Every major evolution of technology comes with its superstitious Luddite-style objections. This current thread on "souls" is pleasantly amusing in a "advanced species looking on primitives" sort of way. Although this discussion is rather premature since we are very far away from teleporting anything substantial let alone an entire human being.
I would just love for you to list your citations on the existence of and what comprises the "soul". Perhaps then expand upon why said research enables you to form such substantive sounding arguments and conclusions about why you would or would not do something based on your apparent extensive knowledge of this all important yet ethereal entity.
Because from where I am sitting this entire thread smacks of quackery and medieval-sounding superstition - albeit dressed up with a veneer of rational sounding thought processes.
Helium in a bag is the number one way. Instantly unconscious after two breaths, brain dead in 2 mins. If the gas fails somehow the lack of oxygen in the bag will finish the job while you are passed out - as long as the bag is air tight.
Why don't they do this? Well my friend that is very easy to explain.
Remember those scenes in the mafia movies where they put the bag over their head? This procedure when used on an unwilling person with a public viewing gallery looks exactly like what it is: A murder.
Capital punishment is a form of murder. Just because we try to dress it up in legal and "moral" reasoning bullocks in a very lame attempt to justify it does not make it anything other than what it is.
Now you may, depending on how bloodthirsty you have been trained to be, think that this murder is justified. (Manson and many other serial killers thought the same) But this does not change what it is.
The "law" (i.e. the government) does not get to sanction murder and pretend it is something else. This goes for wartime killing, drone killings and all the rest.
Not necessarily. A popular, grass roots movement towards a 3rd party that actually represents the people would work also - assuming the candidates can live long enough to get voted for.
I would suggest, at least at first, putting up candidates who are good at dodging bullets.
Both real and metaphorical....
NB: My proposal just made your over-reactive comment moronic.
It is not just the "contrarians" that are the problem.
The general public are like ostriches in the sand on this as are the politicians - even the one not on the payroll of you know who.
In my country for example the right wing government of the day whose leader has in the past said that it does not exist has now reneged on that and accepts it exists. (for political reasons of course much like his original answer) But they trashed the policy on emission reduction as soon as entering power, pulled out of kyoto and have done absolutely nothing to reduce and many things to increase emissions since then.
So really:
"But it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you."
Very true and very few scientists would ever suggest that.
What it typically means you devote your life to pursuing the truth of some small aspect of the universe and study, test and discuss the various theories surrounding this area.This means that you can be considered an expert on the subject.
The "others" are a bunch of people who pull opinions out of their arse at best or purposely malign the truth for their own ends at worst.
For you to say such things betrays a level of ignorance that is truly awesome to behold - assuming you are not just trolling for the sake of it which just makes you a common garden variety douche bag. Regardless of your own insignificant thoughts and motivations the thought process you describe appears to be a relatively common one.
But fear not, the reasons for your ignorance and/or troll-like behaviour is something studied, tested and discussed in the field of psychology by scientists!
You are applying simplified logic to a legal situation and are failing hard.
The court WILL pay attention to intent, what would be expected of a reasonable person in that situation and other mitigating circumstances. How you explain your actions will be CRUCIAL in determining how they interpret it. NB: This may differ for each country
For example someone above said quite sensibly that the children playing on the track would almost certainly hear/feel the train and have an opportunity to escape.
If you explained that to a court it would almost certainly be a no brainier.
But again this is pedantic. Life is never this clear cut and the example is designed as a thought experiment to make you think and introspect rather than a realistic example to be analysed for definitive answers. (let alone be applied to the courtroom!)
You need to check your facts. Much beef around the world is grain fed.
Even in my country where the cows are almost 100% "free range" they are "high intensity dairy farms" that rely heavily on fertilisers etc to maintain pastures.
Then there is water pollution and irrigation issues etc that are not direct costs but costs nonetheless. (methane being in that mix)
PS: And I doubt they want to CLOSE the schools. Just make sure that they are vast slums churning out ignorant and easily led livestock to be harvested for their min-wage labour....and most likely their organs....
Teachers are in strong unions also here in NZ. (despite anti union legislation decimating them in the last decade)
The right wingers here (and their ex-currency trader, cheesy smiled leader) have been trying desperately to beat on them but NZ has one of the best bang for buck education systems in the world. (i.e. Our teachers are not paid that high but the performance indicators are in the top grouping.)
Just wanted to mention that for the inevitable people who will read your comments and think "unions baaaad" like some ideological zombie.
Slashdot Mirror
Every major evolution of technology comes with its superstitious Luddite-style objections. This current thread on "souls" is pleasantly amusing in a "advanced species looking on primitives" sort of way. Although this discussion is rather premature since we are very far away from teleporting anything substantial let alone an entire human being.
I would just love for you to list your citations on the existence of and what comprises the "soul". Perhaps then expand upon why said research enables you to form such substantive sounding arguments and conclusions about why you would or would not do something based on your apparent extensive knowledge of this all important yet ethereal entity.
Because from where I am sitting this entire thread smacks of quackery and medieval-sounding superstition - albeit dressed up with a veneer of rational sounding thought processes.
Your naive belief that the government has that right as some sort of natural law is rather pathetic.
They don't, you are just a well trained drone.
yeah yeah yeah.
Hide behind the legal definition. I will use the definition most people mean when they say it.
Premeditated killing of another human being that is not in self defence, euthanasia, etc.
And etc does not include "government says the murder was ok". That definition is for the weak of soul and mind.
Helium in a bag is the number one way. Instantly unconscious after two breaths, brain dead in 2 mins.
If the gas fails somehow the lack of oxygen in the bag will finish the job while you are passed out - as long as the bag is air tight.
Why don't they do this? Well my friend that is very easy to explain.
Remember those scenes in the mafia movies where they put the bag over their head? This procedure when used on an unwilling person with a public viewing gallery looks exactly like what it is: A murder.
Capital punishment is a form of murder. Just because we try to dress it up in legal and "moral" reasoning bullocks in a very lame attempt to justify it does not make it anything other than what it is.
Now you may, depending on how bloodthirsty you have been trained to be, think that this murder is justified. (Manson and many other serial killers thought the same) But this does not change what it is.
The "law" (i.e. the government) does not get to sanction murder and pretend it is something else. This goes for wartime killing, drone killings and all the rest.
I don't give a fuck what anyone says.
Not necessarily. A popular, grass roots movement towards a 3rd party that actually represents the people would work also - assuming the candidates can live long enough to get voted for.
I would suggest, at least at first, putting up candidates who are good at dodging bullets.
Both real and metaphorical....
NB: My proposal just made your over-reactive comment moronic.
Awesome to be me.
Untrue.
No point rehashing the argument yet again and typically it would be for naught anyway as few people what to challenge their truisms.
But it is not true and I suggest if you think it is and are actually interested in the topic you do a little reading and comparison.
1) That almost certainly wont happen when you out them - certainly not over an issue like this.
2) They will be replaced with another corrupt drone even if they are.
Why?
Because it is the system of government that has become corrupted. Cutting off a few branches when the tree is infected will not work.
There is something moronic here and it is not my comment....
It does not matter who stepped up to the plate this particular time.
Your system of government is corrupt and out of control.
Asking for names is not seeing the forest for the trees.
You are kidding, right?
Libertarian != liberal.
They are two very different things. The US does not have a mainstream left wing or liberal movement in government.
Jesus Christ. The myopic political views of some USA citizens is frustrating....
Errr...except that the job of a policeman and a recreational hunter are two completely different things with different requirements.
This is one of those comments that sounds like a slam dunk but fails to realise that the game being played is football.
It is not just the "contrarians" that are the problem.
The general public are like ostriches in the sand on this as are the politicians - even the one not on the payroll of you know who.
In my country for example the right wing government of the day whose leader has in the past said that it does not exist has now reneged on that and accepts it exists. (for political reasons of course much like his original answer)
But they trashed the policy on emission reduction as soon as entering power, pulled out of kyoto and have done absolutely nothing to reduce and many things to increase emissions since then.
So really:
"But it's not who you are underneath, it's what you do that defines you."
That is not an example of a hyperbolic statement.
Arrogant, ignorant and just plain wrong maybe, but not hyperbolic.
Please insult the fools and ignoramuses with a little more care and attention to detail please....
People tend to compartmentalise the world and make it out to be smaller than it is.
Even if you are a scientist straddling several areas this is STILL a small part of the whole.
Also...how the hell is my comment a troll?!
It works because the universe is a very big place with a lot of complexity.
Very true and very few scientists would ever suggest that.
What it typically means you devote your life to pursuing the truth of some small aspect of the universe and study, test and discuss the various theories surrounding this area.This means that you can be considered an expert on the subject.
The "others" are a bunch of people who pull opinions out of their arse at best or purposely malign the truth for their own ends at worst.
For you to say such things betrays a level of ignorance that is truly awesome to behold - assuming you are not just trolling for the sake of it which just makes you a common garden variety douche bag. Regardless of your own insignificant thoughts and motivations the thought process you describe appears to be a relatively common one.
But fear not, the reasons for your ignorance and/or troll-like behaviour is something studied, tested and discussed in the field of psychology by scientists!
An elephant sized car will typically weight more than an elephant...also that is a very large car depending on the species of elephant...
I can feel a monty python sketch coming on...
A super villain or old-timey wrestler maybe...
lol.
Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by sheer stupidity. You will find the latter is FAR and away more common.
- Me
So says you...
Just to be pedantic...
You are applying simplified logic to a legal situation and are failing hard.
The court WILL pay attention to intent, what would be expected of a reasonable person in that situation and other mitigating circumstances. How you explain your actions will be CRUCIAL in determining how they interpret it.
NB: This may differ for each country
For example someone above said quite sensibly that the children playing on the track would almost certainly hear/feel the train and have an opportunity to escape.
If you explained that to a court it would almost certainly be a no brainier.
But again this is pedantic. Life is never this clear cut and the example is designed as a thought experiment to make you think and introspect rather than a realistic example to be analysed for definitive answers. (let alone be applied to the courtroom!)
You need to check your facts. Much beef around the world is grain fed.
Even in my country where the cows are almost 100% "free range" they are "high intensity dairy farms" that rely heavily on fertilisers etc to maintain pastures.
Then there is water pollution and irrigation issues etc that are not direct costs but costs nonetheless. (methane being in that mix)
PS: And I doubt they want to CLOSE the schools. Just make sure that they are vast slums churning out ignorant and easily led livestock to be harvested for their min-wage labour....and most likely their organs....
The problem is that corruption, cronyism and a shite environment leads to corrupt and shite people all over in my experience.
Corruption is rot that spreads throughout - it does not care to limit itself to one species of host.
I always find it amusing when people try to blame only one source for this sort of thing.
Teachers are in strong unions also here in NZ. (despite anti union legislation decimating them in the last decade)
The right wingers here (and their ex-currency trader, cheesy smiled leader) have been trying desperately to beat on them but NZ has one of the best bang for buck education systems in the world. (i.e. Our teachers are not paid that high but the performance indicators are in the top grouping.)
Just wanted to mention that for the inevitable people who will read your comments and think "unions baaaad" like some ideological zombie.
Not being from the USA, every article I ever read about your education system just leaves me scratching my head.
How on earth did you guys let it get so ridiculous??