I think that the separation of church and state was about not establishing state religion and allowing the free expression of religion by ANYBODY- even "agents of Congress" which aren't mentioned in the Constitution. The first Ammendment reads:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing about preventing "agents of Congress" from the free exercise of personal religion, in fact, Congress can make no law RESPECTING establishment of religion OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That means that Congress can't make any laws preventing school prayer either- a strict reading of the Constitution shows that the intent of the Founding Fathers with separation of Church and State was freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM the religion of your fellow citizens. Thus yes, tolerance was EXACTLY what they wanted.
I think feelings are important for any moralistic arguement. Why is killing bad? Why is stealing bad? If I could scientically prove with hard evidence that, say, killing George Bush would be better for the world, would that make it moral? Or, who cares about anyone else, what if it was just better for me? But I do care about other people, I *feel* that it is wrong to hurt them.
By the principle of double effect- killing George Bush would be immoral- but NOT killing him would be even more immoral. Thus he should be killed. Just being better for the one- well, the needs of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many. When evidence overwhelms feeling, actions against feelings must be taken.
Sorry, you're talking to a girl who's been in a loving, monogamous relationship for years with birth control. My father and stepmother have a loving monogamous relationship while using birth control for about 20 years. It's not a denial of love.
If you don't love the guy enough to have his children, what the heck are you doing having sex with him? The whole purpose of sex is to experience a love so real that 9 months later you have to give it a name. There is no purpose to sex beyond that- recreational sex is a lie.
I don't see how it's a denial of feelings, and I see even less that it's for no good purpose or without evidence. I can't afford to raise a kid right now (a purpose) and it definately has evidence to back up that it works.
Works for what? To pretend that you love your husband without actually going through the sacrifices necessary to "afford" a child that is proof of that love? Love has a purpose in human biology- passing on the genes to the next generation. Denying love it's purpose denies that reality- and turns love into a lie.
Correlation != Causation.
And yet- once couples discover the idea of the fullness of sex being a method of fullfilling life, few rarely return.
I also could create the next Jesus Christ or Ghandi by sleeping with the next hot guy I see at a party. Or I could just wind up with gonorrhea. I don't know what effect my actions will have in the long run, but I try to do the best with what i know. Currently, my dinners tend to consist of 30 boxes of macaroni and cheese. If I had a kid, s/he would probably starve. Anyways, the world is overpopulated as it is, and I'm planning on adopting when I do have kids.
Actually- overpopulation is a lie. The world isn't overpopulated- the truth is that we've got a few people who are way too greedy is the ONLY problem- we already grow enough food for twice our current population.
I'll grant you that- at least partially, they do not have a nervous system the same as we do. They DO have an analogous biochemical system- but it reacts one heck of a lot slower, and it's not electrical in nature as ours is.
The nervous system is what allows us to feel pain.
Actually, that's completely unproven. The closest you can get to this statement is that the nervous system transmits impulses that the brain reacts to AS IF it is feeling pain- which then transmits impulses back down to react to pain. Thinking- how the brain reacts- is still largely a mysterious process to us.
Plants also do not have a brain, which is what makes one capable of thought.
Maybe true- maybe not. We don't know for a fact that it is the brain at all that allows us to think. Thinking is axiomatic at this time and there is no physical proof that we do think beyond the effects of that thought on bioelectric and biochemical processes. For that matter, many animals that have nervous systems don't have brains either- and yet react with something aproximating our thought processes equally quickly (sometimes quicker- since the local ganglion is closer to the muscle than the brain). Our brains make us slow in comparison to an earthworm reacting to its environment- by that definition, does that mean by an earthworms' standards we don't think?
If you can prove to me that plants can feel pain and think, I will rethink my position.
I can't even prove that I feel pain and think, when I come right down to it- those are axiomatic and there is no proof either way for them beyond saying that I respond *as if* I feel and think. No wonder you think this issue is complex- once you put thinking and feeling into it, you take it out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy. I can point to a DNA structure under a scanning elctron microscope and say "that exists". I can't point to thinking and feeling and say that it exists. I CAN, however, point to the fact that many plants do indeed react to their envrionment- from Venus Flytraps to apple trees- with something that approximates what we call "thinking"- just in a much slower and less concious fashion- but then once again we're back into those non-scientific things like conciousness that I can't prove one way or the other to begin with.
Occam's Razor would be usefull here- genetics is by far the simpler explanation for when life begins.
I don't have all the answers, and I know if everyone stopped eating meat today that what to do with all the farm animals would be a big problem.
It's no real problem- in a capitalistic society, with no natural environmental support and no artifical economic support for their existance, they'd all die off rather rapidly. Based on my understanding from living on the farm, the whole shebang would be over in less than a decade, with all domestic farm species extinct. It'd be a far more painfull death, of course, than what modern science and modern slaughterhouses provide, but they'd die either way. The only choice is whether to use them as food or waste their lives-
Thank you for that by the way- it's the reason I respond to people who disagree with me. I can't wait to tell that new meme to my sister-in-law, who married a real carnivore and is slowly converting back to being an omnivore from a vegetarian (for those not of Indian subcontinent (Hindu) discent, not eating meat kills of a wide variety of enzymes in the stomach- usually permanently after about 6 years, and one becomes incapable of eating meat. For those of Hindu discent, those symbiotic viruses are simply not present in the system to begin with- and haven't been for about a thousand years now).
But just because I don't have the answer doesn't change how I feel about it.
There you go back into FEELING. Feelings are fine when you don't have enough information to go on- but to move from trusting them wh
Plants don't feel pain. An embryo right after conception can't feel pain. Animals can.
And you know this how? That's more belief than the genetic code thing- the most you can say is that plants and embryos do not *react* to intrusions into their bodies the same way that adults do. Feeling pain is another matter entirely, and is just a small part of that reaction (what you do about the pain matters more in an objective point of view on whether you feel pain or not than the actual pain itself). It's also false past the blastocyst stage- zygotes don't react to pain, but an embryo sure as hell does. Heck, anybody who's seen the first ultrasound of their child knows that embryos are tickleish- they'll kick and swim away from the stimulous of the sound waves (that's how my kid got his first nickname, Tadpole, before we replaced it with Beluga due to a certain song he used to go to sleep to in the first two weeks of life).
Humans are much better suited as herbivores than carnivores. Most other primates are herbivores.
Actually, most larger primates are omnivores- that's why we have incisors in our mouths as opposed to only molars. Next time look at your own physiology before even attempting such a conclusion.
I understand that. But does that make it ok to kill them?
It means that either it's ok to kill them or it's not ok for them to be alive in the first place- take your pick. Either don't keep them at all, or don't kill them- but either way they shouldn't be alive to begin with. Without the purpose of being killed for food, eventually (and sometimes given a haircut for clothing- I used to raise Polypay and got purple ribbons for the wool), most domestic farm animals have no evolutionary place in the cycle of life. This is a very important concept that just isn't being taught anymore in schools- purpose in the cycle of life is the *whole* reason behind the seemless garment of life, and behind everything we do as human beings. Without the cycle of life, we might as well all be cave men and food for lions, because that is all we deserve.
Is it really that hard to keep them alive? Some food, decent shelter, regular vet care? If it's really much harder why would anyone bother?
Because it's far easier getting a large ammount of food out of an animal than out of a plant. It's that regular vet care that will get to you- especially in a place like where I live in Northwestern Oregon. Back when I was raising sheep, hoof rot was my biggest problem- basically the sheep equivalent of athelete's foot, with much more dire results (a ewe or ram that can't move, can't graze and will starve to death). And that was just the biggest problem- others included selenium intake (lockjaw), stupidity (amazing how many lambs would get their head caught in the fence), heart attacks (just from being herded), etc. 10,000 years of breeding for domestication has left the gene pool weak- and it's not much better with plants (the bananna, for instance, is one good worldwide blight away from being entirely extinct).
Plants can't think or feel pain, so I don't find it immoral to kill them (within reason - I don't think one should clear-cut a forest for no reason whatsoever).
Once again, how do you know? A tree will react to being cut, eventually- it will bleed and slowly heal, or it will die if you cut too much off, not much different from a starfish. Same with any other plant. What you're reallly saying is "Plants do not react the same way we do, so it isn't immoral to kill them". I think my way's better- if a bit speciesist: Other species have their role to play in the cycle of life just like we do, and it's our role to manage it all, and be good stewards. It's wrong to clear cut because it's bad management and bad usage of the resources.
Animals can think and fell pain, so I find it immoral to kill them (within reason, if a bear was going to kill me, I wouldn't have a problem killing it).
I'm still unconvinced. There's still an implied philosophical (if not, as you say, religious) opinion underlying this "scientific fact". Put it this way, by your logic I can scientifically prove that an acorn is an oak tree.
Yep- the acorn is the same species as the oak tree. I've got no problem with that. Different stages of the life cycle makes no difference when you're talking about species- for that matter, the larva is the same as the bee, or the catapillar is the same as the butterfly.
I don't know about you but I would imagine there a lot of scientist who would beg to differ with that sort of glib analysis.
I don't imagine that because I've actually paid attention as the understanding has changed in the last 30 years.
You've assumed (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) that the single defining characteristic that makes a human a human, in an ontological sense, is their genetic makeup.
Yep- and differ it by 2% and you have a chimpanzee. Human is the name of a SPECIES- and Human Rights is the application of law to provide all members of the species equal protection.
This is certainly a valid opinion, one perhaps that is shared by many scientists. But I would still contented that it is a philosophical opinion not an incontrovertible fact.
Then you'd better abandon your support of any rights based on species- because it is an incontrovertible fact IF you accept the idea of speciation.
Beyond that I don't think we're actually in disagreement about anything. Certainly human beings should have the right to live without fear of being arbitrarily murdered. Although in all fairness I would have interpreted "social origin, property, birth or other status" to mean that I can't withhold the aforementioned rights based on when/where/to whom (not if) someone was born. But since I wasn't involved with writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and I'm willing to bet that neither were you) such interpretations are purely conjecture on both our parts.
True enough- you need to read a good biography of Elaenor Roosevelt if you want to know more (she was the principal author of that document of principles- just to get my spelling straight in my own head). She intended Article 2- and it's companion, Article 3- to be read as a support of anti-abortion laws. It took until 1990, though, and the Human Genome project, to change our point of view on speciation once again, to prove that the fetus is the same species as the adult. Before that, the inclusion of birth could be safely ignored based on the idea that in it's earliest stages a human fetus does not physically resemble the adult- any more than your hypothetical acorn resembles the oak tree.
An argument for the other side for a moment (and the reason I'm STILL voting for Kerry on this issue): The converse is also true. If the UDHR is the inalienable rights by which we judge governments, then a muderer does NOT automatically give up his Article 2 and Article 3 rights without some other need to protect society.
Well as I said in my original post, no not really. I think it's a thorny issue with no clear answers. I guess if I had to offer an argument (for the sake of the debate) I would say that we in fact don't have a scientific fact on when life begins, nor an international law argument defining when one becomes a person. All we have is philosophical/religious opinion, and it would be immoral for us to try and force our philosophical opinions on other people by fucking with the law.
It's more than that- we have the opinion of the framers on what the law meant, and we have something we can point to (the genetic code) to back up the scientific fact of speciation. This, against nothing more than a philosophical argument about a woman's body being hers and hers alone- when it's proveable that a second being is using it for that 9 months. You truly have no scientific backing for your philosophy, while those who believe in t
You mean you don't save it permanently- any browser downloads to your browser cache directory for any large image, or else you wouldn't be ABLE to view it. Even if the cache is in memory, you do DOWNLOAD the file.
How many of these had Kerry or Bush in their classes? Something tells me that the standard teacher disappointment in a student that fails to live up to his potential may be at work here...
Actually, there is no reason for the economy existing, it just does! It's a side effect of human interaction. No matter what your politics or beliefs, the economy will still be there as long as there's at least two human beings interacting with each other.
In that case, I choose to no longer participate in your stupid interactions that make you rich- can you just leave me the hell alone and not interfere in my life?
Of course not- you have to deny me food, clothing, water and shelter even if I build it with my own hands just so YOU can get rich. Denial of my human rights isn't reason enough to give you a free market.
Actually, the sperm and the egg are just as alive before and after fertilization.
But they're not a genetically unique individual until fertilization- and thus biologically not a separate life form from the parent. DNA is what makes you a human being- as opposed to merely human. What's so hard to understand about that?
And if life is so important, then why is it ok to kill an animal that is clearly alive and can clearly feel pain but not kill a organism with only a couple of cells that can't even feel pain or think?
Actually, that's the cycle of life and our place in the food chain. It's not right to kill anything for sport, or for economic advantage. It is right to kill for food- vegetarians even do it, killing plants for food. If you had grown up on a farm instead of in the city, you'd understand that the only reason some types of animals have been kept alive FAR PAST THEIR NATURAL EXTINCTION POINT, is for food. No sheep, chicken, pig, cow, goat, or any other domestic breed today, should be still in this world- except as food for humans. All you need to see this is spend a few years on a farm- and see how incredibly hard it is to keep these animals alive.
You do have the right to not have the state take part in the cooersion.
True enough- but the state isn't taking part in the coersion- the children are. Teach the children tolerance for other points of view, and that coersion goes away. Contribute to the censorship- and the children will continue to be cliquish and intollerant.
How did they find out you were a catholic with a TV? Did the teacher have some class event that exposed the fact you were not like them?
They all left the room when the teacher brought in a TV as a science class exhibit for the 1978 solar eclipse. I didn't.
Just to clarify my last post: I don't blaim my school for the fact that the other students were cruel to me. But if the actions of my school had brought the cruelty I would...
I don't. I blame censorship for the problem. If the teacher had explained beforehand that TV's are just tools, like the tractors all the GAC kids drove- it wouldn't have been a problem.
I am not so convinced that they will be less cruel. I think that result would require a critical percentage of different students. Did the apostolics in your school treat the next catholic less cruelly?
Yes they did- after a time. In that time, the school board got a little bit smarter and actually included a section on the history and evolution of belief structures in the cirriculum (dumbed down to age, but just the same), and ended the stupid censorship- at least until an athiest child moved into the district and their parents, being just as intollerant as any other religion- sued.
So please tell me why I would ever accept an income over $235,000? The answer is that I won't. By placing an income cap with taxation that extreme, you're creating a HUGE disincentive to earn wealth. You simply will not be scooping up all the excess cash, because there will not be any excess cash to scoop up! This is so basic it isn't "Economics 101", it's "Remedial Summer Session Economics for Jocks"!
That's the point- we don't really need the excess cash if people actually take care of each other. Just look at the 1950s for an example- the top income tax rate back then was 95%, yet it was the largest increase in the middle class ever.
If this is hard to understand, then lower the amounts down to your level. Suppose taxation was 1% for any income up to $50,000, and 95% for all incomes over $50,000. Now let's say you're earning $50,000 and your boss offers you a 5% raise. What do you do? If it were me I would tell my boss to take a hike! Before the raise my takehome is $49,500, and after the raise it's $49,625. Holy shit! That works out to something like six cents an hour wage increase! Like hell I'm going to busting my butt all year just for a six cent payraise!
That's why the limit is at $235,000 instead- anybody can live a life of luxury on $215,000/year. Wealth creation is not the reason for the economy existing- wealth creation is not a right in the constitution, nor is it a responsibility of the government. Providing for the common wellfare IS a responsibility of the government.
I would hope that you aren't going to bust your butt for anything. No human being in this day and age with robotics available should be working at a job they don't want to be at for reasons other than money.
Remove suspended animation/cryogenics and don't provide a mother for that embryo...
That would be murder- just as if you pulled the plug on Grandpa in the hospital to get your inheritance early.
It really has little basis on what would happen without that technology and the will of someone that doesn't want to have a child and is in the early stages of pregnancy.
So you agree that in-vitro adoption may soon make abortion unneccessary?
Take away the ambulance from a car accident and many people won't survive either- we call that criminal negligence. NO difference. Sorry, you can't discriminate on quality of life any more than you can discriminate on birth.
BTW- take away the cryogenics properly, with implantation into a womb- and you have a human being after a few months.
You do have the right to be free from the coersion, when the prayer is school/state/government sponsored.
The coersion quoted before was coming from STUDENTS, not the STATE.
As others have said, before school, after school, and even on breaks is fine. If a student feels the need to pray, they can do so silently without taking up the time of others during educational instructional.
My point is that by censoring the teacher from teaching that religions and beliefs exist- you're actually failing to educate at all.
Also realize, not everybody prays the same way. Some are much more vocal than others, worship different gods, have different customs. Once you open the floodgates, how do you give all individuals equal protection? The only fair way is for the school to remain neutral.
Gee, maybe by actually teaching kids to be more tolerant of other religions instead of censoring and protecting them from other religions?
"The moment sperm meets ovum" isn't based on religious dogma. Catholic religious dogma has, in the past, supported abortion through to the second week AFTER birth, through to the time of quickening, etc. It's only after MODERN SCIENCE and knowledge of GENETICS showed that the entire biological plan for an individual was present at conception, that the rules changed once more. It's not based on religious belief, it's based on science.
Beyond that- it's a matter of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and policed by Amnesty International, demands in Article 2:
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.(Emphasis mine)
This means that yes, you can't discriminate against HUMAN BEINGS based on whether they've been BORN or not. To do so is a violation of their human rights. Therefore, abortion being legal is a human rights violation- as nasty and evil of one as China running over protestors with tanks in Tinamen Square.
So we have BOTH a scientific fact on when life begins, and an international law arugment defining when one becomes a person. Do you have any backing for the fetus NOT having the right to life?
i guess it all comes down to whether you think that we are better off as a "work"-driven or "capital"-driven society.
Second reply- there's a third option rapidly approaching, and that's the robot-driven society. It will be marked by 75-90% unemployment, because human labor will be not economically viable any longer AT ALL. I've got some other long term ideas for how to deal with this beyond minimum/maximum wages- and all of them include using the money gained from the maximum wage cap to produce food, clothing, medical care, and shelter for the unemployed (but no luxuries beyond that).
why stop at 10x the amount? what makes 10 so special?
It's the point that Plato in his thought experiments found didn't create undue inflationary pressure on basic needs items. It would clearly have to be tinkered with in today's society- we might find it should be 100, or even 1000, times minimum wage.
you definition is just as arbitrary as mine.
Yes and no- there is some very old mathematics backing it up- read Plato's Republic.
hate to tell you this, but why the heck would anyone take the risk and deal with the punishment required to start a company if all they could make was $235,000?!?!?
I did- I'm under no illusions that Information-R-Us will ever earn it's founder anyplace close to that in a year. Millions of true small business owners work for less than this every single year. The reason is because FREEDOM is sometimes a better incentive than MONEY.
i guess it all comes down to whether you think that we are better off as a "work"-driven or "capital"-driven society.
Or the way I'd put it- it all comes down to whether you think the purpose of the economy is to make the few rich or to provide a basic living for all members of a society. If it's the first- then a capital-driven society makes sense, because only that way can a small number of people become spectacularily wealthy. If it's the second, a work-driven economy makes sense, because those who do not work should not eat.
Well, while I think progressive taxation is the way to go, it sounds like you're in favor of an income cap? Correct me if
I misunderstood you... I think that would be problematic in that it would quash any incentive for a person to be
productive once they hit the magic number.
A near cap- I think 95% would do and they'd get to keep the additional 5%. In addtion to that, those who are truly productive past this point need help- need to hire additional people to help out with the productivity, and I'd also be in favor of making the money used for that tax free. It's entirely possible that somebody like Bill Gates would defeat the cap entirely- keeping his $235,000 a year to live on and then being so incredibly productive with creating jobs and putting money into the Gates Foundation that he'd end up paying NO taxes whatsoever under this plan; which is fine with me as well, because those are things that government now doesn't have to do.
Money as incentive only goes so far; after a certain point of being able to fullfill all of your needs and wants, at the end of the day you'd better actually WANT to do what you're doing, because money just held on to is just so much green dead tree waste.
Major time! After suffering 4 years of Bush, one of the things I have been calling for (though not here on slashdot until this post) is splitting the nation in two along the rockies!
I have a way to do it nearly for free- but it would require forcing the rich into deciding between charity, payroll and government for where their excess dollars (beyond a token amount that ANYBODY could live a life of luxury on) goes. If done properly, we could have a two-bracket income tax system: 1% for almost everybody, but no loopholes, and 95% for the rich, with a standard full deduction for the first $235,000 of income, plus full deduction loopholes for charity and payroll (give all your excess money to charity, or use it to hire people in the United States- and we'll give you a complete pass on taxes). Do that, and we'll likely end up with a balance someplace between no government and minimal government- with the armed forces as a jobs program to soak up all the unemployed.
I'm socially conservative and morally liberal- the classic case of a cradle Catholic pro-life democrat, according to Deal Hudson, one time editor of Crisis Magazine (an extremely right-wing, but still orthodox, Catholic mag). I voted for Bush 4 years ago- and he's abandoned every issue I voted for. I'm not going to make that mistake again. Even if I end up voting for Peroutka instead.
Not if you take away the other reasons abortion is done it won't. But then you could point out that abortion wouldn't be done- regardless of whether it is legal or not.
It is in fact an issue of Human Rights. Given the recent insight that life begins at conception, scientifically validated, Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states unequivocally that discriminating against someone due to birth is not allowed. The current law of not protecting the unborn discriminates against the unborn- and is as evil, according to the UDHR, as any other form of discrimination.
Yes- in suspended animation. It's between 12 and 26 weeks that dependency on the mother's womb is absolutely required- and I expect, that will change as time goes on and technology increases.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the separation of church and state was about not establishing state religion and allowing the free expression of religion by ANYBODY- even "agents of Congress" which aren't mentioned in the Constitution. The first Ammendment reads:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nothing about preventing "agents of Congress" from the free exercise of personal religion, in fact, Congress can make no law RESPECTING establishment of religion OR prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That means that Congress can't make any laws preventing school prayer either- a strict reading of the Constitution shows that the intent of the Founding Fathers with separation of Church and State was freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM the religion of your fellow citizens. Thus yes, tolerance was EXACTLY what they wanted.
I think feelings are important for any moralistic arguement. Why is killing bad? Why is stealing bad? If I could scientically prove with hard evidence that, say, killing George Bush would be better for the world, would that make it moral? Or, who cares about anyone else, what if it was just better for me? But I do care about other people, I *feel* that it is wrong to hurt them.
By the principle of double effect- killing George Bush would be immoral- but NOT killing him would be even more immoral. Thus he should be killed. Just being better for the one- well, the needs of the few are outweighed by the needs of the many. When evidence overwhelms feeling, actions against feelings must be taken.
Sorry, you're talking to a girl who's been in a loving, monogamous relationship for years with birth control. My father and stepmother have a loving monogamous relationship while using birth control for about 20 years. It's not a denial of love.
If you don't love the guy enough to have his children, what the heck are you doing having sex with him? The whole purpose of sex is to experience a love so real that 9 months later you have to give it a name. There is no purpose to sex beyond that- recreational sex is a lie.
I don't see how it's a denial of feelings, and I see even less that it's for no good purpose or without evidence. I can't afford to raise a kid right now (a purpose) and it definately has evidence to back up that it works.
Works for what? To pretend that you love your husband without actually going through the sacrifices necessary to "afford" a child that is proof of that love? Love has a purpose in human biology- passing on the genes to the next generation. Denying love it's purpose denies that reality- and turns love into a lie.
Correlation != Causation.
And yet- once couples discover the idea of the fullness of sex being a method of fullfilling life, few rarely return.
I also could create the next Jesus Christ or Ghandi by sleeping with the next hot guy I see at a party. Or I could just wind up with gonorrhea. I don't know what effect my actions will have in the long run, but I try to do the best with what i know. Currently, my dinners tend to consist of 30 boxes of macaroni and cheese. If I had a kid, s/he would probably starve. Anyways, the world is overpopulated as it is, and I'm planning on adopting when I do have kids.
Actually- overpopulation is a lie. The world isn't overpopulated- the truth is that we've got a few people who are way too greedy is the ONLY problem- we already grow enough food for twice our current population.
Plants do not have a nervous system.
I'll grant you that- at least partially, they do not have a nervous system the same as we do. They DO have an analogous biochemical system- but it reacts one heck of a lot slower, and it's not electrical in nature as ours is.
The nervous system is what allows us to feel pain.
Actually, that's completely unproven. The closest you can get to this statement is that the nervous system transmits impulses that the brain reacts to AS IF it is feeling pain- which then transmits impulses back down to react to pain. Thinking- how the brain reacts- is still largely a mysterious process to us.
Plants also do not have a brain, which is what makes one capable of thought.
Maybe true- maybe not. We don't know for a fact that it is the brain at all that allows us to think. Thinking is axiomatic at this time and there is no physical proof that we do think beyond the effects of that thought on bioelectric and biochemical processes. For that matter, many animals that have nervous systems don't have brains either- and yet react with something aproximating our thought processes equally quickly (sometimes quicker- since the local ganglion is closer to the muscle than the brain). Our brains make us slow in comparison to an earthworm reacting to its environment- by that definition, does that mean by an earthworms' standards we don't think?
If you can prove to me that plants can feel pain and think, I will rethink my position.
I can't even prove that I feel pain and think, when I come right down to it- those are axiomatic and there is no proof either way for them beyond saying that I respond *as if* I feel and think. No wonder you think this issue is complex- once you put thinking and feeling into it, you take it out of the realm of science and into the realm of philosophy. I can point to a DNA structure under a scanning elctron microscope and say "that exists". I can't point to thinking and feeling and say that it exists. I CAN, however, point to the fact that many plants do indeed react to their envrionment- from Venus Flytraps to apple trees- with something that approximates what we call "thinking"- just in a much slower and less concious fashion- but then once again we're back into those non-scientific things like conciousness that I can't prove one way or the other to begin with.
Occam's Razor would be usefull here- genetics is by far the simpler explanation for when life begins.
I don't have all the answers, and I know if everyone stopped eating meat today that what to do with all the farm animals would be a big problem.
It's no real problem- in a capitalistic society, with no natural environmental support and no artifical economic support for their existance, they'd all die off rather rapidly. Based on my understanding from living on the farm, the whole shebang would be over in less than a decade, with all domestic farm species extinct. It'd be a far more painfull death, of course, than what modern science and modern slaughterhouses provide, but they'd die either way. The only choice is whether to use them as food or waste their lives-
Thank you for that by the way- it's the reason I respond to people who disagree with me. I can't wait to tell that new meme to my sister-in-law, who married a real carnivore and is slowly converting back to being an omnivore from a vegetarian (for those not of Indian subcontinent (Hindu) discent, not eating meat kills of a wide variety of enzymes in the stomach- usually permanently after about 6 years, and one becomes incapable of eating meat. For those of Hindu discent, those symbiotic viruses are simply not present in the system to begin with- and haven't been for about a thousand years now).
But just because I don't have the answer doesn't change how I feel about it.
There you go back into FEELING. Feelings are fine when you don't have enough information to go on- but to move from trusting them wh
Plants don't feel pain. An embryo right after conception can't feel pain. Animals can.
And you know this how? That's more belief than the genetic code thing- the most you can say is that plants and embryos do not *react* to intrusions into their bodies the same way that adults do. Feeling pain is another matter entirely, and is just a small part of that reaction (what you do about the pain matters more in an objective point of view on whether you feel pain or not than the actual pain itself). It's also false past the blastocyst stage- zygotes don't react to pain, but an embryo sure as hell does. Heck, anybody who's seen the first ultrasound of their child knows that embryos are tickleish- they'll kick and swim away from the stimulous of the sound waves (that's how my kid got his first nickname, Tadpole, before we replaced it with Beluga due to a certain song he used to go to sleep to in the first two weeks of life).
Humans are much better suited as herbivores than carnivores. Most other primates are herbivores.
Actually, most larger primates are omnivores- that's why we have incisors in our mouths as opposed to only molars. Next time look at your own physiology before even attempting such a conclusion.
I understand that. But does that make it ok to kill them?
It means that either it's ok to kill them or it's not ok for them to be alive in the first place- take your pick. Either don't keep them at all, or don't kill them- but either way they shouldn't be alive to begin with. Without the purpose of being killed for food, eventually (and sometimes given a haircut for clothing- I used to raise Polypay and got purple ribbons for the wool), most domestic farm animals have no evolutionary place in the cycle of life. This is a very important concept that just isn't being taught anymore in schools- purpose in the cycle of life is the *whole* reason behind the seemless garment of life, and behind everything we do as human beings. Without the cycle of life, we might as well all be cave men and food for lions, because that is all we deserve.
Is it really that hard to keep them alive? Some food, decent shelter, regular vet care? If it's really much harder why would anyone bother?
Because it's far easier getting a large ammount of food out of an animal than out of a plant. It's that regular vet care that will get to you- especially in a place like where I live in Northwestern Oregon. Back when I was raising sheep, hoof rot was my biggest problem- basically the sheep equivalent of athelete's foot, with much more dire results (a ewe or ram that can't move, can't graze and will starve to death). And that was just the biggest problem- others included selenium intake (lockjaw), stupidity (amazing how many lambs would get their head caught in the fence), heart attacks (just from being herded), etc. 10,000 years of breeding for domestication has left the gene pool weak- and it's not much better with plants (the bananna, for instance, is one good worldwide blight away from being entirely extinct).
Plants can't think or feel pain, so I don't find it immoral to kill them (within reason - I don't think one should clear-cut a forest for no reason whatsoever).
Once again, how do you know? A tree will react to being cut, eventually- it will bleed and slowly heal, or it will die if you cut too much off, not much different from a starfish. Same with any other plant. What you're reallly saying is "Plants do not react the same way we do, so it isn't immoral to kill them". I think my way's better- if a bit speciesist: Other species have their role to play in the cycle of life just like we do, and it's our role to manage it all, and be good stewards. It's wrong to clear cut because it's bad management and bad usage of the resources.
Animals can think and fell pain, so I find it immoral to kill them (within reason, if a bear was going to kill me, I wouldn't have a problem killing it).
Or if you we
I'm still unconvinced. There's still an implied philosophical (if not, as you say, religious) opinion underlying this "scientific fact". Put it this way, by your logic I can scientifically prove that an acorn is an oak tree.
Yep- the acorn is the same species as the oak tree. I've got no problem with that. Different stages of the life cycle makes no difference when you're talking about species- for that matter, the larva is the same as the bee, or the catapillar is the same as the butterfly.
I don't know about you but I would imagine there a lot of scientist who would beg to differ with that sort of glib analysis.
I don't imagine that because I've actually paid attention as the understanding has changed in the last 30 years.
You've assumed (correct me if I'm misinterpreting you) that the single defining characteristic that makes a human a human, in an ontological sense, is their genetic makeup.
Yep- and differ it by 2% and you have a chimpanzee. Human is the name of a SPECIES- and Human Rights is the application of law to provide all members of the species equal protection.
This is certainly a valid opinion, one perhaps that is shared by many scientists. But I would still contented that it is a philosophical opinion not an incontrovertible fact.
Then you'd better abandon your support of any rights based on species- because it is an incontrovertible fact IF you accept the idea of speciation.
Beyond that I don't think we're actually in disagreement about anything. Certainly human beings should have the right to live without fear of being arbitrarily murdered. Although in all fairness I would have interpreted "social origin, property, birth or other status" to mean that I can't withhold the aforementioned rights based on when/where/to whom (not if) someone was born. But since I wasn't involved with writing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (and I'm willing to bet that neither were you) such interpretations are purely conjecture on both our parts.
True enough- you need to read a good biography of Elaenor Roosevelt if you want to know more (she was the principal author of that document of principles- just to get my spelling straight in my own head). She intended Article 2- and it's companion, Article 3- to be read as a support of anti-abortion laws. It took until 1990, though, and the Human Genome project, to change our point of view on speciation once again, to prove that the fetus is the same species as the adult. Before that, the inclusion of birth could be safely ignored based on the idea that in it's earliest stages a human fetus does not physically resemble the adult- any more than your hypothetical acorn resembles the oak tree.
An argument for the other side for a moment (and the reason I'm STILL voting for Kerry on this issue): The converse is also true. If the UDHR is the inalienable rights by which we judge governments, then a muderer does NOT automatically give up his Article 2 and Article 3 rights without some other need to protect society.
Well as I said in my original post, no not really. I think it's a thorny issue with no clear answers. I guess if I had to offer an argument (for the sake of the debate) I would say that we in fact don't have a scientific fact on when life begins, nor an international law argument defining when one becomes a person. All we have is philosophical/religious opinion, and it would be immoral for us to try and force our philosophical opinions on other people by fucking with the law.
It's more than that- we have the opinion of the framers on what the law meant, and we have something we can point to (the genetic code) to back up the scientific fact of speciation. This, against nothing more than a philosophical argument about a woman's body being hers and hers alone- when it's proveable that a second being is using it for that 9 months. You truly have no scientific backing for your philosophy, while those who believe in t
I don't even bother downloading it locally.
You mean you don't save it permanently- any browser downloads to your browser cache directory for any large image, or else you wouldn't be ABLE to view it. Even if the cache is in memory, you do DOWNLOAD the file.
How many of these had Kerry or Bush in their classes? Something tells me that the standard teacher disappointment in a student that fails to live up to his potential may be at work here...
Actually, there is no reason for the economy existing, it just does! It's a side effect of human interaction. No matter what your politics or beliefs, the economy will still be there as long as there's at least two human beings interacting with each other.
In that case, I choose to no longer participate in your stupid interactions that make you rich- can you just leave me the hell alone and not interfere in my life?
Of course not- you have to deny me food, clothing, water and shelter even if I build it with my own hands just so YOU can get rich. Denial of my human rights isn't reason enough to give you a free market.
Actually, the sperm and the egg are just as alive before and after fertilization.
But they're not a genetically unique individual until fertilization- and thus biologically not a separate life form from the parent. DNA is what makes you a human being- as opposed to merely human. What's so hard to understand about that?
And if life is so important, then why is it ok to kill an animal that is clearly alive and can clearly feel pain but not kill a organism with only a couple of cells that can't even feel pain or think?
Actually, that's the cycle of life and our place in the food chain. It's not right to kill anything for sport, or for economic advantage. It is right to kill for food- vegetarians even do it, killing plants for food. If you had grown up on a farm instead of in the city, you'd understand that the only reason some types of animals have been kept alive FAR PAST THEIR NATURAL EXTINCTION POINT, is for food. No sheep, chicken, pig, cow, goat, or any other domestic breed today, should be still in this world- except as food for humans. All you need to see this is spend a few years on a farm- and see how incredibly hard it is to keep these animals alive.
You do have the right to not have the state take part in the cooersion.
True enough- but the state isn't taking part in the coersion- the children are. Teach the children tolerance for other points of view, and that coersion goes away. Contribute to the censorship- and the children will continue to be cliquish and intollerant.
How did they find out you were a catholic with a TV? Did the teacher have some class event that exposed the fact you were not like them?
They all left the room when the teacher brought in a TV as a science class exhibit for the 1978 solar eclipse. I didn't.
Just to clarify my last post: I don't blaim my school for the fact that the other students were cruel to me. But if the actions of my school had brought the cruelty I would...
I don't. I blame censorship for the problem. If the teacher had explained beforehand that TV's are just tools, like the tractors all the GAC kids drove- it wouldn't have been a problem.
I am not so convinced that they will be less cruel. I think that result would require a critical percentage of different students. Did the apostolics in your school treat the next catholic less cruelly?
Yes they did- after a time. In that time, the school board got a little bit smarter and actually included a section on the history and evolution of belief structures in the cirriculum (dumbed down to age, but just the same), and ended the stupid censorship- at least until an athiest child moved into the district and their parents, being just as intollerant as any other religion- sued.
So please tell me why I would ever accept an income over $235,000? The answer is that I won't. By placing an income cap with taxation that extreme, you're creating a HUGE disincentive to earn wealth. You simply will not be scooping up all the excess cash, because there will not be any excess cash to scoop up! This is so basic it isn't "Economics 101", it's "Remedial Summer Session Economics for Jocks"!
That's the point- we don't really need the excess cash if people actually take care of each other. Just look at the 1950s for an example- the top income tax rate back then was 95%, yet it was the largest increase in the middle class ever.
If this is hard to understand, then lower the amounts down to your level. Suppose taxation was 1% for any income up to $50,000, and 95% for all incomes over $50,000. Now let's say you're earning $50,000 and your boss offers you a 5% raise. What do you do? If it were me I would tell my boss to take a hike! Before the raise my takehome is $49,500, and after the raise it's $49,625. Holy shit! That works out to something like six cents an hour wage increase! Like hell I'm going to busting my butt all year just for a six cent payraise!
That's why the limit is at $235,000 instead- anybody can live a life of luxury on $215,000/year. Wealth creation is not the reason for the economy existing- wealth creation is not a right in the constitution, nor is it a responsibility of the government. Providing for the common wellfare IS a responsibility of the government.
I would hope that you aren't going to bust your butt for anything. No human being in this day and age with robotics available should be working at a job they don't want to be at for reasons other than money.
Remove suspended animation/cryogenics and don't provide a mother for that embryo...
That would be murder- just as if you pulled the plug on Grandpa in the hospital to get your inheritance early.
It really has little basis on what would happen without that technology and the will of someone that doesn't want to have a child and is in the early stages of pregnancy.
So you agree that in-vitro adoption may soon make abortion unneccessary?
Take away the ambulance from a car accident and many people won't survive either- we call that criminal negligence. NO difference. Sorry, you can't discriminate on quality of life any more than you can discriminate on birth.
BTW- take away the cryogenics properly, with implantation into a womb- and you have a human being after a few months.
You do have the right to be free from the coersion, when the prayer is school/state/government sponsored.
The coersion quoted before was coming from STUDENTS, not the STATE.
As others have said, before school, after school, and even on breaks is fine. If a student feels the need to pray, they can do so silently without taking up the time of others during educational instructional.
My point is that by censoring the teacher from teaching that religions and beliefs exist- you're actually failing to educate at all.
Also realize, not everybody prays the same way. Some are much more vocal than others, worship different gods, have different customs. Once you open the floodgates, how do you give all individuals equal protection? The only fair way is for the school to remain neutral.
Gee, maybe by actually teaching kids to be more tolerant of other religions instead of censoring and protecting them from other religions?
"The moment sperm meets ovum" isn't based on religious dogma. Catholic religious dogma has, in the past, supported abortion through to the second week AFTER birth, through to the time of quickening, etc. It's only after MODERN SCIENCE and knowledge of GENETICS showed that the entire biological plan for an individual was present at conception, that the rules changed once more. It's not based on religious belief, it's based on science.
Beyond that- it's a matter of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and policed by Amnesty International, demands in Article 2:
Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.(Emphasis mine)
This means that yes, you can't discriminate against HUMAN BEINGS based on whether they've been BORN or not. To do so is a violation of their human rights. Therefore, abortion being legal is a human rights violation- as nasty and evil of one as China running over protestors with tanks in Tinamen Square.
So we have BOTH a scientific fact on when life begins, and an international law arugment defining when one becomes a person. Do you have any backing for the fetus NOT having the right to life?
i guess it all comes down to whether you think that we are better off as a "work"-driven or "capital"-driven society.
Second reply- there's a third option rapidly approaching, and that's the robot-driven society. It will be marked by 75-90% unemployment, because human labor will be not economically viable any longer AT ALL. I've got some other long term ideas for how to deal with this beyond minimum/maximum wages- and all of them include using the money gained from the maximum wage cap to produce food, clothing, medical care, and shelter for the unemployed (but no luxuries beyond that).
why stop at 10x the amount? what makes 10 so special?
It's the point that Plato in his thought experiments found didn't create undue inflationary pressure on basic needs items. It would clearly have to be tinkered with in today's society- we might find it should be 100, or even 1000, times minimum wage.
you definition is just as arbitrary as mine.
Yes and no- there is some very old mathematics backing it up- read Plato's Republic.
hate to tell you this, but why the heck would anyone take the risk and deal with the punishment required to start a company if all they could make was $235,000?!?!?
I did- I'm under no illusions that Information-R-Us will ever earn it's founder anyplace close to that in a year. Millions of true small business owners work for less than this every single year. The reason is because FREEDOM is sometimes a better incentive than MONEY.
i guess it all comes down to whether you think that we are better off as a "work"-driven or "capital"-driven society.
Or the way I'd put it- it all comes down to whether you think the purpose of the economy is to make the few rich or to provide a basic living for all members of a society. If it's the first- then a capital-driven society makes sense, because only that way can a small number of people become spectacularily wealthy. If it's the second, a work-driven economy makes sense, because those who do not work should not eat.
Yes- but the Republicans think he did, and none of this is actually about reality, but rather about perception.
Well, while I think progressive taxation is the way to go, it sounds like you're in favor of an income cap? Correct me if I misunderstood you... I think that would be problematic in that it would quash any incentive for a person to be productive once they hit the magic number.
A near cap- I think 95% would do and they'd get to keep the additional 5%. In addtion to that, those who are truly productive past this point need help- need to hire additional people to help out with the productivity, and I'd also be in favor of making the money used for that tax free. It's entirely possible that somebody like Bill Gates would defeat the cap entirely- keeping his $235,000 a year to live on and then being so incredibly productive with creating jobs and putting money into the Gates Foundation that he'd end up paying NO taxes whatsoever under this plan; which is fine with me as well, because those are things that government now doesn't have to do.
Money as incentive only goes so far; after a certain point of being able to fullfill all of your needs and wants, at the end of the day you'd better actually WANT to do what you're doing, because money just held on to is just so much green dead tree waste.
Major time! After suffering 4 years of Bush, one of the things I have been calling for (though not here on slashdot until this post) is splitting the nation in two along the rockies!
I have a way to do it nearly for free- but it would require forcing the rich into deciding between charity, payroll and government for where their excess dollars (beyond a token amount that ANYBODY could live a life of luxury on) goes. If done properly, we could have a two-bracket income tax system: 1% for almost everybody, but no loopholes, and 95% for the rich, with a standard full deduction for the first $235,000 of income, plus full deduction loopholes for charity and payroll (give all your excess money to charity, or use it to hire people in the United States- and we'll give you a complete pass on taxes). Do that, and we'll likely end up with a balance someplace between no government and minimal government- with the armed forces as a jobs program to soak up all the unemployed.
I'm socially conservative and morally liberal- the classic case of a cradle Catholic pro-life democrat, according to Deal Hudson, one time editor of Crisis Magazine (an extremely right-wing, but still orthodox, Catholic mag). I voted for Bush 4 years ago- and he's abandoned every issue I voted for. I'm not going to make that mistake again. Even if I end up voting for Peroutka instead.
Not if you take away the other reasons abortion is done it won't. But then you could point out that abortion wouldn't be done- regardless of whether it is legal or not.
It is in fact an issue of Human Rights. Given the recent insight that life begins at conception, scientifically validated, Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states unequivocally that discriminating against someone due to birth is not allowed. The current law of not protecting the unborn discriminates against the unborn- and is as evil, according to the UDHR, as any other form of discrimination.
Yes- in suspended animation. It's between 12 and 26 weeks that dependency on the mother's womb is absolutely required- and I expect, that will change as time goes on and technology increases.