you can not stop the gulf stream unless you stop earth from rotating. The oceanic streams are a result of fluid motion on a rotating spehre. Stop being scared out of your money. It will be your tax dollars fighting the wind mills.
Re:Keep those damned poor people from getting orga
on
Todd Need[ed] a Liver
·
· Score: 1
No, I brought that up as *an* example of what would happen if there were pay-for-organs as had been suggested. You are the one who incorrectly assumed that I was implying that all CEOs brought liver failure on themselves. You then used that incorrect assumption as a springboard to launch into your diatribe against the poor and against liberals.
Well, of course you know best what your intent was. Still, I just switched the example around to fit it better with the statistics.
How about giving the CEO blame when his company cheats people out of millions of dollars in an energy scam?
If they did cheat people out of millions of dollars, there surely was a civil law suite for damage where evidence was brought forth and examined after which the defendant was found guilty by an impartial jury. You want to point me to the case? Cause I can't find it. And don't even start with the federal case as all proof there has been extracted by pressuring the wife of one of Lays partners. Don't believe your government. They all lie.
I'll adress the rest of your post tommorrow, I am headed over to my brother now. Thank you for your sympathy, of course, you have mine too.
wasn't CS the first game that sported 'realistic' weapon models at all and introduced recoil and bullet spray (were bullets don't exactly hit what you aimed for, increasing with distance)? I am just asking, because those things I remember distinctivly being in CS.
Re:Keep those damned poor people from getting orga
on
Todd Need[ed] a Liver
·
· Score: 1
And I don't suppose you ever considered that many poor people are alcoholics because their lives are so stressful and depressing did it?
Or it might be the other way around. Who knows? You brought up alcoholism to paint CEOs in a bad light, implying that they brought their liver failure on themselves. I just pointed out that the statistics don't agree with you. And in any case, don't tell me about americans working poor, I stayed with them, for half a year near seattle. The host 'mom' was a waitress at deny's and 'dad' a cab driver and they got by fine with their 3 kids in that big old house of theirs, at least by european standards.
Think about the the millions of lives touched by Enron's Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, Tyco's L. Dennis Kozlowski, Imclone's Samual Waksal, and Worldcom's Bernard Ebbers. Most CEOs are money-grubbing scum. They will take an invention, make tens of millions of dollars off of it, and lay off the employee who invented it six months later. They will shut down a U.S. facility, lay off thousands of workers who made the company a success, and then hire people in India or China to replace them. CEOs will mismanage a company, lay off workers who have done nothing wrong, and then take home a paycheck large enough to pay for 100 of the laid off workers.
What did Kenneth Lay ever do? Please tell me, because I want to know how it is not morally impeccable to buy the companies stock at a time when it was clear that enron headed for the gutter. Maybe he made bad business decisions that contributed to enrons downfall. But with the whole economy almost collapsing at that time, I am not sure wether there was a right decision to be made at all.
Sam Waksal. Oh, I know, he dared to sell 2% of his ImClone stock, after the FDA had refused a license application for the promising CANCER drug Erbitux. Now, tell me, who did the damadge? Why did the FDA refuse a CANCER drug in the first place? There can't be no reason for that. Let me tell you, my mom has cancer and when the time comes and they tell her that they didn't get her clean of rampant cells the first time around, she would try everything that spares her the misery of going through an chemo therapy again. She wouldn't care if taking Erbitux would grow her a second head, as long as there is the least chance it would save her life. And even if the refusal was necessary, how could Sam Waskal know this before the information got 'public' if no one at the FDA had told him. I am pretty sure I can see where the true criminals sit. It's not in the private sector. Oh, by the way, the FDA reveresed its decision on the drug and the guy that organized the money and provided the infrastructur to research a pill that could mean the difference between life and death now is a convicted felon. Think about that for justice.
Companies are foremost committed to their customers, as it should be. If the market pressures to cut costs, changing the salary of CEOs from whatever it is to 0 will not have any effect beyond fractions of a percent lowering and not having CEOs anymore. Those are the same market pressures, by the way, that make a standard of living available to the common men that has been undreamed of in previous centuries, even by kings and emperors. From an economic standpoint it doesn't matter much in the great scheme of things and it even has some side effects that should warm your liberal bleeding heard. Labor goes where Labor is cheapest. Due to this process, labor becomes more expensive in that area as demand for labor goes up, and so it goes around. This is the markets way of spreading wealth to dirt poor countries as india and china once where. Meanwhile at home, the same products get either a) cheaper or b) better. Whichever it is, it will have positive effects on capital distribution as money is set free to be used in higher order endeavours that where unaffordable before und thusly creating higher level jobs with better wages and also requiring more qualification. This is the way it has been since the a
according to your argument it would be best to disallow parents from having kids because the degree of loss has just been raised indefinetly for the kid. When arguing about the organ transplantation, please think about the world you hardly know. Think about how it's perfectly possible to kill someone right now to extract personal gain, either in money or organs. Don't kid yourself thinking that there is no black market where your liver will sell for millions of dollars. A legal market, where sellers are not scared away by legal reprecussions and dirty back alley 'hospitals' will decrease the scarity of organs, thereby lowering their price. A lower market price means that organ pirates will get less money with yet the same risk of legal repressions, thus lowering the utility of murdering you for your liver. But thats all beside the point!
Einer fragt 'was wird daraus', der andere nur 'ist's recht'
so unterscheidet sich der freie von dem knecht.
My body belongs to me, not you or the government. Taking my organs by force is the exact same crime as keeping me from selling it, by force. Both agents do not respect that my life is my property.
Organs can sit around for perhaps a day or two, and cannot easily be verified for proper operation with no risk to the buyer.
And this problem doesn't exist now? Are we arguing about wether there should be any transplantation at all? I thought we spoke about the different systems of bringing together organ suppliers and patients.
while the other 20% is owned by the remaining 80%
Yeah, but even the 20% is vastly more than what would be available to us without capitalism. Income equality has no merit at all. Wealth is an absolute meassurement, not a relative one. At least if you want to express anything useful with it. An income devition of 0% doesn't do any good if the income is 0. I would bet that income distribution in russia was vastly 'faier' by your standard, but still millions died of starvation. A thing unheard of in capitalistic countries.
don't have the government regulate things that do not warrant violent intervention. Government regulation is always violent intervention. Think about that for a bit before you send SWAT to take out the golf club owner who doesn't like women on his property.
Is the future of competitive sports an elite cadre of genetically engineered athletes?
Professional Sports is all about elite. And all about genes. 'Get your fattie ass of my soccer field' ring a bell? So why don't we just let cooperations compete and entertain us with human overclocking goodness?
Like the DSL providers that try to keep you on 56K modems even though better bandwith is just a server and a couple of cables away.
you are craking me up. I wonder where you get the time and energy from to post to slashdot while you are fighting for your bare survival against PRIVATE (bad bad bad!) owners of means of productions that want to make food and heat and electricity and fresh water and entertainment and electronics scare scare scrare. Wake up.
if the medical system starts to allow use of privately obtained or funded organs, then not only will people start selling their own organs - people will start selling other people's organs.
Slavery:
If the employment system starts to allow use of privately obtained or funded labor, then not only will people start selling their own labor - people will start selling other people's labor
Thievery:
If the motor locomotion system starts to allow use of privately obtained or funded cars, then not only will people start selling their own cars - people will start selling other people's cars
You see, since the dawn of time there was a need for protection of life and property. This is no special case.
The idea that in order to give an organ you receive no monetary renumeration is a sound principle to prevent many problems.
At best, this is very naive. At worst, this is advocacy of sanctioned slavery or thiefery.
As scarity of organs ever increases due to the very idea you value so highly, the need to legislate this problem that is caused or amplified by legislation in the first place rises as well. First it will start of as some have proposed in the EU as opt-out donations and if that doesn't fix the problem ( it's not gonna, buerocrazy never fixes problems) we'll have obligatory donations. Slavery for you. And why, all this time the problem was caused by the supposedly moral system put into place by force. If you don't believe me, put an add in the paper and beg for people to come work for you for free. Compare and contrast with offering any(!) amount of money above $1.
Market forces can't totatally fix the donation problem because there are probably just not enough of them and there is now way to morally increase production to meet demand after the point of maximum efficiency ( read: the maximum number of supplies is reached and distribution is geared toward profit) . But reaching the point will alleviate the problem and decrease suffering and unecessary death.
I am born in east germany, a socialist country as you are aware, where resources where allocated by need. In western germany, by contrast, resources were allocated according to the profit principle. Now, my family couldn't afford a car because the price was almost a years wages (probably because my parents werent considered needful enough) but every single party functionare and uni professor had one. In west germany, at the same time, everyone had one. This is no coincidence. Allocating by need is wasteful in itself cause you need a whole governing body to determine need. But even worse, its less productive because you pay people to be needy (at first) and then to be docile (later, if you want to hold your grip on power) instead of paying them for working. Socialism fails, everytime, and so will western health care as long as its based on socialistic principals.
I wonder how come such disturbing thoughts almost always come from europe while the people making any sense at all usually come from the US. I can say this, you know, being a german.
They couldn't have sold the parts because at the moment of his birth he owned himself. The vagina is not a factory outlet for organs but for organ assemblies with free will and human rights. Do you really doubt self-owner ship? In this case I need to advise you to cease the selfish use of your brain and contact my brain immediatly so we might form a collective and stamp out all those pesky individualism.
I'm sorry, the system SHOULD be fair. What if a prisoner on a life sentence or death penalty needs an organ?
He will die if he can't afford it. It's not your right to have your life safed. It just isn't. That my body belongs to me is set in stone in every humanitary society. By extension, I am the owner of my organs and I must be able to do as I please with them, including the selection of any recipients under any criteria I choose.
yeah, go socialism. Your body belongs to the state, but to make it not so harsh, we let you opt out, at least a little while. But we don't care anyway because now the burden of proof has been reversed and if the chancelor needs a new heard, we'll just rip yours out and tell everybody you died from fatal complications and what-do-you-know everybody is a donor nowadays, so no questions.
Re:Keep those damned poor people from getting orga
on
Todd Need[ed] a Liver
·
· Score: 1
you will probably find that alcoholism gets more prevalent at lower income stratas. So, actually now it works like this: alcoholic bum that beats his wife every night after spending a day at the pub wasting her money gets saved because he was first on the list and the CEO of the very successful company Y whose product made easier the lifes of millions of peoples dies. But its okay, as all lefties know, being poor is a merit and being rich is filthy, so now matter, it's always good when poor people get by at the rich's expense.
why is it moral if you get a liver after you won the transplant list lottery and not when you bought it? I agree with your point but also think that capitalism and natural selection are exceedingly moral institutions.
It's not obvious from his post that he doesn't. He'd just rather save the life of someone he cares about. This is not reprehensible, ressources and time are limited so priorities need be set. He just wants to be able to set his when it concerns his liver instead of letting some committee do it.
a libertarian would not argue in favor of a transplant list. He would complain that the current system is so perverted that you must first buy mercy via bill boards in order to get a new liver instead of just buying the goddamned organ on ebay. The whole 'ah look, but what about the needy' has a socialist touch ( as has the transplant list) and nothing to do with freedom and self-determination.
I hope you realize that the statistical odds of an omnipotent creator (choice of the word not by accident) spontaneously appearing and than creating life are, by a long shot, worse than those of all life just appearing spontaneously by itself. The odds of 'Miracles by Evolution' are indefinatly better than both alternatives since the framework they imply at least submit to the thermodynamic laws and its implications. In other words: creationists have no place arguing about odds.
you must be the first to diagnose 'The Lord' with genocidal tendencies. I like it. Maybe instead of building the tower of bables to reach him we should build the great chouch and wait for him to make an appointment;)
you don't know that yet. As has been pointed out, sometimes it's good to restrain procreation, on a species level. As I see it, the pill does nothing about the urge to reproduce, the genetic hardwiring that makes most of us talk baby talk when around 'babys' and say cuuuute.
It just balances impulses against reason: let your impulses roam free but without consequence and use reason to find the appropriate time to create offspring. This is just an extreme form of the parental strategy, instead of 'provide the best possible conditions for the chid once its there' its 'make sure your kids have the best chances and circumstances available before making them'. I don't think that the latter is neccessarly bad for the species.
you are also vain which is a sin, probably punishable by death.
whats with the IQ thing? on an anonomous internet forum you tried to link your name with something respectable in an efford to make your opinions appear respectable as well. Thats cheap and silly, cheap because there is no way to proove anything you say about yourself here and silly because a)there is certainly no consent on/. as to wether the IQ is a worthwile meassurement of anything and b) the only circumstance where you could truly say you could get into mensa ( or anyplace else) is when you actually did.
On a more general note, is it only plain to me that the bible speaks in pictures, methaphores just like yoda did? And that those metaphores are not technically accurat since they are supposed to convey extremely complex subject matter to an extremely simple and primitve people. And while them might be forgiven for taking it all to literally, you are just holding on to a tradition that limits your understanding of god and gods creation ( I am not religious btw) to their mental horizon. God didn't give your magnificent mind to you for the purpose of willingly-ignorant rechanting of prior ignorance.
Also I am fairly convinced that to an omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal being time matters not. So why think that it took any time at all? And more importantly, did god create time with the world or is time outside of gods realm and he therefore not omnipotent and omnipresent?
I heard 'schlepping' on 'the west wing' once and I figured it means 'exhaustive travel' or some such. Your context seems to indicate differently, could you enlighten me please? Its yiddish isn't it? I figure because in german wie say 'schleppen' for carrying heavy objects...
Slashdot Mirror
you can not stop the gulf stream unless you stop earth from rotating. The oceanic streams are a result of fluid motion on a rotating spehre. Stop being scared out of your money. It will be your tax dollars fighting the wind mills.
No, I brought that up as *an* example of what would happen if there were pay-for-organs as had been suggested. You are the one who incorrectly assumed that I was implying that all CEOs brought liver failure on themselves. You then used that incorrect assumption as a springboard to launch into your diatribe against the poor and against liberals.
Well, of course you know best what your intent was. Still, I just switched the example around to fit it better with the statistics.
How about giving the CEO blame when his company cheats people out of millions of dollars in an energy scam?
If they did cheat people out of millions of dollars, there surely was a civil law suite for damage where evidence was brought forth and examined after which the defendant was found guilty by an impartial jury. You want to point me to the case? Cause I can't find it. And don't even start with the federal case as all proof there has been extracted by pressuring the wife of one of Lays partners. Don't believe your government. They all lie.
I'll adress the rest of your post tommorrow, I am headed over to my brother now. Thank you for your sympathy, of course, you have mine too.
wasn't CS the first game that sported 'realistic' weapon models at all and introduced recoil and bullet spray (were bullets don't exactly hit what you aimed for, increasing with distance)? I am just asking, because those things I remember distinctivly being in CS.
And I don't suppose you ever considered that many poor people are alcoholics because their lives are so stressful and depressing did it?
Or it might be the other way around. Who knows? You brought up alcoholism to paint CEOs in a bad light, implying that they brought their liver failure on themselves. I just pointed out that the statistics don't agree with you. And in any case, don't tell me about americans working poor, I stayed with them, for half a year near seattle. The host 'mom' was a waitress at deny's and 'dad' a cab driver and they got by fine with their 3 kids in that big old house of theirs, at least by european standards.
Think about the the millions of lives touched by Enron's Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, Tyco's L. Dennis Kozlowski, Imclone's Samual Waksal, and Worldcom's Bernard Ebbers. Most CEOs are money-grubbing scum. They will take an invention, make tens of millions of dollars off of it, and lay off the employee who invented it six months later. They will shut down a U.S. facility, lay off thousands of workers who made the company a success, and then hire people in India or China to replace them. CEOs will mismanage a company, lay off workers who have done nothing wrong, and then take home a paycheck large enough to pay for 100 of the laid off workers.
What did Kenneth Lay ever do? Please tell me, because I want to know how it is not morally impeccable to buy the companies stock at a time when it was clear that enron headed for the gutter. Maybe he made bad business decisions that contributed to enrons downfall. But with the whole economy almost collapsing at that time, I am not sure wether there was a right decision to be made at all.
Sam Waksal. Oh, I know, he dared to sell 2% of his ImClone stock, after the FDA had refused a license application for the promising CANCER drug Erbitux. Now, tell me, who did the damadge? Why did the FDA refuse a CANCER drug in the first place? There can't be no reason for that. Let me tell you, my mom has cancer and when the time comes and they tell her that they didn't get her clean of rampant cells the first time around, she would try everything that spares her the misery of going through an chemo therapy again. She wouldn't care if taking Erbitux would grow her a second head, as long as there is the least chance it would save her life. And even if the refusal was necessary, how could Sam Waskal know this before the information got 'public' if no one at the FDA had told him. I am pretty sure I can see where the true criminals sit. It's not in the private sector. Oh, by the way, the FDA reveresed its decision on the drug and the guy that organized the money and provided the infrastructur to research a pill that could mean the difference between life and death now is a convicted felon. Think about that for justice.
Companies are foremost committed to their customers, as it should be. If the market pressures to cut costs, changing the salary of CEOs from whatever it is to 0 will not have any effect beyond fractions of a percent lowering and not having CEOs anymore. Those are the same market pressures, by the way, that make a standard of living available to the common men that has been undreamed of in previous centuries, even by kings and emperors. From an economic standpoint it doesn't matter much in the great scheme of things and it even has some side effects that should warm your liberal bleeding heard. Labor goes where Labor is cheapest. Due to this process, labor becomes more expensive in that area as demand for labor goes up, and so it goes around. This is the markets way of spreading wealth to dirt poor countries as india and china once where. Meanwhile at home, the same products get either a) cheaper or b) better. Whichever it is, it will have positive effects on capital distribution as money is set free to be used in higher order endeavours that where unaffordable before und thusly creating higher level jobs with better wages and also requiring more qualification. This is the way it has been since the a
according to your argument it would be best to disallow parents from having kids because the degree of loss has just been raised indefinetly for the kid. When arguing about the organ transplantation, please think about the world you hardly know. Think about how it's perfectly possible to kill someone right now to extract personal gain, either in money or organs. Don't kid yourself thinking that there is no black market where your liver will sell for millions of dollars. A legal market, where sellers are not scared away by legal reprecussions and dirty back alley 'hospitals' will decrease the scarity of organs, thereby lowering their price. A lower market price means that organ pirates will get less money with yet the same risk of legal repressions, thus lowering the utility of murdering you for your liver. But thats all beside the point!
Einer fragt 'was wird daraus', der andere nur 'ist's recht' so unterscheidet sich der freie von dem knecht.
My body belongs to me, not you or the government. Taking my organs by force is the exact same crime as keeping me from selling it, by force. Both agents do not respect that my life is my property.
Organs can sit around for perhaps a day or two, and cannot easily be verified for proper operation with no risk to the buyer.
And this problem doesn't exist now? Are we arguing about wether there should be any transplantation at all? I thought we spoke about the different systems of bringing together organ suppliers and patients. while the other 20% is owned by the remaining 80%
Yeah, but even the 20% is vastly more than what would be available to us without capitalism. Income equality has no merit at all. Wealth is an absolute meassurement, not a relative one. At least if you want to express anything useful with it. An income devition of 0% doesn't do any good if the income is 0. I would bet that income distribution in russia was vastly 'faier' by your standard, but still millions died of starvation. A thing unheard of in capitalistic countries.
don't have the government regulate things that do not warrant violent intervention. Government regulation is always violent intervention. Think about that for a bit before you send SWAT to take out the golf club owner who doesn't like women on his property.
so your argument boils down to 'won't anyone think of children'? That's rich.
Is the future of competitive sports an elite cadre of genetically engineered athletes?
Professional Sports is all about elite. And all about genes. 'Get your fattie ass of my soccer field' ring a bell? So why don't we just let cooperations compete and entertain us with human overclocking goodness?
gee, I got baited. Good day to you, and please, smoke one for me at the coffee shop ;)
Like the DSL providers that try to keep you on 56K modems even though better bandwith is just a server and a couple of cables away.
you are craking me up. I wonder where you get the time and energy from to post to slashdot while you are fighting for your bare survival against PRIVATE (bad bad bad!) owners of means of productions that want to make food and heat and electricity and fresh water and entertainment and electronics scare scare scrare. Wake up.
if the medical system starts to allow use of privately obtained or funded organs, then not only will people start selling their own organs - people will start selling other people's organs.
Slavery:
If the employment system starts to allow use of privately obtained or funded labor, then not only will people start selling their own labor - people will start selling other people's labor
Thievery:
If the motor locomotion system starts to allow use of privately obtained or funded cars, then not only will people start selling their own cars - people will start selling other people's cars
You see, since the dawn of time there was a need for protection of life and property. This is no special case.
The idea that in order to give an organ you receive no monetary renumeration is a sound principle to prevent many problems.
At best, this is very naive. At worst, this is advocacy of sanctioned slavery or thiefery. As scarity of organs ever increases due to the very idea you value so highly, the need to legislate this problem that is caused or amplified by legislation in the first place rises as well. First it will start of as some have proposed in the EU as opt-out donations and if that doesn't fix the problem ( it's not gonna, buerocrazy never fixes problems) we'll have obligatory donations. Slavery for you. And why, all this time the problem was caused by the supposedly moral system put into place by force. If you don't believe me, put an add in the paper and beg for people to come work for you for free. Compare and contrast with offering any(!) amount of money above $1.
Market forces can't totatally fix the donation problem because there are probably just not enough of them and there is now way to morally increase production to meet demand after the point of maximum efficiency ( read: the maximum number of supplies is reached and distribution is geared toward profit) . But reaching the point will alleviate the problem and decrease suffering and unecessary death.
I am born in east germany, a socialist country as you are aware, where resources where allocated by need. In western germany, by contrast, resources were allocated according to the profit principle. Now, my family couldn't afford a car because the price was almost a years wages (probably because my parents werent considered needful enough) but every single party functionare and uni professor had one. In west germany, at the same time, everyone had one. This is no coincidence. Allocating by need is wasteful in itself cause you need a whole governing body to determine need. But even worse, its less productive because you pay people to be needy (at first) and then to be docile (later, if you want to hold your grip on power) instead of paying them for working. Socialism fails, everytime, and so will western health care as long as its based on socialistic principals.
I wonder how come such disturbing thoughts almost always come from europe while the people making any sense at all usually come from the US. I can say this, you know, being a german.
They couldn't have sold the parts because at the moment of his birth he owned himself. The vagina is not a factory outlet for organs but for organ assemblies with free will and human rights. Do you really doubt self-owner ship? In this case I need to advise you to cease the selfish use of your brain and contact my brain immediatly so we might form a collective and stamp out all those pesky individualism.
I'm sorry, the system SHOULD be fair. What if a prisoner on a life sentence or death penalty needs an organ?
He will die if he can't afford it. It's not your right to have your life safed. It just isn't. That my body belongs to me is set in stone in every humanitary society. By extension, I am the owner of my organs and I must be able to do as I please with them, including the selection of any recipients under any criteria I choose.
yeah, go socialism. Your body belongs to the state, but to make it not so harsh, we let you opt out, at least a little while. But we don't care anyway because now the burden of proof has been reversed and if the chancelor needs a new heard, we'll just rip yours out and tell everybody you died from fatal complications and what-do-you-know everybody is a donor nowadays, so no questions.
you will probably find that alcoholism gets more prevalent at lower income stratas. So, actually now it works like this: alcoholic bum that beats his wife every night after spending a day at the pub wasting her money gets saved because he was first on the list and the CEO of the very successful company Y whose product made easier the lifes of millions of peoples dies. But its okay, as all lefties know, being poor is a merit and being rich is filthy, so now matter, it's always good when poor people get by at the rich's expense.
why is it moral if you get a liver after you won the transplant list lottery and not when you bought it? I agree with your point but also think that capitalism and natural selection are exceedingly moral institutions.
It's not obvious from his post that he doesn't. He'd just rather save the life of someone he cares about. This is not reprehensible, ressources and time are limited so priorities need be set. He just wants to be able to set his when it concerns his liver instead of letting some committee do it.
a libertarian would not argue in favor of a transplant list. He would complain that the current system is so perverted that you must first buy mercy via bill boards in order to get a new liver instead of just buying the goddamned organ on ebay. The whole 'ah look, but what about the needy' has a socialist touch ( as has the transplant list) and nothing to do with freedom and self-determination.
would you elaborate on what you think the difference between Doom and Quake is, on a fundamental level?
before they didn't have an IP that is likely to stay used by the same host for a couple of hours where it was certain that the user was running XP.
I hope you realize that the statistical odds of an omnipotent creator (choice of the word not by accident) spontaneously appearing and than creating life are, by a long shot, worse than those of all life just appearing spontaneously by itself. The odds of 'Miracles by Evolution' are indefinatly better than both alternatives since the framework they imply at least submit to the thermodynamic laws and its implications. In other words: creationists have no place arguing about odds.
you must be the first to diagnose 'The Lord' with genocidal tendencies. I like it. Maybe instead of building the tower of bables to reach him we should build the great chouch and wait for him to make an appointment ;)
Not a christian
you don't know that yet. As has been pointed out, sometimes it's good to restrain procreation, on a species level. As I see it, the pill does nothing about the urge to reproduce, the genetic hardwiring that makes most of us talk baby talk when around 'babys' and say cuuuute.
It just balances impulses against reason: let your impulses roam free but without consequence and use reason to find the appropriate time to create offspring. This is just an extreme form of the parental strategy, instead of 'provide the best possible conditions for the chid once its there' its 'make sure your kids have the best chances and circumstances available before making them'. I don't think that the latter is neccessarly bad for the species.
you are also vain which is a sin, probably punishable by death. whats with the IQ thing? on an anonomous internet forum you tried to link your name with something respectable in an efford to make your opinions appear respectable as well. Thats cheap and silly, cheap because there is no way to proove anything you say about yourself here and silly because a)there is certainly no consent on /. as to wether the IQ is a worthwile meassurement of anything and b) the only circumstance where you could truly say you could get into mensa ( or anyplace else) is when you actually did.
On a more general note, is it only plain to me that the bible speaks in pictures, methaphores just like yoda did? And that those metaphores are not technically accurat since they are supposed to convey extremely complex subject matter to an extremely simple and primitve people. And while them might be forgiven for taking it all to literally, you are just holding on to a tradition that limits your understanding of god and gods creation ( I am not religious btw) to their mental horizon. God didn't give your magnificent mind to you for the purpose of willingly-ignorant rechanting of prior ignorance.
Also I am fairly convinced that to an omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal being time matters not. So why think that it took any time at all? And more importantly, did god create time with the world or is time outside of gods realm and he therefore not omnipotent and omnipresent?
I heard 'schlepping' on 'the west wing' once and I figured it means 'exhaustive travel' or some such. Your context seems to indicate differently, could you enlighten me please? Its yiddish isn't it? I figure because in german wie say 'schleppen' for carrying heavy objects ...