Re:[OT] Re:How to boycott? mercantilism
on
Bad Day To Be Sony
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
>I study at last(sic) 40 hours a week the various documents that help me reinforce the views I hold dear to me....
Am I the only one who saw that as a disturbing statement? You spend 40 hours a week, which amounts to having a second job (I'm assuming that you're employed based on your previous statements) reinforcing your own point of view. I've met religious fanatics who don't spend that much time reading their religious scripture. Literally, you claim to be spending more time with whatever literature supports your views than a fundie does with a bible.
First off, if you wanted an informed opinion, wouldn't reading the opposition make more sense? If I want to know the full story about something, I find info from both sides, I don't just take the side I agree with as automatically infallable. Second, why the need to "reinforce" those things you already beleive? Sounds a bit too much like brainwashing for me - certainly if someone else was shoving their point of view down your throat that's the word I would use.
I'm not sure that's right. What you're basically saying is that crucial genes, if they mutate, will result in the organism's premature death. I can see the advantage here in a few cases, for example early fetal kill switches that cause a pregnant mother to misscarry, and increase the chances of her reproducing again. And there are probably other similar instances where it might make sense. But in any other case, who's to say it's evolution?
In other words, if a crucial gene is defective, it's probably going to be fatal anyway, if not immediately then quickly enough that it won't be passed on. Why would natural selection favour a quicker, or more immediate death? And how could we tell the difference, whether we've evolved to die faster if certain genes change for the worse, or whether we just die faster if we inherit such traits because the traits themselves are fatal?
It isn't a question of what we do or don't know of genetics. For your assumption to have even a remote chance of being correct, there would have to be a fundmental misunderstanding about how natural selection works. Do I have to have a PhD in physics before I tell you that a perpetual motion machine won't work? A basic understanding of thermodynamics is all that's needed there, and a basic understanding of how natural selection works is all that's needed here.
Look at it this way - survival of your genes is what matters evolutionarily. Not what benefits the species, but what materially increases the likelyhood of you, the individual, surviving and breeding. Some genetic trait that would prevent you from breeding as a way to quarantine "corrupted" genes, again to use the word you used, would not evolve. Evolved traits, without exception, exist to aid the survival of your genetic code, which is not a goal that a "kill switch" gene that triggers homosexuality would accomplish.
Put in very plain english, our current understanding of evolution, and all future understandings of the theory of natural selection, hinge upon the idea that traits must offer some survival benefit to the host organism, or its decendants who represent the future of its genetic material. Traits that don't offer any benefit don't get passed on.
What benefit to the individual's genetic survival does a gene that prevents you from breeding give? None. There isn't a single good reason to think that such a trait would ever evolve. There is no way selective pressure would favour such a gene. Unless you can either make a compelling arguement otherwise, which you haven't done yet, then all you've got is a wild guess.
You're right, it does sound like flaimbait, but I will address it seriously. It isn't very good science, because you're assuming that there is an evolutionary advantage to a person taking themselves out of the gene pool. Evolution doesn't work that way.
Evolution isn't a thinking, intelligent proccess; it's basically probabilty. If you carry "corrupt" genes, as you put it, then you probably won't live long enough to reproduce, and thus those genes will die with you. If you carry genes that are well adapted to your current environment, then your odds of surviving and reproducing are higher, and those genes will get preserved.
There is no way for any sort of kill switch to evolve that way. A person will not evolve a "don't breed" gene for the good of the species, because such a mutation has no way of happening accidentally, nor does probability dictate that such a person is more likely to survive than someone without such a trait. Natural selection has to favour a trait before it can become common.
And in fact it would be deterimental to the species if we had such a failsafe, since mutation is part of the normal evolutionary process; one generations "corrupted" gene is the next ones survival trait.
What about conspiracy to commit? Or the aforementioned uttering death threats?
Say I post in blog A that I want someone to burn down police station B. Does someone have to actually hurl a molotov at the station for it to count as a crime? Would this be equivalent to posting a public note saying "Wanted for hire: arsonist, must have 5 years experience or more"?
I think the french authorities overreacted and came down too hard on the bloggers. I also expect that this won't hold up in court, assuming it ever gets there. It certainly wouldn't hold up in the states. But there is enough here for them to arrest people, even if they eventually go free.
True. But check TFA again; religion, right to assembly and free speech are not the issue with the blogs, at least not officially. Unoffcially I don't know enough to comment, but I suspect they are.
It's likely the bloggers were muslim, but that isn't actually specified. What is specified is that the people who were cracked down on posted stuff that the french consider incitement to violence - ie a challenge to anyone "man enough" to burn down a police station. This in the US would probably be treated in the same way as a person uttering death threats, or attempting to hire an arsonist. It probably wouldn't hold up in court, but I suspect that the blogger would be arrested or at least shut up in either country.
The french authorities probably overreacted. Would american authorities be any different?
Just to point out the obvious, the united states isn't in the middle of domestic upheaval. If there were violent riots in the US, and the site you linked was actually advocating it (as is the case with TFA), then yes I fully expect they would be hit with the same consequences. That isn't to say that there is any actual connection between the bloggers and the violence (that would have to be proven in court), but it's not as if authorities in the 'states are any less prone to overreacting.
If muslims were rioting in the suburbs of washington, and some bloggers were advocating it, they probably would be in the same boat.
>Evolution, is by definition, not goal oriented (Gould, 1989). Therefore, how can it speed up or slow down based on "pressure"? Species examples please.
In very plain english?
A higher evolutionary pressure usually means a higher mortality rate.
If you start with a population of a hundred thousand members of a given species in the same area, and half are killed due to a major change such as an approaching ice age, then the pressure to develop ways to retain heat is higher. A majority of those without thicker fur, or better thermoregulation, or layers of fat to retain heat, are going to die off - they will be the fifty thousand that don't make it. Evolution speeds up.
No goal is required this way. No outside force is telling the members of that species that they need to fatten up or thicken their coats. Rather, the normal range of genetic variation says that some of them will be better suited to survive the cold, and the sudden drop in temperature will tend to favour those individuals. If the reverse happened, and the temperature rose, then the reverse would occur; evolutionary pressure would favour the individuals with thinner coats and less body fat, or better means of shedding heat.
Raising or lowering the outside pressure will make the evolutionary changes speed up or slow down. What punctuated equilibrium says is basically that species evolve in "spurts", with major changes happening quickly when circumstances change. There is a normal equilibrium that remains unchanging until something in the environment makes change neccessary - punctures the equilibrium. At least, that's the theory.
Hope this helps, and try to ignore the spelling and grammar errors.
What about the concept of "eminent domain", such as what exists in the 'states. Wouldn't that apply here?
Patent laws essentially make private property out of ideas/designs/etc. Eminent domain is the legal right of government to take private property if the need arises. It's usually applied for things like public works (roads and the like), but I can see an equivalent application in emergency situations like a looming viral outbreak.
I would assume that legally they can do this if their laws have a provision for seizure of private property in times of emergency. Of course, IANAL, and I know exactly zilch about Taiwanese law, but it seems too obvious a legal provision not to have.
Have you tried the UT games? Best multiplayer FPS I've played.
But why expect these games to be? People don't play moody dark survival horror games for deathmatch, they play those games alone (preferably with the lights out). Multiplayer FPS is about one thing, single player is about something else, both have their merits. Just because you prefer one does not mean the designers shouldn't make some of each.
> actually they never needed to give them energy in terms of food, rather if you payed attention to everything the feeding tubes gave those in the pods the remains of dead humans. That's an endless chain for you.
Um... no. Thermodyamics states that you can't get more out of a system then you put in. Human metabolism needs a source of energy, like plant and animal matter, which in turn need their own sources of energy (more plant matter for animals, sunlight for plants). So the matrix was impossible, since the only power being put in was human waste (liquified dead). You need to add power via photosynthesis/abiotic processes in order to break even.
We've gone into an offtopic flamewar now, and it will undoubtably be modded into oblivion, but what the hell...
The guy you were responding to was not trolling, and I doubt you "dont like to post things that are insulting" if you accuse him of such. He stated that telling him that he has to take your word for the existance of a god that answers your prayers was BS. His reasoning, as I understood it, was that if a god was answering your prayers, if there was an "interventionist" god running the universe and responding to you in person, then it should be simple for you to demonstrate this. If you can't prove the existance of a deity that will answer you if asked, then what proof do you have that you aren't just hearing voices in your head?
I am willing to take you at your word that you believe in something above. I can see that your faith in this matter is strong. But the fact that you beleive in it doesn't matter to me and I doubt it mattered to the parent. You can assert that "there is a god and he answers when I pray", I can honestly state that I dont know what powers may exist in the universe, and an aethist can assert that "there is no god". But your assertion required blind faith and your own evidence requires preconceptions about the nature of god. You are certain about a matter that cannot be proved, according to the standard of proof the parent poster demanded. To say that "god answers me" and "I cant prove the existance of god to you" while believing that this god intervenes within our universe is contradictory; either you can prove the matter through prayer, or your god doesn't exist as you've portayed him, or he does exist, but doesn't answer/intervene (in which case you are mistaken in your belief that you have been answered in the past).
>Or is that somehow different? Pray, do explain why bastardising the bible means religion is evil, but bastardising democracy does not affect the status of democracy at all. I'm panting to hear you justify your irrational prejudices...
Becasue we have these wonderful examples of democracys that work, and work well. How many of the most prosperous and least oppresive countries are democratic? Name one first world dictatorship today. Bastardizing democracy is outweighted by _real_ democracy, and you'd have to be a huge cynic to believe that the evils perpetrated by "democratic" governments outweight the good.
Can the same be said of christianity? The guy you responded to wasn't talking about religion in general, he was talking about _a_ religion. I can think of countless evils perpetrated by people who follow the bible, but I'm drawing a blank on the good. Sorry but, for me at least, Falwel, Chick et all outweight the nice lady down at the soup kitchen. And that's only living christians, dont even look at the historic examples of theocracy and holy war. For everyone who's wise enough to turn the other cheek, there are too many jerks who use their religion as an excuse to display the worst of human nature.
There are good christians and bad christians, there are good democracys and bad ones, but you will have to show me how the good christians measure up to the good democracys. I can already see for myself how the bad christians compare to the bad democacys.
I agree with you that there are valid times to justify a law as being "for the children" or any other group on that list. But lets see the justification and the proof backing it. The fact is, those emotional pleas are GROSSLY overused, usually by those who cannot justify their position logically.
If someone can talk me through a restriction on media "for the children" logically, and with clear proof and valid arguments backing them, then I will support their position. But the Il legislators aren't doing that, they're sprouting rhetoric with no basis. Games aren't sold to children by and large, they're sold to adults. Children do not have their own disposible income to spend on a hobby this expensive; the ones who do play do so with their parents cash and, presumably, consent. If parents are too negligent to pay attention to what they're buying their kids, then the law "protecting the children" should be directed against them, not the games.
If any of this came up in valid debate, the pro-censorship (there is no point in calling it less) types would lose. Common sense would prevail, if anyone chose to apply it. But instead they have overwhelming support, according to the article. It's not just that the child defence plea is being abused, its that in this case it doesn't really apply and a basic knowledge of the facts of the matter would reveal as much. I agree that, if children are in some way endangered we have a duty to protect them, but this is completely different.
Y'know it took me a sec to realize what you were talking about whereas I got the first posters reference at once... funny since I prefer the old trilogy to the new.
But the cave sequence in Empire is brief, merely a vision and I dont remember it being particularly gruesome. All you see is a second of Luke's face framed in Vader's blasted open helmet and shrouded in smoke. Lifeless but not especially realistic or horrible.
And as someone pointed out somewhere else in this topic, the Star Wars trilogy predates the advent of PG-13 by about a year, so PG sounds about right. Whereas Attack is recent, only got PG (I think), and did in fact have at least as much, if not more, dismemberment as Empire. So it's a little surprising that it was rated the same, being as PG-13 would seem to fit.
OTOH, no Star Wars movie to date has had any real horror, even when people die, it's usually quite clean and bloodless. Which is kinda the point of my post - a nipple warrants warnings and attention, but decapitation and dismemberment sans blood does not. There are what? 4 scenes (including the ones in the upcoming one) that have people getting their hands chopped off, and at least two cases (Vader's vision and Jango Fett) of people getting their heads chopped off, and this is considered a childrens movie? In the same country where showing a tit or saying fuck gets you an R rating? I dont mind kids seeing this, I'm pretty heavily anti-censorship, but it's inconsistant with the so-called values the moral majority types keep screaming about.
Well, if they had shown Jango's cauterized neck and lifeless face, then yeah, they would have gotten a higher rating. But all we saw was the mandalorian helmet...
Which raises the question: is showing a horrible fate without any actual, you know, _horror_, really something suitable for children? I'm generally anti-censorship, and in favour of the rating system, but we seem to have some rather odd priorities when blood gore and nipples (gah! evil corrupting nipples!) get all the ire of parent groups and watchdogs, while stuff that may actually be mature is ignored.
Actually, not all right-to-lifers are ignorant of how IVF is done, and some of the hardline "life begins at conception types" already oppose it for this very reason (I've talked to more than a few, which is why I consider the administrations stance on stem cells to be inconsistant).
You can say that the vast majority of people don't understand the full complexity of modern medicine, there's nothing wrong with that. But the US administration? The people who have taken a political hardline right-to-life view on stem cells in order to garner votes, while not applying that same view to IVF cannot merely be ignorent. Opposing IVF would be politically unpopular, whereas opposing federal funding of medical research (which, as you pointed out, the public does not understand by and large) is a good way to get elected. It's politics and it's resposible for much of the FUD in this thread about stem cells = abortion.
Now re-read the guy I was responding to. Is he saying the same thing as you? It's a little unclear, he only posted a two line AC post, but he seems to have the impression that stem cells come from abortion.
Now, you're arguing that discarding unimplanted embryos = abortion. And if the op was arguing the same then I might have let it be. But the impression I get from reading this thread suggestes that a majority of those oppposed to stem cell research are under the impression that embryonic stem cells come from fetuses that were aborted in the womb. The op says it would be wrong to get stem cells from "a baby, in the womb aborted or otherwise" and I actually agree with him here (I think that that would cross a line). But since that is not what is being done by the researchers, he is making a strawman argument and I am calling him on it.
A quick google search gives multiple definition of abortion not all of which conform to yours. I realize you aren't claiming to speak for everyone in this tread with that definition, but when you read "abortion" re stem cells here, chances are the poster things that a pregnanacy was terminated to get those cells. And that is plain FUD, no doubt about it.
First off, understand that I am not american. The taxpayer funding is your issue not mine (assuming you're from the 'states which I guessed from your post - correct me if I'm wrong). My issue is not "teh bush is stopping medicine!", my issue is what I percieve to be moral hipocracy.
The idea that IVF creates rather than destroys life is valid, but someone who was resolutly opposed to the destruction of fertalized unimplanted embryos would and should oppose IVF as much as, if not more than, stem cell research. I don't care what belief system that person adheres to as long as they adhere to it honestly, and Bush & co are being moraly dishonest.
It's not even that the politicians are taking a side without giving careful consideration to the full moral implications (everyone does that to a degree), it's that they're _lying_, and spreading FUD and BS. The reason is typical of politics; get people worked up about a moral issue in oversimplified form, and them promise to "fix" the issue if you're elected - I doubt Bush even cares about the moral implications of this reseach, he just wanted to get into office, and he spread lies about stem cells to do it.
The person who I responded to said that it was wrong to get stem cells from aborted fetuses. I agree, that would cross a line. But it's not what's actually done, and it's people like the present US administration that spread that particular misinformation. I have no problem with the legit right-to-lifers - I disagree with their point of view, but will respect it. But this isn't an abortion issue, and never has been, yet the public has been so inundaded with misinformation that half the posters in this topic seem to think that embryonic stem cell's are culled from abortion, which simply isn't true.
I can tell from the tone of your post that you don't approve of stem cell research on the basis of a slippery slope, and over the question of an embryo's human status. You've taken the position that IVF is fine, since it is more benefitial to life than it is detrimental, whereas you do not agree that the same applies to this reseach. Fine, I disagree with you but I can at least respect your point of view since you are being honest and logically consistant in your morals. But I'm not primarily arguing for the morality of stem cell reseach here, I'm just peeved at the amound of bullshit the general public has swallowed on this issue and am trying to point it out.
Embryonic stem cells do not come from abortion. Got it? They come from fertility clinics that specialize in IVF. When you do in-vitro, there are leftover fertalized eggs that usually get flushed. These eggs are the only source of embryonic stem cells in use.
Let me make this absolutly clear to you. NO abortion is involved, since no pregnancy occured. Conception (in this context) occured in a test tube, and the embryo was subsequesntly discarded.
Which raises the question; why do stem cell researchers get the hatred of the religious fundamentalists but IVF clinics do not? After all, the researchers are working from the castaways from the clinics. I've been told that some more logical religious conservatives have a problems with IVF for this very reason, what with the idea that life begins at conception, but they aren't the ones going apeshit on stem cells.
Bush and his support base are being hypocritical in finding fault with stem cell reseach while ignoring IVF; either they should oppose both on equally strong ground, or they should stand in the way of neither. The right-to-lifers are essentially being given a bait and switch in order for the repubs to gain a voting bloc, there is no moral basis to Bush's opposition, and never has been. A leader with an inconsistant set of values has no right to try and stand on non-existant moral high ground, period.
Slashdot Mirror
>I study at last(sic) 40 hours a week the various documents that help me reinforce the views I hold dear to me. ...
Am I the only one who saw that as a disturbing statement? You spend 40 hours a week, which amounts to having a second job (I'm assuming that you're employed based on your previous statements) reinforcing your own point of view. I've met religious fanatics who don't spend that much time reading their religious scripture. Literally, you claim to be spending more time with whatever literature supports your views than a fundie does with a bible.
First off, if you wanted an informed opinion, wouldn't reading the opposition make more sense? If I want to know the full story about something, I find info from both sides, I don't just take the side I agree with as automatically infallable. Second, why the need to "reinforce" those things you already beleive? Sounds a bit too much like brainwashing for me - certainly if someone else was shoving their point of view down your throat that's the word I would use.
I'm not sure that's right. What you're basically saying is that crucial genes, if they mutate, will result in the organism's premature death. I can see the advantage here in a few cases, for example early fetal kill switches that cause a pregnant mother to misscarry, and increase the chances of her reproducing again. And there are probably other similar instances where it might make sense. But in any other case, who's to say it's evolution?
In other words, if a crucial gene is defective, it's probably going to be fatal anyway, if not immediately then quickly enough that it won't be passed on. Why would natural selection favour a quicker, or more immediate death? And how could we tell the difference, whether we've evolved to die faster if certain genes change for the worse, or whether we just die faster if we inherit such traits because the traits themselves are fatal?
It isn't a question of what we do or don't know of genetics. For your assumption to have even a remote chance of being correct, there would have to be a fundmental misunderstanding about how natural selection works. Do I have to have a PhD in physics before I tell you that a perpetual motion machine won't work? A basic understanding of thermodynamics is all that's needed there, and a basic understanding of how natural selection works is all that's needed here.
Look at it this way - survival of your genes is what matters evolutionarily. Not what benefits the species, but what materially increases the likelyhood of you, the individual, surviving and breeding. Some genetic trait that would prevent you from breeding as a way to quarantine "corrupted" genes, again to use the word you used, would not evolve. Evolved traits, without exception, exist to aid the survival of your genetic code, which is not a goal that a "kill switch" gene that triggers homosexuality would accomplish.
Put in very plain english, our current understanding of evolution, and all future understandings of the theory of natural selection, hinge upon the idea that traits must offer some survival benefit to the host organism, or its decendants who represent the future of its genetic material. Traits that don't offer any benefit don't get passed on.
What benefit to the individual's genetic survival does a gene that prevents you from breeding give? None. There isn't a single good reason to think that such a trait would ever evolve. There is no way selective pressure would favour such a gene. Unless you can either make a compelling arguement otherwise, which you haven't done yet, then all you've got is a wild guess.
You're right, it does sound like flaimbait, but I will address it seriously. It isn't very good science, because you're assuming that there is an evolutionary advantage to a person taking themselves out of the gene pool. Evolution doesn't work that way.
Evolution isn't a thinking, intelligent proccess; it's basically probabilty. If you carry "corrupt" genes, as you put it, then you probably won't live long enough to reproduce, and thus those genes will die with you. If you carry genes that are well adapted to your current environment, then your odds of surviving and reproducing are higher, and those genes will get preserved.
There is no way for any sort of kill switch to evolve that way. A person will not evolve a "don't breed" gene for the good of the species, because such a mutation has no way of happening accidentally, nor does probability dictate that such a person is more likely to survive than someone without such a trait. Natural selection has to favour a trait before it can become common.
And in fact it would be deterimental to the species if we had such a failsafe, since mutation is part of the normal evolutionary process; one generations "corrupted" gene is the next ones survival trait.
What about conspiracy to commit? Or the aforementioned uttering death threats?
Say I post in blog A that I want someone to burn down police station B. Does someone have to actually hurl a molotov at the station for it to count as a crime? Would this be equivalent to posting a public note saying "Wanted for hire: arsonist, must have 5 years experience or more"?
I think the french authorities overreacted and came down too hard on the bloggers. I also expect that this won't hold up in court, assuming it ever gets there. It certainly wouldn't hold up in the states. But there is enough here for them to arrest people, even if they eventually go free.
True. But check TFA again; religion, right to assembly and free speech are not the issue with the blogs, at least not officially. Unoffcially I don't know enough to comment, but I suspect they are.
It's likely the bloggers were muslim, but that isn't actually specified. What is specified is that the people who were cracked down on posted stuff that the french consider incitement to violence - ie a challenge to anyone "man enough" to burn down a police station. This in the US would probably be treated in the same way as a person uttering death threats, or attempting to hire an arsonist. It probably wouldn't hold up in court, but I suspect that the blogger would be arrested or at least shut up in either country.
The french authorities probably overreacted. Would american authorities be any different?
Just to point out the obvious, the united states isn't in the middle of domestic upheaval. If there were violent riots in the US, and the site you linked was actually advocating it (as is the case with TFA), then yes I fully expect they would be hit with the same consequences. That isn't to say that there is any actual connection between the bloggers and the violence (that would have to be proven in court), but it's not as if authorities in the 'states are any less prone to overreacting.
If muslims were rioting in the suburbs of washington, and some bloggers were advocating it, they probably would be in the same boat.
Indeed. And tell me, how far along is your perpetual motion machine? :-P
(Actually, I've tried to build perpetual motion machines. Ironically, I can't seem to stop)
>Evolution, is by definition, not goal oriented (Gould, 1989). Therefore, how can it speed up or slow down based on "pressure"? Species examples please.
In very plain english?
A higher evolutionary pressure usually means a higher mortality rate.
If you start with a population of a hundred thousand members of a given species in the same area, and half are killed due to a major change such as an approaching ice age, then the pressure to develop ways to retain heat is higher. A majority of those without thicker fur, or better thermoregulation, or layers of fat to retain heat, are going to die off - they will be the fifty thousand that don't make it. Evolution speeds up.
No goal is required this way. No outside force is telling the members of that species that they need to fatten up or thicken their coats. Rather, the normal range of genetic variation says that some of them will be better suited to survive the cold, and the sudden drop in temperature will tend to favour those individuals. If the reverse happened, and the temperature rose, then the reverse would occur; evolutionary pressure would favour the individuals with thinner coats and less body fat, or better means of shedding heat.
Raising or lowering the outside pressure will make the evolutionary changes speed up or slow down. What punctuated equilibrium says is basically that species evolve in "spurts", with major changes happening quickly when circumstances change. There is a normal equilibrium that remains unchanging until something in the environment makes change neccessary - punctures the equilibrium. At least, that's the theory.
Hope this helps, and try to ignore the spelling and grammar errors.
What about the concept of "eminent domain", such as what exists in the 'states. Wouldn't that apply here?
Patent laws essentially make private property out of ideas/designs/etc. Eminent domain is the legal right of government to take private property if the need arises. It's usually applied for things like public works (roads and the like), but I can see an equivalent application in emergency situations like a looming viral outbreak.
I would assume that legally they can do this if their laws have a provision for seizure of private property in times of emergency. Of course, IANAL, and I know exactly zilch about Taiwanese law, but it seems too obvious a legal provision not to have.
Wow.... did the universe have a hangover afterwards? :-P
Have you tried the UT games? Best multiplayer FPS I've played.
But why expect these games to be? People don't play moody dark survival horror games for deathmatch, they play those games alone (preferably with the lights out). Multiplayer FPS is about one thing, single player is about something else, both have their merits. Just because you prefer one does not mean the designers shouldn't make some of each.
Well, maybe the OP lived in Southa America... did you ever think of that?
(note to mods - check the map).
> actually they never needed to give them energy in terms of food, rather if you payed attention to everything the feeding tubes gave those in the pods the remains of dead humans. That's an endless chain for you.
Um... no. Thermodyamics states that you can't get more out of a system then you put in. Human metabolism needs a source of energy, like plant and animal matter, which in turn need their own sources of energy (more plant matter for animals, sunlight for plants). So the matrix was impossible, since the only power being put in was human waste (liquified dead). You need to add power via photosynthesis/abiotic processes in order to break even.
oops
(stubs out cigarette)
(puts condom over telescope)
(puts filter lense on penis)
there, all better
waitaminute...
We've gone into an offtopic flamewar now, and it will undoubtably be modded into oblivion, but what the hell...
The guy you were responding to was not trolling, and I doubt you "dont like to post things that are insulting" if you accuse him of such. He stated that telling him that he has to take your word for the existance of a god that answers your prayers was BS. His reasoning, as I understood it, was that if a god was answering your prayers, if there was an "interventionist" god running the universe and responding to you in person, then it should be simple for you to demonstrate this. If you can't prove the existance of a deity that will answer you if asked, then what proof do you have that you aren't just hearing voices in your head?
I am willing to take you at your word that you believe in something above. I can see that your faith in this matter is strong. But the fact that you beleive in it doesn't matter to me and I doubt it mattered to the parent. You can assert that "there is a god and he answers when I pray", I can honestly state that I dont know what powers may exist in the universe, and an aethist can assert that "there is no god". But your assertion required blind faith and your own evidence requires preconceptions about the nature of god. You are certain about a matter that cannot be proved, according to the standard of proof the parent poster demanded. To say that "god answers me" and "I cant prove the existance of god to you" while believing that this god intervenes within our universe is contradictory; either you can prove the matter through prayer, or your god doesn't exist as you've portayed him, or he does exist, but doesn't answer/intervene (in which case you are mistaken in your belief that you have been answered in the past).
Be very, very careful about using the word "halo", particularly with a capital "H", in an Apple thread. Flamewars have been started from less......
:-P
Oh, damn, now I've done it
>Or is that somehow different? Pray, do explain why bastardising the bible means religion is evil, but bastardising democracy does not affect the status of democracy at all. I'm panting to hear you justify your irrational prejudices...
Becasue we have these wonderful examples of democracys that work, and work well. How many of the most prosperous and least oppresive countries are democratic? Name one first world dictatorship today. Bastardizing democracy is outweighted by _real_ democracy, and you'd have to be a huge cynic to believe that the evils perpetrated by "democratic" governments outweight the good.
Can the same be said of christianity? The guy you responded to wasn't talking about religion in general, he was talking about _a_ religion. I can think of countless evils perpetrated by people who follow the bible, but I'm drawing a blank on the good. Sorry but, for me at least, Falwel, Chick et all outweight the nice lady down at the soup kitchen. And that's only living christians, dont even look at the historic examples of theocracy and holy war. For everyone who's wise enough to turn the other cheek, there are too many jerks who use their religion as an excuse to display the worst of human nature.
There are good christians and bad christians, there are good democracys and bad ones, but you will have to show me how the good christians measure up to the good democracys. I can already see for myself how the bad christians compare to the bad democacys.
I agree with you that there are valid times to justify a law as being "for the children" or any other group on that list. But lets see the justification and the proof backing it. The fact is, those emotional pleas are GROSSLY overused, usually by those who cannot justify their position logically.
If someone can talk me through a restriction on media "for the children" logically, and with clear proof and valid arguments backing them, then I will support their position. But the Il legislators aren't doing that, they're sprouting rhetoric with no basis. Games aren't sold to children by and large, they're sold to adults. Children do not have their own disposible income to spend on a hobby this expensive; the ones who do play do so with their parents cash and, presumably, consent. If parents are too negligent to pay attention to what they're buying their kids, then the law "protecting the children" should be directed against them, not the games.
If any of this came up in valid debate, the pro-censorship (there is no point in calling it less) types would lose. Common sense would prevail, if anyone chose to apply it. But instead they have overwhelming support, according to the article. It's not just that the child defence plea is being abused, its that in this case it doesn't really apply and a basic knowledge of the facts of the matter would reveal as much. I agree that, if children are in some way endangered we have a duty to protect them, but this is completely different.
Y'know it took me a sec to realize what you were talking about whereas I got the first posters reference at once... funny since I prefer the old trilogy to the new.
But the cave sequence in Empire is brief, merely a vision and I dont remember it being particularly gruesome. All you see is a second of Luke's face framed in Vader's blasted open helmet and shrouded in smoke. Lifeless but not especially realistic or horrible.
And as someone pointed out somewhere else in this topic, the Star Wars trilogy predates the advent of PG-13 by about a year, so PG sounds about right. Whereas Attack is recent, only got PG (I think), and did in fact have at least as much, if not more, dismemberment as Empire. So it's a little surprising that it was rated the same, being as PG-13 would seem to fit.
OTOH, no Star Wars movie to date has had any real horror, even when people die, it's usually quite clean and bloodless. Which is kinda the point of my post - a nipple warrants warnings and attention, but decapitation and dismemberment sans blood does not. There are what? 4 scenes (including the ones in the upcoming one) that have people getting their hands chopped off, and at least two cases (Vader's vision and Jango Fett) of people getting their heads chopped off, and this is considered a childrens movie? In the same country where showing a tit or saying fuck gets you an R rating? I dont mind kids seeing this, I'm pretty heavily anti-censorship, but it's inconsistant with the so-called values the moral majority types keep screaming about.
Well, if they had shown Jango's cauterized neck and lifeless face, then yeah, they would have gotten a higher rating. But all we saw was the mandalorian helmet...
Which raises the question: is showing a horrible fate without any actual, you know, _horror_, really something suitable for children? I'm generally anti-censorship, and in favour of the rating system, but we seem to have some rather odd priorities when blood gore and nipples (gah! evil corrupting nipples!) get all the ire of parent groups and watchdogs, while stuff that may actually be mature is ignored.
Actually, not all right-to-lifers are ignorant of how IVF is done, and some of the hardline "life begins at conception types" already oppose it for this very reason (I've talked to more than a few, which is why I consider the administrations stance on stem cells to be inconsistant).
You can say that the vast majority of people don't understand the full complexity of modern medicine, there's nothing wrong with that. But the US administration? The people who have taken a political hardline right-to-life view on stem cells in order to garner votes, while not applying that same view to IVF cannot merely be ignorent. Opposing IVF would be politically unpopular, whereas opposing federal funding of medical research (which, as you pointed out, the public does not understand by and large) is a good way to get elected. It's politics and it's resposible for much of the FUD in this thread about stem cells = abortion.
Apologies if I sounded too "preachy"
Now re-read the guy I was responding to. Is he saying the same thing as you? It's a little unclear, he only posted a two line AC post, but he seems to have the impression that stem cells come from abortion.
Now, you're arguing that discarding unimplanted embryos = abortion. And if the op was arguing the same then I might have let it be. But the impression I get from reading this thread suggestes that a majority of those oppposed to stem cell research are under the impression that embryonic stem cells come from fetuses that were aborted in the womb. The op says it would be wrong to get stem cells from "a baby, in the womb aborted or otherwise" and I actually agree with him here (I think that that would cross a line). But since that is not what is being done by the researchers, he is making a strawman argument and I am calling him on it.
A quick google search gives multiple definition of abortion not all of which conform to yours. I realize you aren't claiming to speak for everyone in this tread with that definition, but when you read "abortion" re stem cells here, chances are the poster things that a pregnanacy was terminated to get those cells. And that is plain FUD, no doubt about it.
Ok, glad to see someone reasonable responding.
First off, understand that I am not american. The taxpayer funding is your issue not mine (assuming you're from the 'states which I guessed from your post - correct me if I'm wrong). My issue is not "teh bush is stopping medicine!", my issue is what I percieve to be moral hipocracy.
The idea that IVF creates rather than destroys life is valid, but someone who was resolutly opposed to the destruction of fertalized unimplanted embryos would and should oppose IVF as much as, if not more than, stem cell research. I don't care what belief system that person adheres to as long as they adhere to it honestly, and Bush & co are being moraly dishonest.
It's not even that the politicians are taking a side without giving careful consideration to the full moral implications (everyone does that to a degree), it's that they're _lying_, and spreading FUD and BS. The reason is typical of politics; get people worked up about a moral issue in oversimplified form, and them promise to "fix" the issue if you're elected - I doubt Bush even cares about the moral implications of this reseach, he just wanted to get into office, and he spread lies about stem cells to do it.
The person who I responded to said that it was wrong to get stem cells from aborted fetuses. I agree, that would cross a line. But it's not what's actually done, and it's people like the present US administration that spread that particular misinformation. I have no problem with the legit right-to-lifers - I disagree with their point of view, but will respect it. But this isn't an abortion issue, and never has been, yet the public has been so inundaded with misinformation that half the posters in this topic seem to think that embryonic stem cell's are culled from abortion, which simply isn't true.
I can tell from the tone of your post that you don't approve of stem cell research on the basis of a slippery slope, and over the question of an embryo's human status. You've taken the position that IVF is fine, since it is more benefitial to life than it is detrimental, whereas you do not agree that the same applies to this reseach. Fine, I disagree with you but I can at least respect your point of view since you are being honest and logically consistant in your morals. But I'm not primarily arguing for the morality of stem cell reseach here, I'm just peeved at the amound of bullshit the general public has swallowed on this issue and am trying to point it out.
And I have a clue-by-four with you name on it...
Embryonic stem cells do not come from abortion. Got it? They come from fertility clinics that specialize in IVF. When you do in-vitro, there are leftover fertalized eggs that usually get flushed. These eggs are the only source of embryonic stem cells in use.
Let me make this absolutly clear to you. NO abortion is involved, since no pregnancy occured. Conception (in this context) occured in a test tube, and the embryo was subsequesntly discarded.
Which raises the question; why do stem cell researchers get the hatred of the religious fundamentalists but IVF clinics do not? After all, the researchers are working from the castaways from the clinics. I've been told that some more logical religious conservatives have a problems with IVF for this very reason, what with the idea that life begins at conception, but they aren't the ones going apeshit on stem cells.
Bush and his support base are being hypocritical in finding fault with stem cell reseach while ignoring IVF; either they should oppose both on equally strong ground, or they should stand in the way of neither. The right-to-lifers are essentially being given a bait and switch in order for the repubs to gain a voting bloc, there is no moral basis to Bush's opposition, and never has been. A leader with an inconsistant set of values has no right to try and stand on non-existant moral high ground, period.