Don't go mocking Privitization because you think that corporations are bad. A corporation isn't *evil*, the ignorant stockholders that simply demand the highest profits NOW are the problem.
And guess who the majority of those stockholders are.
Can you guess?
Answer: Corporations.
Don't blame the corporation for being bad when shareholders don't do a damn thing about them.
But the majority of shares's are owned by corporations. Corporations own controlling interest in just about everything. The system makes it impractical for small shareholders to exercise their right to vote. Consequently the vast majority do not.
Humans have morality, must raise children, have lives. Corporations do not. Consequently corporations usually behave like psychopaths with no cares whatsoever for long term consequences. And ultimately when the corporation folds (and fucks up numerous third parties) shareholders are protected from liability.
You can blaim the shareholders as much as you like. The shareholders are mostly corporations themselves.
A real, decent CEO with decent shareholders would maximize profit over the long run (10 years+) instead of doing it over the next 2.
agreed. such corporate decency should be mandatory!
But it isn't and the system needs fixing.
I never accused every single corporation itself of being evil. Feudalism is wrong, even if there were a few good kings. Corporatism is wrong.
Teach some shareholder responsibility (required economics anyone?) and both corporations and general citizens would be in much better shape (not to mention a stabler economy). It's sad that a majority of shareholders don't realize that they can tell their CEO what to do because they are, in reality, the big man's boss/supervisor/hirer/firer.
The majority of shareholders already know they can vote. They vote to make maximum returns NOW. The majority of shareholders are CORPORATIONS.
So unless you do something to change that, it doesn't really matter anymore how us human beings vote with our stocks.
Investing in SRI funds is a start. But it isn't the solution. The solution is fixing the broken rules which allow psycopathic corporations to run amuck.
The fact that the RIAA and MPAA are now going after the people breaking copyright law instead of writing legislation aimed at crippling technology and suing service providers is a good thing.
They'll do both. The fact that lawsuits failed (will fail) to stop piracy will be used as proof that government (divine) intervention is needed.
Symbian is not Linux. Symbian is the evolution of the Epoc operating system developed by Psion for their Series 5/5mx/7/revo and netbook hand held computers.
Psion spun off Symbian as a subsidiary to do OS development and eventually sold all of its shares in Symbian, which is now owned mostly by Nokia,and Sony-Ericsson.
The premise of Symbian was to be an OS which never required rebooting, crash or hang, and would multitask while conserving battery power, as well as have a small memory footprint. Traits which were suited to a handheld computer and are ideal to a PDA or cell phone.
Not crashing is what allows you to be confident you can make that 911 call.
The no-rebooting characteristic is important so that your PDA could turn on instantly from a suspend mode.
Multitasking lets you be productive and use multiple applications at the same time, unlike PALM OS which must relaunch and close an application each time you want to do something else.
Privatize it, and let the citizens start deciding.
1: Citizens are not the only "people" who can own things. 2: even "people" such as corporations can own things. 3: "people" such as corporations actually do own more things than citizens. 4: corporations have more money than citizens 5: unlike human beings who have morals and a conscience corporations dont and they care about only 2 things : profit and growth 6: humans are so scared of hurting the corporations (lest we lose our jobs) that we are afraid to impose strict environmental and safety controls on corporations. Consequently the corporations cause us harm and like good citizens we pay the costs. 7. our children also pay the costs. 8. our granchildren also pay the costs. 9. corporations dont care that humans subsidized them when they were young and pack up, close shop or lay off or outsource whoever and whenever the hell they please anyway. 10. Profit
So if you mean "let the corporations control the nuclear power" when you say privatize it. I say HELL NO!!
The electoral college prevents a candidate who happens to have overwhelming popularity in a few population dense geographical areas be guaranteed to win control of the entire country, if another candidate has more broad based general popularity in the majority of the country.
If 1 candidate happened to have 100% support in a large state, and only 49% support everywhere else, they would probably win the popular vote overall even thought the other candidate was more popular in every single state except 1.
On the whole the electoral college is better than a direct referendum.
The only real problem with the electoral college, is that IMHO each electoral college vote should have a specific geographic area of equal population, and not be tied to a state.
This way the likelyhood your vote will matter is about the same regardless of which state you happen to live in, and the importance of that 1 vote will be the same regardless of which state you resided in.
The electoral college insures that it will not be enough for a candidate to simply win an overwhelming victory in a couple of states and win the presidency while actually being the less popular candidate across a vast the majority of the states.
The Presidency should represent the majority of the whole country, by geography. Someone who is vastly popular in a few specific localities, but otherwise unpopular across most of the country should not be president.
Thanks to the Electoral college system, the world can see that New York and California voted against Bush. So we can go back to liking New Yorkers and Californians, and direct our feelings of resentment where they belong. towards Ohio.
He also gave aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.
BS. How does knowing that american GI's are commiting war crimes "give aid and comfort to the enemy". Are the enemies comforted in knowing that some americans are brutal and ruthless and sadistic. They already knew that. The problem isn't that they knew it. The problem was that is was TRUE.
Were the Jews of WWII Warsaw COMFORTED when they learned what was happening in Auschwitz?
Kerry made a report to Congress. Congress are the democratically elected representatives of the people of America. A far cry from giving a briefing to the NVA or VC.
Dont you don't think that NVA troops or VC were already quite propagandized into believing that americans were evil hellspawn on earth?
You can't accept that it was political and command decisions of top brass and various politicians which lead to an escalation in the brutality and inhumanity of the war in Vietnam, and triggered or encouraged atrocities to occur. And in some instances lead to such psychological trauma as to turn honest and good american GI's into cold blooded murderers.
You also can't accept that Vietnam was a poorly planned "clusterfuck" with no proper exit strategy. And the USA stayed in Vietnam for years after it was obvious victory was impossible, just to save face, and as a results thousands of unneccessary American casualties and millions of unneccessary vietnamese casualties occured.
Kerry never criticized the troops in vietnam. He criticized the LEADERSHIP. And damn right. The leadership deserved criticism. You probably think America won the vietnam war. (fleeing the american embassy by helecopter emergency evac.. what a victory)
Hid [sic] discharge was under review by an Admirals board and that is not done for an honorable.
Any party with sufficient political clout can cause a review to take place. A review DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. Especially in a military that is mostly republican. If you want to accuse Kerry of fraud, you can go ahead and file a criminal complaint. Because if the records on his website were fraudulent that would be a crime. Proferring false documents in order to obtain a benefit (in this case a job) is a crime. Of course filing a criminal complaint that you know to be false is also a crime, and eventually it would be *you* who are found to false.
I don't care what his site says, I want to see a certified DD214.
I call bullshit. First you said "why wont kerry release his military records?" and then when presented with the fact that he has already done so, you change your position (flip-flop?) and say that it isn't enough for Kerry to release his military records, you want to see *certified* copies.
You are indirectly accusing Kerry of publishing forged military records. Why don't you just come out and make your accusation? The Commander in Chief (i.e. The Republican nominee for President) has the security clearance to review Kerry's discharge himself. Kerry's records have been scrutinized by the Whitehouse and what you see on Kerry's website is 100% accurate, because if it were not, there would be TV commericials paid for directly by G.W.Bush saying that Kerry is a Con Artist and publishes false documents, and Kerry would be brought up on criminal charges.
Instead the Bush-Cheney team rely on peons such as yourself to spread uncertainty and doubt, about something which there is no uncertainty or doubt. John F. Kerry is a War Hero.
Even if Kerry published certified copies of his military records you would change your demands again and want to see the ORIGINAL military records.
John F. Kerry is a WAR HERO. GET OVER IT ASSHOLE!
He will not win, he is not trustworthy and is a spineless wimp with no position on anything.
A spineless wimp who orded his swift boat to engage the enemy on shore, and then personally disembarked from his swift boat while under fire to chase a VC down, killed the VC and recovered a lo
For starters, most "low-end" consumer electronics are not covered by what I would consider to be a long or extensive warranty, so this should come as no surprise to him that the warranty was already expired. Most of these devices are made to be disposable and/or have a fairly limited life span.
Most TV sets, radios, DVD players, stereo systems and other home electronics last for years without failing. Consumer electronics tends to lasts years, not merely months or 1 year.
A disposable video game system should should be clearly marked on the package as such. The advertising certainly doesn't make it clear that X-Box is a low end disposable device.
I might also add that since MS is selling the hardware at a loss, they have no incentive to use higher-quality components.
irrelevant. Microsoft has no right to sell crap which is known to be flawed from the onset, just because they are selling at a loss. If they know it is flawed they must disclose this information to the buyer.
The profitability of a product does not lessen or increase the responsibility of the manufacturer.
This is also an area where extended warranties attempt to give consumers an option.
An extended warantee does nothing to cause an inferior quality defective product to suddenly become high quality. This is simply a different price point for the same product. The same crappy defective product. The X-Box is not any less likely to fail (predictably) if you buy the extended warantee.
Now if microsoft had 2 versions. "X-Box - disposable" and "X-Box- normal", then you would probably have no complaint when the "X-Box - Disposable" died after the warantee because the word "disposable" clearly implies that the product is not expected to last a significant amount of time.
If microsoft is intentionally building a product which is designed or known fail suddenly without any misuse or harsh conditions just because of design or manufacturing choices made by microsoft, it should advertise that fact, otherwise consumers will rightfully expect that microsoft made a good faith effort to build a product with no fundamental flaws. It is dishonest and fraudulent to sell something knowing it has a flaw and not disclosing that flaw to the buyer.
1 month wear contact lenses are not sold as "contact lenses with a 1 month warantee", they are sold as "Contact lenses which must be replaced after 1 month".
game platforms are expected to have a market life of about 5 years. Does this mean that microsoft actually expects consumers to buy 5 to 10 X-boxes before retiring their system?
Have you ever drank coffee immediately after poured? It's certainly too hot for consumption as well, unless your coffee maker is broken.
To hot for comfort or too hot for safety? Why do we lower the standards of safety when it comes to food and drink? It is common courtesy to WARN PEOPLE WHEN YOU SERVE THEM SOMETHING WHICH IS TOO HOT.
Have you never been told "watch yourself the plate is hot"? or words to that effect? I personally ALWAYS warn people when I'm handing them something which I believe is too hot.
McDonalds does not get off the hook, because it's employees are poorly trained.
We have a duty of care to people to whome we are selling products, to not hand them drinks which are so hot as to cause potentially fatal consequences if they drink them.
I think the little warning label on the cup is quite insufficient. If the coffee is still 20 degrees hotter than standard you should be warned verbally.
Quite frankly, I've spilled hot coffee on myself at home. On my groan as well. I didn't put the coffee between my legs, but it was early in the morning, I had just gotten out of bed and I was half-asleep. I misjudged how close I was sitting to my table and when I put my cup down, I missed the table, simply dropping the coffee right on my lap.
The result?
A lot of pain, and some superficial 1st degree burns. This was absolutely freshly brewed coffee. And that was coffee spilling on bare skin.
If this lady has simply spilled the coffee by accident and suffered 3rd degree burns, then would you find McDonalds liable? Who cares if she was holding the coffee in her lap? The issue is: Was the coffee dangerously and negligently or recklessly too hot for its intended purpose.
Why should anyone expect McDonalds coffee would be 20 degrees hotter than the industry standard?
If the McDonalds coffee was so hot as to cause 3rd degree burns and 7 days of hospitalization, it was TOO HOT.
Food is commonly served too hot for comfortable immediate consumption, but it is vary rarely served so hot that it would cause serious injury. And in those cases it is normal to recieve a warning from the food server.
Had the lady simply drank that coffee and suffered 3rd degree burns inside her body she would probably have died.
Sure.. The lady accidentally spilled coffee on herself. So perhaps she should be liable for her cleaning bill. But spilling food on yourself should not result in a 7 day hospital stay.
And a company which sells millions of coffees daily should know better than to serve its coffee 20 degrees hotter than industry standard.
right! And no war crimes were commited by US forces in Vietnam.
Contrary to popular mythology and ceremony. When you are in the military you are in fact serving your nation. When US soldiers commit war crimes they are betraying the military and the country. Kerry was in Vietnam serving America. The notion that troops are so loyal to the military complex as to sit idly by and ignore war atrocities, is fucking offensive in a democratic society.
To bad if Kerry embarassed some politicians or top brass by exposing the type of atrocities which were commited in Vietnam by certain members of the American forces. He was under oath. Accuse him of purjery and file a criminal complaint if you have any grounds whatsoever to believe that anything Kerry said was a lie.
The President, Commander in chief is supposed to serve AMERICA. Not corporate interests, the military, or secret societies. The President is not supposed to sit idly by and keep silent when he is witness to human suffering and misery caused by an abuse of power.
Bush sits idly bye and then looks for legal loopholes to avoid the constitution to continue human rights abuses. Where the hell did this notion that certain persons are completely out of reach of the Law and justice. It came from Bush. It is offensive to all civilized nations, that Bush feels that as President he is effectively above the law and has the power to unilaterally incarcerate anyone on his discretion and deny that person any appeal to an unbiased judicial authority, or to any legal council.
Bush broke faith with every person who has or ever will wear a uniform by doing coke and then skipping out on his physical to avoid being detected (the same year that tests for cocaine became mandatory). How many people have been jailed for possession of cocaine while Bush was Governor of Texas, or while President.
But far worse, Bush broke faith with the entire Free world, (seeing as Americans refer to the President as the Leader of the Free World) by making the decision to invade Iraq and then justifying the invasion ex-post facto.
Bush has caused countless deaths in Iraq, at 13-15 thousand dead Iraqi's from direct military action, and upwards of 100,000 deaths caused indirectly by "post-war" conditions in Iraq.
Lets not forget over 1100 dead americans and over 100 other coalition troops.
And for what? To catch 1 man? Bullshit. it was supposed to be to remove the NON-EXISTANT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
You are obviously in the 'see no evil, speak no evil' camp. Because a good and honest person does not keep silent when they believe that atrocities are being commited in war. Perhaps George Bush would have kept his lying mouth shut about war crimes in Vietnam. But just because you can't accept the fact that war crimes were committed in vietnam is no reason that young John Kerry should not report them.
As I said. If you think Kerry lied then file a criminal complaint for Perjury. You had 30 years to do it!
Kerry was actually IN VIETNAM. Unlike Bush.
And the notion that Kerry was awarded a silver star, bronze star and 3 purple hearts all because he was politically connected is bullshit. No one has ever challenged the legitimacy of his medals EVER, except in bullshit TV-adds which are not under any legal obligation to tell the truth when they are not selling a product.
Bush is the President. He has all the clout to order a complete investigation into Kerry's medals or military records if there was even a slight chance of impropriety. Do you think the Bush-Cheney team has not already done that?
The real "Shock and Awe" will be what the entire world feels if Bush-Cheney win the election next week.
I'd like to see his voting record brought out on intelligence issues. Who voted for every cut in the intelligence budget before 9/11? Who blames Bush for the intelligence failures of Iraq? Looks like the same person to me.
You suggest that John Kerry's voting record is being supressed (it isn't and it is on the public record and you can read it) and then you suggest that John Kerry voted for every cut in the intelligence budget before 9/11, which implies you know John Kerry's voting record and therefore you have no legitimate complaint regarding its supression.
i.e. you are complaining just for the sake of complaining.
The failures of intelligence in Iraq were not caused by a lack of funding. Even with 10 times the Intelligence budget Bush would have still invaded Iraq.
And before you go parroting the republican talking point that Kerry voted for the invasion. You may want to go back and review that Senate voting record, and you will see Kerry voted to give the President the authority to use any means to disarm Iraq. The "Authority" to do something is not the same thing as doing it. Only in Bush's mind does the "authority" to do something equal "doing it" because Bush intended to invade Iraq since 2000.
Kerry says he believes that the president should always have that "authority" and he would always vote in favor of giving the president that "authority".
Kerry would have voted in favour of giving the president "authority" to invade Canada because Kerry believes the President should have that power. period. It has nothing to do with Kerry believing that an invasion was the right thing to do.
The "authority" would give credibility to the President threats of military action against Saddam. It would show Saddam that the USA meant business. However Bush decided to just rush off to war without proper planning, contrary to his promises to the House.
The intelligence failures in Iraq were caused by a deliberate acts in the whitehouse to interpret every shred of raw-data, no matter how questionable or dubious, which supported the proposition that Iraq still had WMD, and ignore every piece of intelligence which suggested otherwise. The Whitehouse specifically ordered the CIA to stovepipe all raw data about Iraq straight up without being analysed and filtered by intelligence agents. The result is that useless and misleading intelligence was available which would suggest any possible position the whitehouse wanted to take. And in thie case the position the WhiteHouse chose to pursue (not withstanding it was a fiction): was that Iraq had WMD and posed an imminent threat to the USA.
Notwithstanding that prior to 9/11 condi Rice was saying that Iraq posed no threat.
Who is suprised that no WMD were found? Is Bush suprised? No.. he is pretending to be suprised or he is a flipping idiot!
Then Bush had a new position. Saddam had WMD programs.
And then Bush had a new position. Saddam had the desire and intent to pursue WMD programs. And would have pursued them as soon as the UN sanctions were dropped. (uhhh... so?)
What is missing from here is this: Saddam had no desire or intent to use WMD against the United States. PERIOD
The vast majority of the world population is not suprised at all by the non-existence of WMD, because the so called "Evidence" was indeed blatently insufficient. It is preposterous that Iraq which has been under sanctions, with 2/3 of the country a "no-fly zone", under constant surveilance, would be able to secretly maintain a WMD arsenal without any trace.
The Bush administration knows that the non-existant WMD were always intended (back in the day when they existed) to be used as a deterrant against IRAN.
The USA has WMD. In fact the USA probably has the largest WMD stockpiles of anyone after Russia.
And constant public demands that Iraq must prove a negative proposition in order to satisfy the President made it abundantly clear that dubya was going to war no matt
"The human body's adaptive systems which have evolved throughout the millenia do not help to inform us about the ecosystem and C02 over production."
Then why did you bring it up as an analogy for the ecosystem? And in doing so, why did you get the principles wrong in order to prop up your argument?
I didn't. I brought up the example as if the human body did not have adaptive systems. This was the original complaint you had against my analogy. I put forward a formula that showed with 2% overintake of calories the body would gain 60 lbs in 20 years. The point illustrated is that without adaptive systems a 2% over intake of calories is very substantial overtime.
The argument that "human production of CO2 is irrelevant because it only accounts for 2% " is fallacious, because even a 2% overproduction will in the absence of adaptive systems cause tremendous harm. 2% is NOT necessarily a safe number.
Some of the adaptive systems (like forests) we are destroying just as quickly as we are polluting the atmosphere.
Then you basically replied that Ahh the human body *does* have adaptive systems.
And I then said. That is not the point. I'm not talking about the human body's ability to adapt to anything. I am talking about the fallacy of the PRESUMPTION that the earth can also adapt.
a 2% over intake of calories will have a negative impact on your health and life expectency. You can go ahead and tell yourself it doesnt. But it makes no difference if the human body can adapt and limit the short term harm. There is harm.
There is no scientific basis to support the contention that as the amount of CO2 produced in the world increases, the earth will automatically compensate and increase CO2 sinks in the exact same proportion soon enough to protect humanity from an environmental disaster.
I am addressing this to the original statement only. That humanity only adds 2% to total CO2 and that 2% is a trivial irrelevant amount. That has not been proven. And 2% CAN BE VERY DANGEROUS.
Perhaps you would prefer a better example.
How about a large vat suspended above your house. The VAT has a 100 Litre capacity, and is currently filled with 50 Litres of highly corrosive acid. Even a single drop is enough to dissolve your entire house.
There is a pump which draws away 30 Litres of ACID each year. Likewise historically 30 Litres of ACID have been added each year since the time your house was built.
Now along comes Mr. Industrialist who wants to sell you a great product. The only problem is that it will add 2% to the total ACID added to the vat each year. A Mere 600 ml more each year.
He argues the 600ml is trivial because 30000 ml are added each year naturally and 600ml is only 2% of the total amount of ACID produced.
So you buy the product.
The vat doesn't adapt, nor does the pump.
Your house is dissolved in just over 33 years.
If the salesperson said "but there is so proof that the vat wont adapt, or the pump wont adapt" I think you would want hard proof before buying into this scheme.
I expect you to reply: oh... but I would never buy a house like that.. or I would never live in the same house for 30 years.. or.. there is no such acid powerful enough to disolve a house with a single drop.
All valid points. But completely irrelevent.
The point is that 2% WILL KILL YOU.
If you want to prove that 2% extra CO2 can't possibly harm the ecosystem and eventually humanity then please do so.
Your suggestion that matabolic requirements are unrelated to body mass is factually incorrect.
I didn't make that suggestion. I didn't say it is unrelated. I said that you can't presume your body will burn extra calories seamlessly. And as you point out, it doesn't burn all of them.
Eat more calories and your weight goes up.
Storing calories in body fat is NOT the same thing as burning them. You can't overeat consistently without gaining weight.
Of course once you gain weight your metabolistic requirements increase and you will need to burn additional calories. But this is a side effect of how the human body works, and the earth as a whole is not a living organism. I don't think the argument that the human body will gain wait and consequently increase metabolism invalidates my original point.
My point was meant to illustrate how significant a mere 2% overproduction of C02 can be. It should not be assumed to have no unpleasant effect.
The human body's adaptive systems which have evolved throughout the millenia do not help to inform us about the ecosystem and C02 over production. The 2% analogy shows how dangerous 2% can be (in the absence of any adaptive system).
Those wishing to produce C02 have the burden of proving the existence and effectiveness of whatever adaptive systems exist. It is not the onus on non-polluters to prove adaptive systems dont exist.
Without proper understanding and research, the adaptive system are relying on to stop our overproduction of C02 could very well be the extinction of the human species.
In the meantime we should presume the climate will not adapt to a 2% annual injection of C02 over a long period of time without significant unpleasant changes.
Well this would work if the human body was not an adaptive system...in reality i would not increase my weight but in fact my body would adjust its metabolism to digest and respire that extra 2%....
That must be why there is no obesity epidemic in the USA today.
Oh.. my mistake. there is.
Seems like you cant simply presume your body will increase metabolism to burn extra calories.
in regards to CO2 consentrations you are assuming that the carbon cycle has no adaptive mechanisms...i should point out that recent studies have shown that as of now carbon sinks are absorbing more co2 then is naturaly produced.
What I am assuming is that until it is proven that adaptive mechanisms exist in nature that are actually sufficient to protect the environment (despite us), it is only prudent and sensible that take responsibility and protect the atmosphere ourselves.
The onus of proof is on the party who wishes to pollute the atmosphere, because that atmosphere belongs to us all, and our children and grandchildren etc.
Without identifying and fully understanding what these CO2 sinks are, and how much capabilities they have and who or what activity is actually destroying those CO2 sinks, it is pure blind and stupid faith to assume we can increase CO2 output by 2% beyond natural levels for an infinite period without adverse consequence.
We are increasing CO2 production worldwide, and CO2 is measurably higher these days than 40 years ago. It is only reasonble to conclude that that CO2 is probably on the rise and will probably continue to rise unless *we* do something about it. (rather than praying nature will save us)
The existence of CO2 sinks does not change the validity of that basic assumption because we do not understand *if* those CO2 sinks are capable of withstanding our CO2 production indefinitly.
Or even if we aren't destroying those C02 sinks by our other environmentally harmful activities.
the thing is 300 gigtons of co2 is produced a year from natural causes and humans only produce 6 gigtons
(assuming your numbers are correct.)
Carbon sinks would need to increase their capacity by an equal amount otherwise 6 trillion kilograms of additional CO2 in a year is pumped into the atmosphere.
If you increased your caloric intake by only 2% beyond the rate of metabolism (assuming a 2000 calorie daily intake), and you didn't increase the rate you metabolize, you would gain about 1 lb every 4 months. After 1 year you would gain about 3 lbs. After 20 years you would gain 60 lbs.
How many years of this would it take before you were willing to admit you have a weight problem?
Your belief that the atmosphere is fine because we are only overproducing C02 by 2% is fallacious. It is a dream.
2% will kill you. Slowly, but eventually it will kill you. And we are killing the atmosphere if we overproduce by 2% without increasing CO2 sink capacity by an equal amount.
Yes, but it isn't illegal for the postman to go through his bag and read your postcards, only once it is placed into the mailbox is the expectation of privacy renewed.
Do you think the postman is permitted to make a copy of your postcards?
I ask, because using a computer system to "view" a document requires making a copy. And I think there is a reasonable expectation that the ISP should/does not commit copyright infringement against its customers. And consequently can not normally "View" the email unless that is a necessary operation in the transmission (in which case could be consteud as implied consent), and from that point there is a reasonable expectation that the email will not be copied to a video display (in violation of copyright) and therefore will not be read by a human being and not be recorded or otherwise put on display.
"The "state of the person" is not at issue. What is at issue is the morality of abortion and government prohibition of it."
And how can we determine the morality of abortion wihout addressing the staote of what you are aborting?
Because the STATE of what we are aborting is NOT the basis of my argument. And in so far as you maintain there is no difference between a fetus and a fully grown adult human being it is not the basis of your argument either.
Alternatively, if it is the only basis for your argument then your argument fails to prove your position.
Nothing you have said is anything other than word definitions. The *whole* issues is when does human life begin. My argument is that from conception to death nothing significant changes from one monet to the next (and you agre with that). Your argument boiles down to the dictionary, and the fact you have never had dinner with an unborn baby.
The *whole* issue is NOT when does human life begin. My argument does not hinge on establishing that fact. You keep bringing us back to the non-issue. You presume that if you establish that a fetus and a fully grown human being are equivalent that you have proven your position on prohibiting abortion. However I do not challenge you on that basis (even though I disagree with that also).
I conceded for this argument that nothing morally significant changes from 1 moment to the next. Howevever I did not concede that the sum of many insignificant changes is also insignificant, (you took that conclusion unilaterally) nor am I advocating or even discussing "the right to kill". I do not presume any "right to kill". And the right to choose to have an abortion is not dependant on any right to kill.
Moreover, just as you hold that nothing morally significant changes from 1 moment during pregnancy to the next. I challenge you to explain what the significant moral difference is from the moment of conception to the moment immedietly prior to conception. And to explain morally what the significant difference is between that moment and the moment immedietly prior to sex.
I hold that just as there is no "significant" moral difference between the moment of conception after a sperm and egg have joined to form a single cell embryo to the moment immedietly prior.
Nor is there a significant moral difference from the moment after fertilization to the moment prior to implantation in the womb to the moment immedietly after implantation.
Unless you take the position that something morally significant occurs at conception. Which of course you do because of your religion.
Because of your religion something is "morally" created at conception which did not exist immedietly prior to that moment.
Even though a human embryo has absolutely no sensation of existence and no awareness, no social interaction and absolutely nothing significantly different about its state of being from the embryo of a mouse, you give the human embryo moral value equal to a human being, and a mouse embryo less moral value. Perhaps equal to the moral value of a mouse.
The issue you raised is:how does one pick a specific point in time where abortion becomes ok?
And I agreed that picking a specific point in time, in favour of another specific point in time, prior to the birth of the fetus is, as you said, problematic.
And because it is problematic you argue that choosing abortion should be prohibited by the state.
My argument in favour of choice stands independant of what specific point in time is considered. I argue that the right to physically seperate your body from someone elses body exists ALL the time.
So your right to convenience trumps another persons right to live?
No it trumps your right to physically attach yourself to my body against my will.
Abortion is not about convenience.
Abortion is about the womans right to choose what may and may not be physically attached to her
Please dont lace the conversation with 'potential person' The state of the person is whats at issue.
The "state of the person" is not at issue. What is at issue is the morality of abortion and government prohibition of it. You have jumped to a forgone conclusion that a fetus is a person and as a person has more moral weight than a mother who may have chosen to have sex, and now finds her self the unwilling host of a fetus.
I am not "lacing" the conversation with any terms. I am trying to accurately describe what a fetus is without using morally biased terms. I recognize the fact that a fetus may someday be a person. You say a fetus is a person, and I disagree with you. You are not a fetus. I've never had dinner with a fetus and I've never seen any fetuses walking down the street. Fetuses dont look like people they dont act like people and many of them don't even have brains. If you want to put forward that a fetus is a person and you are putting that position forward without any argument or proof, then this debate is going nowhere.
In the alternative, even *if* a fetus is a person (which it is not). If you implant a person in my body, or a person enters my body by any means (sex or otherwise), and I do not want that person in my body, and they will not remove themself peacefully, I have a right to remove that person from my body by force.
Now who is equating sperm and skin cells with an unborn baby? This is an aweful argument, of course a woman might have 10 kids if she does not have this one, that is not the point. We dont kill people based based on the fact their may or may not be more people.
Actually the analogy was that living skin cells in the correct environment have the potential to grow into a person.
But who said anything about killing "people"?
You are putting forward your forgone conclusion. (that a fetus is a person)
But just to be clear, you would rather prevent 10 people from being born, just to save 1 unborn fetus? Why? And if the mother wanted to make that choice, why would you deny her that option?
I don't understand what you are trying to argue. Don't "we" make sacrifices so that future generations may have better lives?
The baby is there because of a decision the mother made,
The "baby" is not there yet, because the "baby" is still imposing itself on the mothers body against her will. And if she wants to disconnect herself from a "person" (as you say) that is her right.
The mother has a right to change her mind. It IS HER BODY.
I assign non human beings (the ones not conceived) a value of zero, because well they are not human beings.
By your logic, after a fetus is aborted it is no longer a human being, and has a moral weight of 0. Consequently what is the point in government sanctions.
And if you are considering imposing government sanctions to protect FUTURE fetuses... well then..
Future unconceived fetuses are ALSO non-human beings (not yet conceived) and have a moral weight of 0. (by your logic), and there is no passing a law with an aim to protect them.
Your calculus of assigning non-conceived persons a moral weight of 0 and then arbitrarily assigning an embryo the full moral weight of a full blown human being (read: with a life and experiences and social relationships), is arbitrary, and weakons your own position.
We dont kill people based on whats good for society, hitler did that.. WE dont round up the infirmed and kill the because society will benefit from the resources that are freed up, why would this be any different..
1) fetuses are not people. Unless you have some good arguments hidden up your sleeve that you are hiding. 2) "We" do kill people based on what is good for society. In fact that is why "We"" give cops and soldiers weapons. 3) hitler killed people based on hatred and fear, and not based on what was good for society (contrary to what he said. unless you trust hitler).
It's very nice that privacy is becoming a little more important these days, at least with the state governments, but please don't try to rewrite history.
Actually the government does have important interests in safeguarding personal privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't go mocking Privitization because you think that corporations are bad. A corporation isn't *evil*, the ignorant stockholders that simply demand the highest profits NOW are the problem.
And guess who the majority of those stockholders are.
Can you guess?
Answer: Corporations.
Don't blame the corporation for being bad when shareholders don't do a damn thing about them.
But the majority of shares's are owned by corporations. Corporations own controlling interest in just about everything. The system makes it impractical for small shareholders to exercise their right to vote. Consequently the vast majority do not.
Humans have morality, must raise children, have lives. Corporations do not. Consequently corporations usually behave like psychopaths with no cares whatsoever for long term consequences. And ultimately when the corporation folds (and fucks up numerous third parties) shareholders are protected from liability.
You can blaim the shareholders as much as you like. The shareholders are mostly corporations themselves.
A real, decent CEO with decent shareholders would maximize profit over the long run (10 years+) instead of doing it over the next 2.
agreed. such corporate decency should be mandatory!
But it isn't and the system needs fixing.
I never accused every single corporation itself of being evil. Feudalism is wrong, even if there were a few good kings. Corporatism is wrong.
Teach some shareholder responsibility (required economics anyone?) and both corporations and general citizens would be in much better shape (not to mention a stabler economy). It's sad that a majority of shareholders don't realize that they can tell their CEO what to do because they are, in reality, the big man's boss/supervisor/hirer/firer.
The majority of shareholders already know they can vote. They vote to make maximum returns NOW. The majority of shareholders are CORPORATIONS.
So unless you do something to change that, it doesn't really matter anymore how us human beings vote with our stocks.
Investing in SRI funds is a start. But it isn't the solution. The solution is fixing the broken rules which allow psycopathic corporations to run amuck.
The fact that the RIAA and MPAA are now going after the people breaking copyright law instead of writing legislation aimed at crippling technology and suing service providers is a good thing.
They'll do both. The fact that lawsuits failed (will fail) to stop piracy will be used as proof that government (divine) intervention is needed.
The fact is, people that pirate/steal movies are not paying customers.
the people, er sorry maybe I should say "kids", infringing on copyright, never buy or consume legal copies of movies?
Symbian is not Linux.
Symbian is the evolution of the Epoc operating system developed by Psion for their Series 5/5mx/7/revo and netbook hand held computers.
Psion spun off Symbian as a subsidiary to do OS development and eventually sold all of its shares in Symbian, which is now owned mostly by Nokia,and Sony-Ericsson.
The premise of Symbian was to be an OS which never required rebooting, crash or hang, and would multitask while conserving battery power, as well as have a small memory footprint. Traits which were suited to a handheld computer and are ideal to a PDA or cell phone.
Not crashing is what allows you to be confident you can make that 911 call.
The no-rebooting characteristic is important so that your PDA could turn on instantly from a suspend mode.
Multitasking lets you be productive and use multiple applications at the same time, unlike PALM OS which must relaunch and close an application each time you want to do something else.
Any difficulty in finding prior art does not negate the obviousness of the invention.
An obvious invention is not subject to patent protection, even if it is novel.
Privatize it, and let the citizens start deciding.
1: Citizens are not the only "people" who can own things.
2: even "people" such as corporations can own things.
3: "people" such as corporations actually do own more things than citizens.
4: corporations have more money than citizens
5: unlike human beings who have morals and a conscience corporations dont and they care about only 2 things : profit and growth
6: humans are so scared of hurting the corporations (lest we lose our jobs) that we are afraid to impose strict environmental and safety controls on corporations. Consequently the corporations cause us harm and like good citizens we pay the costs.
7. our children also pay the costs.
8. our granchildren also pay the costs.
9. corporations dont care that humans subsidized them when they were young and pack up, close shop or lay off or outsource whoever and whenever the hell they please anyway.
10. Profit
So if you mean "let the corporations control the nuclear power" when you say privatize it. I say HELL NO!!
The electoral college prevents a candidate who happens to have overwhelming popularity in a few population dense geographical areas be guaranteed to win control of the entire country, if another candidate has more broad based general popularity in the majority of the country.
If 1 candidate happened to have 100% support in a large state, and only 49% support everywhere else, they would probably win the popular vote overall even thought the other candidate was more popular in every single state except 1.
On the whole the electoral college is better than a direct referendum.
The only real problem with the electoral college, is that IMHO each electoral college vote should have a specific geographic area of equal population, and not be tied to a state.
This way the likelyhood your vote will matter is about the same regardless of which state you happen to live in, and the importance of that 1 vote will be the same regardless of which state you resided in.
The electoral college insures that it will not be enough for a candidate to simply win an overwhelming victory in a couple of states and win the presidency while actually being the less popular candidate across a vast the majority of the states.
The Presidency should represent the majority of the whole country, by geography. Someone who is vastly popular in a few specific localities, but otherwise unpopular across most of the country should not be president.
Thanks to the Electoral college system, the world can see that New York and California voted against Bush. So we can go back to liking New Yorkers and Californians, and direct our feelings of resentment where they belong. towards Ohio.
He also gave aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war.
BS. How does knowing that american GI's are commiting war crimes "give aid and comfort to the enemy". Are the enemies comforted in knowing that some americans are brutal and ruthless and sadistic. They already knew that. The problem isn't that they knew it. The problem was that is was TRUE.
Were the Jews of WWII Warsaw COMFORTED when they learned what was happening in Auschwitz?
Kerry made a report to Congress. Congress are the democratically elected representatives of the people of America. A far cry from giving a briefing to the NVA or VC.
Dont you don't think that NVA troops or VC were already quite propagandized into believing that americans were evil hellspawn on earth?
You can't accept that it was political and command decisions of top brass and various politicians which lead to an escalation in the brutality and inhumanity of the war in Vietnam, and triggered or encouraged atrocities to occur. And in some instances lead to such psychological trauma as to turn honest and good american GI's into cold blooded murderers.
You also can't accept that Vietnam was a poorly planned "clusterfuck" with no proper exit strategy. And the USA stayed in Vietnam for years after it was obvious victory was impossible, just to save face, and as a results thousands of unneccessary American casualties and millions of unneccessary vietnamese casualties occured.
Kerry never criticized the troops in vietnam. He criticized the LEADERSHIP. And damn right. The leadership deserved criticism. You probably think America won the vietnam war. (fleeing the american embassy by helecopter emergency evac.. what a victory)
Hid [sic] discharge was under review by an Admirals board and that is not done for an honorable.
Any party with sufficient political clout can cause a review to take place. A review DOESN'T MEAN SHIT. Especially in a military that is mostly republican. If you want to accuse Kerry of fraud, you can go ahead and file a criminal complaint. Because if the records on his website were fraudulent that would be a crime. Proferring false documents in order to obtain a benefit (in this case a job) is a crime. Of course filing a criminal complaint that you know to be false is also a crime, and eventually it would be *you* who are found to false.
I don't care what his site says, I want to see a certified DD214.
I call bullshit. First you said "why wont kerry release his military records?" and then when presented with the fact that he has already done so, you change your position (flip-flop?) and say that it isn't enough for Kerry to release his military records, you want to see *certified* copies.
You are indirectly accusing Kerry of publishing forged military records. Why don't you just come out and make your accusation? The Commander in Chief (i.e. The Republican nominee for President) has the security clearance to review Kerry's discharge himself. Kerry's records have been scrutinized by the Whitehouse and what you see on Kerry's website is 100% accurate, because if it were not, there would be TV commericials paid for directly by G.W.Bush saying that Kerry is a Con Artist and publishes false documents, and Kerry would be brought up on criminal charges.
Instead the Bush-Cheney team rely on peons such as yourself to spread uncertainty and doubt, about something which there is no uncertainty or doubt. John F. Kerry is a War Hero.
Even if Kerry published certified copies of his military records you would change your demands again and want to see the ORIGINAL military records.
John F. Kerry is a WAR HERO.
GET OVER IT ASSHOLE!
He will not win, he is not trustworthy and is a spineless wimp with no position on anything.
A spineless wimp who orded his swift boat to engage the enemy on shore, and then personally disembarked from his swift boat while under fire to chase a VC down, killed the VC and recovered a lo
For starters, most "low-end" consumer electronics are not covered by what I would consider to be a long or extensive warranty, so this should come as no surprise to him that the warranty was already expired. Most of these devices are made to be disposable and/or have a fairly limited life span.
Most TV sets, radios, DVD players, stereo systems and other home electronics last for years without failing. Consumer electronics tends to lasts years, not merely months or 1 year.
A disposable video game system should should be clearly marked on the package as such.
The advertising certainly doesn't make it clear that X-Box is a low end disposable device.
I might also add that since MS is selling the hardware at a loss, they have no incentive to use higher-quality components.
irrelevant. Microsoft has no right to sell crap which is known to be flawed from the onset, just because they are selling at a loss. If they know it is flawed they must disclose this information to the buyer.
The profitability of a product does not lessen or increase the responsibility of the manufacturer.
This is also an area where extended warranties attempt to give consumers an option.
An extended warantee does nothing to cause an inferior quality defective product to suddenly become high quality. This is simply a different price point for the same product. The same crappy defective product. The X-Box is not any less likely to fail (predictably) if you buy the extended warantee.
Now if microsoft had 2 versions. "X-Box - disposable" and "X-Box- normal", then you would probably have no complaint when the "X-Box - Disposable" died after the warantee because the word "disposable" clearly implies that the product is not expected to last a significant amount of time.
If microsoft is intentionally building a product which is designed or known fail suddenly without any misuse or harsh conditions just because of design or manufacturing choices made by microsoft, it should advertise that fact, otherwise consumers will rightfully expect that microsoft made a good faith effort to build a product with no fundamental flaws. It is dishonest and fraudulent to sell something knowing it has a flaw and not disclosing that flaw to the buyer.
1 month wear contact lenses are not sold as "contact lenses with a 1 month warantee", they are sold as "Contact lenses which must be replaced after 1 month".
game platforms are expected to have a market life of about 5 years. Does this mean that microsoft actually expects consumers to buy 5 to 10 X-boxes before retiring their system?
4 months in Nam, 3 Purplr Hearts, not one day in a hospital.
a ry _records.html
Actually... try 3 purple hearts, 1 bronze star and 1 silver star.
Sorry but most of us have spilled more blood shaving. Why won't Kerry release his records? Was his discharge less than Honorable?
Well I can't comment on how seriously you cut yourself shaving, but his discharge was Honourable.
Dont take my word for it. Why don't you go to:
http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/milit
And you will discover to your suprise.
JOHN KERRYS MILITARY RECORDS!
How did I find this website? Well I googled for: John Kerry Military Records.
I know he didn't drop by your house and deliver them to you personally, and for that perhaps he owes you an apology.
John Kerry is a WAR HERO!
John Kerry has won 5 medals and 2 of them were for heroism in combat.
GET OVER IT ASSHOLE!!!
Have you ever drank coffee immediately after poured? It's certainly too hot for consumption as well, unless your coffee maker is broken.
To hot for comfort or too hot for safety?
Why do we lower the standards of safety when it comes to food and drink? It is common courtesy to WARN PEOPLE WHEN YOU SERVE THEM SOMETHING WHICH IS TOO HOT.
Have you never been told "watch yourself the plate is hot"? or words to that effect? I personally ALWAYS warn people when I'm handing them something which I believe is too hot.
McDonalds does not get off the hook, because it's employees are poorly trained.
We have a duty of care to people to whome we are selling products, to not hand them drinks which are so hot as to cause potentially fatal consequences if they drink them.
I think the little warning label on the cup is quite insufficient. If the coffee is still 20 degrees hotter than standard you should be warned verbally.
Quite frankly, I've spilled hot coffee on myself at home. On my groan as well. I didn't put the coffee between my legs, but it was early in the morning, I had just gotten out of bed and I was half-asleep. I misjudged how close I was sitting to my table and when I put my cup down, I missed the table, simply dropping the coffee right on my lap.
The result?
A lot of pain, and some superficial 1st degree burns. This was absolutely freshly brewed coffee. And that was coffee spilling on bare skin.
If this lady has simply spilled the coffee by accident and suffered 3rd degree burns, then would you find McDonalds liable? Who cares if she was holding the coffee in her lap? The issue is: Was the coffee dangerously and negligently or recklessly too hot for its intended purpose.
Why should anyone expect McDonalds coffee would be 20 degrees hotter than the industry standard?
If the McDonalds coffee was so hot as to cause 3rd degree burns and 7 days of hospitalization, it was TOO HOT.
Food is commonly served too hot for comfortable immediate consumption, but it is vary rarely served so hot that it would cause serious injury. And in those cases it is normal to recieve a warning from the food server.
Had the lady simply drank that coffee and suffered 3rd degree burns inside her body she would probably
have died.
Sure.. The lady accidentally spilled coffee on herself. So perhaps she should be liable for her cleaning bill. But spilling food on yourself should not result in a 7 day hospital stay.
And a company which sells millions of coffees daily should know better than to serve its coffee 20 degrees hotter than industry standard.
right! And no war crimes were commited by US forces in Vietnam.
Contrary to popular mythology and ceremony. When you are in the military you are in fact serving your nation. When US soldiers commit war crimes they are betraying the military and the country. Kerry was in Vietnam serving America. The notion that troops are so loyal to the military complex as to sit idly by and ignore war atrocities, is fucking offensive in a democratic society.
To bad if Kerry embarassed some politicians or top brass by exposing the type of atrocities which were commited in Vietnam by certain members of the American forces. He was under oath. Accuse him of purjery and file a criminal complaint if you have any grounds whatsoever to believe that anything Kerry said was a lie.
The President, Commander in chief is supposed to serve AMERICA. Not corporate interests, the military, or secret societies. The President is not supposed to sit idly by and keep silent when he is witness to human suffering and misery caused by an abuse of power.
Bush sits idly bye and then looks for legal loopholes to avoid the constitution to continue human rights abuses. Where the hell did this notion that certain persons are completely out of reach of the Law and justice. It came from Bush.
It is offensive to all civilized nations, that Bush feels that as President he is effectively above the law and has the power to unilaterally incarcerate anyone on his discretion and deny that person any appeal to an unbiased judicial authority, or to any legal council.
Bush broke faith with every person who has or ever will wear a uniform by doing coke and then skipping out on his physical to avoid being detected (the same year that tests for cocaine became mandatory).
How many people have been jailed for possession of cocaine while Bush was Governor of Texas, or while President.
But far worse, Bush broke faith with the entire Free world, (seeing as Americans refer to the President as the Leader of the Free World) by making the decision to invade Iraq and then justifying the invasion ex-post facto.
Bush has caused countless deaths in Iraq, at 13-15 thousand dead Iraqi's from direct military action, and upwards of 100,000 deaths caused indirectly by "post-war" conditions in Iraq.
Lets not forget over 1100 dead americans and over 100 other coalition troops.
And for what? To catch 1 man? Bullshit.
it was supposed to be to remove the NON-EXISTANT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
You are obviously in the 'see no evil, speak no evil' camp. Because a good and honest person does not keep silent when they believe that atrocities are being commited in war. Perhaps George Bush would have kept his lying mouth shut about war crimes in Vietnam. But just because you can't accept the fact that war crimes were committed in vietnam is no reason that young John Kerry should not report them.
As I said. If you think Kerry lied then file a criminal complaint for Perjury. You had 30 years to do it!
Kerry was actually IN VIETNAM. Unlike Bush.
And the notion that Kerry was awarded a silver star, bronze star and 3 purple hearts all because he was politically connected is bullshit. No one has ever challenged the legitimacy of his medals EVER, except in bullshit TV-adds which are not under any legal obligation to tell the truth when they are not selling a product.
Bush is the President. He has all the clout to order a complete investigation into Kerry's medals or military records if there was even a slight chance of impropriety. Do you think the Bush-Cheney team has not already done that?
The real "Shock and Awe" will be what the entire world feels if Bush-Cheney win the election next week.
Does Kerry even know where he stands on anything?
Does Bush know his ass from a hole in the ground?
I'd like to see his voting record brought out on intelligence issues. Who voted for every cut in the intelligence budget before 9/11? Who blames Bush for the intelligence failures of Iraq? Looks like the same person to me.
You suggest that John Kerry's voting record is being supressed (it isn't and it is on the public record and you can read it) and then you suggest that John Kerry voted for every cut in the intelligence budget before 9/11, which implies you know John Kerry's voting record and therefore you have no legitimate complaint regarding its supression.
i.e. you are complaining just for the sake of complaining.
The failures of intelligence in Iraq were not caused by a lack of funding. Even with 10 times the Intelligence budget Bush would have still invaded Iraq.
And before you go parroting the republican talking point that Kerry voted for the invasion. You may want to go back and review that Senate voting record, and you will see Kerry voted to give the President the authority to use any means to disarm Iraq. The "Authority" to do something is not the same thing as doing it. Only in Bush's mind does the "authority" to do something equal "doing it" because Bush intended to invade Iraq since 2000.
Kerry says he believes that the president should always have that "authority" and he would always vote in favor of giving the president that "authority".
Kerry would have voted in favour of giving the president "authority" to invade Canada because Kerry believes the President should have that power. period. It has nothing to do with Kerry believing that an invasion was the right thing to do.
The "authority" would give credibility to the President threats of military action against Saddam. It would show Saddam that the USA meant business. However Bush decided to just rush off to war without proper planning, contrary to his promises to the House.
The intelligence failures in Iraq were caused by a deliberate acts in the whitehouse to interpret every shred of raw-data, no matter how questionable or dubious, which supported the proposition that Iraq still had WMD, and ignore every piece of intelligence which suggested otherwise. The Whitehouse specifically ordered the CIA to stovepipe all raw data about Iraq straight up without being analysed and filtered by intelligence agents. The result is that useless and misleading intelligence was available which would suggest any possible position the whitehouse wanted to take. And in thie case the position the WhiteHouse chose to pursue (not withstanding it was a fiction): was that Iraq had WMD and posed an imminent threat to the USA.
Notwithstanding that prior to 9/11 condi Rice was saying that Iraq posed no threat.
Who is suprised that no WMD were found? Is Bush suprised? No.. he is pretending to be suprised or he is a flipping idiot!
Then Bush had a new position. Saddam had WMD programs.
And then Bush had a new position. Saddam had the desire and intent to pursue WMD programs. And would have pursued them as soon as the UN sanctions were dropped. (uhhh... so?)
What is missing from here is this: Saddam had no desire or intent to use WMD against the United States. PERIOD
The vast majority of the world population is not suprised at all by the non-existence of WMD, because the so called "Evidence" was indeed blatently insufficient. It is preposterous that Iraq which has been under sanctions, with 2/3 of the country a "no-fly zone", under constant surveilance, would be able to secretly maintain a WMD arsenal without any trace.
The Bush administration knows that the non-existant WMD were always intended (back in the day when they existed) to be used as a deterrant against IRAN.
The USA has WMD. In fact the USA probably has the largest WMD stockpiles of anyone after Russia.
And constant public demands that Iraq must prove a negative proposition in order to satisfy the President made it abundantly clear that dubya was going to war no matt
"The human body's adaptive systems which have evolved throughout the millenia do not help to inform us about the ecosystem and C02 over production."
.. there is no such acid powerful enough to disolve a house with a single drop.
Then why did you bring it up as an analogy for the ecosystem? And in doing so, why did you get the principles wrong in order to prop up your argument?
I didn't. I brought up the example as if the human body did not have adaptive systems. This was the original complaint you had against my analogy. I put forward a formula that showed with 2% overintake of calories the body would gain 60 lbs in 20 years. The point illustrated is that without adaptive systems a 2% over intake of calories is very substantial overtime.
The argument that "human production of CO2 is irrelevant because it only accounts for 2% " is fallacious, because even a 2% overproduction will in the absence of adaptive systems cause tremendous harm. 2% is NOT necessarily a safe number.
Some of the adaptive systems (like forests) we are destroying just as quickly as we are polluting the atmosphere.
Then you basically replied that Ahh the human body *does* have adaptive systems.
And I then said. That is not the point. I'm not talking about the human body's ability to adapt to anything. I am talking about the fallacy of the PRESUMPTION that the earth can also adapt.
a 2% over intake of calories will have a negative impact on your health and life expectency. You can go ahead and tell yourself it doesnt. But it makes no difference if the human body can adapt and limit the short term harm. There is harm.
There is no scientific basis to support the contention that as the amount of CO2 produced in the world increases, the earth will automatically compensate and increase CO2 sinks in the exact same proportion soon enough to protect humanity from an environmental disaster.
I am addressing this to the original statement only. That humanity only adds 2% to total CO2 and that 2% is a trivial irrelevant amount. That has not been proven. And 2% CAN BE VERY DANGEROUS.
Perhaps you would prefer a better example.
How about a large vat suspended above your house. The VAT has a 100 Litre capacity, and is currently filled with 50 Litres of highly corrosive acid.
Even a single drop is enough to dissolve your entire house.
There is a pump which draws away 30 Litres of ACID each year. Likewise historically 30 Litres of ACID have been added each year since the time your house was built.
Now along comes Mr. Industrialist who wants to sell you a great product. The only problem is that it will add 2% to the total ACID added to the vat each year. A Mere 600 ml more each year.
He argues the 600ml is trivial because 30000 ml are added each year naturally and 600ml is only 2% of the total amount of ACID produced.
So you buy the product.
The vat doesn't adapt, nor does the pump.
Your house is dissolved in just over 33 years.
If the salesperson said "but there is so proof that the vat wont adapt, or the pump wont adapt" I think you would want hard proof before buying into this scheme.
I expect you to reply: oh... but I would never buy a house like that.. or I would never live in the same house for 30 years.. or
All valid points. But completely irrelevent.
The point is that 2% WILL KILL YOU.
If you want to prove that 2% extra CO2 can't possibly harm the ecosystem and eventually humanity then please do so.
Your suggestion that matabolic requirements are unrelated to body mass is factually incorrect.
I didn't make that suggestion. I didn't say it is unrelated. I said that you can't presume your body will burn extra calories seamlessly. And as you point out, it doesn't burn all of them.
Eat more calories and your weight goes up.
Storing calories in body fat is NOT the same thing as burning them. You can't overeat consistently without gaining weight.
Of course once you gain weight your metabolistic requirements increase and you will need to burn additional calories. But this is a side effect of how the human body works, and the earth as a whole is not a living organism. I don't think the argument that the human body will gain wait and consequently increase metabolism invalidates my original point.
My point was meant to illustrate how significant a mere 2% overproduction of C02 can be. It should not be assumed to have no unpleasant effect.
The human body's adaptive systems which have evolved throughout the millenia do not help to inform us about the ecosystem and C02 over production. The 2% analogy shows how dangerous 2% can be (in the absence of any adaptive system).
Those wishing to produce C02 have the burden of proving the existence and effectiveness of whatever adaptive systems exist. It is not the onus on non-polluters to prove adaptive systems dont exist.
Without proper understanding and research, the adaptive system are relying on to stop our overproduction of C02 could very well be the extinction of the human species.
In the meantime we should presume the climate will not adapt to a 2% annual injection of C02 over a long period of time without significant unpleasant changes.
Well this would work if the human body was not an adaptive system...in reality i would not increase my weight but in fact my body would adjust its metabolism to digest and respire that extra 2%....
That must be why there is no obesity epidemic in the USA today.
Oh.. my mistake. there is.
Seems like you cant simply presume your body will increase metabolism to burn extra calories.
in regards to CO2 consentrations you are assuming that the carbon cycle has no adaptive mechanisms...i should point out that recent studies have shown that as of now carbon sinks are absorbing more co2 then is naturaly produced.
What I am assuming is that until it is proven that adaptive mechanisms exist in nature that are actually sufficient to protect the environment (despite us), it is only prudent and sensible that take responsibility and protect the atmosphere ourselves.
The onus of proof is on the party who wishes to pollute the atmosphere, because that atmosphere belongs to us all, and our children and grandchildren etc.
Without identifying and fully understanding what these CO2 sinks are, and how much capabilities they have and who or what activity is actually destroying those CO2 sinks, it is pure blind and stupid faith to assume we can increase CO2 output by 2% beyond natural levels for an infinite period without adverse consequence.
We are increasing CO2 production worldwide, and CO2 is measurably higher these days than 40 years ago. It is only reasonble to conclude that that CO2 is probably on the rise and will probably continue to rise unless *we* do something about it. (rather than praying nature will save us)
The existence of CO2 sinks does not change the validity of that basic assumption because we do not understand *if* those CO2 sinks are capable of withstanding our CO2 production indefinitly.
Or even if we aren't destroying those C02 sinks by our other environmentally harmful activities.
the thing is 300 gigtons of co2 is produced a year from natural causes and humans only produce 6 gigtons
(assuming your numbers are correct.)
Carbon sinks would need to increase their capacity by an equal amount otherwise 6 trillion kilograms of additional CO2 in a year is pumped into the atmosphere.
If you increased your caloric intake by only 2% beyond the rate of metabolism (assuming a 2000 calorie daily intake), and you didn't increase the rate you metabolize, you would gain about 1 lb every 4 months. After 1 year you would gain about 3 lbs. After 20 years you would gain 60 lbs.
How many years of this would it take before you were willing to admit you have a weight problem?
Your belief that the atmosphere is fine because we are only overproducing C02 by 2% is fallacious. It is a dream.
2% will kill you. Slowly, but eventually it will kill you. And we are killing the atmosphere if we overproduce by 2% without increasing CO2 sink capacity by an equal amount.
Yes, but it isn't illegal for the postman to go through his bag and read your postcards, only once it is placed into the mailbox is the expectation of privacy renewed.
Do you think the postman is permitted to make a copy of your postcards?
I ask, because using a computer system to "view" a document requires making a copy. And I think there is a reasonable expectation that the ISP should/does not commit copyright infringement against its customers. And consequently can not normally "View" the email unless that is a necessary operation in the transmission (in which case could be consteud as implied consent), and from that point there is a reasonable expectation that the email will not be copied to a video display (in violation of copyright) and therefore will not be read by a human being and not be recorded or otherwise put on display.
It is illegal to go through someone elses mailbox and read their post cards.
Even if you are the post master.
And post cards are hand delivered and consequently have a low expectation of privacy. Email is not hand delivered.
So if Fed-ex or UPS wants to open and look through your parcels... I guess that is just fine by you.
No. It is kind of like kind of like the post office having the right to open and read your mail.
"The "state of the person" is not at issue. What is at issue is the morality of abortion and government prohibition of it."
:how does one pick a specific point in time where abortion becomes ok?
And how can we determine the morality of abortion wihout addressing the staote of what you are aborting?
Because the STATE of what we are aborting is NOT the basis of my argument. And in so far as you maintain there is no difference between a fetus and a fully grown adult human being it is not the basis of your argument either.
Alternatively, if it is the only basis for your argument then your argument fails to prove your position.
Nothing you have said is anything other than word definitions. The *whole* issues is when does human life begin. My argument is that from conception to death nothing significant changes from one monet to the next (and you agre with that). Your argument boiles down to the dictionary, and the fact you have never had dinner with an unborn baby.
The *whole* issue is NOT when does human life begin. My argument does not hinge on establishing that fact. You keep bringing us back to the non-issue. You presume that if you establish that a fetus and a fully grown human being are equivalent that you have proven your position on prohibiting abortion. However I do not challenge you on that basis (even though I disagree with that also).
I conceded for this argument that nothing morally significant changes from 1 moment to the next. Howevever I did not concede that the sum of many insignificant changes is also insignificant, (you took that conclusion unilaterally) nor am I advocating or even discussing "the right to kill". I do not presume any "right to kill". And the right to choose to have an abortion is not dependant on any right to kill.
Moreover, just as you hold that nothing morally significant changes from 1 moment during pregnancy to the next. I challenge you to explain what the significant moral difference is from the moment of conception to the moment immedietly prior to conception. And to explain morally what the significant difference is between that moment and the moment immedietly prior to sex.
I hold that just as there is no "significant" moral difference between the moment of conception after a sperm and egg have joined to form a single cell embryo to the moment immedietly prior.
Nor is there a significant moral difference from the moment after fertilization to the moment prior to implantation in the womb to the moment immedietly after implantation.
Unless you take the position that something morally significant occurs at conception. Which of course you do because of your religion.
Because of your religion something is "morally" created at conception which did not exist immedietly prior to that moment.
Even though a human embryo has absolutely no sensation of existence and no awareness, no social interaction and absolutely nothing significantly different about its state of being from the embryo of a mouse, you give the human embryo moral value equal to a human being, and a mouse embryo less moral value. Perhaps equal to the moral value of a mouse.
The issue you raised is
And I agreed that picking a specific point in time, in favour of another specific point in time, prior to the birth of the fetus is, as you said, problematic.
And because it is problematic you argue that choosing abortion should be prohibited by the state.
My argument in favour of choice stands independant of what specific point in time is considered. I argue that the right to physically seperate your body from someone elses body exists ALL the time.
So your right to convenience trumps another persons right to live?
No it trumps your right to physically attach yourself to my body against my will.
Abortion is not about convenience.
Abortion is about the womans right to choose what may and may not be physically attached to her
Please dont lace the conversation with 'potential person' The state of the person is whats at issue.
The "state of the person" is not at issue. What is at issue is the morality of abortion and government prohibition of it. You have jumped to a forgone conclusion that a fetus is a person and as a person has more moral weight than a mother who may have chosen to have sex, and now finds her self the unwilling host of a fetus.
I am not "lacing" the conversation with any terms. I am trying to accurately describe what a fetus is without using morally biased terms. I recognize the fact that a fetus may someday be a person. You say a fetus is a person, and I disagree with you. You are not a fetus. I've never had dinner with a fetus and I've never seen any fetuses walking down the street. Fetuses dont look like people they dont act like people and many of them don't even have brains. If you want to put forward that a fetus is a person and you are putting that position forward without any argument or proof, then this debate is going nowhere.
In the alternative, even *if* a fetus is a person (which it is not). If you implant a person in my body, or a person enters my body by any means (sex or otherwise), and I do not want that person in my body, and they will not remove themself peacefully, I have a right to remove that person from my body by force.
Now who is equating sperm and skin cells with an unborn baby? This is an aweful argument, of course a woman might have 10 kids if she does not have this one, that is not the point. We dont kill people based based on the fact their may or may not be more people.
Actually the analogy was that living skin cells in the correct environment have the potential to grow into a person.
But who said anything about killing "people"?
You are putting forward your forgone conclusion. (that a fetus is a person)
But just to be clear, you would rather prevent 10 people from being born, just to save 1 unborn fetus? Why? And if the mother wanted to make that choice, why would you deny her that option?
I don't understand what you are trying to argue.
Don't "we" make sacrifices so that future generations may have better lives?
The baby is there because of a decision the mother made,
The "baby" is not there yet, because the "baby" is still imposing itself on the mothers body against her will. And if she wants to disconnect herself from a "person" (as you say) that is her right.
The mother has a right to change her mind. It IS HER BODY.
I assign non human beings (the ones not conceived) a value of zero, because well they are not human beings.
By your logic, after a fetus is aborted it is no longer a human being, and has a moral weight of 0. Consequently what is the point in government sanctions.
And if you are considering imposing government sanctions to protect FUTURE fetuses... well then..
Future unconceived fetuses are ALSO non-human beings (not yet conceived) and have a moral weight of 0. (by your logic), and there is no passing a law with an aim to protect them.
Your calculus of assigning non-conceived persons a moral weight of 0 and then arbitrarily assigning an embryo the full moral weight of a full blown human being (read: with a life and experiences and social relationships), is arbitrary, and weakons your own position.
We dont kill people based on whats good for society, hitler did that.. WE dont round up the infirmed and kill the because society will benefit from the resources that are freed up, why would this be any different..
1) fetuses are not people. Unless you have some good arguments hidden up your sleeve that you are hiding.
2) "We" do kill people based on what is good for society. In fact that is why "We"" give cops and soldiers weapons.
3) hitler killed people based on hatred and fear, and not based on what was good for society (contrary to what he said. unless you trust hitler).
It's very nice that privacy is becoming a little more important these days, at least with the state governments, but please don't try to rewrite history.
Actually the government does have important interests in safeguarding personal privacy.
The Patriot Act is a dereliction of duties.