and get carried away. I understand what you meant now, and agree. I was just running from post to post with too many ideas in my head. I can't imagine they would release a product that was messed up by sweating hands, but there's been dumber things out there. I'm just showing my enthusiasm for the idea (when the tech is reliable).
1. 5 gallong buckets kill far more kids than guns.
Oh good, 5 gallon buckets are more lethal than guns. Why bother making guns safer then.
And you have to understand that when kids are killed by guns per statistics, that *inlcudes* the drug crazed 17 year old broke into your house and killed your (dog, son, daughter, wife) and is raping the same.
And this device would make it much harder for the 17 year old to get the gun. Most children (or teenagers) get their guns from home. What's the harm in making it so that it won't shoot for them?
The fact is that guns work reliably as they are, and you cannot make them 'safer' by outlawing stupidity. There are and always have been bad people. The only thing you can do is defend yourself.
Okay, so then we should just get rid of the safety too. Who knows how many people haven't been able to defend themselves because they didn't know the saftey lock was on (sorry about the sarcasm). This is just another mechanism to make guns inherently safer, what's your beef with that?
I'm glad you have well educated friends, that's good for everyone. But do you also know their kids friends, and their parents? Kids can be very curious, I never had guns in my house while I was growing up, and although my parents still taught me about them, some parents might not because 'hey, we don't have a gun in our house'. These can be responsible parents who just aren't considering all the possibilities (there are so many). And what kid hasn't searched around their parents (or friends parents) beds for pornos (I know I did). And in this case it's your kid that gets killed (not the unintentionally ignorant one) because he's the one that picks up the gun and starts pointing it around. Not to mention the child that idolizes his parent and wants to be just like him, affection for guns and all, so he goes out of his way to find it.
Again. The guns would still fire. Noone is taking your guns away. Unless you're saying that this is just the first step to that point. But if that's what you're saying, then try to show us how we get there because of this law. I'm curious.
Would a lawsuit like you describe be valid when the law requires the manufacturer to include such a device? I suppose I could see it happening if the gun is proved defective and it is shown that the gun manufacturer knew that it could become defective.
Yes, but now we live in a world where a lawsuit against McDonalds because they 'made me fat' isn't automatically thrown out of the courts.
Ack! You use newtonian physics to try and prove him wrong? Get with the program, that's soo 1700s.
Hate to inform you but Associate is right. By discovering general relativity and giving the universe shape, he showed that there is no center to the universe, and that any point could plausibly be called the center (i.e. NJ). Copernicus showed that the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, which is cool.. but you're wrong.
Okay, so you propose a way that this mechanism *might* work, and then go into the problems associated with your hypothetical... great arguing.. yep, I'm convinced. As for the exception, it's so that they can prosecute anyone found with a non-modified gun (i.e. criminals).
Heh, I think that HanzoSan is a case in point. You can't convince the crackpot, the only thing we can do is try to protect virgin minds from them. This is what, the 3rd time you've replied to him? He's not going to change his mind no matter how well you present your argument.
Good point, but even that could change as we learn more about our universe. For example, we used to believe that the angles of a triangle will always add up to 180 degrees. Then einstien showed us that gravity bends space, and can either add degree's or remove them (depending on whether the bending is concave or convex respectively). Now how the hell could you predict that? Well, you and I can't, it took a special person to figure it out.. and just because we can't see any reason that 2 + 2 = 4 could become 2 + 2 = 3.9999999999 doesn't mean it can't. Not to mention mathematics is just a framework that we created, and it's a lot harder to prove 2 + 2 = 4 than you would think.
Yes, but all that is in the old testiment, leviticus and the old covenant. Christains are under the new covenant, which is why you don't see girls getting ex-communicated for having an earing.
I second this wholeheartedly. If anyone knows of any games with a similar atmoshpere or feeling, I'd love to know.
check out True Systems
Similarly, I'm against smoking, but also favor people having the choice whether to smoke or not.
Yes but are you for forcing people to be in a room with that smoker? Smoking affects the person that's doing the smoking. With abortion you're making this decision for someone else (i.e. the fetus).
The question really comes down to where you draw the line. If you don't consider the fetus a person, then you aren't harming anyone. Or if you are in doubt as (as I am) then you are making someone elses choice. If the stakes weren't life or death then I wouldn't be so cautious. We always talk about the Womans choice, but what is a choice next to a life? Granted it still comes down to what you consider a life.
I have no problem with experimenting with non-embryonic stem cells, provided that they are not eventually used to create new human beings.
Agreed. An exception would be to use the embryos that are going to be thrown out anyway. But again this raises ethical concerns, because what do we do once embryos become valuable, and people start getting paid to have abortions just to havest the stem cells.
I would agree. I think my biggest fear, and ethical concern would be the unathorized use of my DNA. It's inevitable that we will eventually clone a human being, if the United States doesn't do it, then some other country will.
My fear is espoused in many science fiction stories. The idea that someone could get ahold of my genetic material and then start creating clones for the purpose of organ havesting. I can just picture hundreds of 'myself' being raised in a hellish environment just to be killed for their organs. Granted I wouldn't be directly experiencing that hell, but just knowing it exists is enough. I'm very good at empathizing with myself.