Your (idiotic) thesis was that exposure to germs via germs in the environment (and people) is a great thing; I simply provided you with an excellent venue for exposure. Go there as soon as possible, please. Let me know how your immune system fares.
I'll keep using the "cleaner and cleaner" approach. Because it works.
If you're against government censorship, support the return of privately run libraries
No, if you're against government censorship, then tell your representative, congresscritter, senator, and so on.
Don't roll over and take a knife in the ass because some religious wacko can't deal with sexuality, free speech, and the availability of bullshit other then the bullshit they want you to believe.
The founding paperwork and the related remarks of the founders are very clear that if what is done directly harms neither purse nor your property, we don't get to say "no"
to it. Everything that is on the books that says otherwise is bad law at a minimum, and probably traitorous as well, considering the role freedom of speech and information in general has played in our country's formation and maintainance.
Your argument is utter nonsense. You're confusing the perfect financial result with an acceptable financial result and claiming that if it isn't perfect, it's no good.
Perhaps we can't make a net profit on the direct care of the elderly and the terminal and the chronically ill, but it won't destroy society, either; at that point, one needs to ask what benefits could be received from treating these people.
There are many. From the family network -- history, continuity, support -- to the social network -- history, continuity, support -- there are benefits. The better condition people are in, the less trouble they will be to have around for everyone -- family, society. Other benefits accrue just from the energies that go into the care. The more care is given, the better at it we could get. That means keeping you and your family alive longer, if you like.
The older children are when their parents die, generally speaking, the more stable and ready to deal with it the children will be, and the more support they will have had to that point. Parents (good ones, for sure) can have a lot to contribute.
You're just being selfish and shortsighted. Not smart.
Also, the remark about medical school was pointless. I already said I was willing to give up an equal percentage of my income for the sake of universal health care. My skills aren't in the medical arena; my efforts are best spent earning money where I'm good at it and then contributing in that vein. So to speak.
Those people can't get insurance because insuring them would guarantee a loss. It doesn't matter if it's a big bad corporation or the government, it's a losing proposition
It's a losing proposition because insurance is loaded (for the house) gambling. When you enter a lottery, you have the winning number before you enter. The lottery doesn't know it at that point, though. Same for a horse race. You pick the winner before you enter. Insurance companies require knowing first. Insurance doesn't allow you to enter if you have a "winning" number. It's not that it can't work, it's that it is forced to not work.
Because insurance only works for the (so far) lucky, I consider it a broken attempt at a solution. I would prefer a solution that works for everyone; I'm not up with the idea that healthcare should be a privilege in a society as astonishingly wealthy as the USA is.
I benefit if my neighbor is not sick; my company benefits if my employees are not sick; children benefit if the vagrant in the park is not sick, or the other kids in school are not sick.
What I am saying is that just as the state's interest is in an educated population, the state's interest is also in a healthy population. That's my opinion. I don't mind equal percentage taxes going to this. If I pay 20% of my income, and you pay 20% of your income, and I am healthy, and you or someone else or both of you gets fixed, that's fine by me. I'd rather you were healthy. It's good for the country, just as un-cratered roads are and clean water is.
Some people will lice and die poor. You can't fix that.
Not interested in fixing that. Interested in having them live and die healthy.
Well, so is walking up to a cliff and turning left instead of stepping off the precipice. Discrimination is making an informed choice, generally speaking.
I think it is perfectly legitimate to discriminate, and if you'll think it through, you'll see it's done all the time. For instance, if you pass a programming test, and Martha doesn't, and I have a programming job to fill, I'm going to pick you. I'm going to discriminate against Martha, because the information I have clearly indicates it is likely she's not going to be as good an employee as you are.
Discrimination isn't a bad thing, per se. Prejudice is; unfair discrimination is what prejudice is. If I have a programming job and I won't hire Martha because she's female, this has no bearing on the job, and that's unfair. But if Martha is missing her legs and I have install a million dollars worth of infrastructure for her to be an employee of equal value (which may be less than the million she costs, in fact), then you are going to get the job, and reasonably so -- the company shouldn't reasonably be held to pay for an individual's limitations. It can, if everyone else is, reasonably be held to an equal share of everyone's limitations, but that's not how the system presently works.
I do not subscribe to your rosy view that corporations would take care of their employees;
I'm not sure where you got that out of what I said. Would you post a quote and your interpretation, please?
Yes, I'm in the USA. Drugs are illegal here, because our legislators are out of control and the most uninformed, ignorant and stupid citizen is given an equal vote with an informed, intelligent one. Not a solvable problem at this time, IMHO.
And if the goal of *society* (and not the corporations) is to provide the most wellfare to the most people
Yes. Well, it is not at all clear to me that this is society's goal.
If you face risks you can't afford buy insurance, fine, but that begs the question of who should face the risk.
It also ignores the issue that many people face risks they can't afford, and the insurance for those risks is also not affordable.
Then there is the related, but different, issue that insurance is not offered to those with known, pre-existing conditions -- for instance, one may be diabetic at birth, and in such a case, general health insurance will never be an option under the current system. Or you may be overweight, or have had your spleen removed as a result of a football injury and so have a compromised immune system. Etc., ad infinitum.
Health insurance, IMHO, is a very broken mechanism. It seems to me that society needs to recognize that the optimum health of the population is a general asset to society on every level (I am equating a healthy population's increased value with that of an educated population's) and accordingly deal with healthcare on a national, 100% of the people are covered 100% of the time, basis.
I have major "ethical" problems with employer genetic testing.
So enlighten us -- what are they?
Personally, I accept that the precept "all (wo)men are created equal" was never true. I think what they should have said (and what they would have said if they had thought a little harder) would be something along the lines of "all (wo)men shall be afforded equal opportunity in line with their capabilities -- and what they make of those opportunities and capabilities shall be their own business."
Inherent genetic differences among human beings will affect longevity, health, intelligence, and physical prowess. That's not a "maybe" or an "I think", that's a cold, hard, fact.
It seems to me that an immediate consequence is a real and quantifiable affect upon employability and performance. Which makes a genetic scan just one more legitimate tool, no more out of place than a programming test or a health exam for a potential employee.
One real problem is that society has elected to service health issues via a lottery, a gambling procedure ("insurance") and that lotteries no longer work in an even-handed manner if one's odds are adjusted on entry. Employers, when in the role of the the payee for health care, have a legitimate and pressing interest in the price of insurance, and hence, in an individual's current and future health.
The optimum solution, however, probably involves dumping the lottery approach in favor of straight tax-supported health care -- not dumping genetic information into the "you can't look in this box" class. That's just shooting ourselves in the foot.
If everyone has health care across the board, regardless of employment, then the employers interest in your health devolves to simply trying to figure out if you'll be effective at your job, which is (obviously, it seems to me) where the employer's interest should be.
It is not at all uncommon for an employer to be forced by society into a position they probably should not be in -- for instance, since an employee's use of drugs can result in the forcible removal from their job by the government, it becomes a concern of the employer if the employee uses drugs outside of work. A failed drugs-in-the-blood test on application for employment is now a legitimate reason not to employ. However, if society's illegitimate usurping of an individual's personal choice to use drugs in situations where only private interests were affected (i.e. at home) were removed, then the employee's performance on work-related issues would be the only legitimate focus for the employer (and of course, if you showed up to an interview, or to work, stoned or suffering detectable aftereffects, it'd still be perfectly within reason for them to toss your silly self right back on the street.)
This snail comes into a chevy dealership. Says, "I want a Corvette." The salesman, nonplussed, says "sure." Snail says, "Paint a big S on the side." Salesman's willing, says, "Sure, you bet." Car is delivered. Salesman, on the safe side of the transaction, asks "Why'd you want the S on the side?" Snail says "When people see me drive by, I want them to say 'Look at that S car go!'"
While metric has a great deal to recommend it, those who say that the US should implement it across the board just have no idea of the degree of difficulty. Building materials -- they're made in inches and feet. Highway and map speeds, distances. Furniture. Land. The list is long and each part of it has its own problems. How are you going to make unit metric parts for the millions of homes that are already in units of inches and feet? Come up with some fractional metric value? Then what is the benefit?
"Hey Joe, give me a 1.2192 by 2.4384 meter sheet of plywood, will you? And a 91.44 centimeter door, too. Thanks."
You can't just go changing all this stuff willy-nilly. Any change has to have the benefits provided measured against the downside. The downside of changing to metric in the USA is significant. That is why the change hasn't been made. Not because metric is inferior; but because we're not willing to knock back progress and annoy everyone for decades to come.
Personally, I keep this magic thing called a "calculator" around, and convert as required. Mine does unit conversion easily and reliably (HP-48), among many other useful things. Get one for your Mac desktop here or one for your windows desktop here.
If you don't want to have bad things happen to your homeland make sure you can wipe out the enemy before they wipe you out.
...or simply don't attack them in the first place.
The rest of this isn't a reply to the parent, it's just a general commentary on the incredible stupidity I see displayed by poster after poster in this thread.
Aside from the fact that dying from the effects of a nuclear weapon is no worse than dying from a full-body burn, a 50-caliber machine gun round through the groin, inhaling burning napalm, having the lower half of your body blown off by a tank, having your eyes stabbed out by a bayonet, a nice case of whole-body infection derived from a gut wound, stepping on a land mine and having the lower half of your body blown off, etc... This teaches one message and one message only: There is no pleasant way to die by war-level violence. There are only differences in efficiency, speed and cost. No one is going to ask you to step up and take a painless lethal injection. It's war. They're going to kill your ass from as far away as possible, with as little effort and and little cost and the greatest efficiency they can. Do you silly apologists think anyone cares if it hurts when they shoot you, or whatever they do? They want it to hurt, in order to demoralize the other guy standing next to you. It's going to hurt. It's going to suck so bad you won't even believe it, and you'll be wholly unable to describe it. It's war.
Aside from the fact that dead is dead, there is no "this guy is deader than that guy"...
Aside from the fact that critically wounded is critically wounded, regardless if your wound is the result of a radiation burn or an acid burn from being in a battery factory when a conventional bomb went off by a vat of sulphuric acid...
And aside from the fact that mass killing is the business of war in order to get the other side to give up -- how many were killed in Dresden? In Berlin? In Tokyo? In Nanking? Compared to the sixteen million soldiers and thirty four million civilians who died as a consequence of WWII action, the puny numbers of dead as a result of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are of absolutely no consequence to anyone but themselves except for the fact that they were killed with a weapon that everyone is currently (and reasonably) afraid may land on their own head, as it is easily deliverable and highly efficient...
Another interesting stat is obtained by dividing those 50 million by 6 years which gets you about 22,000+ people dying per day (and dying absolutely horribly, of course) in WWII... Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just moderately busy days, that's all. It's war.
And aside from the fact that Hiroshima had over 100 numbered military targets...
Soldiers are often motivated by some vague, but potent, idea of "protecting home, homeland and family", at least if they're not impressed into the armed forces. Once in, they tend to protect each other. A weapon that says "You can't protect anything, bub, not yourself, not the guy next to you, and not your homeland or your family" is a good, all-around "let's end the war now" weapon. As witness the Japanese giving up right then, which was not, as the apologists would have you believe, an inevitable thing that was going to happen shortly anyway -- they were standing firm and they had fought literally to the last man on island after island as we approached the Japanese homelands. But don't believe me (or them) just go read the history. Look at the Allied/Japanese conflicts for each little bit of turf. You can't tell me they were ready, or inclined, to give up -- if you read the history. They thought they were keeping us from
You're trying to use a modern definition of the word "atheism" to include "weak atheism," while requiring that "agnosticism" be used in its classical, "strong agosticism" sense. Aside from cherry-picking, your loose use of the term effectively precludes the strong atheists, who most certainly hold a belief on the subject.
Your broad definition of atheism can either include agnosticism or strong atheism, but not both
Wrong on every count.
Atheism naturally and logically includes both weak and strong atheist positions. It always has; it always will. The phrases "weak atheism" and "strong atheism" should have clued you in that it does before I ever said anything.
When you say that "strong atheists, who most certainly hold a belief on the subject" you're conflating "lack of belief in a god or gods (atheism)" with "belief that god does not exist (strong atheism)" which are not two sides of the same coin. Atheism can exist perfectly well within the strong atheist position. Ask any strong atheist: "Do you hold a belief in a god or gods?" and they will answer, no. So they're atheists. Well, of course they are, that's why they call themselves "strong atheists.":-)
You (and I) can use "Agnosticism" in any sense you like; I challenge you to use it in such a way that I cannot legitimately ask you if you believe in a god or gods.
My use of atheism (which is the correct use, by the way, in all of the etymological, logical, and social senses) does not "effectively preclude" strong atheists (or lock them out in any other way.) Strong atheism is disbelief in a god or gods. Atheism is someone who does not hold a belief -- not someone who does not hold a disbelief. You can:
Not hold a belief that there is a god or gods, and...
Further disbelieve that there is.
What you can't do is the latter without the former -- in other words, you can't disbelieve any particular god or gods, while believing in the same god or gods.
My definition of atheism includes weak and strong atheism perfectly, and I challenge you to show why it wouldn't. Lay it out for everyone -- try to show where my definition fails the strong or weak atheist. Go ahead.;-)
Only if you if you ignore the stance of the strong atheists. The strong atheists believe, it is just that their belief is that the theists are wrong. If you're going to limit atheism to a lack of belief, then you are trying to put strong atheists and theists into the same camp.
I would never put theists and atheists into the same camp. theism is a belief in god; atheism is the lack of same. Strong atheists lack a belief in a god or gods, so they're atheists, plain and simple. Theists hold a belief in a god or god, so they're theists. Completely opposite sides of the coin on the subject. the terms theist and atheist exist for one reason only, and that is to delineate the sides of the coin. There are variations on both sides, but there are only two sides.
Then what if I were to use the word "apathetic?" Your "lack of belief" mantra seems to equate to those who don't care enough about the healing powers of pyramids enough to either believe or disbelieve the claims. And so as not to mince words, I am using "disbelieve" here to mean "believe the powers do not exist."
Ok, let's see. Here's your statement, with apathetic substituted, for reference:
Lack of belief in the healing powers of crystals/pyramids is called
"apathy." Belief of lack, however, is what is supportable through science.
Other than using "apathy" for apathetic so your grammar wouldn't be faulty, there you have it.
Apathy is "not caring." Agnostics say they don't know, which is not dependent upon, or required for, apathy.
No. Absolutely not. You're mistaken about what agnosticism is. Look it up.
An agnostic claims that they cannot know if there is a god or gods.
An agnostic does not say "I hold no belief in god or gods." They're trying specifically to avoid that position and the position of holding a belief. I am of the opinion that this is impossible, and agnosticism therefore must be a wholly included subset of atheism or theism.
The choice between a theist and an atheist outlook is a completely black-and-white question and issue; either you believe, or you don't.
If you do, you're theist; if you don't, you're atheist. End of story.
Lack of belief in the healing powers of crystals/pyramids is called "ambivalence."
Ambivalence is not being able to decide, which is something else again. It certainly isn't "a lack of belief" as you claim here. Look it up. Lack of belief is the no confidence position. Disbelief is a position of confidence; one is saying "this is not so, because [fill in your reasons here.] It is the negative, or "anti-whatever" position. Belief is also a position of confidence; one is saying "this is so, because [fill in your reasons here.] It is the positive, or "pro-whatever" position.
The supernatural, by definition, is something that exists outside the natural universe.
You're mangling the definition to fit your understanding. That something is purportedly supernatural means that it exists outside the universe, yes. That is what limits our understanding and our tools to measure the supposed thing, whatever it might be. But that doesn't mean such a thing exists entirely outside the universe, nor does it mean that it cannot have effects inside the universe.
If that were so, the term supernatural would be completely irrelevant and no one would use it -- it would mean absolutely without effect, in any way, shape or form. Ghosts could not manifest, gods could not make worlds and turn people into pillars of salt, banshees could not scream. And the supernatural is the domain that these things are conceived in. Are you willing to redefine "supernatural"? If so, what domain are the superstitious (again, derived from supernatural) talking about when they talk about, for example, ghosts? Do you see what you've done here? You've not only made the word "supernatural" meaningless, you've disenfranchised "superstitious", "superstition" and "" as well.
I honestly think that you need to do some reading. You have made three separate claims here based on significant misunderstandings of well-known and commonly used words; atheism, ambivalence, agnosticism, supernatural. If you want to argue a position, you're going to at least have to use the same language everyone else does. If you want to re-define a word, I might accept that, but you have to justify why you're doing it. is the etymology misunderstood? Is the common understanding other than what is being portrayed by the other party? In either of those cases, you can find backup for your assertions. For instance, I simply checked dictionary.com before I replied to you to make sure that I was rock-solid in my understanding of the words that your argument was based around; that puts me in a very strong position in our discussion, because both the etymology and the common definition back my assertions.
What part of "no authority" confuses you into thinking "cannot break the law and do it anyway"?
You're arguing semantics and piddling nonsense like the Whiskey rebellion (a few farmers and an overkill-level passel of soldiers, the usual balance of stupidity from government); I'm arguing the constitution -- the law of the land. The one that says "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not."
You're either incredibly ignorant or you're a liar. Read about the Whiskey Rebellion. Come back with a clue.
The constitution specifies what the government can do. The government regularly exceeds what the constitution says. Drug laws. Freedom of speech, press and expression. Consensual "crime" laws of all kinds.
Respond if you like, but I doubt I'll reply.
Yes, that's certainly a good strategy when you've made your argument out of straw. Climb wobbling back to your feet, wipe the blood off your face, declare yourself the winner, and run away. I am so impressed with your approach, truly.:-)
I don't think you read my post carefully enough. He didn't save the girl. He saved the cat. The girl was outside, safe as could be. He risked -- and lost -- his life for that cat. There was nothing else in there alive, he knew it, and he went right in anyway.
How -- I ask again -- is that self-interest? Would someone name you a coward for not trying to save a cat? Would someone think less of you for not trading your life, or taking a chance on losing your life, for the life of a cat? If they did, would you take them seriously?
Slashdot Mirror
I'll keep using the "cleaner and cleaner" approach. Because it works.
Maybe in your library (in which case your library sucks); in mine, I can get any material from any library in the state using a CDROM index.
No, if you're against government censorship, then tell your representative, congresscritter, senator, and so on.
Don't roll over and take a knife in the ass because some religious wacko can't deal with sexuality, free speech, and the availability of bullshit other then the bullshit they want you to believe.
The founding paperwork and the related remarks of the founders are very clear that if what is done directly harms neither purse nor your property, we don't get to say "no" to it. Everything that is on the books that says otherwise is bad law at a minimum, and probably traitorous as well, considering the role freedom of speech and information in general has played in our country's formation and maintainance.
Yeah! And will she wear stockings and garters while she's "being" there?
You know, sex leads to evolution. That's why the religious want it censored.
Right. They keep it on the business card. It says "Politician."
Well, I'll tell you what. Why don't you go spend an hour doing a headstand in an open sewer each morning to "enhance your immune system."
Let us know how it works out for you.
Idiot.
My inclination is to take care of those I can, the best I can. If you do less - you are less.
Have a nice day. :-)
No, because it is wrong, not well thought out, establishes untruths as a basis for its points, and because it is regressive.
It doesn't make me in the least bit unhappy. I'm not under any illusions about you; I started off with the same assumptions I usually do. :-)
As for Holland, Holland's not my country, I don't know much about it, and I'm not going to argue about it under those conditions.
Perhaps we can't make a net profit on the direct care of the elderly and the terminal and the chronically ill, but it won't destroy society, either; at that point, one needs to ask what benefits could be received from treating these people.
There are many. From the family network -- history, continuity, support -- to the social network -- history, continuity, support -- there are benefits. The better condition people are in, the less trouble they will be to have around for everyone -- family, society. Other benefits accrue just from the energies that go into the care. The more care is given, the better at it we could get. That means keeping you and your family alive longer, if you like.
The older children are when their parents die, generally speaking, the more stable and ready to deal with it the children will be, and the more support they will have had to that point. Parents (good ones, for sure) can have a lot to contribute.
You're just being selfish and shortsighted. Not smart.
Also, the remark about medical school was pointless. I already said I was willing to give up an equal percentage of my income for the sake of universal health care. My skills aren't in the medical arena; my efforts are best spent earning money where I'm good at it and then contributing in that vein. So to speak.
It's a losing proposition because insurance is loaded (for the house) gambling. When you enter a lottery, you have the winning number before you enter. The lottery doesn't know it at that point, though. Same for a horse race. You pick the winner before you enter. Insurance companies require knowing first. Insurance doesn't allow you to enter if you have a "winning" number. It's not that it can't work, it's that it is forced to not work.
Because insurance only works for the (so far) lucky, I consider it a broken attempt at a solution. I would prefer a solution that works for everyone; I'm not up with the idea that healthcare should be a privilege in a society as astonishingly wealthy as the USA is.
I benefit if my neighbor is not sick; my company benefits if my employees are not sick; children benefit if the vagrant in the park is not sick, or the other kids in school are not sick.
What I am saying is that just as the state's interest is in an educated population, the state's interest is also in a healthy population. That's my opinion. I don't mind equal percentage taxes going to this. If I pay 20% of my income, and you pay 20% of your income, and I am healthy, and you or someone else or both of you gets fixed, that's fine by me. I'd rather you were healthy. It's good for the country, just as un-cratered roads are and clean water is.
Not interested in fixing that. Interested in having them live and die healthy.
No question that such a system would have to be enforced from the top of the power tree towards the bottom. As for the rest, to quote you, pfft. :-)
It also ignores the issue that many people face risks they can't afford, and the insurance for those risks is also not affordable.
Then there is the related, but different, issue that insurance is not offered to those with known, pre-existing conditions -- for instance, one may be diabetic at birth, and in such a case, general health insurance will never be an option under the current system. Or you may be overweight, or have had your spleen removed as a result of a football injury and so have a compromised immune system. Etc., ad infinitum.
Health insurance, IMHO, is a very broken mechanism. It seems to me that society needs to recognize that the optimum health of the population is a general asset to society on every level (I am equating a healthy population's increased value with that of an educated population's) and accordingly deal with healthcare on a national, 100% of the people are covered 100% of the time, basis.
So enlighten us -- what are they?
Personally, I accept that the precept "all (wo)men are created equal" was never true. I think what they should have said (and what they would have said if they had thought a little harder) would be something along the lines of "all (wo)men shall be afforded equal opportunity in line with their capabilities -- and what they make of those opportunities and capabilities shall be their own business."
Inherent genetic differences among human beings will affect longevity, health, intelligence, and physical prowess. That's not a "maybe" or an "I think", that's a cold, hard, fact.
It seems to me that an immediate consequence is a real and quantifiable affect upon employability and performance. Which makes a genetic scan just one more legitimate tool, no more out of place than a programming test or a health exam for a potential employee.
One real problem is that society has elected to service health issues via a lottery, a gambling procedure ("insurance") and that lotteries no longer work in an even-handed manner if one's odds are adjusted on entry. Employers, when in the role of the the payee for health care, have a legitimate and pressing interest in the price of insurance, and hence, in an individual's current and future health.
The optimum solution, however, probably involves dumping the lottery approach in favor of straight tax-supported health care -- not dumping genetic information into the "you can't look in this box" class. That's just shooting ourselves in the foot.
If everyone has health care across the board, regardless of employment, then the employers interest in your health devolves to simply trying to figure out if you'll be effective at your job, which is (obviously, it seems to me) where the employer's interest should be.
It is not at all uncommon for an employer to be forced by society into a position they probably should not be in -- for instance, since an employee's use of drugs can result in the forcible removal from their job by the government, it becomes a concern of the employer if the employee uses drugs outside of work. A failed drugs-in-the-blood test on application for employment is now a legitimate reason not to employ. However, if society's illegitimate usurping of an individual's personal choice to use drugs in situations where only private interests were affected (i.e. at home) were removed, then the employee's performance on work-related issues would be the only legitimate focus for the employer (and of course, if you showed up to an interview, or to work, stoned or suffering detectable aftereffects, it'd still be perfectly within reason for them to toss your silly self right back on the street.)
You can't just go changing all this stuff willy-nilly. Any change has to have the benefits provided measured against the downside. The downside of changing to metric in the USA is significant. That is why the change hasn't been made. Not because metric is inferior; but because we're not willing to knock back progress and annoy everyone for decades to come.
Personally, I keep this magic thing called a "calculator" around, and convert as required. Mine does unit conversion easily and reliably (HP-48), among many other useful things. Get one for your Mac desktop here or one for your windows desktop here.
The rest of this isn't a reply to the parent, it's just a general commentary on the incredible stupidity I see displayed by poster after poster in this thread.
Aside from the fact that dying from the effects of a nuclear weapon is no worse than dying from a full-body burn, a 50-caliber machine gun round through the groin, inhaling burning napalm, having the lower half of your body blown off by a tank, having your eyes stabbed out by a bayonet, a nice case of whole-body infection derived from a gut wound, stepping on a land mine and having the lower half of your body blown off, etc... This teaches one message and one message only: There is no pleasant way to die by war-level violence. There are only differences in efficiency, speed and cost. No one is going to ask you to step up and take a painless lethal injection. It's war. They're going to kill your ass from as far away as possible, with as little effort and and little cost and the greatest efficiency they can. Do you silly apologists think anyone cares if it hurts when they shoot you, or whatever they do? They want it to hurt, in order to demoralize the other guy standing next to you. It's going to hurt. It's going to suck so bad you won't even believe it, and you'll be wholly unable to describe it. It's war.
Aside from the fact that dead is dead, there is no "this guy is deader than that guy"...
Aside from the fact that critically wounded is critically wounded, regardless if your wound is the result of a radiation burn or an acid burn from being in a battery factory when a conventional bomb went off by a vat of sulphuric acid...
And aside from the fact that mass killing is the business of war in order to get the other side to give up -- how many were killed in Dresden? In Berlin? In Tokyo? In Nanking? Compared to the sixteen million soldiers and thirty four million civilians who died as a consequence of WWII action, the puny numbers of dead as a result of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are of absolutely no consequence to anyone but themselves except for the fact that they were killed with a weapon that everyone is currently (and reasonably) afraid may land on their own head, as it is easily deliverable and highly efficient...
Another interesting stat is obtained by dividing those 50 million by 6 years which gets you about 22,000+ people dying per day (and dying absolutely horribly, of course) in WWII... Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just moderately busy days, that's all. It's war.
And aside from the fact that Hiroshima had over 100 numbered military targets...
Soldiers are often motivated by some vague, but potent, idea of "protecting home, homeland and family", at least if they're not impressed into the armed forces. Once in, they tend to protect each other. A weapon that says "You can't protect anything, bub, not yourself, not the guy next to you, and not your homeland or your family" is a good, all-around "let's end the war now" weapon. As witness the Japanese giving up right then, which was not, as the apologists would have you believe, an inevitable thing that was going to happen shortly anyway -- they were standing firm and they had fought literally to the last man on island after island as we approached the Japanese homelands. But don't believe me (or them) just go read the history. Look at the Allied/Japanese conflicts for each little bit of turf. You can't tell me they were ready, or inclined, to give up -- if you read the history. They thought they were keeping us from
Wrong on every count.
What you can't do is the latter without the former -- in other words, you can't disbelieve any particular god or gods, while believing in the same god or gods.
I would never put theists and atheists into the same camp. theism is a belief in god; atheism is the lack of same. Strong atheists lack a belief in a god or gods, so they're atheists, plain and simple. Theists hold a belief in a god or god, so they're theists. Completely opposite sides of the coin on the subject. the terms theist and atheist exist for one reason only, and that is to delineate the sides of the coin. There are variations on both sides, but there are only two sides.
Ok, let's see. Here's your statement, with apathetic substituted, for reference:
Other than using "apathy" for apathetic so your grammar wouldn't be faulty, there you have it.
Apathy is "not caring." Agnostics say they don't know, which is not dependent upon, or required for, apathy.
You can certainly not know and
No. Absolutely not. You're mistaken about what agnosticism is. Look it up.
An agnostic claims that they cannot know if there is a god or gods.
An agnostic does not say "I hold no belief in god or gods." They're trying specifically to avoid that position and the position of holding a belief. I am of the opinion that this is impossible, and agnosticism therefore must be a wholly included subset of atheism or theism.
The choice between a theist and an atheist outlook is a completely black-and-white question and issue; either you believe, or you don't.
If you do, you're theist; if you don't, you're atheist. End of story.
Ambivalence is not being able to decide, which is something else again. It certainly isn't "a lack of belief" as you claim here. Look it up. Lack of belief is the no confidence position. Disbelief is a position of confidence; one is saying "this is not so, because [fill in your reasons here.] It is the negative, or "anti-whatever" position. Belief is also a position of confidence; one is saying "this is so, because [fill in your reasons here.] It is the positive, or "pro-whatever" position.
You're mangling the definition to fit your understanding. That something is purportedly supernatural means that it exists outside the universe, yes. That is what limits our understanding and our tools to measure the supposed thing, whatever it might be. But that doesn't mean such a thing exists entirely outside the universe, nor does it mean that it cannot have effects inside the universe.
If that were so, the term supernatural would be completely irrelevant and no one would use it -- it would mean absolutely without effect, in any way, shape or form. Ghosts could not manifest, gods could not make worlds and turn people into pillars of salt, banshees could not scream. And the supernatural is the domain that these things are conceived in. Are you willing to redefine "supernatural"? If so, what domain are the superstitious (again, derived from supernatural) talking about when they talk about, for example, ghosts? Do you see what you've done here? You've not only made the word "supernatural" meaningless, you've disenfranchised "superstitious", "superstition" and "" as well.
I honestly think that you need to do some reading. You have made three separate claims here based on significant misunderstandings of well-known and commonly used words; atheism, ambivalence, agnosticism, supernatural. If you want to argue a position, you're going to at least have to use the same language everyone else does. If you want to re-define a word, I might accept that, but you have to justify why you're doing it. is the etymology misunderstood? Is the common understanding other than what is being portrayed by the other party? In either of those cases, you can find backup for your assertions. For instance, I simply checked dictionary.com before I replied to you to make sure that I was rock-solid in my understanding of the words that your argument was based around; that puts me in a very strong position in our discussion, because both the etymology and the common definition back my assertions.
You're arguing semantics and piddling nonsense like the Whiskey rebellion (a few farmers and an overkill-level passel of soldiers, the usual balance of stupidity from government); I'm arguing the constitution -- the law of the land. The one that says "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not."
Yes, that's certainly a good strategy when you've made your argument out of straw. Climb wobbling back to your feet, wipe the blood off your face, declare yourself the winner, and run away. I am so impressed with your approach, truly. :-)
So you can't back up your assertion, and it turns out there is no requirement for self-interest, after all. Is that it?
How -- I ask again -- is that self-interest? Would someone name you a coward for not trying to save a cat? Would someone think less of you for not trading your life, or taking a chance on losing your life, for the life of a cat? If they did, would you take them seriously?
Your thesis, I am afraid, is busted.