And any really libertarian [sic] would also agree that using government power to destroy choice by banning abortions is an equally evil, and anti-libertarian act.
So it would be evil and anti-libertarian to criminalize me shooting you because I don't like your ideas? (If you think so you're probably an anarchist, not a libertarian.)
From the LP platform page:
No conflict exists between civil order and individual rights. Both concepts are based on the same fundamental principle: that no individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government.
[. ..]
The only justified function of government is the protection of the lives, rights and property of its citizens.
I don't think that I'm "making an exception" when I say that, in accordance with the above, I think it is a valid function of (state) government to protect fetuses (which, for reasons you seem to have no interest in, I consider to be "individual" "lives") from abortions.
You can't be a little bit libertarian any more than you can be a little bit pregnant. Either you are, or you aren't.
It must be nice for you to have such a cut-and-dried world view.
It isn't possible that two people, who are both really-and-truly libertarian can disagree on the facts, and, therefore, come do different conclusions even though they are applying the same set of ideals?
I agree that we cannot compel a person to give up of himself to save another.
We, as a society, may say, "You may not stick a needle in your baby's head, or conspire with a doctor or other third party to do so. Else face criminal charges." The fact that pregnancy continues is an unavoidable consequence of that decision.
I believe that it is a human tragedy that there is no third (non-violent, to get back to the origin of this conversation) option.
So the Jews were herded into ghettos by overwhelming force, despite the fact they fought to the death to avoid it?
Bullshit. They (largely) acquiesced. They met violence with passivity, and it was a colossal failure. Can you not see how non-violence resulted in the slaughter of innocents?
You spectacularly missed the point regarding the Poles. I wasn't talking about the military. I was talking about the citizenry at large. I stated that this was in retrospect.
One of the foundations of Libertariansim [sic] is small government, the very opposite of the sort of large paternal government that would ban abaortion[sic]/stem cell research.
Ah! I see. You have a reading comprehension problem. I never called for a ban. I said it shouldn't be funded by the government, and "one can make a strong argument that [. ..] harvesting stem cells [is a] violent [act]".
Pop quiz: A small government: A. Pays people to do stem cell research. or B. Doesn't pay people to do stem cell research.
Take your time.
I posted this before, but I guess it didn't sink in. The LP position is, "We oppose any government restriction or funding of medical or scientific research." I don't know what "sponsor" means to you, but I meant it in the conventional "pay for" sense, not the extra-double-secret SatanicPuppy "not ban it" sense.
addition of log tables... illustrates nice short cuts for coming up with fast and accurate estimates for seemingly complex "problems"
I agree with everything else you said. Log tables (and other sources of estimates) are not Math.
Use fractions in Math. In Math we are only concerned with correct answers. Decimals, and particularly the decimals produced by a calculator, are implicitly estimates. From a Math point of view estimates are just as wrong as blank spaces and wild guesses.*
Math students should reduce logs to the extent possible, and express remaining logs with fractional exponents. (Or radicals if you want to confuse them.)
-Peter
*I swiped this out of something else I wrote. I didn't plagiarize it, you googling bastards!
How can ANY Male *EVER* even begin to think for EVEN JUST A SECOND that he has any idea how hard the decision for a woman to have an abortion is?
Do you think ANY black person will have any idea how hard the decision for a white person to have a lynching is? Of course not. Therefore, only white people should have the power to decide on the legality of lynchings.
I have never been a woman, but I have been a fetus. It is my position as a former fetus that aborting me would have victimized me.
Your argument is completely empty. It is clearly incumbent on society as a whole (not just the members able to become part of a victimized class) to protect those that others would victimize.
In my opinion it boils down to the simple question: when does a human being obtain his human rights.
Many people believe that the answer is "at the moment of conception" at the hand of God. Many others believe that it happens when the baby's primary sensory organs breach the vagina. Still others believe that it is bestowed by some undefined force precisely six months after conception.
I perceive all three of these responses to be arbitrary and self-serving.
It seems clear to me that the elusive spark* ignites a vanishingly small time after ("the moment of") conception. Small enough, at least, that conventional abortion (i.e. not RU-486) cannot be chosen and obtained quickly enough to ever be moral.
Of course, I don't presume to tell everyone this is what they must believe, but I would be remiss if I didn't do what little is in my power to defend these helpless people being deprived of their most fundamental human right: life.
-Peter
*(snaps glove) Yes, that is a RHPS reference in an anti-abortion post. Figure that one out!
You have confused libertarians for anarchists. Again, libertarians are generally for the criminalization of wife-beating.
Anyway, what kind of conservative is for across the board decriminalization of drugs? And prostitution? And substantially reducing (or even eliminating) the standing army?
You can see in the sibling to your post that they have a position on abortion. I disagree to the extent that I think states should have the power to criminalize it (and that I think my state should do so).
So in the case of abortion, does the right of the fetus to live trump the right of the mother not to be pregnant, or vice versa? Tough question from the libertarian perspective, and I don't think the LP has an official stance.
I think this is well stated. It seems like an easy question to answer if we conclude that a fetus is a human being. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that we can't agree to that.
I have come to that conclusion. The rest follows naturally.
Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question. We condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions. It is particularly harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion.
I vary from this view only in that I think states should have the ability to criminalize abortion. Since the Supreme Court has stuck its snout in the issue that's a problem.
For the record, I'm for the criminalization of wife-beating too. I don't think there's anything un-libertarian about supporting criminal penalties for people who victimize others.
From the same page:
We oppose any government restriction or funding of medical or scientific research. [my emphasis]
So I'm lock-step on this issue.
Finally, we can extrapolate from the abortion stance that they take a hands-off attitude to euthanasia. Again, I'm lock-step.
So, if we say I'm 50% at variance with the party on abortion, I'm still 83% in line on these three issues.
There are any number of additional issues (economic policy, the "war on drugs", environmental issues, world government) that I agree with them on 100%.
I disagree with your apparent assumption that war and violence are interchangeable. Clearly, violence doesn't disappear if one side of a conflict abandons it. To the contrary; the violence could become more devastating in that case.
Furthermore, one can make a strong argument that abortion, harvesting stem cells, and euthanasia are violent acts.
(For the record, I'm a libertarian. I do support the criminalization of abortion. I don't think that government should sponsor stem cell research. Euthanasia is a complex topic, but I don't have any sweeping objection.)
Spread-spectrum telecommunications is a technique in which a signal is transmitted in a bandwidth considerably greater than the frequency content of the original information.
Seems to fit the defintion put forth in the article. In what way do you disagree?
Also, I'd be willing to bet Intel staked a bigger part of its decision on the availablity of platform independent binaries making serious inroads, which hasn't really materialized.
I'm hazy on what you mean by "platform independent binaries". Are you talking about.NET? Java? Some other thing I'm ignorant of?
If you were a police chief, and your officers behaved as if they were bulletproof because of their vests, would you take away the vests or retrain them?
Of course, this statement is predicated on the theory that the cost of electricity per unit of energy is uniform throughout the universe.
I suspect that you are correct that the manufacture a PV cell typically uses less power than that cell will produce over its lifetime. (On the other hand, I imagine that running homes on PVs is a net environmental loss given the totality of the effects of the manufacturing process.)
Slashdot Mirror
So it would be evil and anti-libertarian to criminalize me shooting you because I don't like your ideas? (If you think so you're probably an anarchist, not a libertarian.)
From the LP platform page:
I don't think that I'm "making an exception" when I say that, in accordance with the above, I think it is a valid function of (state) government to protect fetuses (which, for reasons you seem to have no interest in, I consider to be "individual" "lives") from abortions.
It must be nice for you to have such a cut-and-dried world view.
It isn't possible that two people, who are both really-and-truly libertarian can disagree on the facts, and, therefore, come do different conclusions even though they are applying the same set of ideals?
-Peter
Your bone marrow analogy is spurious.
I agree that we cannot compel a person to give up of himself to save another.
We, as a society, may say, "You may not stick a needle in your baby's head, or conspire with a doctor or other third party to do so. Else face criminal charges." The fact that pregnancy continues is an unavoidable consequence of that decision.
I believe that it is a human tragedy that there is no third (non-violent, to get back to the origin of this conversation) option.
-Peter
Bullshit. They (largely) acquiesced. They met violence with passivity, and it was a colossal failure. Can you not see how non-violence resulted in the slaughter of innocents?
You spectacularly missed the point regarding the Poles. I wasn't talking about the military. I was talking about the citizenry at large. I stated that this was in retrospect.
Ah! I see. You have a reading comprehension problem. I never called for a ban. I said it shouldn't be funded by the government, and "one can make a strong argument that [. .
Pop quiz: A small government: A. Pays people to do stem cell research. or B. Doesn't pay people to do stem cell research.
Take your time.
I posted this before, but I guess it didn't sink in. The LP position is, "We oppose any government restriction or funding of medical or scientific research." I don't know what "sponsor" means to you, but I meant it in the conventional "pay for" sense, not the extra-double-secret SatanicPuppy "not ban it" sense.
-Peter
I agree with everything else you said. Log tables (and other sources of estimates) are not Math.
Use fractions in Math. In Math we are only concerned with correct answers. Decimals, and particularly the decimals produced by a calculator, are implicitly estimates. From a Math point of view estimates are just as wrong as blank spaces and wild guesses.*
Math students should reduce logs to the extent possible, and express remaining logs with fractional exponents. (Or radicals if you want to confuse them.)
-Peter
*I swiped this out of something else I wrote. I didn't plagiarize it, you googling bastards!
Do you think ANY black person will have any idea how hard the decision for a white person to have a lynching is? Of course not. Therefore, only white people should have the power to decide on the legality of lynchings.
I have never been a woman, but I have been a fetus. It is my position as a former fetus that aborting me would have victimized me.
Your argument is completely empty. It is clearly incumbent on society as a whole (not just the members able to become part of a victimized class) to protect those that others would victimize.
In my opinion it boils down to the simple question: when does a human being obtain his human rights.
Many people believe that the answer is "at the moment of conception" at the hand of God. Many others believe that it happens when the baby's primary sensory organs breach the vagina. Still others believe that it is bestowed by some undefined force precisely six months after conception.
I perceive all three of these responses to be arbitrary and self-serving.
It seems clear to me that the elusive spark* ignites a vanishingly small time after ("the moment of") conception. Small enough, at least, that conventional abortion (i.e. not RU-486) cannot be chosen and obtained quickly enough to ever be moral.
Of course, I don't presume to tell everyone this is what they must believe, but I would be remiss if I didn't do what little is in my power to defend these helpless people being deprived of their most fundamental human right: life.
-Peter
*(snaps glove) Yes, that is a RHPS reference in an anti-abortion post. Figure that one out!
Open Source it.
-Peter
You have confused libertarians for anarchists. Again, libertarians are generally for the criminalization of wife-beating.
Anyway, what kind of conservative is for across the board decriminalization of drugs? And prostitution? And substantially reducing (or even eliminating) the standing army?
Why am I responding to an AC?
-Peter
You can see in the sibling to your post that they have a position on abortion. I disagree to the extent that I think states should have the power to criminalize it (and that I think my state should do so).
I think this is well stated. It seems like an easy question to answer if we conclude that a fetus is a human being. On the other hand, it's pretty clear that we can't agree to that.
I have come to that conclusion. The rest follows naturally.
-Peter
From the Libertarian Party platform page:
I vary from this view only in that I think states should have the ability to criminalize abortion. Since the Supreme Court has stuck its snout in the issue that's a problem.
For the record, I'm for the criminalization of wife-beating too. I don't think there's anything un-libertarian about supporting criminal penalties for people who victimize others.
From the same page:
So I'm lock-step on this issue.
Finally, we can extrapolate from the abortion stance that they take a hands-off attitude to euthanasia. Again, I'm lock-step.
So, if we say I'm 50% at variance with the party on abortion, I'm still 83% in line on these three issues.
There are any number of additional issues (economic policy, the "war on drugs", environmental issues, world government) that I agree with them on 100%.
-Peter
Hmm. That's not what I sad at all. Warfare is inherently violent.
A party cannot reliably reduce violence by unilaterally abandoning violence.
Let me give you an example. In retrospect the Poles (particularly the Polish Jews) should have taken up arms against the invading Germans.
Is that straight?
-Peter
I disagree with your apparent assumption that war and violence are interchangeable. Clearly, violence doesn't disappear if one side of a conflict abandons it. To the contrary; the violence could become more devastating in that case.
Furthermore, one can make a strong argument that abortion, harvesting stem cells, and euthanasia are violent acts.
(For the record, I'm a libertarian. I do support the criminalization of abortion. I don't think that government should sponsor stem cell research. Euthanasia is a complex topic, but I don't have any sweeping objection.)
-Peter
Was Clinton a "Neo-con"? 'Cause he sure as shit sent me to the Balkans.
Was G.H.W. Bush exhibiting this "obsession" when he refused to go into Baghdad to remove Hussein?
Does your use of the term "Neo-con" represent opposition to a "'you're either for us or against us' mentality"?
-Peter
I didn't realize this (What, am I Doing an A&E biography on her?) but it seems she is.
Cool.
-Peter
Seems to fit the defintion put forth in the article. In what way do you disagree?
-Peter
Where's my froggy?
-Peter
PS: Proving, once again, that there should be a "-1: I don't get it" moderation option.
-P
This is pretty much off topic, but the inventor of spred-spectrum was hot.
-Peter
Thanks for answering. Double thanks for not being snarky!
It's like a whole new slashdot.
-Peter
I'm hazy on what you mean by "platform independent binaries". Are you talking about
-Peter
Well, I certainly hope they thought to use a counter-charm for Alohomora.
-Peter
On this site we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
I find the juxtaposition of your skepticism of the motives of the powers that be and your credulity regarding pseudo-science amusing.
-Peter
I agree 100%.
If you were a police chief, and your officers behaved as if they were bulletproof because of their vests, would you take away the vests or retrain them?
Seems obvious to me.
-Peter
Of course, this statement is predicated on the theory that the cost of electricity per unit of energy is uniform throughout the universe.
I suspect that you are correct that the manufacture a PV cell typically uses less power than that cell will produce over its lifetime. (On the other hand, I imagine that running homes on PVs is a net environmental loss given the totality of the effects of the manufacturing process.)
In any case, your logic is rotten.
-Peter
I propose that we should:
Who's with me?
-Peter
Sure it does.
-Peter
They host a torrent tracker right on their website.
-Peter