Henry VII was married once, Henry VIII married the following:
Catherine of Aragon (Mother of Mary I) - marriage annulled Anne Boleyn (Mother of Elizabeth I) - executed Jane Seymour (Mother of Edward VI) - executed Anne of Cleves - executed Catherine Howard - executed Catherine Parr - survived him
Seriously... check some facts, man. I count six wives there.
Take a trip to Leeds, the castle there has all kinds of facts about him, like for example: in addition to being an excellent horseman, he was also a top theologian. Quite right, quite right. Just make sure you clean up your bad marriages before you begin the new ones, right? Why did he even bother with divorce the first time? He could have just had her executed, and no problem with the pope...
And for the record, Luther founded the Lutheran church... not protestantism. The Calvanists don't have anything to do with Luther, nor does the Church of England, which is just as protestant (although it is a lot more like the Catholic Church) as the Lutherans. There were plenty of people who at one time or another protested Catholicism, the difference is they were unsuccessful and were called heretics and burned or whatever. The protestants had enough political support to survive.
Why wouldn't you cite the actual encarta page? Since Encarta's not a good encyclopedia to begin with, here's a decent citation:
"Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Seven Continental Areas, Mid-1994." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
15 Jul, 2003 http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=125916.
Britannica lists Athiests as 4% of the population. Non-religious is another 16%, but Asia really skews that figure, by adding about a billion to it.
Laws can change for a variety of reasons - not necessarily because people's convictions change. And sure, people's convictions can and do get changed by force of law over time. Most people in the former German Democratic Republic were religious before the communists took control, and now only about 1/5 are religious because of state encouragement to renounce religion. Only a fraction of those are actively religious.
But anyhow, the parent is correct - the non-religious are in a minority, and believe it or not, cultural biases evolved for a reason. There is a reason why the traditional family is structured the way that it is (e.g. the woman would stay home because it was most convenient - there's no way a woman could work the fields during or shortly after pregnancy). What is debateable is if we are socially or technologically at a point where these cultural biases/norms can be changed without breaking down the social order because we did not think out our changes through well enough before we started dickering with things. It's a valid point, address it...
For the most part, religious ideals are reflected in the laws of the land - especially in the US, where the land was founded upon religious principles, even though the left would probably want to renounce the country's heritage.
As far as "diversity" goes - what the heck is that? Sure most major religions have a lots of different types of people in them. The only ones that don't probably meet in strip malls. However, Any religion worth its salt has a set of religious ideals, and if you do not believe them you are not a follower of that religion. Be as "diverse" as you want within those confines and you're fine, but for example a Roman Catholic cannot have an abortion, watch pr0n, and/or be a practicing homosexual in good conscience. That person would simply not be Catholic, but I'm sure there's some religion they could get by in, should they want it.
And your opener: Your arguments are almost completely based upon personal conviction, thus they are difficult to reason with. is just a bunch of unnecessary crap - he made an argument, you addressed it, you didn't have to resort to some sort of "since my argument was based on 'fact' I can't argue with you" BS.
Apple would be smart to recognize that a person that has used a PC since "DOS became graphical" will more likely stick with a PC (and its ultra cheap components) than make the switch to the proprietary Mac world.
Except that proprietary doesn't really describe the Mac world anymore... Mac OS X is pretty darned standards compliant, and Macs, after the switch to PCI and especially with the new world machines are basically made from off-the-shelf components.
Now, I'll give you the price differential... Macs might come at a slight premium, but it always depends upon the model/configuration. (The flat panel iMac was way cheaper than comparable wintel FP machines when it was introduced.)
How 'bout you check your facts before you start yapp'n?
MOHAA has been out for a while on the mac - buy it here. Spearhead's there too.
Sure there aren't quite as many Mac games, but there are more than I have money or time for... There probaby aren't as many games for the Mac because way back in the day it used to be an epithet to say that a computer was for games.
It makes sense to try and be logical about things like this. Decisions shouldn't be made on religious arguments as religious arguments are by their very nature based on choosing to ignore logic and instead just believe what someone tells you to do, to have faith.
That's pretty jaded and cynical. Religion and logic are not necessarily opposed to one another. What a televangelist preaches might be opposed to logic. However, one can't really believe something unless one tries to understand it, nor can one judge something unless one tries to understand it. +4 for being fashionable though. Read some Kant, Aquinas or Augustine and tell me that they can't be logical. You might not agree with their logic, but they clearly have the power of reason well in grip and were simultaneously deeply religious.
We eat plenty of living things, plants, animals etc, no one seems to get upset about that. People are animals and other than being self aware and more intelligent than any other animal on this planet we are quite similar physically and genetically.
Spoken like a vegan, well except for lumping vegetables in there with the animals... I suppose there's room for dirt eaters. But yeah, traditionally argument goes that it's man's intelligence that puts him above the other beings on the planet for the very fact that he is driven by something other than instinct, and that makes him civilized. ("He" used to denote mankind, which is inclusive of both genders.) It's pretty apparent from context that we were discussing about "human life" rather than simply life in general.
My point exactly. Animals and underdeveloped humans are not self conscious. As such they aren't aware of themselves. A 1 week old baby is not self-aware but since it has been born it isn't infringing on the life of the mother anymore so there isn't any justification for abortion post-birth.
The issue of murder is one of rights. The mother has a right to do as she pleases with cells inside of her body, once the fetus is born and independent of the mother, not impacting her, things change and the mother doesn't have the same kind of rights over the baby.
There are several problems with your reasoning. Just because the law currently backs you up does not make it right (It didn't make Jim Crow right, either). Why does she have that right? If you can't explain it, you're no better than an unthinking religious zelot, and you probably wouldn't want that...
You seem to agree that there's not a significant distiction between a baby before birth and after, or at least in any case there is no clear deliniation between when this "mass of tissue" becomes a baby.
Much of this is written from the perspective of one who really hasn't examined the parent/child relationship very well. In utero the baby is dependent upon the mother by default, but children are dependent upon the mother after birth for at least as long as before, and in more ways.
As far as these cells inside the mother's body goes - it only needs warmth and nutrition, same as a infant or child (granted, children become decreasingly dependent upon their parents). Modern medicine has made so many advances lately that a premature baby can be viable almost back to the time that a woman might notice that she's first pregnant. So she has the ability to kill her baby (ex utero) and her child in many different ways, but never does she have the moral right to do so, because otherwise they would be able to turn into self-aware individuals.
Heck, the doctors had well over a week in which my premature son was completely dependent upon them for life. They had the power to end his life, why didn't they have the right to do so? Because of location?
The pro-abortion lobby even concedes that "viable fetuses" shouldn't be abortable. Location doesn't matter if the child can safely be removed from the mother. If it's morally unjust to end a child's life, why don't those reasons apply to the child before birth? Loca
Actually it didn't make stem cell research illegal. The whole point was could federal grants (almost all big science - big being the operative word - is federally funded) be used to fund stem cell research. Bush made exceptions so that federal money could be used. Privately funded stem cell research continues as it had before.
A single cell is hardly a human being. Are two cells a person? Three? A fetus is an undeveloped person, thats why it is called a fetus and not a person.
You can take this argument in the other direction too - Is a birthed baby a person? Sure. Was it the day before it was born? What about one born a week prematurely? Two weeks? 14 weeks? With new medical developments "fetal viability" is a moving ever closer to conception. In every country where abortion is legal, in practicality, gestational age does not matter. Calling it a fetus is pure rhetoric designed to make sure that it is nothing you could get emotionally attached to. The whole issue is mired with carefully chosen rhetoric.
Does having fewer cells disqualify you from life? At what point? Is a 1 week old baby self-aware? Heck, it hasn't even discovered its own fingers yet. Sure it cries, but it would have cried in the womb, if it weren't surrounded in liquid. Heck, there are plenty of middle-aged people around here that aren't really self-conscious...
Usually the argument becomes subject to the volition of the mother, like in your last paragraph. At that point it completely ignores the baby/fetus and whether or not it is a life. If it is a life, then abortion is murder, even the woman chooses it.
Going back to the topic at hand, the problem is this: I have to pay taxes. Some people want the federal government to support stem cell research with my money. Fine except that Americans have the right to worship as they please. My religion pretty clearly articulates the sanctity of life making such research the moral equivalent of running a Ziklon shower in Buchenwald. I'm kind of stuck here...
You want to pay for the research, great, but don't force me to. Bush came close to making everyone happy on this issue - (except that abortionists aren't happy unless everyone agrees with them. Let me choose to be pro-life. Geeze.)
Lincoln didn't really want equal rights for minorities in the current sense of the term... unless you're going to argue that segregation could actually make a "separate but equal" system work. Of course being anti-slavery was a bit better than the Democratic Party of the day... (Buchanan was probably the most ineffective president ever, even compared with the current and past few presidents...)
But this is typical of the left - bash the right, don't say anything about yourself. Call them polluters, but vote to keep fuel efficiency standards low, which is probably OK, as long as we keep those Alaskans safe from themselves.
FWIW, the right is fine with equal rights... it's things like affirmative action that ruffle feathers. Sure there are arguments to be made in favor of it, but there are many decent reasons to oppose it too...
Slashdot Mirror
Henry VII was married once, Henry VIII married the following:
Catherine of Aragon (Mother of Mary I) - marriage annulled
Anne Boleyn (Mother of Elizabeth I) - executed
Jane Seymour (Mother of Edward VI) - executed
Anne of Cleves - executed
Catherine Howard - executed
Catherine Parr - survived him
Seriously... check some facts, man. I count six wives there.
Take a trip to Leeds, the castle there has all kinds of facts about him, like for example: in addition to being an excellent horseman, he was also a top theologian. Quite right, quite right. Just make sure you clean up your bad marriages before you begin the new ones, right? Why did he even bother with divorce the first time? He could have just had her executed, and no problem with the pope...
And for the record, Luther founded the Lutheran church... not protestantism. The Calvanists don't have anything to do with Luther, nor does the Church of England, which is just as protestant (although it is a lot more like the Catholic Church) as the Lutherans. There were plenty of people who at one time or another protested Catholicism, the difference is they were unsuccessful and were called heretics and burned or whatever. The protestants had enough political support to survive.
Why wouldn't you cite the actual encarta page? Since Encarta's not a good encyclopedia to begin with, here's a decent citation:
"Worldwide Adherents of All Religions by Seven Continental Areas, Mid-1994." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 15 Jul, 2003 http://search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=125916.
Britannica lists Athiests as 4% of the population. Non-religious is another 16%, but Asia really skews that figure, by adding about a billion to it.
Laws can change for a variety of reasons - not necessarily because people's convictions change. And sure, people's convictions can and do get changed by force of law over time. Most people in the former German Democratic Republic were religious before the communists took control, and now only about 1/5 are religious because of state encouragement to renounce religion. Only a fraction of those are actively religious.
But anyhow, the parent is correct - the non-religious are in a minority, and believe it or not, cultural biases evolved for a reason. There is a reason why the traditional family is structured the way that it is (e.g. the woman would stay home because it was most convenient - there's no way a woman could work the fields during or shortly after pregnancy). What is debateable is if we are socially or technologically at a point where these cultural biases/norms can be changed without breaking down the social order because we did not think out our changes through well enough before we started dickering with things. It's a valid point, address it...
For the most part, religious ideals are reflected in the laws of the land - especially in the US, where the land was founded upon religious principles, even though the left would probably want to renounce the country's heritage.
As far as "diversity" goes - what the heck is that? Sure most major religions have a lots of different types of people in them. The only ones that don't probably meet in strip malls. However, Any religion worth its salt has a set of religious ideals, and if you do not believe them you are not a follower of that religion. Be as "diverse" as you want within those confines and you're fine, but for example a Roman Catholic cannot have an abortion, watch pr0n, and/or be a practicing homosexual in good conscience. That person would simply not be Catholic, but I'm sure there's some religion they could get by in, should they want it.
And your opener: Your arguments are almost completely based upon personal conviction, thus they are difficult to reason with. is just a bunch of unnecessary crap - he made an argument, you addressed it, you didn't have to resort to some sort of "since my argument was based on 'fact' I can't argue with you" BS.
Apple would be smart to recognize that a person that has used a PC since "DOS became graphical" will more likely stick with a PC (and its ultra cheap components) than make the switch to the proprietary Mac world.
Except that proprietary doesn't really describe the Mac world anymore... Mac OS X is pretty darned standards compliant, and Macs, after the switch to PCI and especially with the new world machines are basically made from off-the-shelf components.
Now, I'll give you the price differential... Macs might come at a slight premium, but it always depends upon the model/configuration. (The flat panel iMac was way cheaper than comparable wintel FP machines when it was introduced.)
How 'bout you check your facts before you start yapp'n?
MOHAA has been out for a while on the mac - buy it here. Spearhead's there too.
Sure there aren't quite as many Mac games, but there are more than I have money or time for... There probaby aren't as many games for the Mac because way back in the day it used to be an epithet to say that a computer was for games.
It makes sense to try and be logical about things like this. Decisions shouldn't be made on religious arguments as religious arguments are by their very nature based on choosing to ignore logic and instead just believe what someone tells you to do, to have faith.
That's pretty jaded and cynical. Religion and logic are not necessarily opposed to one another. What a televangelist preaches might be opposed to logic. However, one can't really believe something unless one tries to understand it, nor can one judge something unless one tries to understand it. +4 for being fashionable though. Read some Kant, Aquinas or Augustine and tell me that they can't be logical. You might not agree with their logic, but they clearly have the power of reason well in grip and were simultaneously deeply religious.
We eat plenty of living things, plants, animals etc, no one seems to get upset about that. People are animals and other than being self aware and more intelligent than any other animal on this planet we are quite similar physically and genetically.
Spoken like a vegan, well except for lumping vegetables in there with the animals... I suppose there's room for dirt eaters. But yeah, traditionally argument goes that it's man's intelligence that puts him above the other beings on the planet for the very fact that he is driven by something other than instinct, and that makes him civilized. ("He" used to denote mankind, which is inclusive of both genders.) It's pretty apparent from context that we were discussing about "human life" rather than simply life in general.
My point exactly. Animals and underdeveloped humans are not self conscious. As such they aren't aware of themselves. A 1 week old baby is not self-aware but since it has been born it isn't infringing on the life of the mother anymore so there isn't any justification for abortion post-birth.
The issue of murder is one of rights. The mother has a right to do as she pleases with cells inside of her body, once the fetus is born and independent of the mother, not impacting her, things change and the mother doesn't have the same kind of rights over the baby.
There are several problems with your reasoning. Just because the law currently backs you up does not make it right (It didn't make Jim Crow right, either). Why does she have that right? If you can't explain it, you're no better than an unthinking religious zelot, and you probably wouldn't want that...
You seem to agree that there's not a significant distiction between a baby before birth and after, or at least in any case there is no clear deliniation between when this "mass of tissue" becomes a baby.
Much of this is written from the perspective of one who really hasn't examined the parent/child relationship very well. In utero the baby is dependent upon the mother by default, but children are dependent upon the mother after birth for at least as long as before, and in more ways.
As far as these cells inside the mother's body goes - it only needs warmth and nutrition, same as a infant or child (granted, children become decreasingly dependent upon their parents). Modern medicine has made so many advances lately that a premature baby can be viable almost back to the time that a woman might notice that she's first pregnant. So she has the ability to kill her baby (ex utero) and her child in many different ways, but never does she have the moral right to do so, because otherwise they would be able to turn into self-aware individuals.
Heck, the doctors had well over a week in which my premature son was completely dependent upon them for life. They had the power to end his life, why didn't they have the right to do so? Because of location?
The pro-abortion lobby even concedes that "viable fetuses" shouldn't be abortable. Location doesn't matter if the child can safely be removed from the mother. If it's morally unjust to end a child's life, why don't those reasons apply to the child before birth? Loca
Actually it didn't make stem cell research illegal. The whole point was could federal grants (almost all big science - big being the operative word - is federally funded) be used to fund stem cell research. Bush made exceptions so that federal money could be used. Privately funded stem cell research continues as it had before.
A single cell is hardly a human being. Are two cells a person? Three? A fetus is an undeveloped person, thats why it is called a fetus and not a person.
You can take this argument in the other direction too - Is a birthed baby a person? Sure. Was it the day before it was born? What about one born a week prematurely? Two weeks? 14 weeks? With new medical developments "fetal viability" is a moving ever closer to conception. In every country where abortion is legal, in practicality, gestational age does not matter. Calling it a fetus is pure rhetoric designed to make sure that it is nothing you could get emotionally attached to. The whole issue is mired with carefully chosen rhetoric.
Does having fewer cells disqualify you from life? At what point? Is a 1 week old baby self-aware? Heck, it hasn't even discovered its own fingers yet. Sure it cries, but it would have cried in the womb, if it weren't surrounded in liquid. Heck, there are plenty of middle-aged people around here that aren't really self-conscious...
Usually the argument becomes subject to the volition of the mother, like in your last paragraph. At that point it completely ignores the baby/fetus and whether or not it is a life. If it is a life, then abortion is murder, even the woman chooses it.
Going back to the topic at hand, the problem is this: I have to pay taxes. Some people want the federal government to support stem cell research with my money. Fine except that Americans have the right to worship as they please. My religion pretty clearly articulates the sanctity of life making such research the moral equivalent of running a Ziklon shower in Buchenwald. I'm kind of stuck here...
You want to pay for the research, great, but don't force me to. Bush came close to making everyone happy on this issue - (except that abortionists aren't happy unless everyone agrees with them. Let me choose to be pro-life. Geeze.)
Lincoln didn't really want equal rights for minorities in the current sense of the term... unless you're going to argue that segregation could actually make a "separate but equal" system work. Of course being anti-slavery was a bit better than the Democratic Party of the day... (Buchanan was probably the most ineffective president ever, even compared with the current and past few presidents...) But this is typical of the left - bash the right, don't say anything about yourself. Call them polluters, but vote to keep fuel efficiency standards low, which is probably OK, as long as we keep those Alaskans safe from themselves. FWIW, the right is fine with equal rights... it's things like affirmative action that ruffle feathers. Sure there are arguments to be made in favor of it, but there are many decent reasons to oppose it too...