If the cable proves that Tsvangirai is working with foreign governments to subvert Mugabe, shouldn't the people of Zimbabwe know that? It seems like it would be in their interest to know.
The new mine and processing facility will increase this amount seven-fold over the next two years, producing high-purity oxides, metals, alloys, and permanent magnets.
I don't see protests as too much of an inconvenience. Not enough to warrant this kind of regulation anyway. In all fairness to myself, I work in Irvine, CA where the local government exercises total control over everything related to the appearance of the city (my company moved a year ago and we still don't have approval to put our sign on our building), so I may be more mistrustful of local government as a result.
I'm not arguing about rights, I'm arguing about what is sensible. It makes no sense to allow the government to control when, where, and how protests may be held, when many protests will be held against or directed at government officials. It's a recipe for censorship. In the business world it would be known as a conflict of interest.
A local governing body is the government. People want to protest where their protest is relevant. Letting the local government set the rules governing protests is letting the fox guard the hen-house. It's not a good policy. I understand free speech is impractical sometimes, but if you let the government regulate it that defeats the whole purpose.
But then maybe it is better that protesters should pay for the right to protest with jail time and things of that nature, to keep people from running their mouths about things they don't really care about.
There was a 50/50 split on this?! How and why would anyone conclude that the first-sale doctrine should only apply to locally produced items? Much less 4 supreme court justices. These are dark times we are living in.
It worries me that people feel the government is entitled to determine when, where, and how protests are held. It seems to me that controlling those aspects of a demonstration is as damaging as preventing it outright.
Just because someone isn't an eloquent speaker doesn't mean they're dumb. Most of us would look pretty stupid on television. Probably not as dumb as bush, but that doesn't mean he's stupid. Bush is a calculating politician who knew how to play on his strengths to win the office twice. That's a feat most (better spoken) politicians could never achieve. Even Obama probably won't be able to, and he's an excellent speaker.
That's not how it works. The argument is that an action is immoral if universalizing it would have disastrous effects. Yes I understand that the categorical imperative does not invalidate homosexuality, but that question you asked was "how does being unable to reproduce make homosexuality wrong". Indeed, if it did result in an inability to reproduce it would be immoral according to the categorical imperative.
That makes it immoral according to the categorical imperative, which states that you should only act in a way that can be universally applied. If no one were able to reproduce, society would end. I do believe, however, there are other options for reproduction, such as in-vitro fertilization.
right now and right here you just seem to be having an open ended argument about a conflict which only exists inside your head
Sex is a huge issue in society today. You see it everywhere in pop culture. Millions of people in the United States contract STDs every year. Millions of people in the United States have been raped. Thousands of children in the US have been sexually assaulted. Millions of people around the world are living in forced sexual slavery.
Almost everyone I know has been involved in a sexual relationship at some point that turned sour. I personally know 4 women who were molested by their own fathers. I know a woman who went to Europe on vacation and came back pregnant. I know a woman who had a one night stand in Vegas and ended up pregnant and now lives in another state while her child lives with the father's family who won't speak to her.
This is not a conflict which only exists in my mind. It is one of the largest problems facing individuals in our society today. Maybe being promiscuous works for you, but it sure as hell doesn't work for most people. And saying so doesn't mean I have "issues with sex" that I need to "work out" or that I am "projecting", it means I have some awareness of what is actually going on around me.
Again, the fact that we are having this discussion on an article about someone being arrested based on a dubious accusation of rape underscores that this is a widespread, serious problem that does not only exist in my head.
I wish there was a +1 - holy fucking shit moderation. Every time I think my opinion of the US government can not get any worse, something else comes up. What's next? Am I going to find out they've been abducting little girls from daycare and shipping abroad as sex slaves to fund human mind control research?
Don't answer that, I'll wait for the Wiki Leak.
There really is no limit at all to human depravity.
Yes, but that requirement is designed specifically to benefit congressional districts where shuttle parts are made. They would never accept this 2.5B fixed price contract because they want the government to spend 10B in their districts.
Ah, I don't think it has anything to do with rights. But if it hurts me, it hurts everyone. And if I don't love myself enough to take care of myself, it's harder is it to love other people. So for me, taking care of myself is a moral imperative.
I'm at less risk of dying from sex than most people are from not getting enough exercise.
You don't have to chose between not exercising and not having sex, so why are you comparing them? That's the point I'm trying to make about comparisons. There's no sense wondering which of two non-mutually exclusive activities is worse.
A behavior carrying risks is not in itself a bad thing. But the question is what are you getting for the risk you're taking. You risk emotional, relational, legal (hence this thread on/.), and financial harm from promiscuity, not just physical harm. But what do you get from it? It feels good. So does taking a dump or scratching your back. It makes you feel good about yourself. Why? Are you doing something meaningful or worthwhile? No. So what's there to feel good about? To me it doesn't seem like there's a whole lot.
So there you have it, high risk compared to many other ways to have fun, no real reward beyond having fun. So why do it?
Slashdot Mirror
If the cable proves that Tsvangirai is working with foreign governments to subvert Mugabe, shouldn't the people of Zimbabwe know that? It seems like it would be in their interest to know.
The article says the mine will produce about 20% of China's current output, not 20% of the amount we import.
Not if the linked definition does not reflect the common usage of the word.
Does anyone else think that the legal definitions of words vary from their common usage so the people in charge can fool us?
I don't see protests as too much of an inconvenience. Not enough to warrant this kind of regulation anyway. In all fairness to myself, I work in Irvine, CA where the local government exercises total control over everything related to the appearance of the city (my company moved a year ago and we still don't have approval to put our sign on our building), so I may be more mistrustful of local government as a result.
These include a lot more opinion than fact, due to the lack of specific information or claims.
I'm not arguing about rights, I'm arguing about what is sensible. It makes no sense to allow the government to control when, where, and how protests may be held, when many protests will be held against or directed at government officials. It's a recipe for censorship. In the business world it would be known as a conflict of interest.
A local governing body is the government. People want to protest where their protest is relevant. Letting the local government set the rules governing protests is letting the fox guard the hen-house. It's not a good policy. I understand free speech is impractical sometimes, but if you let the government regulate it that defeats the whole purpose.
But then maybe it is better that protesters should pay for the right to protest with jail time and things of that nature, to keep people from running their mouths about things they don't really care about.
There was a 50/50 split on this?! How and why would anyone conclude that the first-sale doctrine should only apply to locally produced items? Much less 4 supreme court justices. These are dark times we are living in.
It worries me that people feel the government is entitled to determine when, where, and how protests are held. It seems to me that controlling those aspects of a demonstration is as damaging as preventing it outright.
Just because someone isn't an eloquent speaker doesn't mean they're dumb. Most of us would look pretty stupid on television. Probably not as dumb as bush, but that doesn't mean he's stupid. Bush is a calculating politician who knew how to play on his strengths to win the office twice. That's a feat most (better spoken) politicians could never achieve. Even Obama probably won't be able to, and he's an excellent speaker.
It's like George Bush said. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice. . .you can't fool me again.
That's not how it works. The argument is that an action is immoral if universalizing it would have disastrous effects. Yes I understand that the categorical imperative does not invalidate homosexuality, but that question you asked was "how does being unable to reproduce make homosexuality wrong". Indeed, if it did result in an inability to reproduce it would be immoral according to the categorical imperative.
That makes it immoral according to the categorical imperative, which states that you should only act in a way that can be universally applied. If no one were able to reproduce, society would end. I do believe, however, there are other options for reproduction, such as in-vitro fertilization.
Just because they rebuilt it doesn't mean it wasn't destroyed.
80% of New Orleans was flooded.
I would say that New Orleans was destroyed in a flood.
Sex is a huge issue in society today. You see it everywhere in pop culture. Millions of people in the United States contract STDs every year. Millions of people in the United States have been raped. Thousands of children in the US have been sexually assaulted. Millions of people around the world are living in forced sexual slavery.
Almost everyone I know has been involved in a sexual relationship at some point that turned sour. I personally know 4 women who were molested by their own fathers. I know a woman who went to Europe on vacation and came back pregnant. I know a woman who had a one night stand in Vegas and ended up pregnant and now lives in another state while her child lives with the father's family who won't speak to her.
This is not a conflict which only exists in my mind. It is one of the largest problems facing individuals in our society today. Maybe being promiscuous works for you, but it sure as hell doesn't work for most people. And saying so doesn't mean I have "issues with sex" that I need to "work out" or that I am "projecting", it means I have some awareness of what is actually going on around me.
Again, the fact that we are having this discussion on an article about someone being arrested based on a dubious accusation of rape underscores that this is a widespread, serious problem that does not only exist in my head.
The article clearly says a government contractor paid for the party.
I wish there was a +1 - holy fucking shit moderation. Every time I think my opinion of the US government can not get any worse, something else comes up. What's next? Am I going to find out they've been abducting little girls from daycare and shipping abroad as sex slaves to fund human mind control research?
Don't answer that, I'll wait for the Wiki Leak.
There really is no limit at all to human depravity.
Yes, but that requirement is designed specifically to benefit congressional districts where shuttle parts are made. They would never accept this 2.5B fixed price contract because they want the government to spend 10B in their districts.
Ah, I don't think it has anything to do with rights. But if it hurts me, it hurts everyone. And if I don't love myself enough to take care of myself, it's harder is it to love other people. So for me, taking care of myself is a moral imperative.
Why not?
You don't have to chose between not exercising and not having sex, so why are you comparing them? That's the point I'm trying to make about comparisons. There's no sense wondering which of two non-mutually exclusive activities is worse.
A behavior carrying risks is not in itself a bad thing. But the question is what are you getting for the risk you're taking. You risk emotional, relational, legal (hence this thread on /.), and financial harm from promiscuity, not just physical harm. But what do you get from it? It feels good. So does taking a dump or scratching your back. It makes you feel good about yourself. Why? Are you doing something meaningful or worthwhile? No. So what's there to feel good about? To me it doesn't seem like there's a whole lot.
So there you have it, high risk compared to many other ways to have fun, no real reward beyond having fun. So why do it?