The Vietnam War was not the USA against Vietnam. It was South Vietnam, backed by the USA and some other countries, against North Vietnam, backed by the PRC and the Soviet Union. Both sides were _big_ dogs. People also forget that some 56,000 Americans, versus some 1,000,000 Vietnamese, died in that war.
The left complains about Scalia, but not about that California judge who was in a same-sex sexual partnership and ruled that maintaining the definition of marriage was unconstitutional.
The right to life for human beings might be paramount. Legally, until a baby is born, there is only one human being and she is an adultmy body.
Legally, maybe. Morally, no.
And I disagree with your claim that the life of a person is paramount. If you are trying to invade my home, I have a legal right to use deadly force to stop you. And that's just my home, not
The right to life of a completely innocent person is another story. And even in the case of the burglar, it might be argued that you only have the right to use deadly force because there is a chance that he would kill you, but I don't want to go there, because it would be changing the subject.
Anyway, cockroaches are clearly sub-human. Do you really think that all animals have the same dignity? Including a sponge, which has no neurons? So people should not go camping, for fear of stomping an ant?
Clearly, beings with higher intelligence, self-awareness, conscience and free-will are superior to beings that are, essentially, simple robots made of carbon.
I have no fear of eating meat. Or of killing/harming (while minimising their pain) insects for scientific experiments
No, this is utter bull shit. The stat, which is a Brady creation, is that for people with a gun in the home, they are more likely to be "harmed" by a gun. Now, think that through. If you want to commit suicide and you have a gun at the house, um sure you will use a gun. This does not mean you will fall victim to a gun homicide nor does it mean your gun will be used against you.
But can't we argue that owning a gun increases the chance of suicide? I mean, a shot to the side of the brain is pretty painless (AFAIK). So people who don't want to suffer the pain of a knife suicide could decide to kill themselves with a gun.
Therefore, if the government makes it harder to own a gun, it might avert some suicides.
I don't have a strong opinion here, so any replies that show holes in my logic will actually be appreciated.
the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society.
Wrong, because the right to life is the most important human right, as I wrote elsewhere and can easily be deduced by simple logic.
I can't swing my arm at your face because my right to freedom of movement is subordinate to your right not to be punched. There is a hierarchy of rights; some rights are more important than others. And clearly the right to life is right at the top. One of the reasons for that, is the fact that without life no other right can be exercised.
Therefore, the unborn baby's right to life is more important than the pregnant woman right to not be inconvenienced by a pregnancy.
By your logic, people in ICU have no right to life since they cannot live outside the ICU. Therefore I can invade an ICU and shoot all the patients. That is absurd. Therefore, your logic is wrong.
b.) hate speech in itself is a violation of human rights, and violations of human rights get prosecuted, and the victims of hate speech are not those who give the speech c.) Saying "Sodomy is wrong" is no hate speech and for saying so you won't be prosecuted in Germany Saying "All Sodomists should be killed" instead would likely be hate speech.
When I complained about lack of free speech in Europe, I was not thinking about Germany, but of the UK, where people have in fact been prosecuted for essentially saying "sodomy is wrong".
d.) "abortion is ok", but only under certain conditions, it is no "hate crime" or "hate speech" because abortion is not killing fetus because they are hated, but because the circumstances of the pregnant women might be to difficult to continue the pregnancy.
_You_ claim that advocates of abortion do not hate babies. But an anti-abortion government could say that any advocacy of abortion is an act of hate, just like the UK government prosecutes people simply for saying "sodomy is wrong", even if those people insist they do not hate anyone.
But nobody in Germany will stop you from teaching your own believes to your children, after school, except if you deny your child the public school education, where no religion is taught - can be replaced by philosophy or free study time, and the evolution theory is not religion it's a scientific theory, you can still teach your children the opposite at home after school.
The problem is not lack of religion. The problem is the _positive advocacy_ of Marxism, both in its old form (violent Marxism-Leninism) and in its current form (cultural Marxism, created by Gramsci and Marcuse, based on feminism, homosexual militancy, racial militancy such as affirmative action, multiculturalism, etc.). I have read that public schools all over the world are infested with these two kinds of Marxism. And my school (not in Germany) surely was. I was never taught that Hitler had a close alliance with Stalin in the beginning of WWII. I was never taught that, when some people in the UK were demanding Hitler to be stopped, Moscow ordered communist parties all over Europe to militate for the appeasement of Hitler, so that Hitler - Stalin's ally - could fight unimpeded. I was never taught that Stalin invaded Finland in the Winter War. I was never taught that the Cuban Revolution killed an astonishing high percentage of the Island's population. I was never taught that Marxism killed 100,000,000 people in the XX century. But I was "taught" that the political left is wonderful, that "neoliberals" and "globalisation" are evil, that the USA is evil, that the September 11 attacks were an attack "against American arrogance", that the USA deliberately allowed Japan to attack Pearl Harbour, that divorce and promiscuity is OK, and that the Church is evil.
Some parents do not agree with that. I sure don't.
Education is not religion. And yes there is a conflict, but Germany choose the school duty because to achieve the human right for education as 26-1 precedes 26-3 and so has a higher priority.
If that was the point, the courts would simply mandate periodical exams, and send low-scoring kids to the regular school system.
because learning is a social act.
If socialisation was the point, the courts would simply mandate kids to practice team sports weekly, with a good number of other children.
But, as I have written elsewhere, the European court was explicitly about the goals behind banning homeschooling: "the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society." In other words, homeschooled kids could develop verboten philosophical convictions and European Thought Police won't allow that.
A human analog is irrelevant. Humans are not analogous to cockroaches in this way. Humans feel pain through nociceptors. Cockroaches don't have these.
Besides that Humans can feel horror and misery that a brain as simple as a cockroaches almost certainly cannot. They do not have higher emotions and higher functions. They don't even have memory. Whatever it is like to be a cockroach, it is almost certainly nothing like what it is like to be a human.
Thanks for a needed dose of common-sense.
Crazy, misinformed environment activists (as opposed to reasonable, educated environment engineers) speak as if animal life was just as dignified as human life. Newsflash: it isn't. Humans have far greater intelligence, are self-aware, and have free-will. While animals (specially mammals) should not be needlessly mistreated, they aren't to be treated as humans either.
If an economic project needs to put down an hectare of trees, it should be permitted unless it will harm humanity (through the destruction of environmental resources) or if the economic benefits are very small.
Not everything that remotely sounds "Nazi" is wrong. Hitler was also fanatically anti-smoking, anti-animal cruelty, anti-Marxism, a vegetarian, and had a moustache.
Yet there are many anti-smoking, or anti-animal cruelty, or vegetarian, anti-Marxist, or moustache-bearing people who are perfectly fine.
I don't think the unborn babies rights trump the mother's.
It is not which _person_ is more important, it is whether the right to life is more important than the convenience of not being pregnant.
And since you're so concerned with these unborn babies, I assume you support providing pre-natal care for the mothers, and funding for children's health care. You know, those things the GOP always wants to de-fund because they care so much about these kids?
1) I'm not Republican. 2) Conservative people donate 30% more to charity than liberals. Conservatives do charity with their own money, while liberals demand the government to do charity with other people's money and claim to be morally superior to conservatives. That is wrong.
And that people should stop pushing the 'OMG GW' / 'OMG denier' and instead have rational conversations about the real risks and the real costs and what action is actually reasonable.
At least in my case, I react to the media's stupid alarmism by going in the opposite direction. The media not only greatly exaggerates the possible effects of global warming (coastal cities will submerge, etc.), but paints the issue as "good scientists against evil oil companies", incite hatred against skeptics (such as that odious "lets blow up al the sceptics, including children" campaign) and uses a double standard: when we see any hot summer, it's an example of global warming, but when we see an exceptionally cold winter, they are silent on the issue.
All this bullshit from the media, the media which is perceived as having a leftist bias, and once again is marching in lockstep with the Dems, makes conservative people dismiss the whole idea as leftist shenanigans. And that actually makes some sense. Conservatives think "if this stuff was real, why all the bullshit?"
So, a message to all people who care about global warming: try to tame the media. Tell journalists to stop using every hot summer as "proof" of global warming, and most importantly stop claiming that global warming will cause adultery, famines, AIDS, prostitution, teenage prostitution, doubling of water bills, terrorism, the end of the Olympics, World War IV, witchcraft executions, end of French wine, volcanic eruptions, UFOs, trade barriers, slow tree growth, too fast tree growth, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees on Antarctica, street crime, suicide, end of sunset, soaring food prices, sexual dysfunction, rape, viruses, human extinction, or the end of civilisation (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm)
In short: if you want us to believe you, them _stop lying_.
he doesn't think government should be regulating women's wombs.
If you don't think unborn babies have a right to life, say so. Don't say this issue is about "women's wombs" when you know very well that the being inside has a unique DNA.
While this hypothetical country is waiting the 2-3 decades it takes for the 1,000,000 clones to mature, what's to stop their enemy simply conscripting 2,000,000 and attacking right away?
2-3 decades!? 15-year-olds can already fight. And that is without genetic enhancement to grow faster.
Second: the country that does this will also have a large regular army... The clone battalion will be an extra.
How is the freedom to express one's ideas restricted in Germany?
When I touched the topic of of religious freedom, I was actually thinking about the UK and its odious "hate speech" legislation. If you read my original post, I was speaking about Europe in general, and brought Germany because of its anti-homsechoolers persecution.
And by being free of religion I mean being able to say that I'm an atheist without being looked at askance
Atheists are better treated in the USA than practicing Catholics or Evangelicals are treated in Europe
, without religion dominating a large part of politics, etc.
First: secularists are huge hypocrites. When the Episcopal church or some Lutheran church promotes abortion and homosexualism, the secularists like it. But when some Evangelical/Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Christian condemns abortion and homosexualism, then the secularists scream day and night about the imminent danger of a theocracy.
Second: a healthy, free secular country must not restrict freedom of speech or freedom of religion, which are two human rights. But when a religious person advocates some law, he should he heard just like an atheist should: with neutrality.
So, if Christian John demands heresies to be censored, and atheist Karl demands the Bible to be censored, both should be disregarded, because human rights (of speech, of religion) are not negotiable. Here we agree.
But if Christian John demands abortion to be banned and atheist Karl demands abortion to be legal, then both should be heard, in a free society. Because there is a huge difference between healthy secularism, which is neutral to religion, and anti-religious oppressive secularism, which is biased against religion.
I won't comment on your allegations, but I think this is an opportunity to comment on an underlying, important topic: that science is orthogonal to morality.
Many people think that scientists should regulate themselves, because "they are experts". But people forget that morality is philosophical, not scientific. There is no empirical way to determine whether an action is right or wrong.
Now, the scientists input is very valuable, because they have valuable knowledge of the situation. But to say that scientists alone should decide what research is acceptable because "they are experts" is like saying that West Point generals should determine by themselves whether or not we go to war, because they are experts.
There is a general tendency for media world wide to call any group that isn't backed by some government or known major religion to be called anarchists when they engage in terrorist type activities
Do you have any evidence or at least a couple of examples of that?
What scares the shit out of me is the prospect of an artificial womb. It would allow a country to select its best soldier, then enhance his DNA and then, with artificial wombs, make 1,000,000 clones.
The first country to do that will have a huge military advantage, which will led to other countries doing the same resulting in a clone arms race.
I don't think it will take more than 50 years for the artificial womb to be created. Will civilisation survive it?
Slashdot Mirror
The Vietnam War was not the USA against Vietnam.
It was South Vietnam, backed by the USA and some other countries, against North Vietnam, backed by the PRC and the Soviet Union.
Both sides were _big_ dogs.
People also forget that some 56,000 Americans, versus some 1,000,000 Vietnamese, died in that war.
Actually cockroaches can learn
According to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927132543.htm
cockroaches can learn.
I still agree that a human analogy is irrelevant, though.
The left complains about Scalia, but not about that California judge who was in a same-sex sexual partnership
and ruled that maintaining the definition of marriage was unconstitutional.
Abortion has only been legal since 1973.
The right to life for human beings might be paramount. Legally, until a baby is born, there is only one human being and she is an adultmy body.
Legally, maybe. Morally, no.
And I disagree with your claim that the life of a person is paramount. If you are trying to invade my home, I have a legal right to use deadly force to stop you. And that's just my home, not
The right to life of a completely innocent person is another story.
And even in the case of the burglar, it might be argued that you only have the right to use deadly force because there is a chance that he would kill you, but I don't want to go there, because it would be changing the subject.
Anyway, cockroaches are clearly sub-human.
Do you really think that all animals have the same dignity?
Including a sponge, which has no neurons?
So people should not go camping, for fear of stomping
an ant?
Clearly, beings with higher intelligence, self-awareness, conscience and free-will are superior
to beings that are, essentially, simple robots made of carbon.
I have no fear of eating meat. Or of killing/harming (while minimising their pain) insects for scientific experiments
No, this is utter bull shit. The stat, which is a Brady creation, is that for people with a gun in the home, they are more likely to be "harmed" by a gun. Now, think that through. If you want to commit suicide and you have a gun at the house, um sure you will use a gun. This does not mean you will fall victim to a gun homicide nor does it mean your gun will be used against you.
But can't we argue that owning a gun increases the chance of suicide?
I mean, a shot to the side of the brain is pretty painless (AFAIK).
So people who don't want to suffer the pain of a knife suicide
could decide to kill themselves with a gun.
Therefore, if the government makes it harder to own a gun,
it might avert some suicides.
I don't have a strong opinion here, so any replies that show
holes in my logic will actually be appreciated.
Regards
the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society.
Wrong, because the right to life is the most important human right, as I wrote elsewhere and can easily be deduced by simple logic.
I can't swing my arm at your face because my right to freedom of movement is subordinate to your right not to be punched.
There is a hierarchy of rights; some rights are more important than others.
And clearly the right to life is right at the top. One of the reasons for that, is the fact that without life no other right can be exercised.
Therefore, the unborn baby's right to life is more important than the pregnant woman right to not be inconvenienced by a pregnancy.
By your logic, people in ICU have no right to life since they cannot live outside the ICU.
Therefore I can invade an ICU and shoot all the patients.
That is absurd.
Therefore, your logic is wrong.
And you should think before writing.
b.) hate speech in itself is a violation of human rights, and violations of human rights get prosecuted, and the victims of hate speech are not those who give the speech
c.) Saying "Sodomy is wrong" is no hate speech and for saying so you won't be prosecuted in Germany
Saying "All Sodomists should be killed" instead would likely be hate speech.
When I complained about lack of free speech in Europe, I was not thinking about Germany, but of the UK, where people have in fact been prosecuted for essentially saying "sodomy is wrong".
d.) "abortion is ok", but only under certain conditions, it is no "hate crime" or "hate speech" because abortion is not killing fetus because they are hated, but because the circumstances of the pregnant women might be to difficult to continue the pregnancy.
_You_ claim that advocates of abortion do not hate babies. But an anti-abortion government could say that any advocacy of abortion is an act of hate, just like the UK government prosecutes people simply for saying "sodomy is wrong", even if those people insist they do not hate anyone.
But nobody in Germany will stop you from teaching your own believes to your children, after school, except if you deny your child the public school education, where no religion is taught - can be replaced by philosophy or free study time, and the evolution theory is not religion it's a scientific theory,
you can still teach your children the opposite at home after school.
The problem is not lack of religion. The problem is the _positive advocacy_ of Marxism, both in its old form (violent Marxism-Leninism) and in its current form (cultural Marxism, created by Gramsci and Marcuse, based on feminism, homosexual militancy, racial militancy such as affirmative action, multiculturalism, etc.). I have read that public schools all over the world are infested with these two kinds of Marxism. And my school (not in Germany) surely was. I was never taught that Hitler had a close alliance with Stalin in the beginning of WWII. I was never taught that, when some people in the UK were demanding Hitler to be stopped, Moscow ordered communist parties all over Europe to militate for the appeasement of Hitler, so that Hitler - Stalin's ally - could fight unimpeded.
I was never taught that Stalin invaded Finland in the Winter War. I was never taught that the Cuban Revolution killed an astonishing high percentage of the Island's population. I was never taught that Marxism killed 100,000,000 people in the XX century.
But I was "taught" that the political left is wonderful, that "neoliberals" and "globalisation" are evil, that the USA is evil, that the September 11 attacks were an attack "against American arrogance", that the USA deliberately allowed Japan to attack Pearl Harbour, that divorce and promiscuity is OK, and that the Church is evil.
Some parents do not agree with that. I sure don't.
Education is not religion. And yes there is a conflict, but Germany choose the school duty because to achieve
the human right for education as 26-1 precedes 26-3 and so has a higher priority.
If that was the point, the courts would simply mandate periodical exams, and send low-scoring kids to the regular
school system.
because learning is a social act.
If socialisation was the point, the courts would simply mandate kids to practice team sports weekly, with a good number of other children.
But, as I have written elsewhere, the European court was explicitly about the goals behind banning homeschooling:
"the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society."
In other words, homeschooled kids could develop verboten philosophical convictions and European Thought Police won't allow that.
A human analog is irrelevant. Humans are not analogous to cockroaches in this way. Humans feel pain through nociceptors. Cockroaches don't have these.
Besides that Humans can feel horror and misery that a brain as simple as a cockroaches almost certainly cannot. They do not have higher emotions and higher functions. They don't even have memory. Whatever it is like to be a cockroach, it is almost certainly nothing like what it is like to be a human.
Thanks for a needed dose of common-sense.
Crazy, misinformed environment activists (as opposed to reasonable, educated environment engineers) speak as if animal life was just as dignified as human life.
Newsflash: it isn't. Humans have far greater intelligence, are self-aware, and have free-will. While animals (specially mammals) should not be needlessly mistreated, they aren't to be treated as humans either.
If an economic project needs to put down an hectare of trees, it should be permitted unless it will harm humanity (through the destruction of environmental resources) or if the economic benefits are very small.
Oh please.
Not everything that remotely sounds "Nazi" is wrong.
Hitler was also fanatically anti-smoking, anti-animal cruelty, anti-Marxism, a vegetarian, and had a moustache.
Yet there are many anti-smoking, or anti-animal cruelty, or vegetarian, anti-Marxist, or moustache-bearing people who are perfectly fine.
Reductio ad Hitlerum is a logical fallacy.
See http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/07/13/7078446-spacex-chief-aims-for-mars?lite
It seems it already works. https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/deceagebecbceejblnlcjooeohmmeldh/details
Do I have to write everything explicitly?
An unborn baby has his own unique, individual, _human_ DNA,
and the ability to grown into a child if provided food and oxygen.
I don't think the unborn babies rights trump the mother's.
It is not which _person_ is more important, it is whether the right to life is more important than the convenience of not being pregnant.
And since you're so concerned with these unborn babies, I assume you support providing pre-natal care for the mothers, and funding for children's health care. You know, those things the GOP always wants to de-fund because they care so much about these kids?
1) I'm not Republican.
2) Conservative people donate 30% more to charity than liberals. Conservatives do charity with their own money, while liberals demand the government to do charity with other people's money and claim to be morally superior to conservatives. That is wrong.
And that people should stop pushing the 'OMG GW' / 'OMG denier' and instead have rational conversations about the real risks and the real costs and what action is actually reasonable.
At least in my case, I react to the media's stupid alarmism by going in the opposite direction. The media not only greatly exaggerates the possible effects of global warming (coastal cities will submerge, etc.), but paints the issue as "good scientists against evil oil companies", incite hatred against skeptics (such as that odious "lets blow up al the sceptics, including children" campaign) and uses a double standard: when we see any hot summer, it's an example of global warming, but when we see an exceptionally cold winter, they are silent on the issue.
All this bullshit from the media, the media which is perceived as having a leftist bias, and once again is marching in lockstep with the Dems, makes conservative people dismiss the whole idea as leftist shenanigans. And that actually makes some sense. Conservatives think "if this stuff was real, why all the bullshit?"
So, a message to all people who care about global warming: try to tame the media. Tell journalists to stop using every hot summer as "proof" of global warming, and most importantly stop claiming that global warming will cause adultery, famines, AIDS, prostitution, teenage prostitution, doubling of water bills, terrorism, the end of the Olympics, World War IV, witchcraft executions, end of French wine, volcanic eruptions, UFOs, trade barriers, slow tree growth, too fast tree growth, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees on Antarctica, street crime, suicide, end of sunset, soaring food prices, sexual dysfunction, rape, viruses, human extinction, or the end of civilisation (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm)
In short: if you want us to believe you, them _stop lying_.
he doesn't think government should be regulating women's wombs.
If you don't think unborn babies have a right to life, say so.
Don't say this issue is about "women's wombs" when you know
very well that the being inside has a unique DNA.
Its website advertises support for C# 3.
While this hypothetical country is waiting the 2-3 decades it takes for the 1,000,000 clones to mature, what's to stop their enemy simply conscripting 2,000,000 and attacking right away?
2-3 decades!? 15-year-olds can already fight. And that is without genetic enhancement to grow faster.
Second: the country that does this will also have a large regular army... The clone battalion will be an extra.
How is the freedom to express one's ideas restricted in Germany?
When I touched the topic of of religious freedom, I was actually thinking
about the UK and its odious "hate speech" legislation. If you read my original
post, I was speaking about Europe in general, and brought Germany because
of its anti-homsechoolers persecution.
And by being free of religion I mean being able to say that I'm an atheist without being looked at askance
Atheists are better treated in the USA than practicing Catholics or Evangelicals are treated in Europe
, without religion dominating a large part of politics, etc.
First: secularists are huge hypocrites. When the Episcopal church or some Lutheran church promotes abortion
and homosexualism, the secularists like it. But when some Evangelical/Catholic/Eastern Orthodox Christian
condemns abortion and homosexualism, then the secularists scream day and night about the imminent danger of
a theocracy.
Second: a healthy, free secular country must not restrict freedom of speech or freedom of religion, which are
two human rights. But when a religious person advocates some law, he should he heard just like an atheist should:
with neutrality.
So, if Christian John demands heresies to be censored, and atheist Karl demands the Bible to be censored,
both should be disregarded, because human rights (of speech, of religion) are not negotiable. Here we agree.
But if Christian John demands abortion to be banned and atheist Karl demands abortion to be legal,
then both should be heard, in a free society. Because there is a huge difference between healthy secularism,
which is neutral to religion, and anti-religious oppressive secularism, which is biased against religion.
I won't comment on your allegations, but I think this is an opportunity
to comment on an underlying, important topic: that science is orthogonal
to morality.
Many people think that scientists should regulate themselves, because
"they are experts". But people forget that morality is philosophical,
not scientific. There is no empirical way to determine whether an action
is right or wrong.
Now, the scientists input is very valuable, because they have
valuable knowledge of the situation. But to say that
scientists alone should decide what research is acceptable
because "they are experts" is like saying that West Point
generals should determine by themselves whether or not
we go to war, because they are experts.
There is a general tendency for media world wide to call any group that isn't backed by some government or known major religion to be called anarchists when they engage in terrorist type activities
Do you have any evidence or at least a couple of examples of that?
What scares the shit out of me is the prospect of an artificial
womb. It would allow a country to select its best soldier, then
enhance his DNA and then, with artificial wombs, make
1,000,000 clones.
The first country to do that will have a huge military advantage, which
will led to other countries doing the same resulting in a clone arms
race.
I don't think it will take more than 50 years for the artificial womb to
be created. Will civilisation survive it?