Personally, I don't believe that the Universe was made just thousands of years ago, but first consider the following:
It seems possible that if a creator was able to make a Universe, then He would also be able to create that Universe with a false history. To be more precise,
I mean the Creator could have created a Universe at state B, with Physical Law set Y, in such a way as to make it appear that state A had existed, by reconstructing state A by applying Y on states B..C...D...k...etc, where A In other words, if something is to come out of nothing, and can take on any form, it may well APPEAR that there was a prior history before that creation, but it isn't actually true. Light may take a million/billion years to reach us from that star, but those intermediating states may be reconstructed by an all knowing all powerful entity. By placing a photon with the appropriate properties and vectors in between the star and our planet, say 10,000 Light years out, may make it appear that the photon originated from that star millions/billions of years ago.
Its not going to happen in the consumer desktop until installing software 99% of the time requires only clicking 'save' in a web browser, clicking the program installer, clicking 'next', 'next', 'next', and Clicking on program icon to start the installed software.
There cannot be any required memorization of command line syntax. Period.
Don't blah at me about its power, yeah I know.. We are talking about the mass in-home consumer market.
Its quite possible that the grants that paid for the report didn't cover all the costs associated with creating and distributing the report. In effect the report is subsidized, but not completely funded. For example, mass transit services charege fare, but the fare rarely covers the entire cost of the transportation system; so it is subsidized/funded by the local/state/federal government. If we were to pay the actual fare needed to cover costs, the $1.50 bus ride would cost more like $4.00-$6.00.
You argue very eloquently. However, your concluding analogy is misleading. A closer analogy is this:you need my kidney because I took yours away- I have two and am assured that I will be able to live a full life with only one.Am I obliged to give it to you? Are there circumstances under which I would be?
I never said that this was a solution from one party.
They might accept it as a a won battle in the war.
Stealing a 5cent candy and murder are both wrong, but which one do we dislike most? The Moral Majority might accept the compromise since it would save millions of fetuses/lives, and move the battle to new ground. The democrats will like it because its more social programs, igger government, and more services to the poor to help them out of poverty. Really, its a win-win.
Umm..We live in a nation of laws. Law IS imposes an opinion on you. If you steal a car, they try to catch you and send you to jail. They don't care if they are imposing on you or not, and rightly so. You missed the train.
We have laws that prohibit many different evil acts, and these laws all override rights of free action and dominion over one's own body.
Furthermore, you assume a graded assessment of personhood based on time of development, which is as much an assumption as the all and none approach advocated by pro-lifers. In the strong form, your argument suggests that even adults vary in their rights according to age and independence of support services. Indeed this would advocate a lawful right to exterminate young handicapped children, since they both depend on support from other bodies, and are still developmentally young. You argue against arbitrarily assignment of persoonhood in the first trimester, and then support the arbitrary assignment of personhood after birth. It is ridiculous to claim that an infant depends on the mother, or another's body in a less significant way than an unborn child. An infant takes as much work after birth than before birth.
Furthermore, I was basing my analogies to attack your explicit claim that fetuses rights are not primary when conflicted with a mother's rights even when assuming that fetuses have some level of personhood, and some rights. To change our assumption in the middle of a debate confuses the issue. I am attacking the proposition that the mother's rights dominate the fetuses. By retracting the assumption in your reposts, my argument has gained ground.
It is most likely that the assignment of rights to infants has more to do with their physical similarities to our stereotypical human. The lack of rights assigned to fetuses is most likely due to their relative lack of physical similarity to
the stereotypical human. It is commonly professed, and a scientifically confirmed phenomenon that in animal rescue charities: i.e. Save the Panda!, that indexes of the physical similarity of an animal to humans consistently predicts dollars donated to save that animal. It is also true that indexes of compassion and empathy for an animal are also correlated with the animal's likeness to humans. This effect is a bane on charities aiming at restoring ecosystems. To get money you need a cute mascot, but the species which an ecosystem may vitally depend may go unfunded and unsaved because its just an ugly slime worm.;) Fetuses are not cute; they do not give us a warm and fuzzy feeling. But does that imply a lack of rights? A lack of personhood?
This is the worst of stereotypes. Have we not worked long and hard to eliminate such equations of worth with physical trait? Have we not learned anything? Are we still eager to erect another Jim Crow?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry about the html screwups above.
It seems possible that if a creator was able to make a Universe, then He would also be able to create that Universe with a false history. To be more precise,
Of course they are adopting open source now that they are headed by a Socialist.
;)
And people keep telling us that USA kids don't do science. Shit.
you are an elitist idiot.
I didn't RTFA, but I'd expect a divorce soon. I mean, she didn't vote for her husband?
I made a cheap shot, knowing full well it was cheap. ;)
perhaps they spend more money convincing Republican's because they have more trouble understanding the issues, tubes and all.
Q: How many light bulbs does it take to change a light bulb?
A: One, if it knows its own Goedel number.
Don't forget about the toasters!
I am on the desktop... Its not dead..
There cannot be any required memorization of command line syntax. Period.
Don't blah at me about its power, yeah I know.. We are talking about the mass in-home consumer market.
Thank you for defending my point, and interpreting it correctly.
Its quite possible that the grants that paid for the report didn't cover all the costs associated with creating and distributing the report. In effect the report is subsidized, but not completely funded. For example, mass transit services charege fare, but the fare rarely covers the entire cost of the transportation system; so it is subsidized/funded by the local/state/federal government. If we were to pay the actual fare needed to cover costs, the $1.50 bus ride would cost more like $4.00-$6.00.
Dag gunnit, why didn't we think of it before?
meta-flaimbait? A post with knowledge about its flame processes?
On average, Democrats are more educated than Republicans on average.
I would have been funny too, if I were an it.
Umm.. How embarrassing.. My apologies.
You argue very eloquently. However, your concluding analogy is misleading. A closer analogy is this:you need my kidney because I took yours away- I have two and am assured that I will be able to live a full life with only one.Am I obliged to give it to you? Are there circumstances under which I would be?
Yeah... This is one reason why we have a SECRET BALLOT. Its hard to sell your vote if you haven't got a receipt.
They might accept it as a a won battle in the war.
Stealing a 5cent candy and murder are both wrong, but which one do we dislike most? The Moral Majority might accept the compromise since it would save millions of fetuses/lives, and move the battle to new ground. The democrats will like it because its more social programs, igger government, and more services to the poor to help them out of poverty. Really, its a win-win.
Umm..We live in a nation of laws. Law IS imposes an opinion on you. If you steal a car, they try to catch you and send you to jail. They don't care if they are imposing on you or not, and rightly so. You missed the train.
Furthermore, you assume a graded assessment of personhood based on time of development, which is as much an assumption as the all and none approach advocated by pro-lifers. In the strong form, your argument suggests that even adults vary in their rights according to age and independence of support services. Indeed this would advocate a lawful right to exterminate young handicapped children, since they both depend on support from other bodies, and are still developmentally young. You argue against arbitrarily assignment of persoonhood in the first trimester, and then support the arbitrary assignment of personhood after birth. It is ridiculous to claim that an infant depends on the mother, or another's body in a less significant way than an unborn child. An infant takes as much work after birth than before birth.
Furthermore, I was basing my analogies to attack your explicit claim that fetuses rights are not primary when conflicted with a mother's rights even when assuming that fetuses have some level of personhood, and some rights. To change our assumption in the middle of a debate confuses the issue. I am attacking the proposition that the mother's rights dominate the fetuses. By retracting the assumption in your reposts, my argument has gained ground.
It is most likely that the assignment of rights to infants has more to do with their physical similarities to our stereotypical human. The lack of rights assigned to fetuses is most likely due to their relative lack of physical similarity to the stereotypical human. It is commonly professed, and a scientifically confirmed phenomenon that in animal rescue charities: i.e. Save the Panda!, that indexes of the physical similarity of an animal to humans consistently predicts dollars donated to save that animal. It is also true that indexes of compassion and empathy for an animal are also correlated with the animal's likeness to humans. This effect is a bane on charities aiming at restoring ecosystems. To get money you need a cute mascot, but the species which an ecosystem may vitally depend may go unfunded and unsaved because its just an ugly slime worm. ;) Fetuses are not cute; they do not give us a warm and fuzzy feeling. But does that imply a lack of rights? A lack of personhood?
This is the worst of stereotypes. Have we not worked long and hard to eliminate such equations of worth with physical trait? Have we not learned anything? Are we still eager to erect another Jim Crow?
Such loose usage of the word, "PROOF."