Business cards have the same implicit confidentiality/privacy as letters?
Business cards are handed out by people to put their contact information out there for potential future business partners. It's not uncommon for people to go to a business convention and just put out a stack of business cards for strangers to take. It's also not uncommon for one person to pass on another's business card to someone else whom they feel might be interested in contacting the person listed on the card.
Letters don't exchange hands the same way. Letters are written and directed at a specific person, and it's not customary to pass on to other people a letter someone has written you in confidence. Sorry, but that's just a piss poor analogy. An appropriate analogy would be passing a particular company's brochure to another person. These are "business" documents which aren't directed at any specific individual and contain information that people want to put out to facilitate their business.
No one is going to get ahold of you via your business contacts or want that info. unless they want contact you regarding some business related matter. And if you don't want other people to solicit your business through a particular contact then you don't list it on your BUSINESS card.
How does setting a more sane foreign policy promote terrorism? This isn't something that one should do in response to terrorism, it's something that we should have been doing all along to be respectful of the rights of other human beings and naitons.
And what's the difference between a terrorist killing hundreds of people and an army doing the same? Is it somehow alright when an Israeli soldier fires on civilians because they have a uniform and "proper" military training? Sorry, but the official armed forces of the various nations of the world kill far more civilians than terrorists ever have or will. A daisy cutter doesn't discriminate between civilians and combatants either. Most mainstream media outlets reported 3000+ civilian casualties in just the first month of the War on Terror. Israeli gunships, missles, snipers, deathsquads, etc. have killed far more civilians than teenage Palestinian suicide bombers have claimed. Just because a military attack is carried out by a force other than a nation with a standing army we condemn it as terrorism, yet state-sponsored terrorism which kills far more civilians and is in fact what pushes desperate people to blow themselves up on buses is never blamed for its part in creating global conflicts.
Maybe if you took the time to actually look at the root of Islamic terrorism you'd see the obvious part that U.S./British foreign policy has played in creating a cultural environment that breeds anti-western attitutes in the Middle-East. Instead of thinking "people don't like us? kill more people! drop more bombs! invade more countries!" perhaps it would be simpler to look at what we've done that's pissed people off. Areas that spawn terrorists aren't populated with people with a genetic disposition to blow themselves up or embrace extremist/militant ideologies. Terrorism only occurs when people are pushed to extremes--it's a desperate measure that people resort to only when they have no conventional political/military recourse (ie. they have no official military to defend themselves with, the global community ignores their pleas, they can't establish a dialog with their oppressors, etc.). If you oppress any group of people long enough they will eventually embrace extremism.
Do you think Muslim terrorists were a problem before Western nations colonized the Middle-East and the establishment of Israel?
Is it the same in all cases though? Is copying files from someone's computer the same as robbing their house? Is breaking into someone's computer the same as tresspassing? Just because 2 crimes are similar doesn't mean that they pose the same threat/cause the same amount of harm to society and should be punished to the same extent.
Doctoring a photo of someone to make false claims about that person in order to disrepute them is not satire or parody, especially if it's a political campaign presenting itself as being factually based rather than being a creative work.
The case of doctored photos of John Kerry being used in campaign commercials has nothing to do with copyright or trademark infringement.
You seem to have a pretty good grasp of biology so you ought to also realize that genetic mutation is an inevitable consequence of our biological design. A tumor also has distinct DNA from its host, but that doesn't really imply that it's a separate human life or that excising a tumor is wrong.
And I never said that science is cut and dry, but there are some things which pro-life rhetoric blatanly contradicts. The issue of abortion may not be self-contained in the field of science, but it clearly requires a certain measure of scientific background to properly grasp it.
How do you know how much consciousness a foetus does or does not possess? What is your metric?
We know that brain scans don't reveal any type of neural activity until the 3rd trimester.
We know that nerve endings don't fully develop until around this same time.
And my metric is what the embryo/fetus is biologically capable of at that point of development. The human reproductive cycle is well understood and the biology behind it has been extensively studied. Consciousness in the context I was using it in refers to the state of being sentient. Being asleep or "unconscious" does not mean that one is braindead or has lost sentience.
Also, even though gametes are the only haploid cells in a human being, that doesn't mean they don't possess a full set of chromosomes which are expressed in a human being (the monoploid number in humans is the same as the haploid number). If you want to say that gametes aren't human beings because they are haploid cells, then what about a culture of tongue cells or any of the many other types of diploid cells in the human body which can live in vitro and grow and reproduce?
Why not make the distinction based on the abundance of other biological characteristics which are different between embryos and a 3rd-trimester fetus? Or on more fundamental differences such as cognitive capacity or biological complexity?
The placenta is an organ that women develop during pregnancy to facilitate gestation. You might as well arbitrarily assign the umbilical cord or endometrial lining of the uterus as the cut off point.
An embryo, "when left to it's own devices" dies. Even if it's kept alive in vitro, it still just sits frozen inside of a petri dish forever unless it is eventually implanted into a woman's uterus and the gestation cycle is completed.
Religious rhetoric aside, an undeveloped embryo is as sentient a lifeform as a culture of fungi or any other simple organism with a comparable level of complexity. It does not suffer, it does not experience consciousness, and it certainly can't be considered murder any more than killing any other organism sharing the same level of sentience. Objectively speaking, it's far worse to kill, say, a grown chicken or cow than to let an embryo die by preventing gestation.
Your differential in value between various "classes" of potential life seems rather arbitrary, and what little logic you've given for it is self-contradictory (rather poorly reasoned for a "philosophy major" imho). How does something of little value (gametes) develop into something of much greater value (human life)? If you can give more value to something (a gamete in this case) by facilitating biological processes (implantation/fertilization, for instance), then why isn't it possible to give value to something which initially had no value? Where do you think gametes come from? Do you think they just magically appear as mature eggs and sperms? Does your body not give each collection of atoms and molecules, which initially had no value in regards to being potential for human life, value by organizing them in a particular cellular structure?
If you want to be logically consistent, then you would have to at the very least concede that masturbation is also unethical to some extent. But your argument that preventing potential life from developing into life is unethical is still absurd. That potential can still only be fulfilled if facilitated by external forces. Who says that just because the potential is there that it is wrong to not realize that potential? A woman choosing to abort a pregnancy and not allow the fertilized egg to develop into a human-life is no more wrong than 2 sexually mature individuals of the opposite sex choosing to use contraceptives during intercourse to prevent their respective gametes from developing into a human-life. They are actively destroying those gametes' potential for life, but whatever "value" those gametes have to you, you still haven't provided any reasoning why it's wrong to destroy it.
Frankly, your argument is rather flimsly for someone who has supposedly studied philosophy, so before you toss aside all rhetoric, you might want to give a little more thought into your own. Perhaps you need to elaborate on what kind of "value" you are talking about, and why it is wrong to destroy something with this kind of value. Something less vague and of more tangible nature, like the level of sentience a lifeform possesses, might be preferable to vague metaphysical qualities that you've subjectively assigned.
A cluster of skin cells or brain cells is living human tissue as well, but that doesn't qualify it as a human being. An embryo, or even a fetus in its early stages of development, does not possess any form of consciousness, so equivocating the abortion of a pregnancy during the first two trimesters to murder is simply being ignorant of the human reproductive process. You might as well say masturbation is mass murder because gametes have human DNA and demonstrate the characteristics of life as well.
And how is whether or not to bear a child not a medical decision that should be up to the woman? Who's choice should it be then? Do you think a pregnancy has no effect on a woman's body? An embryo/fetus is biologically attached to a woman, is produced by her body, requires her body to sustain life, affects her health and vice-versa, so how is it not a part of her? Are the gametes living inside of you separate human beings also?
There's no use. If one can't distinguish an embryo in a petri dish from a human child, how are they supposed to grasp the finer details of embryonic development.
Well, it wouldn't make much sense complaining about that now, now would it? Or at least not unless you were bitter or something...
Newsflash: people care more about what's going on now then political conditions over a decade ago.
If it was wrong then for Clinton to oppose ESC research, then it's still wrong for Bush to do it now. The Bush administration is the current impediment to scientific progress in this area, which is why there's so much criticism against him for it and not Clinton.
Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. Being pro-choice means you support the right to making either choice and doesn't say whether you advocate one choice over the other. My girlfriend and I are both pro-choice. However, she had an unplanned pregnancy when she was 17 and chose not to have an abortion at that time, and we're both extremely happy with the decision that she made.
Frankly, people who can't make the distinction between a gamete/embryo/fetus/child should really have no say in the argument until they get some basic background in biology.
The transition from a fetus to a human being is a gradual process not an instanteous divine act. But if you had some background on biology and neuroscience you could choose much more rationally at which point should a line be drawn.
What is the negative moral angle? A truly advanced society shouldn't be basing its moral imperatives on rhetoric which doesn't distinguish between various stages of life, such as gamete/embryo/fetus/child (much less the various stages of embryonic development). This "negative angle" which you conceive of is merely the result of a group of ignorant fanatics attempting to put undue guilt on women who are faced with the already difficult choice of whether or not to fully carry a pregancy to term.
The fact that pro-lifers often equivocate abortion to murdering children, and paint pro-choicers to be pro-abortion, or advocating abortion, should show that their argument is fundamentally flawed. If you concede that aborting a pregancy is morally wrong, then what of morning-after pills as a contraceptive option which prevents a pregnancy even after the egg has been fertilized? And what about masturbation? When you carry the logic further based on their false premises, you can come to all sorts of absurd conclusions. Accidents will always happen no matter how advanced a society is. And the fact is, having a child should be a planned out decision, and a woman should have the right to abort an unplanned pregnancy if she has no desire to bear a child.
What is immoral is persecuting women who make a choice about what to do with their bodies realizing that bearing a child is a life-changing event that can't be undone. This persecution can be as extreme as blowing up abortion clinics, or it could be in the form of taking away access to contraceptive drugs, or it could even be passive persecution in the form of placing guilt on young women who have abortions or have ever considered having an abortion. This guilt leads a lot of women to make choices that are not in their best interest and create more social problems that arise from these poorly made decisions. Thus, calling abortion immoral has the same consequences as relating it to murder.
I'm not trying to be hard on cokeheads. Whether you're a cokehead, an acid head, or a junkie (as I used to be), or an alcoholic, it's all pretty pathetic. I've made my share of regretable decisions in the past, so I know I'm not one to be lecturing others on drug abuse, and I think most drugs are quite alright if used in moderation (if that is even possible). However, a lot of musicians do end up being junkies/meth addicts/cokeheads because they think they're rockstars and it's expected of them to party hard and blow all the money they've made from gigs or merch sales on drugs. I see it all the time with bands that have just gotten their first record deal and had potential, but instead let their ego and the lifestyle that comes with it sink their music careers. Coke was just an example. You could substitute cokehead with alcoholic or methhead or junkie and it would be equally true.
Trust me, the rock star ego often takes hold before the musicians can even truly call themselves rockstars. I should know, I work with many of these types. A band makes it big in their home town and signs a record deal and immediately it goes to their heads. So now they demand $300 a show in places where they're basically unknown and they aren't even worth $100 and won't tour to promote their album and get their music out to people who haven't heard it. What you end up with is a bunch of possibly talented musicians whose music careers just fizzle out after about 10 years, leaving them the same broke-ass cokeheads who are still living with their parents as when they first started.
First, how is expressing one's opinions in an internet forum "forcing" one's views on others? If you're so offended by people with opposing views, then stay out of public forums.
There's no guarantee in life that what you enjoy doing is going to make you money. That's why a lot of artists (the vast majority of them) have day jobs. And again, this is because creating art and sharing it with others is what they enjoy doing, regardless of whether it profits them financially. I happen to work for an indie record label and I often see the conflict between the business aspect of the music industry and the art itself.
I also see musicians who are in it for all the wrong reasons: fame, fortune, to stroke their own egos. And the fact is, you aren't likely to succeed in your music career if you are doing it purely for those reasons (from the beginning, atleast. once you've made it big you're free to sell out). Bands that won't tour to spread their music because they won't play $100 shows in untapped markets, or don't invest in the bands themselves and just expect to always receive money out of it, never make it very far even if they're extremely talented musicians. The bands that do achieve notable success are the ones where the band members are willing to get a day job to support their music, play shitty $100 shows, making their money back on merch, are willing to tour to spread their music even if it means living out of a van for 2-3 months, etc.
The point is, a good musician should care more about being heard rather than making money. Afterall, how can you call yourself a musician if you aren't doing it for the music?
Unless you're an artist, it wouldn't be appropriate to apply the same philosophy to it. A lot of artists have day jobs to support their art careers. This is because they create their art because they like creating art and sharing it with people, and aren't doing it for money. The fact is, when it becomes about money then your priorities change and it often degrades the art.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe you're just getting crabby in your old age?
Business cards have the same implicit confidentiality/privacy as letters?
Business cards are handed out by people to put their contact information out there for potential future business partners. It's not uncommon for people to go to a business convention and just put out a stack of business cards for strangers to take. It's also not uncommon for one person to pass on another's business card to someone else whom they feel might be interested in contacting the person listed on the card.
Letters don't exchange hands the same way. Letters are written and directed at a specific person, and it's not customary to pass on to other people a letter someone has written you in confidence. Sorry, but that's just a piss poor analogy. An appropriate analogy would be passing a particular company's brochure to another person. These are "business" documents which aren't directed at any specific individual and contain information that people want to put out to facilitate their business.
No one is going to get ahold of you via your business contacts or want that info. unless they want contact you regarding some business related matter. And if you don't want other people to solicit your business through a particular contact then you don't list it on your BUSINESS card.
How does setting a more sane foreign policy promote terrorism? This isn't something that one should do in response to terrorism, it's something that we should have been doing all along to be respectful of the rights of other human beings and naitons.
And what's the difference between a terrorist killing hundreds of people and an army doing the same? Is it somehow alright when an Israeli soldier fires on civilians because they have a uniform and "proper" military training? Sorry, but the official armed forces of the various nations of the world kill far more civilians than terrorists ever have or will. A daisy cutter doesn't discriminate between civilians and combatants either. Most mainstream media outlets reported 3000+ civilian casualties in just the first month of the War on Terror. Israeli gunships, missles, snipers, deathsquads, etc. have killed far more civilians than teenage Palestinian suicide bombers have claimed. Just because a military attack is carried out by a force other than a nation with a standing army we condemn it as terrorism, yet state-sponsored terrorism which kills far more civilians and is in fact what pushes desperate people to blow themselves up on buses is never blamed for its part in creating global conflicts.
Maybe if you took the time to actually look at the root of Islamic terrorism you'd see the obvious part that U.S./British foreign policy has played in creating a cultural environment that breeds anti-western attitutes in the Middle-East. Instead of thinking "people don't like us? kill more people! drop more bombs! invade more countries!" perhaps it would be simpler to look at what we've done that's pissed people off. Areas that spawn terrorists aren't populated with people with a genetic disposition to blow themselves up or embrace extremist/militant ideologies. Terrorism only occurs when people are pushed to extremes--it's a desperate measure that people resort to only when they have no conventional political/military recourse (ie. they have no official military to defend themselves with, the global community ignores their pleas, they can't establish a dialog with their oppressors, etc.). If you oppress any group of people long enough they will eventually embrace extremism.
Do you think Muslim terrorists were a problem before Western nations colonized the Middle-East and the establishment of Israel?
How many times have muslims terrorists attacked the U.S. compared to non-muslim terrorists before the War on Terrorism was declared?
...
So I guess all the other countries in the world that aren't being targeted by terrorists must all be muslim countries?
Is it the same in all cases though? Is copying files from someone's computer the same as robbing their house? Is breaking into someone's computer the same as tresspassing? Just because 2 crimes are similar doesn't mean that they pose the same threat/cause the same amount of harm to society and should be punished to the same extent.
yes, we should just return to the days of mob justice.
Doctoring a photo of someone to make false claims about that person in order to disrepute them is not satire or parody, especially if it's a political campaign presenting itself as being factually based rather than being a creative work.
The case of doctored photos of John Kerry being used in campaign commercials has nothing to do with copyright or trademark infringement.
You seem to have a pretty good grasp of biology so you ought to also realize that genetic mutation is an inevitable consequence of our biological design. A tumor also has distinct DNA from its host, but that doesn't really imply that it's a separate human life or that excising a tumor is wrong.
And I never said that science is cut and dry, but there are some things which pro-life rhetoric blatanly contradicts. The issue of abortion may not be self-contained in the field of science, but it clearly requires a certain measure of scientific background to properly grasp it.
And my metric is what the embryo/fetus is biologically capable of at that point of development. The human reproductive cycle is well understood and the biology behind it has been extensively studied. Consciousness in the context I was using it in refers to the state of being sentient. Being asleep or "unconscious" does not mean that one is braindead or has lost sentience.
Also, even though gametes are the only haploid cells in a human being, that doesn't mean they don't possess a full set of chromosomes which are expressed in a human being (the monoploid number in humans is the same as the haploid number). If you want to say that gametes aren't human beings because they are haploid cells, then what about a culture of tongue cells or any of the many other types of diploid cells in the human body which can live in vitro and grow and reproduce?
Why not make the distinction based on the abundance of other biological characteristics which are different between embryos and a 3rd-trimester fetus? Or on more fundamental differences such as cognitive capacity or biological complexity?
The placenta is an organ that women develop during pregnancy to facilitate gestation. You might as well arbitrarily assign the umbilical cord or endometrial lining of the uterus as the cut off point.
An embryo, "when left to it's own devices" dies. Even if it's kept alive in vitro, it still just sits frozen inside of a petri dish forever unless it is eventually implanted into a woman's uterus and the gestation cycle is completed.
Religious rhetoric aside, an undeveloped embryo is as sentient a lifeform as a culture of fungi or any other simple organism with a comparable level of complexity. It does not suffer, it does not experience consciousness, and it certainly can't be considered murder any more than killing any other organism sharing the same level of sentience. Objectively speaking, it's far worse to kill, say, a grown chicken or cow than to let an embryo die by preventing gestation.
Your differential in value between various "classes" of potential life seems rather arbitrary, and what little logic you've given for it is self-contradictory (rather poorly reasoned for a "philosophy major" imho). How does something of little value (gametes) develop into something of much greater value (human life)? If you can give more value to something (a gamete in this case) by facilitating biological processes (implantation/fertilization, for instance), then why isn't it possible to give value to something which initially had no value? Where do you think gametes come from? Do you think they just magically appear as mature eggs and sperms? Does your body not give each collection of atoms and molecules, which initially had no value in regards to being potential for human life, value by organizing them in a particular cellular structure?
If you want to be logically consistent, then you would have to at the very least concede that masturbation is also unethical to some extent. But your argument that preventing potential life from developing into life is unethical is still absurd. That potential can still only be fulfilled if facilitated by external forces. Who says that just because the potential is there that it is wrong to not realize that potential? A woman choosing to abort a pregnancy and not allow the fertilized egg to develop into a human-life is no more wrong than 2 sexually mature individuals of the opposite sex choosing to use contraceptives during intercourse to prevent their respective gametes from developing into a human-life. They are actively destroying those gametes' potential for life, but whatever "value" those gametes have to you, you still haven't provided any reasoning why it's wrong to destroy it.
Frankly, your argument is rather flimsly for someone who has supposedly studied philosophy, so before you toss aside all rhetoric, you might want to give a little more thought into your own. Perhaps you need to elaborate on what kind of "value" you are talking about, and why it is wrong to destroy something with this kind of value. Something less vague and of more tangible nature, like the level of sentience a lifeform possesses, might be preferable to vague metaphysical qualities that you've subjectively assigned.
A cluster of skin cells or brain cells is living human tissue as well, but that doesn't qualify it as a human being. An embryo, or even a fetus in its early stages of development, does not possess any form of consciousness, so equivocating the abortion of a pregnancy during the first two trimesters to murder is simply being ignorant of the human reproductive process. You might as well say masturbation is mass murder because gametes have human DNA and demonstrate the characteristics of life as well.
And how is whether or not to bear a child not a medical decision that should be up to the woman? Who's choice should it be then? Do you think a pregnancy has no effect on a woman's body? An embryo/fetus is biologically attached to a woman, is produced by her body, requires her body to sustain life, affects her health and vice-versa, so how is it not a part of her? Are the gametes living inside of you separate human beings also?
There's no use. If one can't distinguish an embryo in a petri dish from a human child, how are they supposed to grasp the finer details of embryonic development.
Well, it wouldn't make much sense complaining about that now, now would it? Or at least not unless you were bitter or something...
Newsflash: people care more about what's going on now then political conditions over a decade ago.
If it was wrong then for Clinton to oppose ESC research, then it's still wrong for Bush to do it now. The Bush administration is the current impediment to scientific progress in this area, which is why there's so much criticism against him for it and not Clinton.
Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. Being pro-choice means you support the right to making either choice and doesn't say whether you advocate one choice over the other. My girlfriend and I are both pro-choice. However, she had an unplanned pregnancy when she was 17 and chose not to have an abortion at that time, and we're both extremely happy with the decision that she made.
Frankly, people who can't make the distinction between a gamete/embryo/fetus/child should really have no say in the argument until they get some basic background in biology.
The transition from a fetus to a human being is a gradual process not an instanteous divine act. But if you had some background on biology and neuroscience you could choose much more rationally at which point should a line be drawn.
What is the negative moral angle? A truly advanced society shouldn't be basing its moral imperatives on rhetoric which doesn't distinguish between various stages of life, such as gamete/embryo/fetus/child (much less the various stages of embryonic development). This "negative angle" which you conceive of is merely the result of a group of ignorant fanatics attempting to put undue guilt on women who are faced with the already difficult choice of whether or not to fully carry a pregancy to term.
The fact that pro-lifers often equivocate abortion to murdering children, and paint pro-choicers to be pro-abortion, or advocating abortion, should show that their argument is fundamentally flawed. If you concede that aborting a pregancy is morally wrong, then what of morning-after pills as a contraceptive option which prevents a pregnancy even after the egg has been fertilized? And what about masturbation? When you carry the logic further based on their false premises, you can come to all sorts of absurd conclusions. Accidents will always happen no matter how advanced a society is. And the fact is, having a child should be a planned out decision, and a woman should have the right to abort an unplanned pregnancy if she has no desire to bear a child.
What is immoral is persecuting women who make a choice about what to do with their bodies realizing that bearing a child is a life-changing event that can't be undone. This persecution can be as extreme as blowing up abortion clinics, or it could be in the form of taking away access to contraceptive drugs, or it could even be passive persecution in the form of placing guilt on young women who have abortions or have ever considered having an abortion. This guilt leads a lot of women to make choices that are not in their best interest and create more social problems that arise from these poorly made decisions. Thus, calling abortion immoral has the same consequences as relating it to murder.
I'm not trying to be hard on cokeheads. Whether you're a cokehead, an acid head, or a junkie (as I used to be), or an alcoholic, it's all pretty pathetic. I've made my share of regretable decisions in the past, so I know I'm not one to be lecturing others on drug abuse, and I think most drugs are quite alright if used in moderation (if that is even possible). However, a lot of musicians do end up being junkies/meth addicts/cokeheads because they think they're rockstars and it's expected of them to party hard and blow all the money they've made from gigs or merch sales on drugs. I see it all the time with bands that have just gotten their first record deal and had potential, but instead let their ego and the lifestyle that comes with it sink their music careers. Coke was just an example. You could substitute cokehead with alcoholic or methhead or junkie and it would be equally true.
Trust me, the rock star ego often takes hold before the musicians can even truly call themselves rockstars. I should know, I work with many of these types. A band makes it big in their home town and signs a record deal and immediately it goes to their heads. So now they demand $300 a show in places where they're basically unknown and they aren't even worth $100 and won't tour to promote their album and get their music out to people who haven't heard it. What you end up with is a bunch of possibly talented musicians whose music careers just fizzle out after about 10 years, leaving them the same broke-ass cokeheads who are still living with their parents as when they first started.
First, how is expressing one's opinions in an internet forum "forcing" one's views on others? If you're so offended by people with opposing views, then stay out of public forums.
There's no guarantee in life that what you enjoy doing is going to make you money. That's why a lot of artists (the vast majority of them) have day jobs. And again, this is because creating art and sharing it with others is what they enjoy doing, regardless of whether it profits them financially. I happen to work for an indie record label and I often see the conflict between the business aspect of the music industry and the art itself.
I also see musicians who are in it for all the wrong reasons: fame, fortune, to stroke their own egos. And the fact is, you aren't likely to succeed in your music career if you are doing it purely for those reasons (from the beginning, atleast. once you've made it big you're free to sell out). Bands that won't tour to spread their music because they won't play $100 shows in untapped markets, or don't invest in the bands themselves and just expect to always receive money out of it, never make it very far even if they're extremely talented musicians. The bands that do achieve notable success are the ones where the band members are willing to get a day job to support their music, play shitty $100 shows, making their money back on merch, are willing to tour to spread their music even if it means living out of a van for 2-3 months, etc.
The point is, a good musician should care more about being heard rather than making money. Afterall, how can you call yourself a musician if you aren't doing it for the music?
Unless you're an artist, it wouldn't be appropriate to apply the same philosophy to it. A lot of artists have day jobs to support their art careers. This is because they create their art because they like creating art and sharing it with people, and aren't doing it for money. The fact is, when it becomes about money then your priorities change and it often degrades the art.
You can prevent profile music from starting up automatically in your user preferences, just to let you know.
so "the galaxies and large bubbles of gas" were just... twines of pasta and meatballs?--That is absolutely...
possible.
_____________________________________________May you be touched by his noodly appendage
you apparently don't understand the difference between grammatical structures/idiomatic expressions and "vocabulary."