In my case, I had serious problems with my foreskin, which was getting seriously infected all the time, despite all the hygienic measures taken by my parents. One of my sons now has the similar problem, the other one not. In my case, it was a medical necessity to get rid of the foreskin, just like it probably will be for my son. Your problems were likely caused by forcible retraction of the foreskin. The foreskins' of infants aren't designed to be pull back, and when a well-meaning adult does yank it back it can cause all sorts of problems. The fact that places like Norway have a circumcision rate of 6 in 100,000 clearly shows that, if a penis is properly taken care of, circumcision is almost never medically necessary.
- by coincidence - is also found shit ugly by most women I know, regardless of the reason this removal was done, That's just a cultural bias. If all the women you knew had stretched necks and facial tattoos you'd probably find unmodified women to be gross as well.
Equaling removal of a completely unnecessary piece of skin... to the *real* genital mutilations performed on young girls in Africa, practically crippling them for the rest of their lives, is actually an unbelievably ignorant thing to do! There's a spectrum of genital mutilations that range from infibulation (sewing a girl shut) and penectomy/castration on one end, to clitoral hood removal and old style circumcision (just the tip) on the other. All of them really are mutilations. You wouldn't say that a painless poisoning "isn't murder" because burning to death is vastly worse, would you?
As an aside, a few centuries ago a North African could have said the same thing, but with the sexes reversed - "How dare you call clitoral hood removal, which still lets girls orgasm and procreate, mutilation, as if it were the same as the choir-boy castration practiced by those crazy Italians!".
Especially nowadays, that the pretty direct connection between the foreskin and the cervical cancer has been pretty much (statistically) proven. Not true - a few preliminary studies done a few decades ago showed a correlation, but when larger, more carefully controlled studies were done the correlation disappeared. It turns out that (especially Orthodox) Jews in the first study were all circumcised, and also behaved in ways that didn't spread HPV as much (less premarital sex, etc), and HPV causes cervical cancer. This is a pretty clear example of why "correlation is not causation".
The only health benefits that are even debatable right now are a lower HIV infection rate and lower chance of UTI. The correlation with HIV only appears in Africa - studies in first-world nations, from America to New Zealand, show no connection at all. UTIs are easy and cheap to treat, and are much more common in girls - but nobody's even thinking about a preemptive surgery for them. And in both cases, the studies that show a benefit have very serious methodological flaws. More importantly, when experts (like the U.S.'s AMA, the U.K.'s NIH, etc) look at all of the available data, they still don't recommend the surgery.
I guess you also don't "mutilate" your fingers by the barbaric act of nail clipping, do you? Nails are designed to wear off and they grow back, chunks of penises don't. Clipping nails isn't mutilation, but cutting out the whole thing so that the nail never grows back would be.
Oh, one more thing. Go find a good physician. The rabi should keep his fingers away, that's for sure. That's a good idea, but in many places you can't find doctors that will perform the operation. Even in the US, many doctors are refusing to circumcise babies.
This "operation" is such a routine around here in Europe, that I've NEVER heard of the complications you mention in your post. For the most part, Europeans don't circumcise their children, male or female - I don't know why you'd think that they did.
Again, that's a totally bogus argument based on the misconception that your "natural rights"... I'm not defending natural rights. Please don't put words in my mouth.
... the compulsory nature of government mandates like taxation, regulation and general lawmaking... So you do agree with the statement that "taxation is compelled". "To compel" means "to force". So I don't know why you disagree with "taxation is forced".
... the difference between legal compulsion and legal force... As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist. And until you explain how "legal compulsion" and "legal force" are different, I'm not going to be able to communicate with you very well.
You're saying that there are arguments that states of mind correspond to brain states? Yes, type physicalism and token physicalism, for starters.
OK, for the argument, but its never been observed. Exactly! If we could really say one way or the other, it would be science, but as long as it's just arguments that explore the subject, it's philosophy.
The legal process for dealing with nonpayment of taxes involves requesting that you pay them, followed by financial sanctions (penalties), followed by court proceedings. Only if you engage in sustained tax evasion and flight from the law - an independent crime - could you even face arrest. He does go a bit off point, but even if you don't try to flee they will eventually arrest you for not paying your taxes.
Thanks, I think equating paying taxes with flagrant law-breaking violence proves my point about hyperbole pretty nicely. They aren't exactly the same, but they both take things from you without your consent. In that aspect they are the same.
Honestly, it strikes me as odd that you'd use this ridiculous comparison given the reasonable and defensible positions you describe elsewhere. And he probably finds it odd that you don't think that en-force-ing tax law requires force.
More importantly, I think your dislike of the comparison he's making keeps you from seeing his point.
Now there can and should be vigorous debates about what running society really means, what should be done, and what shouldn't, but that debate is a lot drier than making incensed arguments equating the legal compulsion to pay taxes with physical force and violence. We should have those vigorous debates, but if we can't agree on basic facts, it's hard to do that. One of those facts is that the difference between a government and any other kind of organization is that governments have the right to make people do things - i.e. use force. It doesn't matter whether it's putting a murder to death, drafting a civilian, or seizing the assets of someone who hasn't paid their taxes - all of those things require force by definition. And the same goes that other way - if it isn't backed up with the treat of some kind of punishment, it isn't really a tax.
Once we get that out of the way, we can talk endlessly about what should or shouldn't be taxed and what taxes should or shouldn't pay for. But until you understand, very throughly, that 'tax' means 'force people to hand over money', you're missing a basic concept that's needed for that discussion.
Its one of the tenets of Philosophy of Mind, brain states do not correspond to mind states... That's an argument that some people have made, but it's hardly a settled matter.
Really, I'm just regurgitating Daniel Dennett. Who's an excellent philosopher, and as such he'd understand that there are arguments going the other way.
And my point is that if it is, you're only going to eat one. But if it's a whole field... ...then it's the same as if it's a whole field of regular old hybrid corn.
On the other hand, most of the problems with GM tech are related to monocultures. See what I did there? Let me guess:
Changing the subject?
Blending two subjects that are only tangentially related in order to discredit one of them?
Playing word games?
Realizing that the real problems with modern agriculture have nothing to do with GM?
I'd really like a cite on that. okay. A study that, after a proper statistical analysis, showed no effect, and don't raise any human health concerns according to the European Food Safety Authority.
long-term repercussions to the soil. This might be an issue, but it isn't a health concern non-insects. And the fact that the article cites the discredited "monarch butterfly caterpillars" study means the rest should be taken with a grain of salt.
Second, you are constantly eating food with uncontrolled natural mutations, are you scared of them? Nope. See, in nature a single organism tends to be mutated... we create big monocrops and do our utmost to ensure that they survive... My point was that any organism that you eat could have a mutation, and thus be the first of its kind to be toxic.
Monoculture may cause problems, but they're unrelated to GM tech.
Peanuts kill people through an allergy, but toxins kill people because they're toxic. But you're still dead, right?
No matter how you slice it, or how close you look, any philosopher is happy to point out, all you end up with is brain... mind is increasingly and frustratingly elusive. That's mostly because we wouldn't know 'mind' if it slapped us upside the head. It's always hard to connect science with things that you can't really define.
Humans may very well someday reverse engineer the brain and be able to duplicate brain states, but this does not correspond to states of mind How can you possibly know that?
so even if computer scientists create some super advanced AI, all it will be able to do is trick us into thinking the AI is mind, but it never will be, and no artificial hardware/software will ever be able to produce mind, nor will we ever find mind by digging through brain, either physically or by non-invasive scanning, even if we know that brain is the seat of mind. Now you're just asserting things.
I'm not interested in the GM varieties because we've already seen one case of GM corn producing toxins in a late generation. I'd really like a cite on that.
There's little to no real danger than the terminator gene will spread and destroy the world's food, Reason 1 - because nobody is using it.
Reason 2 - because the whole point of it is to prevent genes from spreading.
but plenty that some manmade gene will spread and make much of it inedible First, they're not man made - they're just moved from one organism to another. Second, you are constantly eating food with uncontrolled natural mutations, are you scared of them?
and not to mention kill or at least harm a bunch of people before we notice. Peanuts kill people every day! Ban them, ban them! See, I can scare-monger, just like you!
Sorry, I didn't have time to discuss every point raised by the post I was replying to.
It isn't sustainable - there are already roundup-resistant weeds in several countries. First, even if GM products based around glyphosate use (and, just for the sake of argument, the use of every other GM related pesticide/herbicide) was completely unsustainable, that only applies to one small part of GM. Drought resistance, allergen elimination, added vitamins, more durable fruit and many other GM traits are just as sustainable as any traditionally bred trait.
Second, just like proper use of antibiotics, there are probably ways to use Roundup that keep it at least somewhat useful in the long run.
Use more petroleum products to grow (specialized fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides) For the most part, GM crops don't need any "specialized fertilizers and pesticides and herbicides". The obvious exception (Roundup Ready crops) use less herbicide because it's stronger than traditional herbicides, uses less oil because it doesn't have to be applied as often, and as a bonus it's a lot less harmful to people and the environment than most other herbicides (e.g. paraquat), because it's less toxic to animals and doesn't last as long in the soil.
Completely deplete the soil of any nutrients, making traditional crop-rotation useless I have no idea where you'd get that idea.
Are unable to be harvested for seeding next year's crop Which isn't any worse than hybridized corn - that's nearly every bit of corn grown in the developed world for the last several decades.
Over time are more expensive per pound even though the initial crop is easier and cheaper I'd like a cite on that.
...growing with GM crops is akin to drowning yourself slowly in debt. It's not a sustainable solution. Most people with even a passing familiarity with farming would disagree. GM crops, depending on what they were developed for, have higher yields, are more reliable and use fewer resources. For most farmers the premium for the GM seed is a small price to pay.
And clubbing baby seals produces more unit of finished product per month than heart surgery. What? We're comparing success in college to success in college, not apples and oranges. I'm talking about Catholic High School, not seminary school.
Except they don't teach anything that contradicts religious dogmas, and indoctrinate students with idiocy that cripples their thinking process. This would count as education in Middle Ages, when literate dumbass and self-loathing religious zealot would be better than illiterate dumbass, however thankfully we are not in Middle Ages now, and have to live up to higher standards. But if they manage to teach math better even after taking time to teach the mumbo-jumbo, shouldn't we be able to create a secular version that teaches math just as well?
My only point was that people do want their children to be educated. Even if their motives are impure, or they don't really understand what "education" implies, they still want it - and are willing to pay for it.
A "right" that you are unable to exercise is not a right at all in any meaningful sense of the word. If nobody is obliged to provide you with something, you don't have a right to it. Many people, when they use the word "right", mean negative rights (i.e. rights from something, e.g. free speech) - the only obligation is not to impose on other people.
You are including positive rights or entitlements (i.e. rights to something, e.g. right to vote) - that's where another party has to provide you with something.
By your logic, all Americans also have the "right" to free air travel and a luxurious massage every day, and ain't it just too bad that nobody's willing to provide either? Those are odd, but perfectly legitimate, examples. People can't stop you from flying for free or getting a massage, but it's up to you to find a way to make it happen without violating the rights of others - dating a rich massage therapist would be one way to try. A more common example is that freedom of the press doesn't imply that anyone must supply you with one.
That's because the whole point of rights is to find a fair balance where everyone's interests are protected as much as possible, and everyone has as many opportunities as possible. No, rights have nothing to do with "balance" or "providing opportunities" - democracy might lead to those things, though. You seem to want to stretch the definition of "rights" in order to encompass every goal of your political ideals.
This is very different from socialism, which strives to force everyone to the same level of achievement regardless of how much natural talent they have and how much effort they make. That's communism - "to each according to his needs". Socialism (generally) just means state ownership/control.
Religious education is negative education, it spreads false knowledge and promotes uncritical thinking, so it's worse than none. Religion may be BS, but Catholic schools have low dropout rates, higher rates of college attendance, lower costs per pupil, and generally beat public schools by any objective measure.
If anything, its popularity only confirms my point. Actually, if they can be hands-down better than public school and still have extra time to waste teaching extra stuff, that supports the GP's point.
No. They don't want education, they want some nebulous elite job training for their kids, so they can become "doctors and lawyers". That at least gets them into the universities.
You know your society is fucked when the best reason for people to support public education is getting more equity loans. Are you deliberately trying to be obtuse? People are willing to pay more for houses in good school districts, which shows that they care about educating their children - it has nothing to do with getting loans.
What are you going to describe? A pattern of electrical currents and chemical reactions which occurs as you smile at a sight of a friend, say? That would just be the process of recognizing the friend. The friendship itself would be the structure in the brain that causes those reactions.
Clearly, "friendship" is not a pattern. You can call it what you want, but there's no reason to believe that there's anything non-physical about it.
Our previous colonies could look forward to resupplies within a couple of years (at the most). A colony in another solar system... Who's talking about resupply?
That is correct. But when you're talking inter-stellar distances, it is meaningless.
No, it is very easy to understand when you understand the DISTANCES involved.
I think you're getting mesmerized by the distances while ignoring the timescale.
Even if we assume that it takes them 10,000 years to push 1 light year closer to us, and they happen to be at the exact opposite side of the galaxy from us, they should have been here 2 billion years ago. Why? You are stating their starting time as if it were a fact. I think he meant "...should have only taken 2 billion years to get here."
Which kind of negates the "Great" aspect of the "Great Filter". Because there is not a SINGLE "filter" that would apply to both cases. You can gripe about the name, but if almost every lifeform has a filter, we still have a mystery on our hands, and one whose explanation might be good to have.
I explain why I don't agree with three of your theories, and you reply with "you need to get out more"?
people who disagree with you.
I'm talking to you! What more you you want?
maybe a tour down here on "third world" countries will give you a different perspective.
I like seeing things from a new perspective, but I don't think that a trip to Zimbabwe is going to change my perspective on how easy it is to make practical fusion technology.
where are cars that run on water, or fusion power?
Your imagination. Water doesn't contain large amounts of easily available energy, and any fusion technology in the foreseeable future will need shielding too heavy for road vehicles.
I mean, nuclear energy was developed in record time, but we're still struggling to make fusion power, the holy grail of energy: almost for free, clean, endless... sounds too good to be true?
Fission happens spontaneously, in our natural environment, fusion doesn't. Why is it hard to believe that fusion would be more difficult to make practical?
is it really that crazy to think that the biggest business on earth will do anything in its power to suppress competition?
No, but it is crazy to think that they've somehow gotten to every person involved in fusion research, especially without any evidence.
when you say "I need positive evidence to believe an assertion", well, I don't buy that.
Then you aren't being rational, it's that simple.
You don't try to find a neutral point.
There isn't a "neutral point" between one person's evidence-free speculation asserted as fact and another's bare minimum of reasonable skepticism.
I don't think you're expounding - you're making a separate, though somewhat related, argument. The original poster only said that even with a perfectly fair starting point, economic outcomes aren't going to be equal.
But even with your better argument, inability to do something isn't the same as not being free to do it - being free just means that you are allowed to try. Would you say that someone who's paralyzed isn't free to walk? Or that someone who can't afford a printing press doesn't have freedom of the press? Or that slashdotters who can't get laid aren't free to have sex?
Slashdot Mirror
As an aside, a few centuries ago a North African could have said the same thing, but with the sexes reversed - "How dare you call clitoral hood removal, which still lets girls orgasm and procreate, mutilation, as if it were the same as the choir-boy castration practiced by those crazy Italians!".
Especially nowadays, that the pretty direct connection between the foreskin and the cervical cancer has been pretty much (statistically) proven. Not true - a few preliminary studies done a few decades ago showed a correlation, but when larger, more carefully controlled studies were done the correlation disappeared. It turns out that (especially Orthodox) Jews in the first study were all circumcised, and also behaved in ways that didn't spread HPV as much (less premarital sex, etc), and HPV causes cervical cancer. This is a pretty clear example of why "correlation is not causation".The only health benefits that are even debatable right now are a lower HIV infection rate and lower chance of UTI. The correlation with HIV only appears in Africa - studies in first-world nations, from America to New Zealand, show no connection at all. UTIs are easy and cheap to treat, and are much more common in girls - but nobody's even thinking about a preemptive surgery for them. And in both cases, the studies that show a benefit have very serious methodological flaws. More importantly, when experts (like the U.S.'s AMA, the U.K.'s NIH, etc) look at all of the available data, they still don't recommend the surgery.
I guess you also don't "mutilate" your fingers by the barbaric act of nail clipping, do you? Nails are designed to wear off and they grow back, chunks of penises don't. Clipping nails isn't mutilation, but cutting out the whole thing so that the nail never grows back would be. Oh, one more thing. Go find a good physician. The rabi should keep his fingers away, that's for sure. That's a good idea, but in many places you can't find doctors that will perform the operation. Even in the US, many doctors are refusing to circumcise babies. This "operation" is such a routine around here in Europe, that I've NEVER heard of the complications you mention in your post. For the most part, Europeans don't circumcise their children, male or female - I don't know why you'd think that they did.
... the compulsory nature of government mandates like taxation, regulation and general lawmaking
... the difference between legal compulsion and legal forceMore importantly, I think your dislike of the comparison he's making keeps you from seeing his point. Now there can and should be vigorous debates about what running society really means, what should be done, and what shouldn't, but that debate is a lot drier than making incensed arguments equating the legal compulsion to pay taxes with physical force and violence. We should have those vigorous debates, but if we can't agree on basic facts, it's hard to do that. One of those facts is that the difference between a government and any other kind of organization is that governments have the right to make people do things - i.e. use force. It doesn't matter whether it's putting a murder to death, drafting a civilian, or seizing the assets of someone who hasn't paid their taxes - all of those things require force by definition. And the same goes that other way - if it isn't backed up with the treat of some kind of punishment, it isn't really a tax.
Once we get that out of the way, we can talk endlessly about what should or shouldn't be taxed and what taxes should or shouldn't pay for. But until you understand, very throughly, that 'tax' means 'force people to hand over money', you're missing a basic concept that's needed for that discussion.
Changing the subject?
Blending two subjects that are only tangentially related in order to discredit one of them?
Playing word games?
Realizing that the real problems with modern agriculture have nothing to do with GM?
You tell me.
Monoculture may cause problems, but they're unrelated to GM tech. Peanuts kill people through an allergy, but toxins kill people because they're toxic. But you're still dead, right?
Reason 2 - because the whole point of it is to prevent genes from spreading. but plenty that some manmade gene will spread and make much of it inedible First, they're not man made - they're just moved from one organism to another. Second, you are constantly eating food with uncontrolled natural mutations, are you scared of them? and not to mention kill or at least harm a bunch of people before we notice. Peanuts kill people every day! Ban them, ban them! See, I can scare-monger, just like you!
Second, just like proper use of antibiotics, there are probably ways to use Roundup that keep it at least somewhat useful in the long run.
...growing with GM crops is akin to drowning yourself slowly in debt. It's not a sustainable solution. Most people with even a passing familiarity with farming would disagree. GM crops, depending on what they were developed for, have higher yields, are more reliable and use fewer resources. For most farmers the premium for the GM seed is a small price to pay.
...use non-monsanto corn... Or Monsanto could develop new varieties that tolerate drought better and let small farmers use them for free.
...Monsanto or whoever owns the patents on current non-sugar sweeteners... Monsanto???My only point was that people do want their children to be educated. Even if their motives are impure, or they don't really understand what "education" implies, they still want it - and are willing to pay for it.
You are including positive rights or entitlements (i.e. rights to something, e.g. right to vote) - that's where another party has to provide you with something. By your logic, all Americans also have the "right" to free air travel and a luxurious massage every day, and ain't it just too bad that nobody's willing to provide either? Those are odd, but perfectly legitimate, examples. People can't stop you from flying for free or getting a massage, but it's up to you to find a way to make it happen without violating the rights of others - dating a rich massage therapist would be one way to try. A more common example is that freedom of the press doesn't imply that anyone must supply you with one. That's because the whole point of rights is to find a fair balance where everyone's interests are protected as much as possible, and everyone has as many opportunities as possible. No, rights have nothing to do with "balance" or "providing opportunities" - democracy might lead to those things, though. You seem to want to stretch the definition of "rights" in order to encompass every goal of your political ideals. This is very different from socialism, which strives to force everyone to the same level of achievement regardless of how much natural talent they have and how much effort they make. That's communism - "to each according to his needs". Socialism (generally) just means state ownership/control.
No, it is very easy to understand when you understand the DISTANCES involved.
I think you're getting mesmerized by the distances while ignoring the timescale. Even if we assume that it takes them 10,000 years to push 1 light year closer to us, and they happen to be at the exact opposite side of the galaxy from us, they should have been here 2 billion years ago. Why? You are stating their starting time as if it were a fact. I think he meant "...should have only taken 2 billion years to get here." Which kind of negates the "Great" aspect of the "Great Filter". Because there is not a SINGLE "filter" that would apply to both cases. You can gripe about the name, but if almost every lifeform has a filter, we still have a mystery on our hands, and one whose explanation might be good to have.And I'll be you keep touting this asinine attitude right up until the point you develop a major medical condition,
Add on an insult:
then you'll be screaming for socialized medicine just like the rational people.
And then justify your "reasoning" by comparing it with straight-up bigotry:
Remember, no atheists in foxholes...
I wonder, could you possibly be trolling, Mr. Coward?
I explain why I don't agree with three of your theories, and you reply with "you need to get out more"?
people who disagree with you.
I'm talking to you! What more you you want?
maybe a tour down here on "third world" countries will give you a different perspective.
I like seeing things from a new perspective, but I don't think that a trip to Zimbabwe is going to change my perspective on how easy it is to make practical fusion technology.
Your imagination. Water doesn't contain large amounts of easily available energy, and any fusion technology in the foreseeable future will need shielding too heavy for road vehicles.
I mean, nuclear energy was developed in record time, but we're still struggling to make fusion power, the holy grail of energy: almost for free, clean, endless... sounds too good to be true?
Fission happens spontaneously, in our natural environment, fusion doesn't. Why is it hard to believe that fusion would be more difficult to make practical?
is it really that crazy to think that the biggest business on earth will do anything in its power to suppress competition?
No, but it is crazy to think that they've somehow gotten to every person involved in fusion research, especially without any evidence.
when you say "I need positive evidence to believe an assertion", well, I don't buy that.
Then you aren't being rational, it's that simple.
You don't try to find a neutral point.
There isn't a "neutral point" between one person's evidence-free speculation asserted as fact and another's bare minimum of reasonable skepticism.
But even with your better argument, inability to do something isn't the same as not being free to do it - being free just means that you are allowed to try. Would you say that someone who's paralyzed isn't free to walk? Or that someone who can't afford a printing press doesn't have freedom of the press? Or that slashdotters who can't get laid aren't free to have sex?