That would be something that's difficult to achieve. There has been fraternal twins which would be exposed to the same hormone levels in which neither have been gay and they were the opposite sex.
I still have a larger problem with the ideas that gay people are somehow genetically mutated freaks of nature or retarded somehow. It just doesn't fit when too many of them are otherwise normal and productive people.
No, it means that you shouldn't ignore the elephant in the room when contorting an idea to demonize someone you do not agree with.
The comment was made to remind a person that when they bitch about it being politicized, they shouldn't over look the people who they agree with that politicized it too. If it's bad, then it's bad. If it's only bad when one person or set of people does it, it's a setup to push an agenda.
So the proposed explanation for the girls being complicit in $20,000 worth of damage is that the boys told them that some uncle had said it was ok to "knock out a wall" for construction purposes. hey, I'm not saying it's impossible. That seems a particularly poor hypothetical explanation, but my point was not that it is not at all possible but rather the scenario in which all of the girls are free of guilt and none of the boys are seems extremely contrived and strained next to the scenario where they share in the guilt, and I think your response illustrates that nicely.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said the concept could have been that way or similar. I see you also got lost on the difference between wrong and illegal. Guilt in this case can actually be separated into the two categories. one concerning the act and one concerning the illegality of the act. The world is really going to puzzle you if you can't tell the difference here.
So you are incredulous that Palin still has the ability to pull strings or that she still has the motivation? Because neither of those seems particularly hard to swallow. Palin remains an extremely influential figure, so the ability to pull strings seems a given to me. And as for motivation, well, keeping her daughter out of trouble is one motivation. Saving herself public embarrassment since she continues to be an influential public figure is also reasonable.
Well, she has no power over the investigation process or the prosecution process so she couldn't just order it to be hidden. If because of her stature in the community, she was able to dissuade prosecution, then the political as well as professional careers of all those involved would be on the line- especially seeing how Palin is a target by the left.
So you are saying that it's unlikely that the prosecutors couldn't find enough evidence to go after the girls or that the prosecutor didn't trade prosecution of the girls for testimony against the boys (crap that happens all over the place all the time), and instead, all of the investigating officers, their superiors, the prosecution, perhaps the grand jury, and every other person connected to the case, all of them decided to put their livelihood and freedoms at risk and conspired with Palin to cover up something that was publicly known that her kid was involved with. If I was a betting person, my money would be on the answer that happens all over the place, all the time, across this great country. My bet would be on the answer that suggest the ability to prosecute wasn't that strong seeing how it would almost require an admission from someone as to the mental state of willow.
It's more likely that the kids and their parents feared Palin more then the cops and prosecutors and they weren't willing to testify than professionals risking jail time for corruption.
No, in this context, there is two types of regulation. Sure, it is all regulation but if you noticed the distinctions of the types and the context I placed them in when considered with the context of the parent post. And yes, I am in a position to say what is best for the consumer and ISP when all that I have said is that the customer must get what they paid for and the ISP cannot take steps to prevent that or mislead the customer.
This also plays well with the fraud you mentioned. However, it's a lot like going to a fast food joint and ordering a combo meal, lately they ask you if you want that medium or large as if those are your only options, you choose medium thinking it's the one on the menu, and they up sold the consumer without them even realizing it. What I'm getting at is that fraud laws aren't currently strong enough to deal with the issues presented here.
The problem is the middle ground where libertarians come out wrong as well as the government regulation wannabe's come out wrong.
You see, just like with the libertarian and the concept of free market being equal turning sour when in practice, so does the idea of regulation to provide equality. What happens is that the regulation ends up being crafted or manipulated to favor existing players. This stops competition from entering which ends the idea of regulation helping. This is also perpetuated by the bureaucracy in which you seem to favor.
So the best way to fight the corporations, is to fight the regulation which limits the competition from entering which also ends the stranglehold that the corporations have with the government. Laws can be made that when enforced, do not regulate a specific industry or corporation, but in turn make specific actions illegal and has the same effect as regulation without the corruptible and inefficient bureaucracy.
We can't have no regulation, we can't have too much regulation, what we need is proper regulation with enforcement. Have you tried to start a business that competes with large corporations or enters a regulated market? It's next to impossible unless you have ten times the capitol then someone starting something like a barber shop or law firm. Those have regulations too, but the differences are that those regulations or more productive and appropriately enforced. They require qualifications to offer services to the public, not hoops to jump through and limit competition. If you look at the debate surrounding regulations like the prevailing wage laws, you will find that it didn't pass because the government wanted people to make money or because they wanted to waste money, it passed because it favored established firms working with the government and retarded the viability of minority contractors who weren't big enough to pay prevailing wages. The laws have since then been changed to remove some of this prejudice but they still work in ways to favor larger union shops over smaller independent contractors and competitors.
In my home town, the concept of regulation went so bad that an IT consultant was drove out of business because after a city rezoning, his residence that he worked from became completely residential, they didn't grandfather the existing business and required him to open an office in a business district even though he only had one employee (himself) and had no customers ever go to the business (home). So unless your large enough to make enough money to pay for an office in an area with limited space, you can't start a business in my home town any more. And in his case, which is being appealed and should be going to court soon, the city planning commission basically said it was illegal for resident in these new zones to work from home on anything commercial so you would technically be in violation if you took your work home with you or remote'd into the office to finish things up.
So attach it all, government that's broken, corporations that corrupt it, and markets that allow it to happen. No one area of focus will solve anything.
Two different types of regulation is at stake here. One is regulation of the internet itself, the other is regulation of the regulation on the internet itself.
You see, one is setting limits on the internet, the other is setting limits on those who attempt to set limits on the internet. Net Neutrality attempts to limit those wanting to limit the internet, not the internet itself.
And yes, this might limit start ups and new ventures to some degree, but no more so and perhaps quite a bit less than not regulating those who want to limit the internet would also impose.
As long as the net neutrality regulation is on those in charge of the internet and not the internet, it shouldn't have any adverse effects that aren't already present or open lines for other agencies to seize power and control over the actual internet.
A simply net neutrality law that could be implemented that would achieve this might be something that says
"no internet provider or supplier of internet services can take steps to restrict or impede traffic or other communications on the internet to rates of service below what was plainly and obviously advertised to the consumer of such services on the bases of additional pay from any third or more party; or present the services favorably to any product in which they have any stake in to where such favorable actions delivers or restricts competing services to rates less what was plainly and obviously advertised to the consumers paying for the service. For the basis of this paragraph, payment from a third party is enough to establish a stake in the product, service, or technology.
Nothing in this law should be construed to restrict internet service providers or suppliers to deliver service in addition to what the consumer paying for the service expects from deliberate and obvious advertisements of the service as long as the additional service does not restrict the expected service from deliberate, clear and obvious advertisement of services sold.
Nothing in this law should restrict the internet service provider or supplier from slowing traffic or otherwise manipulating traffic and other communications when the network is under attack or physical disrepair as long as steps are being taken to document such attacks and disrepair as well as documenting steps to remedy such environments and this documentation is available upon request of regulating authorities and parties in lawsuits pertaining to this law.
Nothing in this law should be construed to make internet services and suppliers liable for actions they have no control over as long as they adapt their service offerings to clearly and obviously take those conditions into account if they last longer then 1 month.
Aggrieved parties, upon findings of a violation by a court of jurisdiction or regulating authority can recover restitution in the form of 10 times the costs of services during the offending period of time if the offense lasts longer then 6 months or 5 times the costs of services if the offense lasts longer then 2 months to be credited to the accounts of the aggrieved parties or forgiven of any contract termination fees owed and 3 times the costs of services refunded in the form of a equitable currency equivalent that can be processed and spent like the currency of the United States of America if the violation caused the consumer to seek service with another provider.
The purpose of this law is to ensure that consumers purchasing the internet or internet services get what was advertised to them at the time of purchase or agreement of services and any restrictions of services is clearly and plainly disclosed in not only contracts but advertisements presented to the consumer before the purchase of the services. All interpretations of this law should take that as a driving intent."
There is a simple net neutrality law that could be adapted to most countries that basically says that you will get what you were advertised advertised and that the service provi
That doesn't really seem to matter here as simply saying you were assigned an IP doesn't show you as liable. This is especially the case when others can use the IP with or without your permission. The laws do not state that the owner of an IP is liable or guilty, it states that the person participating in the acts are.
We have already seen this play out when the RIAA sued some woman or granny who had the case dropped and then the RIAA went back after her kids or grandchildren. I forget the name of the case but it happened back in 2004-2006 or so.
Anyways, pointing to the owner of the IP would likely show that person as being responsible. However, open wifi access or simply having a TOR endpoint on your system would inject enough doubt that they would have to show more evidence in your participation. They still have to show that you are responsible or liable for the damages, you do not have to show that anyone else is, only they you are not.
You have made some assumptions that seem to cross over even though you admitted there are things about the event that you do not know.
You see, innocent of wrong doing has distinct meanings here that can be separated into two or more categories. The primary ones we need to be concerned with because of the thread discussion is whether or not something is illegal or legal even if it is still wrong. Here is an example, Suppose you and one of your friends wrestle each other or do something just as stupid as stuff sometimes happens with about any set of friends. Now suppose that when you and your friend are doing this at a third person's house (wrestling or whatever), someone's foot hits the wall and punches a hole through it or you fall into a banister which then breaks. Now, have you done anything illegal? The answer to that is no in most places. Have you done anything wrong? The answer to that is yes, you took part in activity that damaged the property of someone else. Now, if you broke into the third person's house and caused the damage, it could be illegal, and if you did the damage deliberately, it could be illegal. But without those facts being established, it's just an accident caused by reckless or foolish behavior.
Now suppose you deliberately punched a hole in the wall. Well, that in and of itself doesn't make it illegal. You see, you could have been lead to believe the destruction of the property was desirable. I went to a friends house once who was remodeling and we were able to knock out several closets and non-load bearing walls to help his father open the space up to conform with a new floor plan. So even deliberate destruction of property isn't illegal unless certain elements are present.
So lets move this into the situation you next describe.
The place suffered extensive damage, so I suppose we would have to conjecture that the boys broke in first, invited the girls over, pretending to own the place or otherwise have a right to be there, none of the 7 girls knew otherwise, none of the 5 boys accidentally let it slip to any of the 7 girls, the 5 boys trashed the place and the girls believed that at least one of these boys had the authority to do so.
Suppose the boys did break in first, suppose they invited the girls saying it was someone's uncle's house and they did it all the time. So the right to be there is established and non of the other girls knew otherwise or they weren't able to prove they knew otherwise. Ok, so one of the boys knocks a hole in the wall, he tells everyone else to do the same because his uncle is tearing the walls down to remodel. So now the girls participate in creating the damage but have done nothing illegal (Mens rea) yet. Or at least nothing that can prove it was illegal until one of them admits to knowing or admits that the others would have known.
So perhaps it was only the boys which admitted to knowing what they did or perhaps the boys told a story that protected the girls. Even if the girls knew about it, there are tons of reasons why they weren't prosecuted with the main ones being the ability to prove their "legal" guilt. Another reason is because the girls had less participation in which their witnessing against the guys was more valuable in getting a conviction. It doesn't make what happened any less bad, it only takes the ability for it to be illegal off the table.
This BTW, is something that is common in almost any jurisdiction and probably happens in your home town more often then not. This is also why laws like receiving stolen property and so on are on the books. It's for when they cannot show Mens rea to stick the crime to them, then can show possession and a reason to believe the possession wasn't legal.
The story goes on to allege several other "facts" about the case, such as Willow being the one who led them to the house in the first place, and everyone being together at the time the house was bro
The laws they are going after people on does not say "anyone who pays for an internet connection", they say anyone who does specific activities. They can use the fact that the internet connection is in your name to list you as a likely suspect and attempt to get more evidence like your hard drive contents and so on. But as soon as the possibility of another user (legal or not) is present, they have to prove it was you specifically.
You do not have to prove someone else did something, all you have to do is prove it was possible and that the evidence doesn't likely support you doing it yourself. You do not become the plaintiff's private investigator just because you want to defend yourself against the accusations.
This gets real messy real fast. In order to procure identifying information we've introduced a third standard of evidence, "Reasonable cause for belief that a felony has been committed". I *think* reasonable cause is less than probable cause but more than reasonable suspicion (though I very well could be mistaken) but I also believe that being in this country illegally is not a felony.
It doesn't necessarily need to get messy. You see, the cop already has to have a reason to be dealing with the person and in the law you cited, the cp[ has to believe that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed by the person. So if anything, the cop can arrest the person on suspicion of the crime in which case further steps to identify Juan can be taken too.
If a cop runs the name Juan Gonzalez, and finds one out of thirty with an outstanding warrant and arrests him can he reasonably state he's acting "in good faith"? I'd say no, but I could also see a judge disagreeing.
I guess not answering a direct question like were do you live or something in order to settle the question of if he was the same Juan Gonzales that is wanted, that in and of itself would be an act Juan took that created the arrest situation. I doubt he has any claims to rights violations when it's his own omission of facts that allowed the arrest to happen. It wouldn't necessarily be a good thing, but it certainly wouldn't be Juan giving a drivers license over to the cop and the cop ignoring the differing data that would distinguish Juan from the Juan's with warrants for their arrest.
I'll also note that according your link you can only detain someone for three hours to obtain identifying information. I'm not sure it's possible to go from Terry stop to judicial order to fingerprint collection in that time. And once you've got the info you still have to analyze it - and by then Juan is definitely in the wind.
The cops are basically crooked. What they would do is Terry stop for one thing and then restart the clock for the identification thing. As for getting a judicial order, most magistrates can be reached at home and work in their official capacity at any time the need arises. So just getting one on the phone could be enough to get the order. The 3905 law actually allows the officer to sign the Magistrate's name if the magistrate orders one and the officer is not in front of him. They then call this a duplicate of the original.
It is my opinion that this law is a poorly thought out disaster. The irony is that if they had restrained themselves to ascertaining the immigration status of people arrested or detained in a traffic stop it would have accomplished 90% of what they wanted and might actually have stood up to a court challenge. Instead they had to go for he gold and add the "any lawful contact" provision BS.
I wouldn't call it a disaster. It may be poorly thought out. They should have specified the not based on nation origin stuff a little clearer as right now, it relies on the federal laws and court decisions to clarify. The governor supposedly made some executive orders to clear that up a bit. Basically, if a FED can take the route to question someone's immigration status, then AZ police can. But they can only do so as long as the FEDs are able to do so with the exception of making contact.
A lot of the problems people seem to have with the problem outside of it actually coming down on illegals is made up hysteria that people who do not want illegals removed have spread. The law clearly limits what can and can't be done to what is already legal and illegal for the feds to do. It just expands that to the local law enforcement when they are in a legitimate contact situation with someone. Of course you won't find any explanation like that in the news because it doesn't inflame people and get ratings or future events that will gain ratings like this may day march.
Clearing the browser history and deleting files isn't obstruction until after you have reason to believe they will be evidence. It's like throwing a gun away after a murder, it's just murder if you do it after the fact, but it becomes obstruction when the cops come around asking you about the murder and your gun then you throw it out.
So you do not really have anything to fear from cleaning your computer and keeping it running in good shape. Well, that is until after some LEO attempts to seize you or the computer as evidence then you continue to delete things.
Kid's laywer probably wasn't amazing if the kid was dumb enough to plead not guilty.
Pleading not guilty isn't just for people who are innocent. It's not a dumb idea to do so because it opens several avenues to mitigate the punishment that simply isn't present with a no contest or guilty plea.
Anyone who finds themselves in serious (or any) legal trouble should plead not guilty until they can get competent legal counsel and advice. It won't hurt the judge's feelings if the plea is changed later nor will it matter much if your found guilty unless you turned down a plea bargain from something lesser.
Did you know that they estimated Kennedy was traveling at speeds between 70 and 90 miles per hour? Thay say it would have to of been that fast in order for the impact to blow the woman's panties off and put them in the glove box.
I have been to a few abandoned house parties. It doesn't generally go down like that.
First, someone breaks into the house and unlocks the doors. Then they contact others to come and party, most of which is causes those people to invite others. In the one, I left a bar for an after hours party in a house that turned out to be someone's on vacation but I didn't know that until two weeks later when they returned and it was on the news. In the other situation, I was walking down a street and some girls asked me if I was going to the party, they essentially invited me in. They said someone was having a moving party and wanted as many people as possible to show up. Again, about a week later, I recognized the house on the news.
So I have to ask, did the boys invite the girls over as if they had the authority to do so and be there or did they say "we broke into a house, come over and trash it"? The difference is the amount of culpability you would have. If you broke down in your car, went to the nearest house, knocked on the door and asked to use the phone when someone, answered, if they allow you to enter and use the phone and it turns out they broke into the place, you are not guilty of breaking and entering, or robbery or anything also.
I see that now.. When I first read it, I inserted some of the crap that the law required in my state
Anyways, the law gives the AZ police the ability to stop or detain people only when there is reasonable suspicion of a crime that has, is or is about to occur. That's only the foot in the door, they ask for identity, Juan refuses to give them anything but his name- now what would give them the right to ask for or question his immigration status based on that much interaction? Remember, the law says they may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
So what happens is that the cops run the name through the computer and find either no record of the name at all, or more likely, they find multiple records of the name from several different states and perhaps another country. So the cop asks Juan to verify who he is because that name is so common, there are 40 different people or aliases in the system with it and 5 of them matching similar descriptions have warrants for parole violations or other felonies. Now, even though Juan doesn't have to say any more, his detention and potential arrest is solely on him at this point in time as the cop can't reasonable distinguish between the guy standing in front of him and half of the names that returned on the computer. The courts have already said that mistaken identity in arrests isn't a violation of a right when reasonable attempts to properly identify the person have been taken and it still fails. (yea, I know, it's still ohio but the exception liability is implied from a federal level known as color of law).
Juan says nothing but his name so the cop goes before a magistrate and asks for a 3905 order and the judge allows them to take finger prints. Or the cop could simply arrest the guy as one of the people with an outstanding warrant, do the normal finger printing process, find out he isn't the same guy, then release him without penalty.
Something you are not considering is that when you provide your name, it's not just your name that you are providing. You are actually providing a means to identify yourself. It doesn't need to be a picture ID but it needs to be something to where the cop can reasonably know who you are If giving your name isn't enough to identify yourself, then you can be required to provide additional information and the cops can already detain you until you can be identified. That's already in line with terry.
So no, this guys rights aren't violated any more then anyone else's rights. He wasn't arrested, he was detained upon verification of his identity. When you identify yourself as Juan Gonzales, the cop can either believe you or not, then he can ask for some additional information like your address or license number or SS number or whatever to distinguish between you and the 200 other Juan Gonzales' that live in the same city.
So you see, even if Juan is a citizen, his rights weren't violated outside the way they normally would be. And yes, arrest verses detained could be the difference between a legal right being violated or not.
I used to be a Bible thumping Christian. I've read the Bible (the whole thing which a lot of Christians don't seem to do). I've read the book of Proverbs quite a few times (I was trying to memorize it). So to say I need to read the Bible, well, I just don't think it has anything of value to say that isn't said in a more understandable way elsewhere.
Well, just like I suspect with your knowledge of the bible, there is more then you are paying attention too. Did you see where I not only said reread it but you also should rethink what you know about the bible and Christianity? When you were a bible thumping Christian, I do not think you fully understood what you claimed to be or what you should have known about your own self proclaimed religious status. I would say you were no more a bible thumper then a Mechanic is that has never touched a wrench and got all their info on some chat room online watching others discuss car problems. It's probably why you are a atheist now too. Often, saying you are something doesn't make it so.
I'm an atheist now. You might be too if you would dare to question some of the things in the Bible. I used to be afraid to question - because I thought that I'd go to hell if I did - but man there sure is a lot in there that just doesn't make sense. I encourage you to read the whole thing, with an open mind, coming from a modern perspective. Don't be afraid to ask why God would do some of the things that it says he did in the Bible. You can try to twist it and invent explanations, but remember: the simplest explanation is usually the right one. The simple answer for me is that the Bible was written by many ignorant (in the sense of not having the knowledge of science that we do) men, over a period of a few thousand years.
So far, the things that you have questioned in front of me are meaningless. And why God has done some things in the past are not reason for me to question. For one, he's God and can do whatever he wants to for whatever reasons he wants to.For two, it happened in the past, well before I was alive. For three, those things stopped happening, they were one time situations meant to address specific instances and holding a grudge over something that didn't happen in your lifetime or the lifetime of any living relative or isn't going to happen again is ridiculous. For four, the covenant with Jesus changed the entire approach to how god operates which if you really were a bible thumper at one time, you would know and not even consider the old testament issues to be anything relevant to your Christianity.
Given enough time and history, you will see every or any entity do some questionable things as well. This is especially true when there is an objective or a power issue involved. Take the US for instance, and yes, I can single other countries out too. Anyways, the US, besides being involved in the entire slave issue, has experimented on it's own people with diseases and mutation causing radioactive substances without the person's knowledge, dropped atomic bombs on civil populations claiming they were a military target knowing that innocent civilians would be the primary casualty, and they have done several other things. And that's all without getting into the war for oil tripe and other things that sound disturbingly bad.
The thing is, if you understood Christianity I would be explaining any of this to you. Perhaps you have read the bible instead of skimming through it and picking out the parts that serve your purpose. Perhaps you are one of those people who just cannot follow directions. Perhaps you went to one of those churches that was more concerned with power, money, or control and not concerned about the religion itself. I don't know but what I do know is that what you have brought up should be a non-issue and certainly isn't worthy of rejecting God over or abandoning a religion. If you have other reasons, then fine, I don't really care. But it seems that you are operating on half truths and mistaken pieces of knowledge here and that is something you should know about.
Let me guess: YOU are the one who gets to choose which bits to "honor.">/blockquote>It's not like it isn't laid out in black and white. I mean we follow the rules according to the covenant with Jesus. Some of those are the same, some are different, some contradict the old laws. It's not a matter of choosing which ones, they are spelled out in the new testament. Some people can choose to follow more laws listed in the bible as long as they do not violate the covenant but that's entirely optional.
A fine bit of moral relativism which you so rail against.
Well, no- Not at all. For someone who started off with "then you haven't read your bible, and you certainly haven't studied the history of Christianity", you sure seem ignorant of Christianity and the bible. What it says isn't as important as the context to whom it's saying it too. The old testament is included for historical and prophetic reasons. The new testament which contains the covenant through Jesus shows prophecies being fulfilled by Jesus so as to know he is the Christ. Those prophecies were listed throughout the old testament which is why it's important to be included. The new testament commands us to study the old because the new testament is built off of it.
Here is a site I found that explains it a little more but probably not enough for you to fully understand it if you do not already. It's not a difficult concept to follow as a lot of Churches have deformed into power, control, and money grabbing machines that emphasize more on that then the word of god. But if you read the bible and actually understand what your reading, it's easy to see how the covenants and demands on those people are set out and how they change slightly with new covenants and so on. Christians have their covenant through Jesus (which is a made up Greek for Yeshua to which no direct translation existed). Here is a page I found describing the different covenants in the bible, who they were with, as well as the prophecies predicting them.
It appears that you might benefit a little by reading those pages and rethinking what you thought you knew about the bible and Christianity.
So what good is a religion so easily subverted by the whims of despots, tyrants, and even petty sadists?
What good is a government of the same or anything where power gets concentrated. There is good in between and this condition is not just limited to religions.
Are you referring to the ten commandments that are next to the "suffer not a witch to live" part or the "slaughter all the men, women, and children to get your holy land" parts? It might be a little hard, without modern literary criticism and the advent of naturalistic reason and relatively liberal readings of scriptures, to tell the commandments from the history in terms of their application to daily life in the middle ages.
Actually, we are talking about Christianity with the catholic church so I am talking about the ten commandments repeated from those that you are mentioning throughout the new testaments. While they are the same, you have to understand that the bible is divided into covenants with god that somewhat change over the course of the story. The new testament being the latest and last of them, the previous ones are more or less historical.
Of course seeing how the passage containing the words suffer not a witch to live and slaughter all the men, women, and children to get your holy land is in the old testament, it belongs to Jews as Moses was a Jew. The laws of Moses are not strictly honored by Christians nor are the stories verbatim outside of a historical context unless they are repeated in the new testament in which the christian covenant is bound to. Remember, Jesus was a Jew, Christians follow Jesus' covenant which is what makes them Christians.
Anyways, the point is that even though the laws and stories were there, they applied to the Jews not Christians.
Uh, no, the inquisition is an example of church morals operating on status quo. It didn't happen in isolation. You may also have heard of witch-hunts. Crusades. Priests in that era were essentially just another form of aristocracy - one that held more power than the actual rulers of some nations. If you think that the atrocities which they carried out were an example of "relative morals", then you haven't read your bible, and you certainly haven't studied the history of christianity.
I think you are confused. The inquisition as well as the witch hunts and crusades (as there were many inside and outside of religion) and so on were not the status quo per religion, it was the workings of man claiming to be in duty of the religion. This differs from the accounts in the bible where it claims that God ordered things to be done in itself because they were attempting to interpret their own meanings instead of being directly told.
So lets see if we agree about a few things or not. The Ten Commandments were set and in "force" at these times right? No one claimed God told them to do the crusades, witch hunts, or inquisition, the claims were in the name of their religion, but it was something they interpreted themselves somehow, right? Or is there some documentation where someone claims god told them to do something?
Please do not confuse acts of man with acts of God.
As for whether moral relativism is a good idea or not, it's irrelevant. Moral relativism is a reality. All morals are formed by the individual - they just tend to be influenced by the society in which the person was raised. The fact that morals are relative doesn't mean that we have to tolerate them all equally, though. I think rape is wrong - if your moral code allows rape (as many religions did, and some still do), I really don't give a damn, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you from acting on those morals. Relativity and equality are not the same thing.
well, not really. Morals are pretty much dictated by society. Killing a person or taking what you need from them is an animalistic instinct inherent in our evolutionary gene code. Saying that it's not moral except when self preservation issues are around is an act of society and punished by society. There are morals pushed by society that I do not agree with but have to obligate myself to or face severe punishment. These morals have transformed into laws but not all laws are morals (or moral).
The problem with relative morals is that they do not apply as soon as you or anyone can justify it. It's really no different then the holding people without trial that we saw, it's not moral, it's unconstitutional, it's legally wrong, but when the people weren't US citizens or somehow classified as an enemy of the US, then all the sudden the morals stopped applying, the constitution stopped applying and the laws of the land stopped applying- well until a couple of judges said you cannot reduce that to relative situations- they are absolute.
History has shown us why moral relativism is not particularly a good idea. It really has nothing to do with the existence of any god or their followers. Historical atrocities like the inquisition and such is one example of morals going from absolute to relative in which a religion was involved. It's basis was in killing someone because they didn't believe in or worship their god while giving them a chance to convert even though their god said killing was bad. An absolute moral would be that they couldn't murder these people but the relativism turned it into some sort of justifiable work of the lord.
This, as anyone can see, is not something specific to any religion nor is it isolated from one. Pope Benedict was actually a Nazi Youth during WWII and saw first hand how moral relativism made it possible for the internment of the Jews and other such crap.
I'm not sticking up for the pope, nor am I sticking up for any religion. It may very well be something along the lines of what you say but moral relativism is not something that we should want. Already we have people taking this path that say kiddie porn or pedophilia is ok if it doesn't harm the kids or that the punishment for it is too harsh because there isn't any harm to the kids. That's the relativism of the argument, the absolute of it is that it's bad and shouldn't happen. Don't confuse morals with the so called source and don't confuse absolute/relative with the morals. And especially, do not be ignorant enough to think some religion or god separates the two.
Absolutes say something is always right or wrong, relativism attempts to justify why it isn't right or wrong in that instance. DO you want to get raped in the mouth in front of 10,000 people and have the attacker justify his actions as not immoral somehow?
This is especially true when your going up against a 0 day exploit or software that's sitting on a known exploit but can't get a patch to work without borking 2 million installs.
Are you completely retarded? What about the IPCC? They consistently use the term "global warming".
Scientists still call it global warming. You are just a disgusting liar and a fucking moron who willfully rejects facts.
Do you have that low of an opinion about yourself that you need to attempt to insult everyone in some futile attempt to elevate yourself above them? Does that make you feel good or something? Because it adds nothing else to the discussion. In fact, the entire world is now more dumb because you made a comment.
The fact is, they changed it from only global warming to climate change. You cannot deny that.
You are trying to make it sound like scientists aren't sure about global warming, so they call it something else. But the fact is that global warming is an observed fact, and it's still called that. It's a change of the climate (climate change), specifically global warming.
No, I did not make it sound like that. I made it sound like some people are clalling it global warming while others are calling it climate change which is not only what I wrote, but what you just admitted.
I'm sorry that any challenge to what you want to think, whether it's based in real life, opinion, or whatever, seems to be such an egregious attack on your faith that you have to construe it the wrong way and resort to attempted insults. But that shows more about you then anyone you are commenting to.
Now stop being a dishonest asshole and STFU.
Again, see above. BTW, what was it I said that was dishonest? I bet you cannot point to it without ignoring reality. I will also bet that in your frustration, you will resort to more attempted insults because you lack the competent substance to support your faith.
You must belong to the cult/church of global warming. Well, I guess there is no rational discussion for you as it appears that you only want to selectively reviews the facts and dismiss anything that doesn't agree with you, even when it is something that does agree.
Do you know what makes you different from any other religious zealot? Most all other religious zealots are convinced in something that happened well before their time and was translated and passed on in stories and such. You on the other hand have lived during the time of it's happening and reached your conviction of faith by ignoring reality and distorting what was left in order to skew your own interpretations of the miracle events. I think that makes you a little more dangerous then most religious zealots. In fact, if you did this about finances, business, or practically anything else in life, the government would have already locked you up or killed you in a Wako style stand off.
I guess who decides is the science behind the cure and the fact that it actually works instead of killing the person or soaking them dry before they die of the original condition. All of that can be determined without "an all-wise beneficent dictator" and the procedures for determining it with a likely accurate outcome can easily be established by "a bunch of politically-appointed bureaucrats".
Freedom means letting people make choices for themselves that YOU might not agree with.
As I already said, this _IS_NOT_ABOUT_ you making a choice. It's about people peddling unsafe products that do not do what they claimed. If you think it's part of your freedom to get scammed when the results could be the end of your life, then we need to talk about an investment opportunity I have.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be something that's difficult to achieve. There has been fraternal twins which would be exposed to the same hormone levels in which neither have been gay and they were the opposite sex.
I still have a larger problem with the ideas that gay people are somehow genetically mutated freaks of nature or retarded somehow. It just doesn't fit when too many of them are otherwise normal and productive people.
No, it means that you shouldn't ignore the elephant in the room when contorting an idea to demonize someone you do not agree with.
The comment was made to remind a person that when they bitch about it being politicized, they shouldn't over look the people who they agree with that politicized it too. If it's bad, then it's bad. If it's only bad when one person or set of people does it, it's a setup to push an agenda.
No, that's not what I said at all. I said the concept could have been that way or similar. I see you also got lost on the difference between wrong and illegal. Guilt in this case can actually be separated into the two categories. one concerning the act and one concerning the illegality of the act. The world is really going to puzzle you if you can't tell the difference here.
Well, she has no power over the investigation process or the prosecution process so she couldn't just order it to be hidden. If because of her stature in the community, she was able to dissuade prosecution, then the political as well as professional careers of all those involved would be on the line- especially seeing how Palin is a target by the left.
So you are saying that it's unlikely that the prosecutors couldn't find enough evidence to go after the girls or that the prosecutor didn't trade prosecution of the girls for testimony against the boys (crap that happens all over the place all the time), and instead, all of the investigating officers, their superiors, the prosecution, perhaps the grand jury, and every other person connected to the case, all of them decided to put their livelihood and freedoms at risk and conspired with Palin to cover up something that was publicly known that her kid was involved with. If I was a betting person, my money would be on the answer that happens all over the place, all the time, across this great country. My bet would be on the answer that suggest the ability to prosecute wasn't that strong seeing how it would almost require an admission from someone as to the mental state of willow.
It's more likely that the kids and their parents feared Palin more then the cops and prosecutors and they weren't willing to testify than professionals risking jail time for corruption.
No, in this context, there is two types of regulation. Sure, it is all regulation but if you noticed the distinctions of the types and the context I placed them in when considered with the context of the parent post. And yes, I am in a position to say what is best for the consumer and ISP when all that I have said is that the customer must get what they paid for and the ISP cannot take steps to prevent that or mislead the customer.
This also plays well with the fraud you mentioned. However, it's a lot like going to a fast food joint and ordering a combo meal, lately they ask you if you want that medium or large as if those are your only options, you choose medium thinking it's the one on the menu, and they up sold the consumer without them even realizing it. What I'm getting at is that fraud laws aren't currently strong enough to deal with the issues presented here.
The problem is the middle ground where libertarians come out wrong as well as the government regulation wannabe's come out wrong.
You see, just like with the libertarian and the concept of free market being equal turning sour when in practice, so does the idea of regulation to provide equality. What happens is that the regulation ends up being crafted or manipulated to favor existing players. This stops competition from entering which ends the idea of regulation helping. This is also perpetuated by the bureaucracy in which you seem to favor.
So the best way to fight the corporations, is to fight the regulation which limits the competition from entering which also ends the stranglehold that the corporations have with the government. Laws can be made that when enforced, do not regulate a specific industry or corporation, but in turn make specific actions illegal and has the same effect as regulation without the corruptible and inefficient bureaucracy.
We can't have no regulation, we can't have too much regulation, what we need is proper regulation with enforcement. Have you tried to start a business that competes with large corporations or enters a regulated market? It's next to impossible unless you have ten times the capitol then someone starting something like a barber shop or law firm. Those have regulations too, but the differences are that those regulations or more productive and appropriately enforced. They require qualifications to offer services to the public, not hoops to jump through and limit competition. If you look at the debate surrounding regulations like the prevailing wage laws, you will find that it didn't pass because the government wanted people to make money or because they wanted to waste money, it passed because it favored established firms working with the government and retarded the viability of minority contractors who weren't big enough to pay prevailing wages. The laws have since then been changed to remove some of this prejudice but they still work in ways to favor larger union shops over smaller independent contractors and competitors.
In my home town, the concept of regulation went so bad that an IT consultant was drove out of business because after a city rezoning, his residence that he worked from became completely residential, they didn't grandfather the existing business and required him to open an office in a business district even though he only had one employee (himself) and had no customers ever go to the business (home). So unless your large enough to make enough money to pay for an office in an area with limited space, you can't start a business in my home town any more. And in his case, which is being appealed and should be going to court soon, the city planning commission basically said it was illegal for resident in these new zones to work from home on anything commercial so you would technically be in violation if you took your work home with you or remote'd into the office to finish things up.
So attach it all, government that's broken, corporations that corrupt it, and markets that allow it to happen. No one area of focus will solve anything.
Two different types of regulation is at stake here. One is regulation of the internet itself, the other is regulation of the regulation on the internet itself.
You see, one is setting limits on the internet, the other is setting limits on those who attempt to set limits on the internet. Net Neutrality attempts to limit those wanting to limit the internet, not the internet itself.
And yes, this might limit start ups and new ventures to some degree, but no more so and perhaps quite a bit less than not regulating those who want to limit the internet would also impose.
As long as the net neutrality regulation is on those in charge of the internet and not the internet, it shouldn't have any adverse effects that aren't already present or open lines for other agencies to seize power and control over the actual internet.
A simply net neutrality law that could be implemented that would achieve this might be something that says
There is a simple net neutrality law that could be adapted to most countries that basically says that you will get what you were advertised advertised and that the service provi
That doesn't really seem to matter here as simply saying you were assigned an IP doesn't show you as liable. This is especially the case when others can use the IP with or without your permission. The laws do not state that the owner of an IP is liable or guilty, it states that the person participating in the acts are.
We have already seen this play out when the RIAA sued some woman or granny who had the case dropped and then the RIAA went back after her kids or grandchildren. I forget the name of the case but it happened back in 2004-2006 or so.
Anyways, pointing to the owner of the IP would likely show that person as being responsible. However, open wifi access or simply having a TOR endpoint on your system would inject enough doubt that they would have to show more evidence in your participation. They still have to show that you are responsible or liable for the damages, you do not have to show that anyone else is, only they you are not.
You have made some assumptions that seem to cross over even though you admitted there are things about the event that you do not know.
You see, innocent of wrong doing has distinct meanings here that can be separated into two or more categories. The primary ones we need to be concerned with because of the thread discussion is whether or not something is illegal or legal even if it is still wrong. Here is an example, Suppose you and one of your friends wrestle each other or do something just as stupid as stuff sometimes happens with about any set of friends. Now suppose that when you and your friend are doing this at a third person's house (wrestling or whatever), someone's foot hits the wall and punches a hole through it or you fall into a banister which then breaks. Now, have you done anything illegal? The answer to that is no in most places. Have you done anything wrong? The answer to that is yes, you took part in activity that damaged the property of someone else. Now, if you broke into the third person's house and caused the damage, it could be illegal, and if you did the damage deliberately, it could be illegal. But without those facts being established, it's just an accident caused by reckless or foolish behavior.
Now suppose you deliberately punched a hole in the wall. Well, that in and of itself doesn't make it illegal. You see, you could have been lead to believe the destruction of the property was desirable. I went to a friends house once who was remodeling and we were able to knock out several closets and non-load bearing walls to help his father open the space up to conform with a new floor plan. So even deliberate destruction of property isn't illegal unless certain elements are present.
So lets move this into the situation you next describe.
Suppose the boys did break in first, suppose they invited the girls saying it was someone's uncle's house and they did it all the time. So the right to be there is established and non of the other girls knew otherwise or they weren't able to prove they knew otherwise. Ok, so one of the boys knocks a hole in the wall, he tells everyone else to do the same because his uncle is tearing the walls down to remodel. So now the girls participate in creating the damage but have done nothing illegal (Mens rea) yet. Or at least nothing that can prove it was illegal until one of them admits to knowing or admits that the others would have known.
So perhaps it was only the boys which admitted to knowing what they did or perhaps the boys told a story that protected the girls. Even if the girls knew about it, there are tons of reasons why they weren't prosecuted with the main ones being the ability to prove their "legal" guilt. Another reason is because the girls had less participation in which their witnessing against the guys was more valuable in getting a conviction. It doesn't make what happened any less bad, it only takes the ability for it to be illegal off the table.
This BTW, is something that is common in almost any jurisdiction and probably happens in your home town more often then not. This is also why laws like receiving stolen property and so on are on the books. It's for when they cannot show Mens rea to stick the crime to them, then can show possession and a reason to believe the possession wasn't legal.
They have to prove more then just it was your IP.
The laws they are going after people on does not say "anyone who pays for an internet connection", they say anyone who does specific activities. They can use the fact that the internet connection is in your name to list you as a likely suspect and attempt to get more evidence like your hard drive contents and so on. But as soon as the possibility of another user (legal or not) is present, they have to prove it was you specifically.
You do not have to prove someone else did something, all you have to do is prove it was possible and that the evidence doesn't likely support you doing it yourself. You do not become the plaintiff's private investigator just because you want to defend yourself against the accusations.
It doesn't necessarily need to get messy. You see, the cop already has to have a reason to be dealing with the person and in the law you cited, the cp[ has to believe that a crime has, is, or is about to be committed by the person. So if anything, the cop can arrest the person on suspicion of the crime in which case further steps to identify Juan can be taken too.
I guess not answering a direct question like were do you live or something in order to settle the question of if he was the same Juan Gonzales that is wanted, that in and of itself would be an act Juan took that created the arrest situation. I doubt he has any claims to rights violations when it's his own omission of facts that allowed the arrest to happen. It wouldn't necessarily be a good thing, but it certainly wouldn't be Juan giving a drivers license over to the cop and the cop ignoring the differing data that would distinguish Juan from the Juan's with warrants for their arrest.
The cops are basically crooked. What they would do is Terry stop for one thing and then restart the clock for the identification thing. As for getting a judicial order, most magistrates can be reached at home and work in their official capacity at any time the need arises. So just getting one on the phone could be enough to get the order. The 3905 law actually allows the officer to sign the Magistrate's name if the magistrate orders one and the officer is not in front of him. They then call this a duplicate of the original.
I wouldn't call it a disaster. It may be poorly thought out. They should have specified the not based on nation origin stuff a little clearer as right now, it relies on the federal laws and court decisions to clarify. The governor supposedly made some executive orders to clear that up a bit. Basically, if a FED can take the route to question someone's immigration status, then AZ police can. But they can only do so as long as the FEDs are able to do so with the exception of making contact.
A lot of the problems people seem to have with the problem outside of it actually coming down on illegals is made up hysteria that people who do not want illegals removed have spread. The law clearly limits what can and can't be done to what is already legal and illegal for the feds to do. It just expands that to the local law enforcement when they are in a legitimate contact situation with someone. Of course you won't find any explanation like that in the news because it doesn't inflame people and get ratings or future events that will gain ratings like this may day march.
Clearing the browser history and deleting files isn't obstruction until after you have reason to believe they will be evidence. It's like throwing a gun away after a murder, it's just murder if you do it after the fact, but it becomes obstruction when the cops come around asking you about the murder and your gun then you throw it out.
So you do not really have anything to fear from cleaning your computer and keeping it running in good shape. Well, that is until after some LEO attempts to seize you or the computer as evidence then you continue to delete things.
Pleading not guilty isn't just for people who are innocent. It's not a dumb idea to do so because it opens several avenues to mitigate the punishment that simply isn't present with a no contest or guilty plea.
Anyone who finds themselves in serious (or any) legal trouble should plead not guilty until they can get competent legal counsel and advice. It won't hurt the judge's feelings if the plea is changed later nor will it matter much if your found guilty unless you turned down a plea bargain from something lesser.
Did you know that they estimated Kennedy was traveling at speeds between 70 and 90 miles per hour? Thay say it would have to of been that fast in order for the impact to blow the woman's panties off and put them in the glove box.
I have been to a few abandoned house parties. It doesn't generally go down like that.
First, someone breaks into the house and unlocks the doors. Then they contact others to come and party, most of which is causes those people to invite others. In the one, I left a bar for an after hours party in a house that turned out to be someone's on vacation but I didn't know that until two weeks later when they returned and it was on the news. In the other situation, I was walking down a street and some girls asked me if I was going to the party, they essentially invited me in. They said someone was having a moving party and wanted as many people as possible to show up. Again, about a week later, I recognized the house on the news.
So I have to ask, did the boys invite the girls over as if they had the authority to do so and be there or did they say "we broke into a house, come over and trash it"? The difference is the amount of culpability you would have. If you broke down in your car, went to the nearest house, knocked on the door and asked to use the phone when someone, answered, if they allow you to enter and use the phone and it turns out they broke into the place, you are not guilty of breaking and entering, or robbery or anything also.
I see that now.. When I first read it, I inserted some of the crap that the law required in my state
Anyways, the law gives the AZ police the ability to stop or detain people only when there is reasonable suspicion of a crime that has, is or is about to occur. That's only the foot in the door, they ask for identity, Juan refuses to give them anything but his name- now what would give them the right to ask for or question his immigration status based on that much interaction? Remember, the law says they may not solely consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.
So what happens is that the cops run the name through the computer and find either no record of the name at all, or more likely, they find multiple records of the name from several different states and perhaps another country. So the cop asks Juan to verify who he is because that name is so common, there are 40 different people or aliases in the system with it and 5 of them matching similar descriptions have warrants for parole violations or other felonies. Now, even though Juan doesn't have to say any more, his detention and potential arrest is solely on him at this point in time as the cop can't reasonable distinguish between the guy standing in front of him and half of the names that returned on the computer. The courts have already said that mistaken identity in arrests isn't a violation of a right when reasonable attempts to properly identify the person have been taken and it still fails. (yea, I know, it's still ohio but the exception liability is implied from a federal level known as color of law).
Juan says nothing but his name so the cop goes before a magistrate and asks for a 3905 order and the judge allows them to take finger prints. Or the cop could simply arrest the guy as one of the people with an outstanding warrant, do the normal finger printing process, find out he isn't the same guy, then release him without penalty.
Something you are not considering is that when you provide your name, it's not just your name that you are providing. You are actually providing a means to identify yourself. It doesn't need to be a picture ID but it needs to be something to where the cop can reasonably know who you are If giving your name isn't enough to identify yourself, then you can be required to provide additional information and the cops can already detain you until you can be identified. That's already in line with terry.
So no, this guys rights aren't violated any more then anyone else's rights. He wasn't arrested, he was detained upon verification of his identity. When you identify yourself as Juan Gonzales, the cop can either believe you or not, then he can ask for some additional information like your address or license number or SS number or whatever to distinguish between you and the 200 other Juan Gonzales' that live in the same city.
So you see, even if Juan is a citizen, his rights weren't violated outside the way they normally would be. And yes, arrest verses detained could be the difference between a legal right being violated or not.
Well, just like I suspect with your knowledge of the bible, there is more then you are paying attention too. Did you see where I not only said reread it but you also should rethink what you know about the bible and Christianity? When you were a bible thumping Christian, I do not think you fully understood what you claimed to be or what you should have known about your own self proclaimed religious status. I would say you were no more a bible thumper then a Mechanic is that has never touched a wrench and got all their info on some chat room online watching others discuss car problems. It's probably why you are a atheist now too. Often, saying you are something doesn't make it so.
So far, the things that you have questioned in front of me are meaningless. And why God has done some things in the past are not reason for me to question. For one, he's God and can do whatever he wants to for whatever reasons he wants to.For two, it happened in the past, well before I was alive. For three, those things stopped happening, they were one time situations meant to address specific instances and holding a grudge over something that didn't happen in your lifetime or the lifetime of any living relative or isn't going to happen again is ridiculous. For four, the covenant with Jesus changed the entire approach to how god operates which if you really were a bible thumper at one time, you would know and not even consider the old testament issues to be anything relevant to your Christianity.
Given enough time and history, you will see every or any entity do some questionable things as well. This is especially true when there is an objective or a power issue involved. Take the US for instance, and yes, I can single other countries out too. Anyways, the US, besides being involved in the entire slave issue, has experimented on it's own people with diseases and mutation causing radioactive substances without the person's knowledge, dropped atomic bombs on civil populations claiming they were a military target knowing that innocent civilians would be the primary casualty, and they have done several other things. And that's all without getting into the war for oil tripe and other things that sound disturbingly bad.
The thing is, if you understood Christianity I would be explaining any of this to you. Perhaps you have read the bible instead of skimming through it and picking out the parts that serve your purpose. Perhaps you are one of those people who just cannot follow directions. Perhaps you went to one of those churches that was more concerned with power, money, or control and not concerned about the religion itself. I don't know but what I do know is that what you have brought up should be a non-issue and certainly isn't worthy of rejecting God over or abandoning a religion. If you have other reasons, then fine, I don't really care. But it seems that you are operating on half truths and mistaken pieces of knowledge here and that is something you should know about.
What good is a government of the same or anything where power gets concentrated. There is good in between and this condition is not just limited to religions.
Actually, we are talking about Christianity with the catholic church so I am talking about the ten commandments repeated from those that you are mentioning throughout the new testaments. While they are the same, you have to understand that the bible is divided into covenants with god that somewhat change over the course of the story. The new testament being the latest and last of them, the previous ones are more or less historical.
Of course seeing how the passage containing the words suffer not a witch to live and slaughter all the men, women, and children to get your holy land is in the old testament, it belongs to Jews as Moses was a Jew. The laws of Moses are not strictly honored by Christians nor are the stories verbatim outside of a historical context unless they are repeated in the new testament in which the christian covenant is bound to. Remember, Jesus was a Jew, Christians follow Jesus' covenant which is what makes them Christians.
Anyways, the point is that even though the laws and stories were there, they applied to the Jews not Christians.
I think you are confused. The inquisition as well as the witch hunts and crusades (as there were many inside and outside of religion) and so on were not the status quo per religion, it was the workings of man claiming to be in duty of the religion. This differs from the accounts in the bible where it claims that God ordered things to be done in itself because they were attempting to interpret their own meanings instead of being directly told.
So lets see if we agree about a few things or not. The Ten Commandments were set and in "force" at these times right? No one claimed God told them to do the crusades, witch hunts, or inquisition, the claims were in the name of their religion, but it was something they interpreted themselves somehow, right? Or is there some documentation where someone claims god told them to do something?
Please do not confuse acts of man with acts of God.
well, not really. Morals are pretty much dictated by society. Killing a person or taking what you need from them is an animalistic instinct inherent in our evolutionary gene code. Saying that it's not moral except when self preservation issues are around is an act of society and punished by society. There are morals pushed by society that I do not agree with but have to obligate myself to or face severe punishment. These morals have transformed into laws but not all laws are morals (or moral).
The problem with relative morals is that they do not apply as soon as you or anyone can justify it. It's really no different then the holding people without trial that we saw, it's not moral, it's unconstitutional, it's legally wrong, but when the people weren't US citizens or somehow classified as an enemy of the US, then all the sudden the morals stopped applying, the constitution stopped applying and the laws of the land stopped applying- well until a couple of judges said you cannot reduce that to relative situations- they are absolute.
History has shown us why moral relativism is not particularly a good idea. It really has nothing to do with the existence of any god or their followers. Historical atrocities like the inquisition and such is one example of morals going from absolute to relative in which a religion was involved. It's basis was in killing someone because they didn't believe in or worship their god while giving them a chance to convert even though their god said killing was bad. An absolute moral would be that they couldn't murder these people but the relativism turned it into some sort of justifiable work of the lord.
This, as anyone can see, is not something specific to any religion nor is it isolated from one. Pope Benedict was actually a Nazi Youth during WWII and saw first hand how moral relativism made it possible for the internment of the Jews and other such crap.
I'm not sticking up for the pope, nor am I sticking up for any religion. It may very well be something along the lines of what you say but moral relativism is not something that we should want. Already we have people taking this path that say kiddie porn or pedophilia is ok if it doesn't harm the kids or that the punishment for it is too harsh because there isn't any harm to the kids. That's the relativism of the argument, the absolute of it is that it's bad and shouldn't happen. Don't confuse morals with the so called source and don't confuse absolute/relative with the morals. And especially, do not be ignorant enough to think some religion or god separates the two.
Absolutes say something is always right or wrong, relativism attempts to justify why it isn't right or wrong in that instance. DO you want to get raped in the mouth in front of 10,000 people and have the attacker justify his actions as not immoral somehow?
That's a little easier said then done.
This is especially true when your going up against a 0 day exploit or software that's sitting on a known exploit but can't get a patch to work without borking 2 million installs.
Do you have that low of an opinion about yourself that you need to attempt to insult everyone in some futile attempt to elevate yourself above them? Does that make you feel good or something? Because it adds nothing else to the discussion. In fact, the entire world is now more dumb because you made a comment.
The fact is, they changed it from only global warming to climate change. You cannot deny that.
No, I did not make it sound like that. I made it sound like some people are clalling it global warming while others are calling it climate change which is not only what I wrote, but what you just admitted.
I'm sorry that any challenge to what you want to think, whether it's based in real life, opinion, or whatever, seems to be such an egregious attack on your faith that you have to construe it the wrong way and resort to attempted insults. But that shows more about you then anyone you are commenting to.
Again, see above. BTW, what was it I said that was dishonest? I bet you cannot point to it without ignoring reality. I will also bet that in your frustration, you will resort to more attempted insults because you lack the competent substance to support your faith.
Interesting,
You must belong to the cult/church of global warming. Well, I guess there is no rational discussion for you as it appears that you only want to selectively reviews the facts and dismiss anything that doesn't agree with you, even when it is something that does agree.
Do you know what makes you different from any other religious zealot? Most all other religious zealots are convinced in something that happened well before their time and was translated and passed on in stories and such. You on the other hand have lived during the time of it's happening and reached your conviction of faith by ignoring reality and distorting what was left in order to skew your own interpretations of the miracle events. I think that makes you a little more dangerous then most religious zealots. In fact, if you did this about finances, business, or practically anything else in life, the government would have already locked you up or killed you in a Wako style stand off.
I guess who decides is the science behind the cure and the fact that it actually works instead of killing the person or soaking them dry before they die of the original condition. All of that can be determined without "an all-wise beneficent dictator" and the procedures for determining it with a likely accurate outcome can easily be established by "a bunch of politically-appointed bureaucrats".
As I already said, this _IS_NOT_ABOUT_ you making a choice. It's about people peddling unsafe products that do not do what they claimed. If you think it's part of your freedom to get scammed when the results could be the end of your life, then we need to talk about an investment opportunity I have.