I mean, think about it this way... what real arguments can anyone make for allowing this? What convincing situations and reasonings can someone present?
For internet hunting? I can't make any argument in favor of that.
For a law against internet hunting? My argument against that is that it is not the job of the government to teach ethics and morality.
If you actually think internet hunting is bad then talk to your friends and neighbors about it. Participate in protest marches. Pass out flyers on the street corner. Even make posts on slashdot if you have to. If you make a convincing enough argument I will agree with you. But please please do not go to the government and use the government for force me to agree with you. That is not what the government is there for.
Ok. I admit to being wrong. Carnivores *DO* eat carnivores.
I would, however, like to point out where I got the idea from. An old girlfriend of mine claimed that oral sex was always better if you were going down on a vegetarian. Her theory was that anything coming out of the body of a carnivore is going to taste terrible. The sperm/meat of a herbivore is much more delicious.
It sounded like a reasonable explanation at the time.
I know I probably shouldent be arguing with it but.....
In Randis own book "flim flam" he admits that roughly a third of the cases he looks into he cant explain. He brushes this aside by saying "Oh, I just *KNOW* they are faking it. I just havent figured it out yet".
Secondly, any time something is proved absolutly it is not "paranormal" any more. It becomes scientific. Remember the Coelacanth. Prehistoric fish that was thought to be extinct. They caught one and it was said to be a hoax. Turns out it wasent a hoax but that dosent prove the paranormal. Likewise, if somebody captured a yeti and proved that they do exist this would not be proving the paranormal. It would, in fact, prove that a yeti is *NOT* paranormal.
And last, even if this is a placebo, the placebo efect in itself is a mystery. Nobody knows how it works and that was the first point of the original article.
I have found a simpler solution. When the clerk asks if I have an ID card I just pat down my pockets and say I forgot it. I then turn to the person in line behind me and say 'Hey, can I use your card?'
I get the same price as anyone else and I don't have my shopping patterns tracked. The person behind me doesn't mind because to them they are getting 'free points'. Everyone is happy.
Funny, I though it was "Legislative branch: passes laws. Executive branch: enforces laws. Judicial branch: interprets laws." I can now see it is "Executive branch: Passes, enforces, and interprets laws"
How long we going to keep going around and around like this with me saying that one guy filling one office dosent have enough power to control the universe and you keep on saying that the sun wouldent even rise unless the person that happens to be holding the whitehouse at the time flicks the right switch?
To replace the ultra conservative supreme court justices that are retiring. Big change there!
* ruining of Social Security
Is there any force in existence that could even hope to save it?
* relationships with allies severed
And world leaders taking bribes from Saddam had nothing to do with that?
* inability for Americans to safely travel overseas
Go read Steven M. Newman and try and claim Americans traveling overseas were walking down rainbow lane in lollipop town before Bush came along.
* the imposition of fundamentalist christian morality on all citizens (prayer in school, no abortion, discrimination and violence against gays, teaching creationism, etc)
I have never had any American president come knocking on my door nor trying and to hand me pamphlets on the street. Fundamentalist Christians do more to try and force fundamentalist Christianity on me than Bush ever possibly could.
* bankruptcy of the Federal government due to grandiose overspending and insufficient tax revenue
Really? Then I guess all the months and months on end of congress hammering out a budget is just a dog and pony show and the way the budget is actually generates is that whoever happens to hold the white house at the time bends over and takes a big dump and out pops a budget.
-----
There are other forces at work in the world besides one lone individual man sitting in some office. Congress, market forces, popular opinion, other world leaders. Heck! Even the weather! Unless you would like to claim that the president was responsible for all the hurricanes in Florida.
Maybe you want a king, but I don't. When did a government of the people, by the people, and for the people change into a government of the mindless sheep who turn over every single ounce of power to one and only one man?
We need something else badly. Approval voting, Condorcet voting, or any of those other systems would be best
We already have Approval voting. Most people just don't realize that we do.
Just to set up for those folks not in the know. Approval voting is a 'mark all that apply' system. Each voter may cast a vote for as many or as few candidates as they wish. The candidate that gets the most 'yes' check marks by their name is the winner.
So say there are three candidates. I think that A or B could do a good job, but I HATE candidate C. I go in to the voting booth and mark my approval for everyone but candidate C.
Now when the machine tries to read my ballot it gets spit out as invalid and goes into the trash. But wait! Its not over with yet. The party supporting candidate A goes and digs the ballots out of the trash, proudly proclaiming that every vote should be counted. They see a check mark next to their candidates name and declare that the ballot was really meant as a vote for their guy. The party supporting candidate B will do the same thing and declare that they know that I meant to vote for their guy.
I wanted to vote for A and B. Both A and B claim that I voted for them. Presto! Approval voting!
Where is the +5 Monty Python reference when you need it. 'Help help! I'm being repressed.'
It is reactionaries like you that make me embarased for my sexual orientation. In this case 'lifestyle' clear means 'fucks around'. Anyone who would assume it was anything having to do with being gay just has a persecution complex.
Without fail, 100% of the people who I have come out of the closet to have been open and accepting of my sexuality. The only people who still try and claim that I am being persecuted are gays themselves.
In a state like New York, there is no difference. You are simply outnumbered.
Either move to a swing state, or convince enough people to all move to a state together so that it will become a swing state. That's the only way to make your vote matter. http://freeme.org/
This is not a rhetorical question. I honestly want to know. Why is it morally correct action to take the one where you participate in a system you hold in contempt?
I have friends who are vegetarian. They believe that meat is murder. I disagree. However I don't call them cowards or imply that they are lazy for choosing not to participate in the meat processing industry. It would be foly on my part to tell them they should seek out a meat company that has only slightly brutal slaughter practices and only by meat from that company.
There is a growing trend of families giving birth to their babies at home. They feel that birth that takes place in a sterile emotionless environment is wrong in its very nature. They would much rather give birth in a place that is familiar to them and surrounded by family. It would be rather arrogant of me to say that they should go to a hospital anyway despite their moral and ethical objections to do so.
For a short while I taught in an inner city school. I left not because of the students, but because of administration. Their basic attitude was that I should give out passing grades to everyone regardless of ability because the more students they kept in class the more money they would generate. I left but the school is still there and is still conducting business as usual. Would it have been better for me to stay and feel guilt ridden and have my conscious bothering me knowing that I was contributing to something that I felt was morally wrong?
So yeah, I probably could vote. But I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that I was a willing participant in a system I disagree with. And when I say system I am talking about *JUST* voting. Not politics at large. I have passed out pamphlets on the street corner, I have gone door to door collecting signatures on a petition, I have done volunteer work doing telephone polling, I have donated money to political action comities, and I have participated in protest rallies. There are lots of different ways I can influence what kind of government I have. But voting is not one of them.
When America has Single Transferable Vote, or Cumulative voting, or Approval voting, or Instant-runoff voting, then I will vote. But as long as we are on First-past-the-post system, I can not in good faith be part of such a thing?
Would someone explain it to me? I honestly want to know. Why should I feel compled to be a voluntariy particapant in something I feel is wrong?
Slashdot Mirror
Ya know, I could be wrong, but I am almost positive that the :D that was put at the end of that line was ment to show sarcasism.
:D as being a laugh track. It if a flag to show where you should be laughing at.
Think of the
42% of all statistics are just made up on the spot in an attempt to sound impressive.
For a law against internet hunting? My argument against that is that it is not the job of the government to teach ethics and morality.
If you actually think internet hunting is bad then talk to your friends and neighbors about it. Participate in protest marches. Pass out flyers on the street corner. Even make posts on slashdot if you have to. If you make a convincing enough argument I will agree with you. But please please do not go to the government and use the government for force me to agree with you. That is not what the government is there for.
Ok. I admit to being wrong. Carnivores *DO* eat carnivores.
I would, however, like to point out where I got the idea from. An old girlfriend of mine claimed that oral sex was always better if you were going down on a vegetarian. Her theory was that anything coming out of the body of a carnivore is going to taste terrible. The sperm/meat of a herbivore is much more delicious.
It sounded like a reasonable explanation at the time.
Cow, chicken, duck, fish, pig
Er ..... Ok folks, you *DO* know that Kazakhstan is in former soviet russian territory? Right?
In Soviet Russia, space station crew lands safely you!
Mod parent down!
I know I probably shouldent be arguing with it but .....
In Randis own book "flim flam" he admits that roughly a third of the cases he looks into he cant explain. He brushes this aside by saying "Oh, I just *KNOW* they are faking it. I just havent figured it out yet".
Secondly, any time something is proved absolutly it is not "paranormal" any more. It becomes scientific. Remember the Coelacanth. Prehistoric fish that was thought to be extinct. They caught one and it was said to be a hoax. Turns out it wasent a hoax but that dosent prove the paranormal. Likewise, if somebody captured a yeti and proved that they do exist this would not be proving the paranormal. It would, in fact, prove that a yeti is *NOT* paranormal.
And last, even if this is a placebo, the placebo efect in itself is a mystery. Nobody knows how it works and that was the first point of the original article.
I have found a simpler solution. When the clerk asks if I have an ID card I just pat down my pockets and say I forgot it. I then turn to the person in line behind me and say 'Hey, can I use your card?'
I get the same price as anyone else and I don't have my shopping patterns tracked. The person behind me doesn't mind because to them they are getting 'free points'. Everyone is happy.
It could be he is a roadie for primus and drives the tour bus.
Funny, I though it was "Legislative branch: passes laws. Executive branch: enforces laws. Judicial branch: interprets laws." I can now see it is "Executive branch: Passes, enforces, and interprets laws"
How long we going to keep going around and around like this with me saying that one guy filling one office dosent have enough power to control the universe and you keep on saying that the sun wouldent even rise unless the person that happens to be holding the whitehouse at the time flicks the right switch?
Is there any force in existence that could even hope to save it?
And world leaders taking bribes from Saddam had nothing to do with that?
Go read Steven M. Newman and try and claim Americans traveling overseas were walking down rainbow lane in lollipop town before Bush came along.
I have never had any American president come knocking on my door nor trying and to hand me pamphlets on the street. Fundamentalist Christians do more to try and force fundamentalist Christianity on me than Bush ever possibly could.
Really? Then I guess all the months and months on end of congress hammering out a budget is just a dog and pony show and the way the budget is actually generates is that whoever happens to hold the white house at the time bends over and takes a big dump and out pops a budget.
-----
There are other forces at work in the world besides one lone individual man sitting in some office. Congress, market forces, popular opinion, other world leaders. Heck! Even the weather! Unless you would like to claim that the president was responsible for all the hurricanes in Florida.
Maybe you want a king, but I don't. When did a government of the people, by the people, and for the people change into a government of the mindless sheep who turn over every single ounce of power to one and only one man?
1) Eenie meenie miney moe.
2) Catch a tiger by the toe.
3) If he squeals, let him go.
4) Eenie meenie miney moe.
Although I do feel this is the better system, you are probably right in saying the average american would find this confusing.
I also welcome our new foreign country overlords.
Just to set up for those folks not in the know. Approval voting is a 'mark all that apply' system. Each voter may cast a vote for as many or as few candidates as they wish. The candidate that gets the most 'yes' check marks by their name is the winner.
So say there are three candidates. I think that A or B could do a good job, but I HATE candidate C. I go in to the voting booth and mark my approval for everyone but candidate C.
Now when the machine tries to read my ballot it gets spit out as invalid and goes into the trash. But wait! Its not over with yet. The party supporting candidate A goes and digs the ballots out of the trash, proudly proclaiming that every vote should be counted. They see a check mark next to their candidates name and declare that the ballot was really meant as a vote for their guy. The party supporting candidate B will do the same thing and declare that they know that I meant to vote for their guy.
I wanted to vote for A and B. Both A and B claim that I voted for them. Presto! Approval voting!
Where is the +5 Monty Python reference when you need it. 'Help help! I'm being repressed.'
It is reactionaries like you that make me embarased for my sexual orientation. In this case 'lifestyle' clear means 'fucks around'. Anyone who would assume it was anything having to do with being gay just has a persecution complex.
Without fail, 100% of the people who I have come out of the closet to have been open and accepting of my sexuality. The only people who still try and claim that I am being persecuted are gays themselves.
In a state like New York, there is no difference. You are simply outnumbered. Either move to a swing state, or convince enough people to all move to a state together so that it will become a swing state. That's the only way to make your vote matter. http://freeme.org/
This is not a rhetorical question. I honestly want to know. Why is it morally correct action to take the one where you participate in a system you hold in contempt?
I have friends who are vegetarian. They believe that meat is murder. I disagree. However I don't call them cowards or imply that they are lazy for choosing not to participate in the meat processing industry. It would be foly on my part to tell them they should seek out a meat company that has only slightly brutal slaughter practices and only by meat from that company.
There is a growing trend of families giving birth to their babies at home. They feel that birth that takes place in a sterile emotionless environment is wrong in its very nature. They would much rather give birth in a place that is familiar to them and surrounded by family. It would be rather arrogant of me to say that they should go to a hospital anyway despite their moral and ethical objections to do so.
For a short while I taught in an inner city school. I left not because of the students, but because of administration. Their basic attitude was that I should give out passing grades to everyone regardless of ability because the more students they kept in class the more money they would generate. I left but the school is still there and is still conducting business as usual. Would it have been better for me to stay and feel guilt ridden and have my conscious bothering me knowing that I was contributing to something that I felt was morally wrong?
So yeah, I probably could vote. But I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing that I was a willing participant in a system I disagree with. And when I say system I am talking about *JUST* voting. Not politics at large. I have passed out pamphlets on the street corner, I have gone door to door collecting signatures on a petition, I have done volunteer work doing telephone polling, I have donated money to political action comities, and I have participated in protest rallies. There are lots of different ways I can influence what kind of government I have. But voting is not one of them.
When America has Single Transferable Vote, or Cumulative voting, or Approval voting, or Instant-runoff voting, then I will vote. But as long as we are on First-past-the-post system, I can not in good faith be part of such a thing?
Would someone explain it to me? I honestly want to know. Why should I feel compled to be a voluntariy particapant in something I feel is wrong?