I said Jew hatred, not antisemitism. If you were trying to be nice by making it easier for me I thank you for your charity. As I would like to keep defending the more narrow term in this debate I'll keep using it. (The term "antisemitism" is today being used more widely)
In the post you replied to my main focus was on how the actions of a subset of Norwegian globalist leftists, from now on referred to as the "Norwegian leftists", not European culture, carries most of the blame for the "moderate" position moving towards Jew hatred. This could be true even if the motivation of the Norwegian leftists isn't Jew hatred. You are still on topic. I did call them Jew haters even if it wasn't my main point.
My position isn't that any criticism against Israel is Jew hatred. My position is that Jew hatred is an extremely probable cause of the Norwegian leftists' criticism against Israel.
How much energy do the Norwegian leftists use to object when Muslims violate the rights of other Muslims in Syria? (What if "their" side, if the leftist group they belong to have one in Syria, is the rights violator?) How about when Muslim Arabs violate the rights of Christian Arabs? I can't see it. An Israeli Jew shooting a Muslim Palestinian Arab in self defense during combat seem to upset the average Norwegian leftist more than a Muslim Arab decapitating a kidnapped Christian Arab in Syria.
Why? It can't be a love for Palestinian Arabs. Was that the case the Norwegian left would have cared about what was done to the Christian Palestinian Arab community in Bethlehem after the Israeli government let the "Freedom Fighters" occupy it. It can't be a love for Palestinian Arab Muslims. Was that the case they would not have (hero) worshiped Yasser "Martyrs" Arafat. They would also have used energy to protest what Hamas and Fatah is doing to each other and, more importantly, to their own civilians.
Norwegian leftists are furious about Israel having the gall to build the "wall". Most of it is a fence. The wall section are meant to block the view of "Freedom Fighter" snipers. Norwegian leftists names it after the wall part. When I see them protest it they always show pictures of the wall sections.
The Norwegian leftists can claim to not be motivated by hatred against Jews as much as they like. If they wish to be believed they must present a believable alternative explanation. If such an explanation exist they should state it more often. Generations of Norwegian children have been moved towards Jew hatred by watching how some of the Norwegian leftists they trust prioritize their efforts.
a solution will be forced upon israelis and palestinians.
European antisemitism is as endemic and as ingrained in their culture as racism is in America.
There is Jew hatred here in Europe. I assume you are aware how often the media usually keep silent about the harassment of Jews and people that support Israel. Based on that I understand how some may make an honest mistake and blame it on European culture. At least here in Norway the only thing you can reasonably blame on our culture is our stupid trust in government, media, text books and the consensus.
The introduction of the Jew hatred is gradual. (Example: In my early teens the average person hadn't experienced hearing someone use the word "Jew" as a derogatory term. Today I'm not surprised when someone use it like that) Slowly, issue by issue, Norway has been changed. Most people don't hate Jews... yet. But over the decades the "moderate" position has moved towards Jew hatred. The biggest source of the changes is globalist leftists (not national socialists) and Muslims. (Note that not all globalist leftists and/or Muslims are Jew haters) The globalist leftists have done a large effort via their journalists, text book authors, teachers, politicians, singers and artists. (Example: I attended a public school as a child. Once it had a cultural arrangement during school hours. A singer performed the song "Et barn er skutt i Betlehem" ("A child is shoot in Bethlehem"). "Et barn er født i Betlehem" ("A child is born i Bethlehem") is a popular Norwegian Christmas carol) Harassment against Jews and people that support Israel usually don't get attention in the media. The globalist leftists journalists usually "don't find it news worthy". (Example: A Jew refused to denounce Israel and was violently attached. The media didn't mention it. A homosexual got violently attacked in the same way. The media talked about it for days) The (comparatively small) contribution from Jew hating Muslims is mostly via personal relations.
There's no moral argument you can make that places the life of an undeveloped fetus over the life and interests of its mother.
You make a claim about all moral arguments. The interests of the mother aren't even relevant for many moral arguments. Example:
The undeveloped fetus is human. Humans were made in the image of God. It is therefore wrong to murder a human being.
It is true that killing a human being can be justified under some conditions. Those conditions almost never apply to an undeveloped fetus. Killing an undeveloped fetus is therefore murder in almost all cases.
It is therefore almost always wrong to kill an undeveloped fetus (no matter what the mothers interests are).
As an European I disagree. Try to home school in Germany. Try to run a Church the government don't like (say a Baptist church) in France. Try to (legally) buy a gun in Romania. Try to run a political organization the government really hates in Spain. Banning a political party isn't an alien idea to The Council of Europe.
A pregnant asylum seeker I knew here in Norway asked the Norwegian Child Welfare Services (Barnevernet) for help. She foolishly assumed they at least would try to help her before taking her child. They came to the hospital when she gave birth and took it. Other cases have reached the international media.
I'm not claiming that the USA is Heaven. I'm not claiming Europe is Hell. Here in Norway I can (within some limits) home school, run an unpopular church, buy a gun and run an organization the government don't like. While crime speech is illegal our courts have usually chosen an interpretation that bans less speech then what is possible using other interpretations. Claiming that a random European country have more liberty than the USA is still horribly wrong.
Don't blame women. Blame Rudi Dutschke. For decades parts of the extreme left have been on a long march through the institutions. They ignored gaming. Gaming changed. It got a big audience. It got a grown up audience. Today's games have enough influence to make the marching leftists believe controlling gaming is important.
I assume you use the term "technical" in a way that exclude buying up a lot of Bitcoins and then dumping them to create a crash so people stop taking it seriously. I also assume that using enormous amounts of computing power to sabotage the network became to expensive when the ASIC miners appeared.
Again, no technical explanation of how the government will shut down Bitcoin, just a general statement that the government is very powerful.
They could ban running a Bitcoin client, ban the use of bitcoins, ban using Tor and other proxies, ban ISPs that don't monitor their users, add fake Bitcoin peers to catch Bitcoin users and try to trace transactions in the block chain to real identities. Heavy restrictions on raw materials and know how that can be used to create an ISP would help prevent underground ISPs. High rewards for tips leading to the arrest of Bitcoin users and rouge ISP operators could also be added.
This would be tyrannical. It could still be done. Disarming the population, purging from the armed branches of the government those likely to not follow the new orders and, if needed, stop having elections is one way to do it. Arranging for Bitcoin to kill at least one child each week* to convince the population that Bitcoin must be stopped is another. If they are willing to pay a price like that to stop Bitcoin and are competent enough they have a chance.
* One week the media could talk about an overdose a child took after paying for the drugs in bitcoins. The next week they could talk about how a guy used bitcoins to buy guns and ammo before shooting up a school. The week after that a girl that committed suicide after someone published the nude pictures she sold for bitcoins would be in the news.
Unlike most other software, replacing the firmware usually isn't even close to an option
If you do some research before buying a new main board its a lot closer.
So, being treated as an equal does not make sense in the context.
The wider context include The Law of Moses and the context it was spoken in. 'An eye for an eye...' is a statement on how the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. The Law also require other things like a fair trial and a burden of evidence before the suspect can be judged guilty. Sometimes you know the guilty won't get what he deserves. It is hard to trust God to avenge you. Ignoring the rest of The Law and taking the matter into your own hands seems like a great idea. You even have a Bible verse on your side! Jesus lived in roman occupied Israel. It is therefore reasonable to conclude He was reminding people that ignoring parts of The Law by avenging them self (and trying to justify it by quoting another part of The Law) was a sin.
It remains a sin today. Say that you are husband and someone have raped your wife. You know all he risk is a few years in a nice, comfortable Norwegian prison cell. Killing him to get justice is still a sin. Say you are the father of an aborted child and you have tracked down the guilty abortionist. Abortion is legal. Killing him to get justice is still a sin. While I assume that it must be extremely hard in cases like those I just mentioned the proper thing for a Christian to do is to leave the vengeance to God in stead of killing the guilty. As Paul said in Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
At that point, it almost sounds like kidnapping for ransom...
Why almost?
Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor."
(Augustine of Hippo in "City of God" book IV Chapter 4)
Of course governments can censor speech and cut off Internet access, that's their prerogative.
Just to be 100% sure here: You are arguing that governments have a right to to censor speech and cut off Internet access (like I have a right to shoot a robber that breaks into my house during night and attacks me), not that are able to censor speech and cut off Internet access (like a gang of robbers can kill you and steal your stuff)? Your talk about sovereign governments and prerogative makes me suspect you view it as a right. If I understand you correctly: What is it, in your view, that give a government (or organization of governments like the UN for that matter) that right?
Neither is going from 6-7 children/woman to 2-3 children/woman as many countries have done in a generation or two.
There could still be genes that directly or indirectly cause someone to resist the cultural pressure to only have 2-3 children. A gene that make you want many children is an example of the first. A gene that make you more likely to become a quiverfull Christian is an example of the last. At the same time other genes may cause one to follow the trend or go beyond it. Examples may be genes that makes you conform to your surrounding culture, genes that causes you to view children as a burden (that, because of medical advances and the current legal system, can be aborted with little risk for anyone involved except the fetus) or genes that makes you not care if the children you pay for are your own or belong to someone else. The culture of having few or no children is, to the genes of the population that adopt it, like any other disaster: it selects for those that have many children (that again will have many children) in it over those that won't (/can't).
Or if you knew that when they did wrong it could be amended just by a proper re-vote instead of having to implement drastic measures like carving the right to bear arms into a constitution which will fly out of the window anyway if a government really wants to implement evil...
Democracy is no guarantee that you can trust the government. If a politician knows that the electorate can't stop him he may decide to end democracy if the electorate chose the "wrong" option. If the electorate is well armed he is forced to think twice as he may get hurt while ending democracy. If democracy remains it still won't stop the majority from following the European tradition* of voting to violate the God given rights of other people. If the minority is well armed the majority is forced to think twice as they may get hurt while implementing the new policy.
Information the government has on you won't disappear when the government changes. In the future the government, with or without the consent of the voters, may use DNA to choose their next victims. The DNA of some individual they want to get rid of can be planted as false evidence of a crime. Targeted bio weapons may also appear. When the Nazis invaded Norway during WWII they found government registers that specified if the person on the list was Jewish or not. Guess how this information was used.
* The popularity of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin among their European subjects wasn't unique. Here in Norway the Labor party government did forced sterilizations (link in Norwegian) as a part of its socialized medicine. People kept voting for them. (The law was removed in 1977. The Labor party is a part of the current ruling coalition. An award carrying the name of Karl Evang's name is still handed out. As far as I know the Labor party no longer support forced sterilization)
And you can't see how ridiculous that is and how it utterly defeats the purpose of patents?
The point of the suggestion is to utterly defeat patents when it comes to software. If the suggestion is more or less ridiculous than the idea that the government has a right to grant the artificial monopolies we call patents in the first place (and that it should do so if it has this right) is an issue I have yet to make up my mind on. Ignoring my own views a case for patents can be made like this: A small inventor creates a new device. To produce it he needs to set up a production lines and distribution. While doing this a large competitor that has factories and a distribution network hears about the new competitor and copies his invention from an early prototype found in the trash. The small inventor is now without any advantage from his invention over his competitor. As he knows this will happen the small inventor has no motivation to produce his invention in the first place. He therefore keeps his invention secret without producing anything based on it. Patents prevent this. Even if the government has a right to grant patents and this argument is a valid reason to do it it doesn't hold for patenting software as there is no cost in copying software and it can be distributed via the internet as a download. It is hard to create a law that makes it possible to patent hardware but not software as lawyers will find loop holes so their clients can patent software. Stallman's suggestion is an elegant way to avoid software patents as the patents only will apply to implementations in hardware.
Lets just imagine a simple case WRT to Stallman's suggestion. You implement an algorithm in hardware using discrete logic. You patent it. I implement the same algorithm purely in software on a general purpose computer. Is your patent applicable to my software?
No. Your implementation is software on a general purpose computer. My patent therefore won't apply. If you later implement it in hardware you are will need a license.
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is as far away from Christianity as Islam is. Like Islam its possible to argue that it's an extreme heresy and not a separate religion or that it's a separate religion and not an extreme heresy. Isn't the American Taliban a story based on us bible believing protestants that accept the common creeds as the correct interpretation of the Bible and how some of us have recovered from the theological errors that caused us to stay away from politics?
Yes! In stead of those evil capitalists forcing people to do things by paying them people should just do what the government tells them to do. In return the government should give them what they need. That would be true freedom. Freedom is slavery!
The time you used writing your post could have been spent earning money you could have spent feeding a starving child. Do you hope you get cardiac arrest and die or are you a hypocrite?
You see, creation and infinity are two incompatible concepts. Either something is infinite, and nothing more can be added to it, or it is not, and something can be added to it.
We can study empirically whether gay marriage or abortion is a net benefit/harm to society.
By what standard will you measure benefit or a harm? We would not even be able to agree if an effect is good, neutral or bad for many. More detailed weights would be even harder to agree on. Even if you assume that everyone would convert to a system of moral where net harm/benefit to society was the basis and abortion in it self was viewed as neutral you would not be able to agree. I'll narrow it down to one (small) effect: If you impregnate a woman in a society with no abortion there is a strong pressure on you to marry her and take care of your child. In a society with abortion you have the excuse that she could have aborted the child so the pressure evaporates. Here is a sample of some consequences this will give different people:
if the child is wanted by his mother he will grow up without a father. This increase the probability of the child having a lower quality of life. For sons it increase the probability of him ending up as a violent criminal. The consequence reaches his victims.
a pregnant woman can no longer be sure the her child's father will support her.
an attractive man no longer have to think twice about having sex. He can have sex with more partners and more often.
a less attractive man will, depending on how attractive he is, gets less sex, sex with less attractive women or no sex at all since women looking for sex can now get it from the more attractive men.
a less attractive woman that don't realize how (most) men and (most) women are different can now have sex with more attractive men. The sex she is getting fools her into believing that she can get one of those men to commit to her.
If she finally realize that it's not possible she is now less attractive that she was when the sex fooled her. If she realize that most men are different from her she now can choose between settling for even less than she could have gotten, prepare for growing old alone or try to ignore what she now knows. She'll probably end up bitter about how men won't commit.
Who shall decide if the consequence that an attractive man can have more sex and the less attractive man less sex is a good thing? The (average) football player or the (average) Slashdot reader? The twenty year old girl or the 39 year old woman that just bought her first cat since she knows there never will be a child? Who shall decide what weight a single violent crime has compared to sex with no consequences? The unattractive guy that just got mugged or the attractive guy that just had a threesome?
Personally I don't care about benefit/harm to society when considering moral issues, including the subset of morals that apply to governments. I'm just trying to understand how you think.
Unless the government interferes there is no more burden on the employee that want a part of the compensation for his work to be condoms than on the employee that want a part of his compensation to be gold coins. All they have to do is to find an employer that will agree to compensate them the way they prefer.
If Catholics don't want to follow employment law then they shouldn't start businesses. No one is holding a gun to their head.
The Roman Catholic own his business. The government don't own it. It is his. He should be free to offer to trade money (and only money) for work instead of money and condoms. An employee should be free to accept the offer, reject it or try to negotiate. A Roman Catholic employee owns his capacity for work. The government don't own it. It is his. He should be free to offer to trade his work for money (and only money) instead of money and condoms. An employer should be free to accept his offer, reject it or try to negotiate. If an employer and an employee can't agree on the conditions for a trade no trade is done. No one has forced anyone to do anything.*
By creating a law that forbids employing people without giving a part of their compensation for the work in condoms the government points a gun to all employers and potential employers heads and tell them to do it, fire all employees or risk government violence. Before Roman Catholic employers were free to not pay for contraception for their employees. After they are no longer free to not pay for contraception for their employees. The government is forcing the view that it's OK to pay for contraception on Roman Catholic employers. It is also forcing Roman Catholic employees to accept a promise of free condoms as part of their pay. You seem to believe that forcing beliefs on someone is wrong. You should therefore oppose this kind of laws.
* If any Roman Catholics reading this feel the argument is to secular please let this Protestant give you some pointers concerning what the Bible your own church agree is the Word of God (Dei Verbum) has to say about property rights: Exodus 22:1-9, 1 Kings 21:1-20, Leviticus 19:11-15, Romans 2:21, Acts 5:4
Slashdot Mirror
I apologize for not being able to find & post the link here
Is it this video?
Something tells me we wouldn't find the "smartest, fittest and most handsome men".
Ad hominem.
I said Jew hatred, not antisemitism. If you were trying to be nice by making it easier for me I thank you for your charity. As I would like to keep defending the more narrow term in this debate I'll keep using it. (The term "antisemitism" is today being used more widely)
In the post you replied to my main focus was on how the actions of a subset of Norwegian globalist leftists, from now on referred to as the "Norwegian leftists", not European culture, carries most of the blame for the "moderate" position moving towards Jew hatred. This could be true even if the motivation of the Norwegian leftists isn't Jew hatred. You are still on topic. I did call them Jew haters even if it wasn't my main point.
My position isn't that any criticism against Israel is Jew hatred. My position is that Jew hatred is an extremely probable cause of the Norwegian leftists' criticism against Israel.
How much energy do the Norwegian leftists use to object when Muslims violate the rights of other Muslims in Syria? (What if "their" side, if the leftist group they belong to have one in Syria, is the rights violator?) How about when Muslim Arabs violate the rights of Christian Arabs? I can't see it. An Israeli Jew shooting a Muslim Palestinian Arab in self defense during combat seem to upset the average Norwegian leftist more than a Muslim Arab decapitating a kidnapped Christian Arab in Syria.
Why? It can't be a love for Palestinian Arabs. Was that the case the Norwegian left would have cared about what was done to the Christian Palestinian Arab community in Bethlehem after the Israeli government let the "Freedom Fighters" occupy it. It can't be a love for Palestinian Arab Muslims. Was that the case they would not have (hero) worshiped Yasser "Martyrs" Arafat. They would also have used energy to protest what Hamas and Fatah is doing to each other and, more importantly, to their own civilians.
Norwegian leftists are furious about Israel having the gall to build the "wall". Most of it is a fence. The wall section are meant to block the view of "Freedom Fighter" snipers. Norwegian leftists names it after the wall part. When I see them protest it they always show pictures of the wall sections.
The Norwegian leftists can claim to not be motivated by hatred against Jews as much as they like. If they wish to be believed they must present a believable alternative explanation. If such an explanation exist they should state it more often. Generations of Norwegian children have been moved towards Jew hatred by watching how some of the Norwegian leftists they trust prioritize their efforts.
a solution will be forced upon israelis and palestinians.
How?
European antisemitism is as endemic and as ingrained in their culture as racism is in America.
There is Jew hatred here in Europe. I assume you are aware how often the media usually keep silent about the harassment of Jews and people that support Israel. Based on that I understand how some may make an honest mistake and blame it on European culture. At least here in Norway the only thing you can reasonably blame on our culture is our stupid trust in government, media, text books and the consensus. The introduction of the Jew hatred is gradual. (Example: In my early teens the average person hadn't experienced hearing someone use the word "Jew" as a derogatory term. Today I'm not surprised when someone use it like that) Slowly, issue by issue, Norway has been changed. Most people don't hate Jews... yet. But over the decades the "moderate" position has moved towards Jew hatred. The biggest source of the changes is globalist leftists (not national socialists) and Muslims. (Note that not all globalist leftists and/or Muslims are Jew haters) The globalist leftists have done a large effort via their journalists, text book authors, teachers, politicians, singers and artists. (Example: I attended a public school as a child. Once it had a cultural arrangement during school hours. A singer performed the song "Et barn er skutt i Betlehem" ("A child is shoot in Bethlehem"). "Et barn er født i Betlehem" ("A child is born i Bethlehem") is a popular Norwegian Christmas carol) Harassment against Jews and people that support Israel usually don't get attention in the media. The globalist leftists journalists usually "don't find it news worthy". (Example: A Jew refused to denounce Israel and was violently attached. The media didn't mention it. A homosexual got violently attacked in the same way. The media talked about it for days) The (comparatively small) contribution from Jew hating Muslims is mostly via personal relations.
There's no moral argument you can make that places the life of an undeveloped fetus over the life and interests of its mother.
You make a claim about all moral arguments. The interests of the mother aren't even relevant for many moral arguments. Example: The undeveloped fetus is human. Humans were made in the image of God. It is therefore wrong to murder a human being. It is true that killing a human being can be justified under some conditions. Those conditions almost never apply to an undeveloped fetus. Killing an undeveloped fetus is therefore murder in almost all cases. It is therefore almost always wrong to kill an undeveloped fetus (no matter what the mothers interests are).
You are expecting that all servers at the NSA have the same admin passwords?
OOOOOOOO.
...just pick a random european country
As an European I disagree. Try to home school in Germany. Try to run a Church the government don't like (say a Baptist church) in France. Try to (legally) buy a gun in Romania. Try to run a political organization the government really hates in Spain. Banning a political party isn't an alien idea to The Council of Europe.
A pregnant asylum seeker I knew here in Norway asked the Norwegian Child Welfare Services (Barnevernet) for help. She foolishly assumed they at least would try to help her before taking her child. They came to the hospital when she gave birth and took it. Other cases have reached the international media.
I'm not claiming that the USA is Heaven. I'm not claiming Europe is Hell. Here in Norway I can (within some limits) home school, run an unpopular church, buy a gun and run an organization the government don't like. While crime speech is illegal our courts have usually chosen an interpretation that bans less speech then what is possible using other interpretations. Claiming that a random European country have more liberty than the USA is still horribly wrong.
Don't blame women. Blame Rudi Dutschke. For decades parts of the extreme left have been on a long march through the institutions. They ignored gaming. Gaming changed. It got a big audience. It got a grown up audience. Today's games have enough influence to make the marching leftists believe controlling gaming is important.
I assume you use the term "technical" in a way that exclude buying up a lot of Bitcoins and then dumping them to create a crash so people stop taking it seriously. I also assume that using enormous amounts of computing power to sabotage the network became to expensive when the ASIC miners appeared.
Again, no technical explanation of how the government will shut down Bitcoin, just a general statement that the government is very powerful.
They could ban running a Bitcoin client, ban the use of bitcoins, ban using Tor and other proxies, ban ISPs that don't monitor their users, add fake Bitcoin peers to catch Bitcoin users and try to trace transactions in the block chain to real identities. Heavy restrictions on raw materials and know how that can be used to create an ISP would help prevent underground ISPs. High rewards for tips leading to the arrest of Bitcoin users and rouge ISP operators could also be added.
This would be tyrannical. It could still be done. Disarming the population, purging from the armed branches of the government those likely to not follow the new orders and, if needed, stop having elections is one way to do it. Arranging for Bitcoin to kill at least one child each week* to convince the population that Bitcoin must be stopped is another. If they are willing to pay a price like that to stop Bitcoin and are competent enough they have a chance.
* One week the media could talk about an overdose a child took after paying for the drugs in bitcoins. The next week they could talk about how a guy used bitcoins to buy guns and ammo before shooting up a school. The week after that a girl that committed suicide after someone published the nude pictures she sold for bitcoins would be in the news.
Unlike most other software, replacing the firmware usually isn't even close to an option If you do some research before buying a new main board its a lot closer.
I runz the Linux!
I runz the Coreboot! ftfy
So, being treated as an equal does not make sense in the context.
The wider context include The Law of Moses and the context it was spoken in. 'An eye for an eye...' is a statement on how the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. The Law also require other things like a fair trial and a burden of evidence before the suspect can be judged guilty. Sometimes you know the guilty won't get what he deserves. It is hard to trust God to avenge you. Ignoring the rest of The Law and taking the matter into your own hands seems like a great idea. You even have a Bible verse on your side! Jesus lived in roman occupied Israel. It is therefore reasonable to conclude He was reminding people that ignoring parts of The Law by avenging them self (and trying to justify it by quoting another part of The Law) was a sin.
It remains a sin today. Say that you are husband and someone have raped your wife. You know all he risk is a few years in a nice, comfortable Norwegian prison cell. Killing him to get justice is still a sin. Say you are the father of an aborted child and you have tracked down the guilty abortionist. Abortion is legal. Killing him to get justice is still a sin. While I assume that it must be extremely hard in cases like those I just mentioned the proper thing for a Christian to do is to leave the vengeance to God in stead of killing the guilty. As Paul said in Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
At that point, it almost sounds like kidnapping for ransom...
Why almost?
Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What you mean by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, while you who does it with a great fleet are styled emperor."
(Augustine of Hippo in "City of God" book IV Chapter 4)
Just to be 100% sure here: You are arguing that governments have a right to to censor speech and cut off Internet access (like I have a right to shoot a robber that breaks into my house during night and attacks me), not that are able to censor speech and cut off Internet access (like a gang of robbers can kill you and steal your stuff)? Your talk about sovereign governments and prerogative makes me suspect you view it as a right. If I understand you correctly: What is it, in your view, that give a government (or organization of governments like the UN for that matter) that right?
There could still be genes that directly or indirectly cause someone to resist the cultural pressure to only have 2-3 children. A gene that make you want many children is an example of the first. A gene that make you more likely to become a quiverfull Christian is an example of the last. At the same time other genes may cause one to follow the trend or go beyond it. Examples may be genes that makes you conform to your surrounding culture, genes that causes you to view children as a burden (that, because of medical advances and the current legal system, can be aborted with little risk for anyone involved except the fetus) or genes that makes you not care if the children you pay for are your own or belong to someone else. The culture of having few or no children is, to the genes of the population that adopt it, like any other disaster: it selects for those that have many children (that again will have many children) in it over those that won't (/can't).
If this was true inflation would be easy to fix: Just add gold or silver to the coins until spending them hurts.
Democracy is no guarantee that you can trust the government. If a politician knows that the electorate can't stop him he may decide to end democracy if the electorate chose the "wrong" option. If the electorate is well armed he is forced to think twice as he may get hurt while ending democracy. If democracy remains it still won't stop the majority from following the European tradition* of voting to violate the God given rights of other people. If the minority is well armed the majority is forced to think twice as they may get hurt while implementing the new policy.
Information the government has on you won't disappear when the government changes. In the future the government, with or without the consent of the voters, may use DNA to choose their next victims. The DNA of some individual they want to get rid of can be planted as false evidence of a crime. Targeted bio weapons may also appear. When the Nazis invaded Norway during WWII they found government registers that specified if the person on the list was Jewish or not. Guess how this information was used.
* The popularity of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin among their European subjects wasn't unique. Here in Norway the Labor party government did forced sterilizations (link in Norwegian) as a part of its socialized medicine. People kept voting for them. (The law was removed in 1977. The Labor party is a part of the current ruling coalition. An award carrying the name of Karl Evang's name is still handed out. As far as I know the Labor party no longer support forced sterilization)
The point of the suggestion is to utterly defeat patents when it comes to software. If the suggestion is more or less ridiculous than the idea that the government has a right to grant the artificial monopolies we call patents in the first place (and that it should do so if it has this right) is an issue I have yet to make up my mind on. Ignoring my own views a case for patents can be made like this: A small inventor creates a new device. To produce it he needs to set up a production lines and distribution. While doing this a large competitor that has factories and a distribution network hears about the new competitor and copies his invention from an early prototype found in the trash. The small inventor is now without any advantage from his invention over his competitor. As he knows this will happen the small inventor has no motivation to produce his invention in the first place. He therefore keeps his invention secret without producing anything based on it. Patents prevent this. Even if the government has a right to grant patents and this argument is a valid reason to do it it doesn't hold for patenting software as there is no cost in copying software and it can be distributed via the internet as a download. It is hard to create a law that makes it possible to patent hardware but not software as lawyers will find loop holes so their clients can patent software. Stallman's suggestion is an elegant way to avoid software patents as the patents only will apply to implementations in hardware.
No. Your implementation is software on a general purpose computer. My patent therefore won't apply. If you later implement it in hardware you are will need a license.
Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Mormonism is as far away from Christianity as Islam is. Like Islam its possible to argue that it's an extreme heresy and not a separate religion or that it's a separate religion and not an extreme heresy. Isn't the American Taliban a story based on us bible believing protestants that accept the common creeds as the correct interpretation of the Bible and how some of us have recovered from the theological errors that caused us to stay away from politics?
Yes! In stead of those evil capitalists forcing people to do things by paying them people should just do what the government tells them to do. In return the government should give them what they need. That would be true freedom. Freedom is slavery!
The time you used writing your post could have been spent earning money you could have spent feeding a starving child. Do you hope you get cardiac arrest and die or are you a hypocrite?
http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/sgs8t/can_this_work_as_a_math_proof_that_god_does_not/
You see, creation and infinity are two incompatible concepts. Either something is infinite, and nothing more can be added to it, or it is not, and something can be added to it.
Is this "proof" a parody?
By what standard will you measure benefit or a harm? We would not even be able to agree if an effect is good, neutral or bad for many. More detailed weights would be even harder to agree on. Even if you assume that everyone would convert to a system of moral where net harm/benefit to society was the basis and abortion in it self was viewed as neutral you would not be able to agree. I'll narrow it down to one (small) effect: If you impregnate a woman in a society with no abortion there is a strong pressure on you to marry her and take care of your child. In a society with abortion you have the excuse that she could have aborted the child so the pressure evaporates. Here is a sample of some consequences this will give different people:
Who shall decide if the consequence that an attractive man can have more sex and the less attractive man less sex is a good thing? The (average) football player or the (average) Slashdot reader? The twenty year old girl or the 39 year old woman that just bought her first cat since she knows there never will be a child? Who shall decide what weight a single violent crime has compared to sex with no consequences? The unattractive guy that just got mugged or the attractive guy that just had a threesome?
Personally I don't care about benefit/harm to society when considering moral issues, including the subset of morals that apply to governments. I'm just trying to understand how you think.
Why is the burden on the employee?
Unless the government interferes there is no more burden on the employee that want a part of the compensation for his work to be condoms than on the employee that want a part of his compensation to be gold coins. All they have to do is to find an employer that will agree to compensate them the way they prefer.
If Catholics don't want to follow employment law then they shouldn't start businesses. No one is holding a gun to their head.
The Roman Catholic own his business. The government don't own it. It is his. He should be free to offer to trade money (and only money) for work instead of money and condoms. An employee should be free to accept the offer, reject it or try to negotiate. A Roman Catholic employee owns his capacity for work. The government don't own it. It is his. He should be free to offer to trade his work for money (and only money) instead of money and condoms. An employer should be free to accept his offer, reject it or try to negotiate. If an employer and an employee can't agree on the conditions for a trade no trade is done. No one has forced anyone to do anything.*
By creating a law that forbids employing people without giving a part of their compensation for the work in condoms the government points a gun to all employers and potential employers heads and tell them to do it, fire all employees or risk government violence. Before Roman Catholic employers were free to not pay for contraception for their employees. After they are no longer free to not pay for contraception for their employees. The government is forcing the view that it's OK to pay for contraception on Roman Catholic employers. It is also forcing Roman Catholic employees to accept a promise of free condoms as part of their pay. You seem to believe that forcing beliefs on someone is wrong. You should therefore oppose this kind of laws.
* If any Roman Catholics reading this feel the argument is to secular please let this Protestant give you some pointers concerning what the Bible your own church agree is the Word of God (Dei Verbum) has to say about property rights: Exodus 22:1-9, 1 Kings 21:1-20, Leviticus 19:11-15, Romans 2:21, Acts 5:4