I'd suggest that if you give anyone the power, they will abuse it. Just as those ancient Scandinavians took advantage of their early access to the seas, so might moderns do with complete power over the internet. They're Scandinavian, true, but they're still human and still subject to human nature.
That's because yuo backed up your argument(!) by reaching for your gun.
There exists a Second Amendment to the Constitution of these United States for PRECISELY this reason. If/When the government is no longer under civilian control, we have the guaranteed right to rebel.
This is intrinsic to being an American, and should not need explaining, even on a 'geek site' like slashdot.
Because that's exactly what you're suggesting - the onus isn't on the accuser to prove a crime was committed, it's on the accused, and the accused is guilty until and unless they can prove themselves innocent.
Well here's a key disconnect. You're talking about a court of law, whereas I'm talking about Wikileaks.
Holding Wikileaks to a higher standard than any other non-court entity isn't intellectually honest.
You're putting words in my mouth - I never suggested that "Assange must hang,"
...and you are taking a flippant phrase and trying to leverage it into a change of subject. Use whatever words you'd like in place of those, the point is unchanged.
I'm suggesting is that Wikileaks be held to the same standard (i.e., providing proof of accusations) that his detractors are being held to (i.e., providing proof that their assertions are coming true) - I think both sides should be both willing and able to provide evidence to back up their accusations, and not just point to a pile of raw data and say "Go ahead and prove me wrong."
I see what you're getting at. Again, you're simply ignoring what Wikileaks is in order to make your point. You'd like now to hold them equal to the government, whereas it was a court of law above. That's not what they really do. They, allegedly anyway, receive data and publish it. Again, if they are wrong about the seriousness of the material, the data would prove that out, but it would still be what Wikileaks does. They publish stuff.
C) The people who have been offered relocation & asylum have declined it, because they don't feel they are in danger, or they simply don't wish to leave their land, friends, and family. D) The Pentagon doesn't have the manpower and money to relocate & secure all of the people identified. E) They are working on assembling the list based on the data leaked, but they have been unable to complete that review yet.
Per 'C', this would support the 'prove a negative' problem. If the informants aren't too worried about it, then why are we?
Per 'D' and 'E' we are talking about the single largest branch of our entire government, are we not? Every estimate I've read lists fewer than five individuals who might be identifiable. For an organization with unlimited access to funds and personnel, cries of poverty are not only unlikely but are offensive.
And then we can go back and forth here for weeks arguing over whose speculation is more accurate, and never reach a real answer to that question until some evidence is offered to decide the matter one way or another.
Oh, we could go back and forth, but there's genuinely no point. You're intractable. The points here have all been made and barring any other information I think people can make up their own minds. The Pentagon has a long and proven history of misleading the people. Wikileaks does not. Even if we agree that there is only mere speculation here, we ought to be able to agree that a lack of visible action on the part of the Pentagon is, in and of itself evidence. You're not going to admit to that, and therefore any standard of reasonableness has been torn asunder.
Which is why I'm suggesting that it'd be preferable if both Mr. Assange, and his detractors, would step back from making accusations until they have some evidence to support their accusations.
Again, again, again Wikileaks has already shown all their cards. There's not any more 'evidence' they can produce, because they posted it all. If you're convinced that it isn't enough, without even looking at it, then I'm not convinced your opinion on the matter has any merit.
There's no holy war here, nor any potential for one. The data is out now, and there's no putting it back in the bottle. If you'd like to make a case that this was a mistake, then there's more to be do
And does the "original source material" support the accusations being made?
This would be the point of posting it. Don't ask me, go and see for yourself. Again, the material itself is available to anyone. Go, then, and make your specific case against it. Prove that everything inside is innocuous. You HAVE the data. All that's stopping you from making your iron-clad case against the worth of its release is YOU.
Seriously, go line by line and describe how each report is meaningless. Make a blog out of it. The MIC would probably pay you for end result.
The Taliban have stated publicly that they are reviewing the data, and will take steps to "punish" anybody found to be cooperating with the NATO forces.
That's what the Taliban does. Why is it that our side gets a free pass, by way of "war is bad, hmmkay?", and yet if the Taliban even THREATENS to kill someone, then Assange must hang?
Your well constructed point puts a fine veneer over the fact that the Pentagon has taken no action. As in my werewolf example, the former party is acting in good faith to represent what they are claiming, while the latter is doing absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Imagine this. Picture that the Pentagon actually believes what they are saying. What would they do? They would look at the data, find those implicated by it, and get them (and their families) the hell out of Afghanistan. They would parrot this cost and loss of resources all over the news as further proof that Wikileaks is evil. Because while the Taliban, you, and I, all are all left to simply guess at the identities of those who may be in danger, the Pentagon knows exactly who they are.
Why aren't they acting on their behalf in any way whatsoever?
I see it as either:
A) They actually want them to die. Or don't care if they do. Or whatever other false-flag they're flying here.
or
B) They don't believe their danger has actually increased.
Please illustrate what other logical behavior would support the conclusion you're attempting to draw, because I'm at a loss.
Shouldn't they be held to the same standard you're holding GP poster to?
Absolutely not! I'm honestly surprised you cannot discern the difference between the two parties.
We have on the one hand...
A) The posting of original source material and calling attention to it by making accusations.
B) Fact-less assertions.
In the former, one could go to the original data and use it to refute the claims. In the latter, no such opportunity exists.
These are distinctly different from every angle, except that they are both making accusations.
For example if I were post a video online that I say demonstrates you committing a crime, and you turn around and accuse me of being a werewolf, are these situations equal as well?
Dont worry if someone is raping you, just accept that they are raping you and it vill be over a lot sooner with a lot less pain.
I know you're trying to be a jerkwad flamer, but this is actually true! If you really are in a situation where you are going to be raped, do not panic. Accept the situation you're in, try and relax, and look for details that will lead to the conviction of your rapist. Remember to preserve the chain of evidence, by not taking an immediate shower, for example.
Situations exist where violent and unconscionable things happen to people. Yes, they should be prevented, but when that fails they should be dealt with...
They're confident that it will happen, but as far as the Pentagon is aware, it has not yet happened. This is a direct quote from Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, who could reasonably be considered more knowledgeable on this topic than you or I...
Now, what exactly is the color of your content? Are you ready to acknowledge that the point you were trying to assert is lost? Or do you press on, unphased? I'm eager to see...
Seriously? You're now going to argue that rape strips someone of their humanity? They're now a non-person?
Yes, this is clearly what the act of rape does, if however temporarily. You turn a person into an object of sexual gratification, usually via violence. So yes, this is exactly the issue with rape.
Good thing there are quality articles on the sciences to read here. Oh wait, it's just a stupid youtube promotion
Hello and welcome to slashdot.org! Here you'll find a wide variety of articles on a range of topics. Typically they will be demarcated by a category name followed by a colon (:). For example this particular article is labeled with "Entertainment:" mark. You'll also note there exists an icon to the right of the summary which generally follows the topic. In this case we have a foot.
Now, assuming you don't like this story you could:
A) Post a flame attracting dispute about his this does or does not apply to 'nerds', 'news', and/or 'science'
OR
B) Stop electing to view stories labeled with "Entertainment:" or a foot icon.
You'll be back to this same position eventually, in need of a 'priority priority inbox'.
Accepting emails you never intend to read means you have a lot of email you never intend to read in your inbox. There's no amount of technology that can undo basic logic. The flaw in this system is that it cannot stop you from subscribing to yet another mailing list, etc. If you don't change your ways, you'll certainly make the problem worse, because sloppiness is NOT a technology problem. It is a human problem.
Now, if everyone just did things the way you wanted them to, i might be able to see your point.
But they don't. And won't.
My advice is for your personal use of your own mailbox. You'll have to be kind and define who 'they' is in your statement. If 'they' means people who send you emails, then I suggest you stop receiving them until they comply with your wishes. If someone were to call your cell in the middle of the night just to fart into the handset, you'd stop taking their calls. Same thing here.
If 'they' is 'you', then kindly sign up for this valuable service. Just bear in mind, however, that you'll be back to this same position eventually, in need of a 'priority priority inbox'.
The fact that you think "train the users" is acceptable means you haven't been paying much attention.
I'm not sure where the contention lies between us, but whatever I did to warrant such a tone from you, I apologize.
I'll suppose you failed to consider the final paragraph, but even if you merely disagree with the notion that this technology makes the problem worse, consider this:
I like what they've done here. They basically took their spam filter and inverted it, creating the anti-spam, aka 'priority inbox'. It is genuinely clever.
It is also an absolute non-problem. The basic issue here is a human one, and is easily corrected.
Lesson #1: Your inbox is not an oracle into the past. You do not need everyone to carbon copy you in on everything they ever send 'just in case'. This is absurd and sets you up for failure by accepting mail you never actually intend to read. Instead reverse the thought and insist that people only send you things you actually NEED to see.
Lesson #2: Lists and announcements are completely unnecessary. If you want to go collaborate on a topic, find an appropriate forum on which to do so. Email's characteristics are extremely poor for this use, and the 'junk' is obscuring the mail from above.
Lesson #3: Reject crap. Ask your family to only include you in on the 'really good' ones. Snopes everything and be snarky about it. Ask that people not send you things that they're too lazy/busy to look up first. Unsubscribe from EVERYTHING that you don't actually intend to read on a daily basis. See Lesson #2, but if you want to know and have time to research it, it is out there a mere Google search away. As above, if you don't actually intend to read it, see that it stops. The junk obscures the good stuff.
Lesson #4: Delete, delete, delete. Just because Google advertises gigabytes of storage, this doesn't mean you actually have that much important mail. New version of VMWare is out? That's terrific...deleted! You're not going to want to search against that again later, trust me. 37th time someone has said Mars will be as large as the Moon - DELETED, before I even got to the end of the subject line. Slashdot's been replying to you all weekend, and you no longer care to go back to old topics? Oh, so deleted...
Lesson #5: Stay on top of it. Glance at your box right away, star the keepers, and delete the junk. Now do this at least once an hour. It only takes about ten seconds, and will save you hours of cleanup later...
Lesson #6: Reply right away, wherever possible. Even a simple "I got your mail, and will get back to you later" sends positive reinforcement back, just so long as you're starring it as well so you do actually get back to it. The primary benefit here is, if you're overzealous with Lesson #4, someone will notice that you didn't respond, and will re-query if it was genuinely important.
There may be more, but the point is, this is a completely human situation that can be easily managed. This 'solution' is honestly a good way to go about making the problem worse, rather than better. You're able to tolerate more and more bad mail, and you still never intend to actually read most of it.
Think about the term 'thousands of emails per day'. There are only 480 minutes in an average eight hour work day. If you're actually, honestly, genuinely reading over two emails a minute, then you need to sub some of that mail reading out to a part-timer. You'd be sitting at 960 mails per day, which is still not even two thousand, which qualifies for the 's' at the end of that word. If so, you're not getting any work done other than reading email. An unpaid intern can read mail just as well as you can, so where's the value in that? Now, on the other hand, if you're not reading it then why on earth is it in your inbox? Are you expecting the days to get longer at some point?? You're going to go back and get caught up on them? Um, no. You're not. Not ever. Just deal with that fact now, rather than later, and email becomes a lot more pleasant.
And you misunderstand how IVF should work. If you want one human, create one embryo. Anything less is inhuman. Your embryo was lucky enough and had enough value to be carried to term. Be thankful of that, and respect those who have not yet had that opportunity.
You mean like we already do? A lot of donor organs come from brain-dead people. They're still alive, just terminally ill.
I'd be surprised to find we do so without consent. But if we do, we should probably stop. Further, haven't their been cases of rape amongst the terminally ill? If their bodies are at our disposal, then how could this come to pass?
So start protesting IVF clinics instead of abortion clinics. They kill a couple orders of magnitude more embryos every year.
Why do I need to stage any protests at all? I'm not carrying pitchforks for anyone at this point, but I do support the law as it was written, and am happy to see it being enforced.
I do hope that research continues, but just not research that involves this unsettled matter of what to do with this early form of human life. We're far from a consensus, and I think that the law barring Federal funding, without banning the practice outright, is an acceptable balance.
Oh, didn't I mention that I'm pro-choice? While I think that killing your unborn child is abhorrent and wrong, I also think that the government shouldn't have the power to bar you from it until we all agree it should be so. They'll be judged by their creator, and that's good enough for today.
There's a massive difference between "this is wrong because $deity says it is" and "this is wrong because we the people say it is".
We make up our own morals. We collectively decide what is good and what is evil. The key difference is that some of us do so using our own brain and others would rather follow whatever the funny guy in the dress is telling them.
You present a false dilemma. Realize that religions rise and fall by the will of the people to follow them. Look up Martin Luther or Buddha some time and tell me that no one ever uses their own brain within religion. It isn't all about mindless zealotry, any more than any other component of the human experience.
You are using a straw man to attack religion in its entirety. To do so you have illustrated a 'funny guy in the dress' as some kind of final arbiter for what one may or may not believe. This in no way represents the long view of any religion that I have ever encountered.
Slashdot Mirror
Why Scandinavians, per se?
I'd suggest that if you give anyone the power, they will abuse it. Just as those ancient Scandinavians took advantage of their early access to the seas, so might moderns do with complete power over the internet. They're Scandinavian, true, but they're still human and still subject to human nature.
That's because yuo backed up your argument(!) by reaching for your gun.
There exists a Second Amendment to the Constitution of these United States for PRECISELY this reason. If/When the government is no longer under civilian control, we have the guaranteed right to rebel.
This is intrinsic to being an American, and should not need explaining, even on a 'geek site' like slashdot.
Googled it, and it looks like you're close: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/08/30/mike-wise-admits-to-big-ben-hoax-offers-lame-explanation/
NFL. 5 games instead of 6. Not yet clear to me that he was fired over it...
http://nfl.fanhouse.com/2010/09/01/adam-schefter-mike-wises-washington-controversy-lessons-in-ac/
Because that's exactly what you're suggesting - the onus isn't on the accuser to prove a crime was committed, it's on the accused, and the accused is guilty until and unless they can prove themselves innocent.
Well here's a key disconnect. You're talking about a court of law, whereas I'm talking about Wikileaks.
Holding Wikileaks to a higher standard than any other non-court entity isn't intellectually honest.
You're putting words in my mouth - I never suggested that "Assange must hang,"
...and you are taking a flippant phrase and trying to leverage it into a change of subject. Use whatever words you'd like in place of those, the point is unchanged.
I'm suggesting is that Wikileaks be held to the same standard (i.e., providing proof of accusations) that his detractors are being held to (i.e., providing proof that their assertions are coming true) - I think both sides should be both willing and able to provide evidence to back up their accusations, and not just point to a pile of raw data and say "Go ahead and prove me wrong."
I see what you're getting at. Again, you're simply ignoring what Wikileaks is in order to make your point. You'd like now to hold them equal to the government, whereas it was a court of law above. That's not what they really do. They, allegedly anyway, receive data and publish it. Again, if they are wrong about the seriousness of the material, the data would prove that out, but it would still be what Wikileaks does. They publish stuff.
C) The people who have been offered relocation & asylum have declined it, because they don't feel they are in danger, or they simply don't wish to leave their land, friends, and family.
D) The Pentagon doesn't have the manpower and money to relocate & secure all of the people identified.
E) They are working on assembling the list based on the data leaked, but they have been unable to complete that review yet.
Per 'C', this would support the 'prove a negative' problem. If the informants aren't too worried about it, then why are we?
Per 'D' and 'E' we are talking about the single largest branch of our entire government, are we not? Every estimate I've read lists fewer than five individuals who might be identifiable. For an organization with unlimited access to funds and personnel, cries of poverty are not only unlikely but are offensive.
And then we can go back and forth here for weeks arguing over whose speculation is more accurate, and never reach a real answer to that question until some evidence is offered to decide the matter one way or another.
Oh, we could go back and forth, but there's genuinely no point. You're intractable. The points here have all been made and barring any other information I think people can make up their own minds. The Pentagon has a long and proven history of misleading the people. Wikileaks does not. Even if we agree that there is only mere speculation here, we ought to be able to agree that a lack of visible action on the part of the Pentagon is, in and of itself evidence. You're not going to admit to that, and therefore any standard of reasonableness has been torn asunder.
Which is why I'm suggesting that it'd be preferable if both Mr. Assange, and his detractors, would step back from making accusations until they have some evidence to support their accusations.
Again, again, again Wikileaks has already shown all their cards. There's not any more 'evidence' they can produce, because they posted it all. If you're convinced that it isn't enough, without even looking at it, then I'm not convinced your opinion on the matter has any merit.
There's no holy war here, nor any potential for one. The data is out now, and there's no putting it back in the bottle. If you'd like to make a case that this was a mistake, then there's more to be do
Isn't it "shameful pleasure"? I doubt the older folks were feeling ashamed ;)
No, but they should be. Along with all those who would enjoy the first several episodes of a new season of American Idol.
And does the "original source material" support the accusations being made?
This would be the point of posting it. Don't ask me, go and see for yourself. Again, the material itself is available to anyone. Go, then, and make your specific case against it. Prove that everything inside is innocuous. You HAVE the data. All that's stopping you from making your iron-clad case against the worth of its release is YOU.
Seriously, go line by line and describe how each report is meaningless. Make a blog out of it. The MIC would probably pay you for end result.
The Taliban have stated publicly that they are reviewing the data, and will take steps to "punish" anybody found to be cooperating with the NATO forces.
That's what the Taliban does. Why is it that our side gets a free pass, by way of "war is bad, hmmkay?", and yet if the Taliban even THREATENS to kill someone, then Assange must hang?
Your well constructed point puts a fine veneer over the fact that the Pentagon has taken no action. As in my werewolf example, the former party is acting in good faith to represent what they are claiming, while the latter is doing absolutely nothing whatsoever.
Imagine this. Picture that the Pentagon actually believes what they are saying. What would they do? They would look at the data, find those implicated by it, and get them (and their families) the hell out of Afghanistan. They would parrot this cost and loss of resources all over the news as further proof that Wikileaks is evil. Because while the Taliban, you, and I, all are all left to simply guess at the identities of those who may be in danger, the Pentagon knows exactly who they are.
Why aren't they acting on their behalf in any way whatsoever?
I see it as either:
A) They actually want them to die. Or don't care if they do. Or whatever other false-flag they're flying here.
or
B) They don't believe their danger has actually increased.
Please illustrate what other logical behavior would support the conclusion you're attempting to draw, because I'm at a loss.
Shouldn't they be held to the same standard you're holding GP poster to?
Absolutely not! I'm honestly surprised you cannot discern the difference between the two parties.
We have on the one hand...
A) The posting of original source material and calling attention to it by making accusations.
B) Fact-less assertions.
In the former, one could go to the original data and use it to refute the claims. In the latter, no such opportunity exists.
These are distinctly different from every angle, except that they are both making accusations.
For example if I were post a video online that I say demonstrates you committing a crime, and you turn around and accuse me of being a werewolf, are these situations equal as well?
Dont worry if someone is raping you, just accept that they are raping you and it vill be over a lot sooner with a lot less pain.
I know you're trying to be a jerkwad flamer, but this is actually true! If you really are in a situation where you are going to be raped, do not panic. Accept the situation you're in, try and relax, and look for details that will lead to the conviction of your rapist. Remember to preserve the chain of evidence, by not taking an immediate shower, for example.
Situations exist where violent and unconscionable things happen to people. Yes, they should be prevented, but when that fails they should be dealt with...
Please provide a credible citation stating that no one has been killed due to the leaked information.
Here is where we discover the cut of your cloth. Are you a jerkwad on a mission? Or are you someone who is actually unaware of the situation?
Even though you asked for a negative to be proven, I was still able to locate exactly what you requested.
"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell said.
(Source)
They're confident that it will happen, but as far as the Pentagon is aware, it has not yet happened. This is a direct quote from Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, who could reasonably be considered more knowledgeable on this topic than you or I...
Now, what exactly is the color of your content? Are you ready to acknowledge that the point you were trying to assert is lost? Or do you press on, unphased? I'm eager to see...
Seriously? You're now going to argue that rape strips someone of their humanity? They're now a non-person?
Yes, this is clearly what the act of rape does, if however temporarily. You turn a person into an object of sexual gratification, usually via violence. So yes, this is exactly the issue with rape.
Good thing there are quality articles on the sciences to read here. Oh wait, it's just a stupid youtube promotion
Hello and welcome to slashdot.org! Here you'll find a wide variety of articles on a range of topics. Typically they will be demarcated by a category name followed by a colon (:). For example this particular article is labeled with "Entertainment:" mark. You'll also note there exists an icon to the right of the summary which generally follows the topic. In this case we have a foot.
Now, assuming you don't like this story you could:
A) Post a flame attracting dispute about his this does or does not apply to 'nerds', 'news', and/or 'science'
OR
B) Stop electing to view stories labeled with "Entertainment:" or a foot icon.
Have a nice day, and enjoy your '-1' mods!
Bzzzzt. Because we hold humanity as having value.
I'm not crusading, and you're either really bad at listening or really bad at explaining what it is that you mean, but I do hope you have a great day.
But I don't think most of the people using email prefer that solution to the issue of assuring that the most important email is the most prominent.
'Most people' will select that which requires the least amount of effort, that is true.
But in the end, it won't really work, because as I've said elsewhere in this thread, being undisciplined isn't a technology problem, but a human one.
I'll say it again:
You'll be back to this same position eventually, in need of a 'priority priority inbox'.
Accepting emails you never intend to read means you have a lot of email you never intend to read in your inbox. There's no amount of technology that can undo basic logic. The flaw in this system is that it cannot stop you from subscribing to yet another mailing list, etc. If you don't change your ways, you'll certainly make the problem worse, because sloppiness is NOT a technology problem. It is a human problem.
Now, if everyone just did things the way you wanted them to, i might be able to see your point.
But they don't. And won't.
My advice is for your personal use of your own mailbox. You'll have to be kind and define who 'they' is in your statement. If 'they' means people who send you emails, then I suggest you stop receiving them until they comply with your wishes. If someone were to call your cell in the middle of the night just to fart into the handset, you'd stop taking their calls. Same thing here.
If 'they' is 'you', then kindly sign up for this valuable service. Just bear in mind, however, that you'll be back to this same position eventually, in need of a 'priority priority inbox'.
The fact that you think "train the users" is acceptable means you haven't been paying much attention.
I'm not sure where the contention lies between us, but whatever I did to warrant such a tone from you, I apologize.
If people are spamming me, then I suppose I'll block their email addresses.
It isn't as if there isn't any consent here.
I'll suppose you failed to consider the final paragraph, but even if you merely disagree with the notion that this technology makes the problem worse, consider this:
Allowing someone to email you is a choice.
...you should never use an encyclopedia, any encyclopedia when there is a better source to cite
Your quote is wrong, because there is always a better source to cite, the sources that the encyclopedia used.
And what happens when those sources are no longer available?
I like what they've done here. They basically took their spam filter and inverted it, creating the anti-spam, aka 'priority inbox'. It is genuinely clever.
It is also an absolute non-problem. The basic issue here is a human one, and is easily corrected.
Lesson #1: Your inbox is not an oracle into the past. You do not need everyone to carbon copy you in on everything they ever send 'just in case'. This is absurd and sets you up for failure by accepting mail you never actually intend to read. Instead reverse the thought and insist that people only send you things you actually NEED to see.
Lesson #2: Lists and announcements are completely unnecessary. If you want to go collaborate on a topic, find an appropriate forum on which to do so. Email's characteristics are extremely poor for this use, and the 'junk' is obscuring the mail from above.
Lesson #3: Reject crap. Ask your family to only include you in on the 'really good' ones. Snopes everything and be snarky about it. Ask that people not send you things that they're too lazy/busy to look up first. Unsubscribe from EVERYTHING that you don't actually intend to read on a daily basis. See Lesson #2, but if you want to know and have time to research it, it is out there a mere Google search away. As above, if you don't actually intend to read it, see that it stops. The junk obscures the good stuff.
Lesson #4: Delete, delete, delete. Just because Google advertises gigabytes of storage, this doesn't mean you actually have that much important mail. New version of VMWare is out? That's terrific...deleted! You're not going to want to search against that again later, trust me. 37th time someone has said Mars will be as large as the Moon - DELETED, before I even got to the end of the subject line. Slashdot's been replying to you all weekend, and you no longer care to go back to old topics? Oh, so deleted...
Lesson #5: Stay on top of it. Glance at your box right away, star the keepers, and delete the junk. Now do this at least once an hour. It only takes about ten seconds, and will save you hours of cleanup later...
Lesson #6: Reply right away, wherever possible. Even a simple "I got your mail, and will get back to you later" sends positive reinforcement back, just so long as you're starring it as well so you do actually get back to it. The primary benefit here is, if you're overzealous with Lesson #4, someone will notice that you didn't respond, and will re-query if it was genuinely important.
There may be more, but the point is, this is a completely human situation that can be easily managed. This 'solution' is honestly a good way to go about making the problem worse, rather than better. You're able to tolerate more and more bad mail, and you still never intend to actually read most of it.
Think about the term 'thousands of emails per day'. There are only 480 minutes in an average eight hour work day. If you're actually, honestly, genuinely reading over two emails a minute, then you need to sub some of that mail reading out to a part-timer. You'd be sitting at 960 mails per day, which is still not even two thousand, which qualifies for the 's' at the end of that word. If so, you're not getting any work done other than reading email. An unpaid intern can read mail just as well as you can, so where's the value in that? Now, on the other hand, if you're not reading it then why on earth is it in your inbox? Are you expecting the days to get longer at some point?? You're going to go back and get caught up on them? Um, no. You're not. Not ever. Just deal with that fact now, rather than later, and email becomes a lot more pleasant.
And you misunderstand how IVF should work. If you want one human, create one embryo. Anything less is inhuman. Your embryo was lucky enough and had enough value to be carried to term. Be thankful of that, and respect those who have not yet had that opportunity.
You mean like we already do? A lot of donor organs come from brain-dead people. They're still alive, just terminally ill.
I'd be surprised to find we do so without consent. But if we do, we should probably stop. Further, haven't their been cases of rape amongst the terminally ill? If their bodies are at our disposal, then how could this come to pass?
So start protesting IVF clinics instead of abortion clinics. They kill a couple orders of magnitude more embryos every year.
Why do I need to stage any protests at all? I'm not carrying pitchforks for anyone at this point, but I do support the law as it was written, and am happy to see it being enforced.
I do hope that research continues, but just not research that involves this unsettled matter of what to do with this early form of human life. We're far from a consensus, and I think that the law barring Federal funding, without banning the practice outright, is an acceptable balance.
Oh, didn't I mention that I'm pro-choice? While I think that killing your unborn child is abhorrent and wrong, I also think that the government shouldn't have the power to bar you from it until we all agree it should be so. They'll be judged by their creator, and that's good enough for today.
So again, why do I need any picket signs at all?
There's a massive difference between "this is wrong because $deity says it is" and "this is wrong because we the people say it is".
We make up our own morals. We collectively decide what is good and what is evil. The key difference is that some of us do so using our own brain and others would rather follow whatever the funny guy in the dress is telling them.
You present a false dilemma. Realize that religions rise and fall by the will of the people to follow them. Look up Martin Luther or Buddha some time and tell me that no one ever uses their own brain within religion. It isn't all about mindless zealotry, any more than any other component of the human experience.
You are using a straw man to attack religion in its entirety. To do so you have illustrated a 'funny guy in the dress' as some kind of final arbiter for what one may or may not believe. This in no way represents the long view of any religion that I have ever encountered.
Or you could have even more fun by sliding down a slide of razorblades into a vat of acid.
Seriously people, Monopoly. Look it up. :)
I'm a bit amused that you so artfully shot down his 'they are all wrong' position. Bravo.