I'm not really sure how to respond to your rambling summary of the history of life on Earth. Most of the steps you describe are very well-supported by the fossil record, and the more recent ones are supported by several other lines of evidence (DNA comparison, etc). From what you've written, I don't think you really understand what the theory of biological evolution actually is, or why scientists feel that the evidence in favor of it is overwhelming.
In their bird brains they also figured out how to construct strong yet light hollow bones and invent feathers.
They didn't "figure out" anything, some animals are born with genes a little different than their parents' genes, and some managed to have more descendants than others, that's all.
In this modern tale, the magic ingredient necessary to turn a rock into a prince, is time, unimaginable amounts of time operating in partnership with the lesser magic of chance.
And selection - that's an important part. And don't knock time - by choosing which wolves to mate we've managed to created teacup poodles, bulldogs and Saint Bernards in a fairly short time - don't you think similar things happen in the wild?
It is such a shame that they call this fairy story factual and label it science. They give it an important sounding name, "The Theory of Evolution".
It's the scientific theory about why biological organisms have evolved, and that that process explains the diversity of life we see around us.
This fiction, called evolution, is taught in public schools as truth and is financed by your tax dollars.
It's the theory that ties biology together into a cohesive subject. Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching physics without forces, chemistry without particles, or psychology without the subconscious - it would make education in that subject pointless.
Only if one of the axioms in your system of reasoning is: 'God [or a supernatural creator] does not exist'.
Which is why I included the "magic" exception.
I'm not suggesting that we instead replace that axiom with its negation (although in my personal system of reasoning, it is so).
And that's where I loose you guys. Sorry.
I am simply suggesting that scientists simply be honest that they start with such materialist assumptions and that those assumptions do, whether they realize it or not, affect their ultimate interpretations of the data and their conclusions.
I don't know of any good "intro to science" book that doesn't discuss the philosophical foundations and limitations of science. I think that this might help.
You may claim that systems of reasoning are not completely scientific, but philosophy has value too (especially when truly seeking truth).
Well, both science and philosophy are both valuable, but they are different things. If you want mere guesses about Absolute Truth stick with philosophy or religion, if you want carefully reasoned conclusions based only on what you can observe then go with science.
And, I think it's safe to say that amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and many plants would be wiped out by a catastrophic asteroid.
No, it's not. I don't know why you think that every species of land animal would be wiped out by every major impact. Even your link points out that the last major impact only "eradicates about half of all animal species".
Yes, but what you fail to understand is-- panspermia or no panspermia, ID is a valid theory.
ID, with a little reworking, could be a valid hypothesis. A hypothesis is just an idea, a theory has to have evidence.
There were no edits--he implicitly admitted the scientific status of the theory of ID by referring to one potential conclusion that you may arrive at by it being proved (namely--panspermia).
He threw out a wild scenario in which ID could become an actual theory. But you missed the point of his talk - even if ID turned out to be true for life on Earth, the original complexity would have to develop somewhere else through a process like evolution. The only way to have intelligence without evolution (or a similar process), is magic - and that can't be part of a scientific theory.
Take a scenario where we know ID happened - genetically modified organisms. People have deliberately inserted genes into plants and animals, making that feature designed intelligently. But you still evolution to create the original complexity (the people) that makes them intelligent, so that they can design. And that was Dawkin's point - the order of "first life, then intelligence, last design" is the only way to rework ID so that it fits into a scientific framework.
That, in my view, is but one of the inevitable many victories in store for ID theorists.
Well if you lower the bar to "caught one person speculating in a way we can misinterpret as supporting us", then I suppose.
Do you see everything around you, including yourself, your own existence as allegorical and poetic?
No. But I do take religion as being allegorical and poetic - human truths rather than physical ones.
Since no scientists was around to observe the creation event and the events immediately thereafter, we have to BELIEVE the evidence still available from the distant past.
No, we don't - lots of "ancient wisdom" turns out to be "ancient BS". And even if we were to believe that evidence, we would still have to pick and choose which story to believe - not all creation myth is based on the Bible.
Witnesses are generally assumed to be truthful, unless it can be unambiguously shown that a witness is lying or untrustworthy.
Or conflicting (2 creation stories), or just crazy (Revelations), or...
If I took the witness stand would you believe it if I told you that there were fairies living in my garden? How is that different?
Witness testimony is, more often than not, the deciding factor in the outcome of a court case, circumstantial evidence notwithstanding.
Which sucks, because eyewitness accounts tend to be extremely unreliable compared to physical evidence.
The Bible provides direct testimony from the creator Himself, whereas all of evolution's so called evidence is at best inferred and circumstantial.
It's certainly not direct - first it went through multiple retellings and translations.
The question you, as part of the jury must decide is whether to BELIEVE the witness or some circumstantial evidence gathered after the fact.
I'll believe DNA, fossils, and rocks over the guy who rambles about the proper treatment of slaves, burning bushes that talk, and how he created people out of mud.
Also, by all estimates, a catastrophic life-ending asteroid hits earth on average every 100 millions years. So, for any evolutionary theory to fit, it must happen in that timeframe and not a larger one. Even evolutionists admit that is not enough time to produce what we currently see.
You do realize that there's a difference between ending some kinds of life and ending all life, right? Life doesn't have to start from scratch after every impact.
If someone claiming to be God knocked on the door of your dwelling, what evidence would such a person have to provide to convince you that such claim was true? If you slam the door in such a person's face and they came in anyway, right through the wall, what other evidence would you require?
How would I know that this person isn't Satan? Or a "phase-shifting" alien, or a good magician, or the product of those "magic" mushrooms I was slipped, etc...
That existence was brought about by, among other things, a UN resolution -- the very first one on the subject of Israel. It is perfectly logical, clean, legal, and moral for Israel to pay no attention to subsequent UN-resolutions, which concern Israel's interaction with its enemies, until the said enemies accept that very first UN-resolution.
So because Iraq didn't follow UN resolutions, the USA doesn't have to follow later resolutions about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq? I still believe that no matter what the order the resolutions were passed, if you're going to base the majority of your legal and moral right to exist on US resolutions, you should treat all other UN resolutions as equally important.
This is not a game, but a matter of life and death -- for Israel.
No, this is a matter of life and death for human beings.
Unlike the enemies, they aren't out to kill anybody, they just wish to survive and prosper on their side of the border.
And if they only crossed that border to carry out surgical strikes on people who were attacking them, I would say that they were doing the best they could. A 40-year occupation, land-grabbing settlements, playing cutesy with whether or not they have nuclear weapons - that's not acceptable no matter what the situation.
Well, sometimes, you know, life presents not "shades of gray", but a perfectly distinguishable contrast between evil black and honest white.
Yes, that's true. It just doesn't apply when the "good" guys deliberately block food and medical supplies from getting to civilians.
Israel's moral high ground is sky high. Unlike the enemies, they aren't out to kill anybody, they just wish to survive and prosper on their side of the border.
No, for many people it isn't that high, it's reputation is right above North Korea's - 3rd from the bottom in Newsweek's international poll, if memory serves.
"when the Arabs begin to love their children more than they hate ours ".
Nothing leads to peace faster than dehumanizing those that disagree with you (they don't even love their children!).
I'm not posting any more here.
We've obviously reached the "agree to disagree" point - we're just running in circles. Best of luck.
Most Palestinians would not say that, as evidenced by their overwhelming support for Hamas in the most recent elections.
Yeah, they don't like Israel, we get it. But I honestly think that most would be willing to stop the violence if they had a chance at actual freedom - and not an oversized prison like Gaza.
It would've been, if "the rules" were unrelated (orthogonal). They aren't -- Someone else already pointed out the silliness of that argument.
...until you recognize my right to exist, I'm going to ignore pleas on your behalf, even those pleas comes from the same entity, that granted my existence.
That makes no sense. As long as you follow only the rules you want to, you have no right to insist that anyone else follow them, period.
In 2005 Israel left Gaza completely...
But kept up the blockades - Gaza is still very much under the control of the Israeli military, just in a slightly more indirect way.
I don't know were you got your perspective on this situation, but it seems quite one-sided. I mean, what do you think the rest of the world's opinion of Israel is based on? And why do you think the US ends up as its sole supporter in many situations? Do you think that most Europeans' (and others') views on this conflict are completely crazy, or just very misinformed?
As soon as those people accept the first one, Israel will accept the subsequent ones -- natural order, is not it?
And many Palestinians would say the same thing - if Israel left the West Bank and stopped blockading Gaza most of them would be content to leave Israel alone, even if they weren't happy about the situation.
There is no hypocrisy in Israel's behavior here.
Right, because demanding that other people follow the rules while at the same time violating those rules isn't hypocrisy. Most of the world outside of Israel and the US understands that this isn't a conflict with clear good and bad guys.
Only in that of her enemies.
And from the other side, there's a bunch of Palestinians and an occupying military force. Using the dehumanizing word "enemies" to describe people who merely disagree with how a government behaves sounds very much like propaganda.
When the UN created the country, Israel demands that everyone respect that resolution.
When the UN passes resolutions that it doesn't like, it feels free to ignore them.
Leading to the "logical" conclusion that:
When the others point out the hypocrisy, the other people are the ones being inconsistent!
Looking at our species the same law naturally applies...
The numbers work out the same, but I don't think it's due to that law. In nature, choosing an R-type (many and cheap) or K-type (few and expensive) reproductive strategy is something the occurs at a genetic level, and has to happen because resources are limited.
But since that balance is in the genes, you can 'break' that law by putting the creature in an unnatural situation. Bacteria in culture or rabbits in Australia can have low mortality and rapid reproduction, because they aren't being held back by predators or a lack of resources. Human beings are in a similar situation in the first world - we could easily have an average of eight children per female like in the third world and still have very low mortality - but we don't, so some other factor must be involved.
First, so long as countries have a high birth rate, any technological advance only delays (and magnifies) the coming Malthusian disaster.
True, but when higher technology is actually available, the birth rate drops. This has held true for about 1/3 of the earths population across several cultures.
Secondly, many of the technological advances are temporary, especially in 3rd world countries, as they depend on cheap oil for mechanisation, fertiliser and pesticides.
Right, in the long run the only solution is to covert them into first world countries.
Ah, nothing like the predictive power of evolution for ya! Despite the fact that it's basically just a theory at this point, it can be used to "prove" pretty much anything you want! The birds are the same? Evolution! They're not the same? Uh, convergent evolution. That's it!
I keep telling everyone the same thing about gravity! Rocks fall down? Gravity! Balloons float up? Gravity with "buoyancy"! Humbug!
A while ago there were two papers I remember, where one of them observed that women dress sexier when fertile, while another observed women walk sexier when *not* fertile. Ah, inconsistent results that need more study, right? Nope! Evolution explains BOTH of them! Everything's consistent with evolution!
Right - I showed my physics teacher in high school a bunch of balloons with rocks tied to their strings - some floated, and others didn't! And he still insisted that no matter what they did, it was consistent with gravity! Everything's consistent with gravity!
It really is just a theory folks. How about some warnings for the textbooks?
Exactly! Every low-level science textbook should be required to define what they mean by science, and emphasize that science is the search for well-supported theory based on specific philosophical assumptions - and leave Truth in the churches and philosophy departments!
Do you have any evidence or reason to think Michael Powell was corrupt?
Prosecution: Yes, I do. Your honor, the defendant is a politician.
Judge: Guilty! The prisoner is sentenced to copy the entire IRS code by hand. Next case.
The way you just stated that, it makes it sound like you think he's corrupt for no other reason than who his relatives are, which is just plain stupid...
All of his relatives are known humans, and humans are political animals. The conclusion is inescapable.
I'm just arguing that until they do, then I have to execute that right for them and I don't want that right to be taken from me.
In general I'd agree with that, but those decisions would have to be made with the child's best interest in mind. If a parent is making decisions that are likely to put the child's life in danger, then at that point it's reasonable for the state to intervene.
"The only situation when you would be have right to handle my children against my will, is if my actions will restrict your rights or the rights of my children.
You really do need to remember that there are more than two people involved, and that they all have rights.
Your logic is bizarre and without connection to what I wrote, I just said the public decides what to use the money for.
And you're implying both that this a good system and that it leads to good results. My response was to show instances where the public was wildly immoral.
The people can make up any laws as long as it doesn't violate your inalienable rights.
Under the current system, that's correct. I'd prefer a system where laws can only be valid if they are part of the Constitution's enumerated powers, or if you prefer the Supreme Court's language, part of a "compelling government interest".
You could call taxes a violation of your inalienable right to property.
Or a violation of one's right to the product of one's labor.
Note that it isn't listed in the Bill of Rights...
and according to that same Bill of Rights, the fact that it isn't listed doesn't matter. The ninth one clearly states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The New Deal, which ended the Great Depression in the U.S. (Go on, recite the right-wing talking points how it didn't, I'll point you at the numbers.)
I'd love to see those numbers. Unemployment was extremely high from the start of the New Deal until WWII. During WWII unemployment was very low, but war spending, rationing and regulation greatly overshadowed the New Deal, and the New Deal was mostly dismantled by the conservative coalition. After WWII, without the New Deal, unemployment returned to normal. How does that lead you to believe that the New Deal fixed the economy? From the numbers I have, the ending of the New Deal appears to have ended the depression.
And maybe you can answer another question while you're at it. If the leader of a nation that's suffering a famine ordered the destruction of a great deal of that nation's remaining food, wouldn't you say that's a misguided, even evil act? Then shouldn't you decry at least the part of the New Deal that led to crops being burned and livestock being left to rot in the fields?
Deregulation and lax enforcement brings on a bunch of bad business practices, and you want to argue that the problem is governments getting involved?
So the government sets up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, gives huge tax incentives for home buyers, lowers interest rates as much as possible, and generally does everything it can to create a housing bubble, and you're blaming the removal of some (relatively) minor regulations for the mess that we're in now?
Only in the US could both Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham both be put under the same banner of socialism.
If by US you mean capitalists, oddly enough everyone's favorite capitalistic screed (Atlas Shrugged) has a whole discussion of this. If Robin Hood is taking what the Sheriff stole and returning it to the rightful owners, then he's a hero. But the story has been reinterpreted so that it's no longer about the Sheriff's crimes, but about "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor". If RH is taking from people who became rich honestly and giving to people that never earned that money, then he's just a thief, according to Rand.
I'm aware that certain purebred liberitarians would call this "legitimate stealing" through taxes, but be that as it may it's in general the masses taking funds from the few.
I'm no hard-core fee marketer, but here I have to agree - how does the number of people make a difference? It doesn't matter if it's one person or most of a town, lynching a random undesirable is wrong. Even if 90% of a country wants slavery legalized, it's still immoral. But for some reason if 51% of a small group of representatives wants to take money from a group of people, that perfectly acceptable, and shouldn't even count as theft? I'll grant that democratic government theft is vastly preferable to theft by the mob or a dictator, perhaps it's the best that's actually possible, but I never stop remembering that it's theft.
"...or really any other reason we can agree that society is better off."
Well, if the government can outlaw things for "any reason", you can't really say that you're free or have "inalienable rights" - Americans tend to like those.
Modern socialdemocratic countries is about operating a service at a loss...
... which means that other, profitable services have to be taxed. And that's why even the most "socialistic" country in Europe doesn't really practice socialism (government ownership of the means of production), but rather a capitalistic system with heavy regulation and a large public sector.
If a boxer over-steps the bounds of the sports and tries to beat someone to death they can still be charged...
So now you're agreeing that fundamental rights can be signed away, at least to a point. I think we actually communicated!
Then in the same vein as repeatedly insulting me - calling me a troll etc...
First, I only said you advertised yourself as a troll - instead of that sig, you might as well have used the name "ImNotATroll" for your account - practically begging to be modded down. Second, you've insulted me much more often, and insulted many more people than I have - if you can't take it, you're better off not dishing it out in the first place.
The day I let you sensor me to save myself from such a thing I'll eat my shorts.
So my insulting you is a grave injustice, which you imply that I shouldn't be doing, while at the same time you demand free reign to insult, and any attempt to request civility is "sensorship"? I think my choice of the word "childish" was quite apt.
On the other hand, I no longer wish to converse with you...
Not exactly going to miss that. Oh, in your frame of reference, doesn't that mean that I've won? Just asking.
Actually I was thinking of ancient Rome. People would sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts (Better than your creditor killing you after all).
So it's still slavery or death, but it's still "voluntary"? Not exactly like willingly approaching someone and asking "Would you like to own me?".
Try and be logically consistent with your arguments please. It wasn't the entire contract that was unenforceable, so stop implying it was.
There is no inconsistency. Illegal clauses in contracts are often simply struck, but if including that clause meant that the contract was negotiated in bad faith, then the courts have much more leeway in how they alter the contract.
Reasonable? Putting a doctor accused of misconduct in a teaching position? You're kidding right?
Who said anything about misconduct? I was going for old age, Parkinson's, failing eyesight - where the mind is fine but they just aren't able to do the physical aspects as well as they need to be done.
Oh, yes. Some troll's amazing ability to miss the point and whine about definitions just got me all in a fluster.
P.S. I only feed trolls once a day, at most. And the pitiful Achingly Cowardly trolls I usually don't bother with.
You might want to check your facts. People have sold themselves into slavery since antiquity.
With regard to African practice, the phrase "indentured servitude" is more accurate than "slavery". And regardless of that, if you're going to use slavery to mean something other than the common variety, you really should make that clear. I could correct someone who says "Slaves don't get paid!", because in some cases they did earn wages, but that would be playing word games.
Well sure you can argue agreeing to a boxing match means you've consented to a beating, but doing so requires supreme ignorance of how the sport works.
Nice dodge - the only reason I used the word "beating" was because it was the word you used. The point was that people have the right not to be physically harmed, but also can give up that right in quite a few situations - boxing, foreplay, (voluntary) military service, plastic surgery, etc. This demonstrates that voluntarily giving up basic rights is quite common.
If a condition in a contract is not enforceable because it breaks the law, the rest of the contract generally stands but that condition is struck off.
First, the clause of the contract is enforceable in the state that the contract was signed in, so he had every reason to believe that it would be enforced. The only issue is whether or not his change of residence allows another state's laws to void part of the contract. Second, you're right that in most situations illegal clauses are simply struck, but if the someone signs a contract knowing that it is unenforceable then they're negotiating in bad faith, which drastically changes the situation.
The hospital has no such right. If such a deal is cut it isn't above board. A medical board makes a recommendation to revoke a medical license. The hospital can only present that board with the facts. There are procedures for this.
That's one way that people can lose their license, other ways include voluntarily relinquishing them and plea deals.
If you can't make a distinction between a professional acting negligently or incompetently vs a restriction of trade, I really don't know what to tell you.
In my example the doctor's actions weren't bad enough for the board to revoke them, but bad enough for the hospital to prefer that he teach or retire. Given the choice of either letting the doctor keep his benefits and having him give up his license, or flat-out firing him and hoping he doesn't kill someone or sue them, the first choice seems better. I'm not saying that this is legal everywhere, but it seems to be a reasonable way for adults to resolve the situation.
If you don't like it, tough luck bud. It's called an internet message board.
And that's exactly what I meant with my comment! Bitching about the moderation of someone else's post, a signature that practically advertises that you're a troll - please take your own advise. This isn't a doctoral thesis where every nuance of the language must be right, nor it is a place for only the like-minded to gather. In that spirit I'll make you a deal - if you can stop bashing the mods then I'll lay off the "childish" remarks, OK?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not really sure how to respond to your rambling summary of the history of life on Earth. Most of the steps you describe are very well-supported by the fossil record, and the more recent ones are supported by several other lines of evidence (DNA comparison, etc). From what you've written, I don't think you really understand what the theory of biological evolution actually is, or why scientists feel that the evidence in favor of it is overwhelming.
In their bird brains they also figured out how to construct strong yet light hollow bones and invent feathers.
They didn't "figure out" anything, some animals are born with genes a little different than their parents' genes, and some managed to have more descendants than others, that's all.
In this modern tale, the magic ingredient necessary to turn a rock into a prince, is time, unimaginable amounts of time operating in partnership with the lesser magic of chance.
And selection - that's an important part. And don't knock time - by choosing which wolves to mate we've managed to created teacup poodles, bulldogs and Saint Bernards in a fairly short time - don't you think similar things happen in the wild?
It is such a shame that they call this fairy story factual and label it science. They give it an important sounding name, "The Theory of Evolution".
It's the scientific theory about why biological organisms have evolved, and that that process explains the diversity of life we see around us.
This fiction, called evolution, is taught in public schools as truth and is financed by your tax dollars.
It's the theory that ties biology together into a cohesive subject. Teaching biology without evolution would be like teaching physics without forces, chemistry without particles, or psychology without the subconscious - it would make education in that subject pointless.
Only if one of the axioms in your system of reasoning is: 'God [or a supernatural creator] does not exist'.
Which is why I included the "magic" exception.
I'm not suggesting that we instead replace that axiom with its negation (although in my personal system of reasoning, it is so).
And that's where I loose you guys. Sorry.
I am simply suggesting that scientists simply be honest that they start with such materialist assumptions and that those assumptions do, whether they realize it or not, affect their ultimate interpretations of the data and their conclusions.
I don't know of any good "intro to science" book that doesn't discuss the philosophical foundations and limitations of science. I think that this might help.
You may claim that systems of reasoning are not completely scientific, but philosophy has value too (especially when truly seeking truth).
Well, both science and philosophy are both valuable, but they are different things. If you want mere guesses about Absolute Truth stick with philosophy or religion, if you want carefully reasoned conclusions based only on what you can observe then go with science.
And, I think it's safe to say that amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and many plants would be wiped out by a catastrophic asteroid.
No, it's not. I don't know why you think that every species of land animal would be wiped out by every major impact. Even your link points out that the last major impact only "eradicates about half of all animal species".
Yes, but what you fail to understand is-- panspermia or no panspermia, ID is a valid theory.
ID, with a little reworking, could be a valid hypothesis. A hypothesis is just an idea, a theory has to have evidence.
There were no edits--he implicitly admitted the scientific status of the theory of ID by referring to one potential conclusion that you may arrive at by it being proved (namely--panspermia).
He threw out a wild scenario in which ID could become an actual theory. But you missed the point of his talk - even if ID turned out to be true for life on Earth, the original complexity would have to develop somewhere else through a process like evolution. The only way to have intelligence without evolution (or a similar process), is magic - and that can't be part of a scientific theory.
Take a scenario where we know ID happened - genetically modified organisms. People have deliberately inserted genes into plants and animals, making that feature designed intelligently. But you still evolution to create the original complexity (the people) that makes them intelligent, so that they can design. And that was Dawkin's point - the order of "first life, then intelligence, last design" is the only way to rework ID so that it fits into a scientific framework.
That, in my view, is but one of the inevitable many victories in store for ID theorists.
Well if you lower the bar to "caught one person speculating in a way we can misinterpret as supporting us", then I suppose.
Do you see everything around you, including yourself, your own existence as allegorical and poetic?
No. But I do take religion as being allegorical and poetic - human truths rather than physical ones.
Since no scientists was around to observe the creation event and the events immediately thereafter, we have to BELIEVE the evidence still available from the distant past.
No, we don't - lots of "ancient wisdom" turns out to be "ancient BS". And even if we were to believe that evidence, we would still have to pick and choose which story to believe - not all creation myth is based on the Bible.
Witnesses are generally assumed to be truthful, unless it can be unambiguously shown that a witness is lying or untrustworthy. ...
Or conflicting (2 creation stories), or just crazy (Revelations), or
If I took the witness stand would you believe it if I told you that there were fairies living in my garden? How is that different?
Witness testimony is, more often than not, the deciding factor in the outcome of a court case, circumstantial evidence notwithstanding.
Which sucks, because eyewitness accounts tend to be extremely unreliable compared to physical evidence.
The Bible provides direct testimony from the creator Himself, whereas all of evolution's so called evidence is at best inferred and circumstantial.
It's certainly not direct - first it went through multiple retellings and translations.
The question you, as part of the jury must decide is whether to BELIEVE the witness or some circumstantial evidence gathered after the fact.
I'll believe DNA, fossils, and rocks over the guy who rambles about the proper treatment of slaves, burning bushes that talk, and how he created people out of mud.
Also, by all estimates, a catastrophic life-ending asteroid hits earth on average every 100 millions years. So, for any evolutionary theory to fit, it must happen in that timeframe and not a larger one. Even evolutionists admit that is not enough time to produce what we currently see.
You do realize that there's a difference between ending some kinds of life and ending all life, right? Life doesn't have to start from scratch after every impact.
You can get to the Atlantic from Chicago by boat, so I want to agree. On the other hand, Chicago really isn't really part of an oceanic coast is it?
If someone claiming to be God knocked on the door of your dwelling, what evidence would such a person have to provide to convince you that such claim was true? If you slam the door in such a person's face and they came in anyway, right through the wall, what other evidence would you require?
How would I know that this person isn't Satan? Or a "phase-shifting" alien, or a good magician, or the product of those "magic" mushrooms I was slipped, etc ...
That existence was brought about by, among other things, a UN resolution -- the very first one on the subject of Israel. It is perfectly logical, clean, legal, and moral for Israel to pay no attention to subsequent UN-resolutions, which concern Israel's interaction with its enemies, until the said enemies accept that very first UN-resolution.
So because Iraq didn't follow UN resolutions, the USA doesn't have to follow later resolutions about the treatment of prisoners in Iraq? I still believe that no matter what the order the resolutions were passed, if you're going to base the majority of your legal and moral right to exist on US resolutions, you should treat all other UN resolutions as equally important.
This is not a game, but a matter of life and death -- for Israel.
No, this is a matter of life and death for human beings.
Unlike the enemies, they aren't out to kill anybody, they just wish to survive and prosper on their side of the border.
And if they only crossed that border to carry out surgical strikes on people who were attacking them, I would say that they were doing the best they could. A 40-year occupation, land-grabbing settlements, playing cutesy with whether or not they have nuclear weapons - that's not acceptable no matter what the situation.
Well, sometimes, you know, life presents not "shades of gray", but a perfectly distinguishable contrast between evil black and honest white.
Yes, that's true. It just doesn't apply when the "good" guys deliberately block food and medical supplies from getting to civilians.
Israel's moral high ground is sky high. Unlike the enemies, they aren't out to kill anybody, they just wish to survive and prosper on their side of the border.
No, for many people it isn't that high, it's reputation is right above North Korea's - 3rd from the bottom in Newsweek's international poll, if memory serves.
"when the Arabs begin to love their children more than they hate ours ".
Nothing leads to peace faster than dehumanizing those that disagree with you (they don't even love their children!).
I'm not posting any more here.
We've obviously reached the "agree to disagree" point - we're just running in circles. Best of luck.
Most Palestinians would not say that, as evidenced by their overwhelming support for Hamas in the most recent elections.
Yeah, they don't like Israel, we get it. But I honestly think that most would be willing to stop the violence if they had a chance at actual freedom - and not an oversized prison like Gaza.
It would've been, if "the rules" were unrelated (orthogonal). They aren't --
Someone else already pointed out the silliness of that argument.
That makes no sense. As long as you follow only the rules you want to, you have no right to insist that anyone else follow them, period.
In 2005 Israel left Gaza completely...
But kept up the blockades - Gaza is still very much under the control of the Israeli military, just in a slightly more indirect way.
I don't know were you got your perspective on this situation, but it seems quite one-sided. I mean, what do you think the rest of the world's opinion of Israel is based on? And why do you think the US ends up as its sole supporter in many situations? Do you think that most Europeans' (and others') views on this conflict are completely crazy, or just very misinformed?
As soon as those people accept the first one, Israel will accept the subsequent ones -- natural order, is not it?
And many Palestinians would say the same thing - if Israel left the West Bank and stopped blockading Gaza most of them would be content to leave Israel alone, even if they weren't happy about the situation.
There is no hypocrisy in Israel's behavior here.
Right, because demanding that other people follow the rules while at the same time violating those rules isn't hypocrisy. Most of the world outside of Israel and the US understands that this isn't a conflict with clear good and bad guys.
Only in that of her enemies.
And from the other side, there's a bunch of Palestinians and an occupying military force. Using the dehumanizing word "enemies" to describe people who merely disagree with how a government behaves sounds very much like propaganda.
When the UN created the country, Israel demands that everyone respect that resolution.
When the UN passes resolutions that it doesn't like, it feels free to ignore them.
Leading to the "logical" conclusion that:
When the others point out the hypocrisy, the other people are the ones being inconsistent!
Looking at our species the same law naturally applies...
The numbers work out the same, but I don't think it's due to that law. In nature, choosing an R-type (many and cheap) or K-type (few and expensive) reproductive strategy is something the occurs at a genetic level, and has to happen because resources are limited.
But since that balance is in the genes, you can 'break' that law by putting the creature in an unnatural situation. Bacteria in culture or rabbits in Australia can have low mortality and rapid reproduction, because they aren't being held back by predators or a lack of resources. Human beings are in a similar situation in the first world - we could easily have an average of eight children per female like in the third world and still have very low mortality - but we don't, so some other factor must be involved.
First, so long as countries have a high birth rate, any technological advance only delays (and magnifies) the coming Malthusian disaster.
True, but when higher technology is actually available, the birth rate drops. This has held true for about 1/3 of the earths population across several cultures.
Secondly, many of the technological advances are temporary, especially in 3rd world countries, as they depend on cheap oil for mechanisation, fertiliser and pesticides.
Right, in the long run the only solution is to covert them into first world countries.
Ah, nothing like the predictive power of evolution for ya! Despite the fact that it's basically just a theory at this point, it can be used to "prove" pretty much anything you want! The birds are the same? Evolution! They're not the same? Uh, convergent evolution. That's it!
I keep telling everyone the same thing about gravity! Rocks fall down? Gravity! Balloons float up? Gravity with "buoyancy"! Humbug!
A while ago there were two papers I remember, where one of them observed that women dress sexier when fertile, while another observed women walk sexier when *not* fertile. Ah, inconsistent results that need more study, right? Nope! Evolution explains BOTH of them! Everything's consistent with evolution!
Right - I showed my physics teacher in high school a bunch of balloons with rocks tied to their strings - some floated, and others didn't! And he still insisted that no matter what they did, it was consistent with gravity! Everything's consistent with gravity!
It really is just a theory folks. How about some warnings for the textbooks?
Exactly! Every low-level science textbook should be required to define what they mean by science, and emphasize that science is the search for well-supported theory based on specific philosophical assumptions - and leave Truth in the churches and philosophy departments!
Do you have any evidence or reason to think Michael Powell was corrupt?
Prosecution: Yes, I do. Your honor, the defendant is a politician.
Judge: Guilty! The prisoner is sentenced to copy the entire IRS code by hand. Next case.
The way you just stated that, it makes it sound like you think he's corrupt for no other reason than who his relatives are, which is just plain stupid...
All of his relatives are known humans, and humans are political animals. The conclusion is inescapable.
I'm just arguing that until they do, then I have to execute that right for them and I don't want that right to be taken from me.
In general I'd agree with that, but those decisions would have to be made with the child's best interest in mind. If a parent is making decisions that are likely to put the child's life in danger, then at that point it's reasonable for the state to intervene.
The law has no business forcing me or any member of my family to take any medicine, vaccine, food, drink, or anything else for that matter.
So all child neglect laws are a violation of your rights? What about the rights of your children?
"The only situation when you would be have right to handle my children against my will, is if my actions will restrict your rights or the rights of my children.
You really do need to remember that there are more than two people involved, and that they all have rights.
Your logic is bizarre and without connection to what I wrote, I just said the public decides what to use the money for.
And you're implying both that this a good system and that it leads to good results. My response was to show instances where the public was wildly immoral.
The people can make up any laws as long as it doesn't violate your inalienable rights.
Under the current system, that's correct. I'd prefer a system where laws can only be valid if they are part of the Constitution's enumerated powers, or if you prefer the Supreme Court's language, part of a "compelling government interest".
You could call taxes a violation of your inalienable right to property.
Or a violation of one's right to the product of one's labor.
Note that it isn't listed in the Bill of Rights...
and according to that same Bill of Rights, the fact that it isn't listed doesn't matter. The ninth one clearly states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The New Deal, which ended the Great Depression in the U.S. (Go on, recite the right-wing talking points how it didn't, I'll point you at the numbers.)
I'd love to see those numbers. Unemployment was extremely high from the start of the New Deal until WWII. During WWII unemployment was very low, but war spending, rationing and regulation greatly overshadowed the New Deal, and the New Deal was mostly dismantled by the conservative coalition. After WWII, without the New Deal, unemployment returned to normal. How does that lead you to believe that the New Deal fixed the economy? From the numbers I have, the ending of the New Deal appears to have ended the depression.
And maybe you can answer another question while you're at it. If the leader of a nation that's suffering a famine ordered the destruction of a great deal of that nation's remaining food, wouldn't you say that's a misguided, even evil act? Then shouldn't you decry at least the part of the New Deal that led to crops being burned and livestock being left to rot in the fields?
Deregulation and lax enforcement brings on a bunch of bad business practices, and you want to argue that the problem is governments getting involved?
So the government sets up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, gives huge tax incentives for home buyers, lowers interest rates as much as possible, and generally does everything it can to create a housing bubble, and you're blaming the removal of some (relatively) minor regulations for the mess that we're in now?
Only in the US could both Robin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham both be put under the same banner of socialism.
If by US you mean capitalists, oddly enough everyone's favorite capitalistic screed (Atlas Shrugged) has a whole discussion of this. If Robin Hood is taking what the Sheriff stole and returning it to the rightful owners, then he's a hero. But the story has been reinterpreted so that it's no longer about the Sheriff's crimes, but about "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor". If RH is taking from people who became rich honestly and giving to people that never earned that money, then he's just a thief, according to Rand.
I'm aware that certain purebred liberitarians would call this "legitimate stealing" through taxes, but be that as it may it's in general the masses taking funds from the few.
I'm no hard-core fee marketer, but here I have to agree - how does the number of people make a difference? It doesn't matter if it's one person or most of a town, lynching a random undesirable is wrong. Even if 90% of a country wants slavery legalized, it's still immoral. But for some reason if 51% of a small group of representatives wants to take money from a group of people, that perfectly acceptable, and shouldn't even count as theft? I'll grant that democratic government theft is vastly preferable to theft by the mob or a dictator, perhaps it's the best that's actually possible, but I never stop remembering that it's theft.
"...or really any other reason we can agree that society is better off."
Well, if the government can outlaw things for "any reason", you can't really say that you're free or have "inalienable rights" - Americans tend to like those.
Modern socialdemocratic countries is about operating a service at a loss ...
If a boxer over-steps the bounds of the sports and tries to beat someone to death they can still be charged...
So now you're agreeing that fundamental rights can be signed away, at least to a point. I think we actually communicated!
Then in the same vein as repeatedly insulting me - calling me a troll etc...
First, I only said you advertised yourself as a troll - instead of that sig, you might as well have used the name "ImNotATroll" for your account - practically begging to be modded down. Second, you've insulted me much more often, and insulted many more people than I have - if you can't take it, you're better off not dishing it out in the first place.
The day I let you sensor me to save myself from such a thing I'll eat my shorts.
So my insulting you is a grave injustice, which you imply that I shouldn't be doing, while at the same time you demand free reign to insult, and any attempt to request civility is "sensorship"? I think my choice of the word "childish" was quite apt.
On the other hand, I no longer wish to converse with you...
Not exactly going to miss that. Oh, in your frame of reference, doesn't that mean that I've won? Just asking.
Actually I was thinking of ancient Rome. People would sell themselves into slavery to pay off debts (Better than your creditor killing you after all).
So it's still slavery or death, but it's still "voluntary"? Not exactly like willingly approaching someone and asking "Would you like to own me?".
Try and be logically consistent with your arguments please. It wasn't the entire contract that was unenforceable, so stop implying it was.
There is no inconsistency. Illegal clauses in contracts are often simply struck, but if including that clause meant that the contract was negotiated in bad faith, then the courts have much more leeway in how they alter the contract.
Reasonable? Putting a doctor accused of misconduct in a teaching position? You're kidding right?
Who said anything about misconduct? I was going for old age, Parkinson's, failing eyesight - where the mind is fine but they just aren't able to do the physical aspects as well as they need to be done.
Daaaaaayam, syousef just owned you pretty hard.
Oh, yes. Some troll's amazing ability to miss the point and whine about definitions just got me all in a fluster.
P.S. I only feed trolls once a day, at most. And the pitiful Achingly Cowardly trolls I usually don't bother with.
You might want to check your facts. People have sold themselves into slavery since antiquity.
With regard to African practice, the phrase "indentured servitude" is more accurate than "slavery". And regardless of that, if you're going to use slavery to mean something other than the common variety, you really should make that clear. I could correct someone who says "Slaves don't get paid!", because in some cases they did earn wages, but that would be playing word games.
Well sure you can argue agreeing to a boxing match means you've consented to a beating, but doing so requires supreme ignorance of how the sport works.
Nice dodge - the only reason I used the word "beating" was because it was the word you used. The point was that people have the right not to be physically harmed, but also can give up that right in quite a few situations - boxing, foreplay, (voluntary) military service, plastic surgery, etc. This demonstrates that voluntarily giving up basic rights is quite common.
If a condition in a contract is not enforceable because it breaks the law, the rest of the contract generally stands but that condition is struck off.
First, the clause of the contract is enforceable in the state that the contract was signed in, so he had every reason to believe that it would be enforced. The only issue is whether or not his change of residence allows another state's laws to void part of the contract. Second, you're right that in most situations illegal clauses are simply struck, but if the someone signs a contract knowing that it is unenforceable then they're negotiating in bad faith, which drastically changes the situation.
The hospital has no such right. If such a deal is cut it isn't above board. A medical board makes a recommendation to revoke a medical license. The hospital can only present that board with the facts. There are procedures for this.
That's one way that people can lose their license, other ways include voluntarily relinquishing them and plea deals.
If you can't make a distinction between a professional acting negligently or incompetently vs a restriction of trade, I really don't know what to tell you.
In my example the doctor's actions weren't bad enough for the board to revoke them, but bad enough for the hospital to prefer that he teach or retire. Given the choice of either letting the doctor keep his benefits and having him give up his license, or flat-out firing him and hoping he doesn't kill someone or sue them, the first choice seems better. I'm not saying that this is legal everywhere, but it seems to be a reasonable way for adults to resolve the situation.
If you don't like it, tough luck bud. It's called an internet message board.
And that's exactly what I meant with my comment! Bitching about the moderation of someone else's post, a signature that practically advertises that you're a troll - please take your own advise. This isn't a doctoral thesis where every nuance of the language must be right, nor it is a place for only the like-minded to gather. In that spirit I'll make you a deal - if you can stop bashing the mods then I'll lay off the "childish" remarks, OK?