the Right has been taken over by pseudo-Libertarians
If only that were so... I know that rightwingers on slashdot and rightwingers in general are two very different things, but it is my opinion, that in general anyways, the right is still firmly controlled by the neo-cons, who apparently couldn't care less about any economic theory. I am, by no means a libertarian, but at least in an argument with a libertarian I can attempt to appeal to logic - logic holds no sway over neo-cons.
Second, while I agree that there is very little evidence on either side, I'm tempted to say that people who possess some wealth, and therefore have something to loose, are much less likely to take up arms to try and change the system.
People like Bin Laden and other wealthy people who are proponents of social upheaval likely have their interest protected in a way that an average (middle upper class and below) person never could. Basically, Bin Laden will be fine regardless of what the government looks like, his foot soldiers have so little to lose that they aren't even concerned with what they have to gain. Which is a situation that strikes me as similar to when the Russians overthrew the czars - they didn't care who they were getting so long as the status quo changed - it turns out it was possible for things to get worse.
I guess what I'm saying is that even if the problem is philosophical, if we elevate their standard of living the violent symptoms are likely to go away.
I think it is important to separate the failings of Communism (Marxism in practice) with the failings of Marxism (the theory.)
My take is that the theory fails to account for human nature competitive nature, while in practice this fatal flaw is compounded with the inevitability of power to corrupt in a system without checks on the ruler or party.
I also think that private property arises from envy, not the other way around. The prohibition of private property has been shown not only to be futile, but even were it to succeed envy would cause people would to naturally separate people into haves and have-nots based on some other attribute.
Finally, I find it interesting that you consider facism a branch of socialism, I consider it a branch of corporatism, which is essentially capitalism run amok, and as such is squarely at odds with socialism.
Probably on the grounds of the EULA that you agreed to to run their software and access their servers. Doesn't it basically say that you are entitled to throw money at them, and they can do whatever the hell they want?
But why would printing car parts ever be cheaper than just stamping metal? Sure maybe you could make arbitrarily shaped fiberglass-like parts (which is why it's called rapid prototyping, but if you are going to mass-produce it, how much would it cost to make a mold or die when compared to the total cost of all the raw materials?
I hope your being facetious, but at least one mod didn't thinks so, so please ignore the moderately harsh things I'm about to say if you really don't believe the things you've said.
First Star-Trek isn't real. I'm sorry, but neither is the easter bunny. If anything can be duplicated cheaply people will only do the stuff they enjoy doing, but no work will be done. Society will stagnate, innovation will come to a halt, and the social consequences will be immense. Perhaps no one would go without, but I'd hardly call it utopian.
If someone is able to invent a replicator (probably impossible due to the energy requirements for arbitrarily re-orienting atoms) no amount of draconian laws would be able to put that genie back in the bottle. Imagine the police come to arrest me within days of inventing the the very first replicator. There are a couple of ways that could play out. Either I've already replicated enough replicators and handed them out to my friends and exponential growth has made it unstoppable. Or, I've holed myself up in a fortress and set about replicating the types of wepons required to fend off a small army - or replicated myself an ICBM and entered my self into the MAD proposition. Even if they were able to successfully stop me from distributing my machine, someone would be interested enough to focus their research in a similar direction and it would only be a matter of time before they succeeded, and avoided learned from the mistakes that prevented me from getting my inverntion out.
When there is a conflict between two parties' rights, one of them has to win out. I contend that when one of the parties is a grown person with thoughts, feelings, memories, friends, property, etc. and the other is an undeveloped blob of cells with none of the above, then the grown person should win out, even if the blob is--by some technicality--considered a human being.
When choosing who should win you have to consider both the rights of the prevailing party, and the consequence to the loosing party. If the mothers rights are to be elevated, the cost to the fetus is its life. Do the mothers rights outweigh the fetus' right to life?
Of course this all comes back to the original point. The question becomes is the fetus a human life? If so then its right to life cannot be trumped by the mothers wishes. To go back to the violinist argument - if only you can sustain the life of the violinist - for a limited amount of time, and you are responsible for his current condition, then yes you would be obligated to be inconvenienced.
First, could you qualify what you mean by 100% human DNA? Specifically what markers define human, does someone with Down Syndrome have human DNA and does someone who has undergone gene therapy have 100% human DNA?
Second a life isn't the same as alive. People, dogs, bacteria, tumors, and cell cultures are all alive, which ones contain a life?
Tell me in scientific terms how I would distinguish between uterine cancer and a fetus. Pointing to structures is cheating - if a bone/organ makes me human am I less human if I have it removed? Oh, and there was this recent study that showed a transmissible carcinoma that maintains the DNA of the original carrier. Yes it is with dogs, but in principle the same could happen to humans. The only thing I can think of that would distinguish them is that we know that the fetus should come to term, but that is the argument of potentials. Just because it is a potential human life, does not make it a human life today. (Please don't flame me for comparing fetuses to cancer - just making an illustration.)
I don't have a particular issue with people taking either side, but I'm on a campaign for logical consistency and simplicity in arguments. Science can't say what is a life because ultimately it is a philosophical question. If you are making an argument with regards to abortion the simple question is, is it a life?
(4) EASILY preventable (for pennies a day- much less if you put serious time into it) but allowed to happen anyway because that particular child isn't a priority.
I'd say that is a subset of (2) unintentional and morally highly undesirable. The distinction lies in the intentions. Actively killing someone, and someone dying due to failure to act are two different things. Your argument is a matter for another debate, well framed by Peter Singer in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, and as I said, I'm not going to argue about prioritization of funding, and what level of intervention is morally required.
I don't think my statement, "If it is a human life then you can't end it," is full of holes at all. Although I'd like to rephrase to: "If it is a human life then you can't deliberately end it," with exceptions for self-defense (health of the mother). The argument that abortion is morally acceptable in cases of rape is more difficult to make if the fetus is a human life. It essentially boils down to unsolicited dependence. I'd challenge you to give it some "trivial consideration," and come up with some examples where you can deliberately end another's life.
The reason people on both sides expand abortion arguments beyond the issue of whether the fetus is alive is because they know that that real issue is a stale mate, and they need something that appears more convincing.
Yes, we end human lives all the time. How often do we deliberately end a human life in a way that is morally justifiable. (note: personally I don't consider the death penalty to be morally justifiable, but that is a debate for another day.)
That thousands of children die every day is not something that I consider acceptable. Also note that the death of a child falls into three classes (1)intentional and morally reprehensible, or (2) unintentional and morally highly undesirable, or (3)wholly accidental and unavoidable.
Anti-abortionists think that abortion is a more important issue than cancer because, as they see it, abortion falls into class 1, whereas cancer and other diseases fall into class 2. I'm not going to argue about prioritization of funding, and what level of intervention is morally required. Also note, that I'm not taking a stand on abortion, simply pointing out underlying issue.
If or when a fetus, embryo, or zygote is a distinct human life it is morally reprehensible to take direct action leading to its death. If it isn't a distinct human life then abortion is morally acceptable.
Hybrid technology is no where near mature enough for widespread use. The problem, quite simply, is batteries. They're too expensive and don't have enough capacity - same story with solar cells.
Personally, I think real conservationists should be buying small turbo-diesels. That really is a mature technology for you - did you know that Rudolf Diesel demoed a compression ignition engine ran on peanut oil at the Paris World's Fair in 1902? Great gas mileage, and it is possible to have a transparent transition to bio-fuels.
If you love cities, living an hour or two from one won't cut it. Trust me I'm in that situation now. When I want to do something in a city I want to do it now - not after I drive for an hour and pay for parking. I really want to be able to walk to a coffee shop, a bar, and a grocery store - that is part of the main draw of urban living for me. As you move further from the city public transportation dries up rapidly. Sure, its nice to think that you'd drive to the city every couple of weeks, but after a couple of months I don't want to go to the same museum, and the drive into the city becomes a drag.
I'm convinced that the next housing boom will be in urban condos. Many cities across the country are revitalizing their urban areas, and I think many people in their twenties don't hold the aversion to cities that those in their thirties and forties do (I know I'd rather live in a high-rise condo than in suburban sprawl.)
When the cost of gas and heating really starts to get painful it will catalyze this shift. The very relevant question then becomes what do we do with the poor that live in places prime for urban renewal. I think that we really should be addressing this issue today in our cities, but as is the way with politics, since it will be pushed aside until it is an immediate concern.
The ONLY issue relevant to abortion is whether the fetus is a human life, or when it becomes one. If it is a human life then you can't end it (with the exceptions of health of the mother and possibly rape). If it's not then you can do whatever you want.
Parent is also quite correct in saying science isn't well equipped to answer the question.
Gambling restrictions in this country are sold as religion-based. A good portion of Christians think that gambling is immoral.
I disagree. Morality might be a hot button that some politicians push when campaigning against gambling, but I don't think that anyone really takes it seriously. It is a religious issue even less so. I don't know about all sects, but I know of many churches that make a fair amount of money with Bingo, 50-50s, and carnivals (which always have some gambling.)
The real reason, which you touched on, is state lottos, but also church bingo, horse/dog races and local slots. The only explanation then is that online gambling is illegal as a protectionist measure.
The WTO cares because one of Antigua's chief exports is gambling. Since we're a member of the WTO we've agreed to not apply protectionist measures to other WTO countries. Banning over-seas gambling is a de facto protectionist measure.
The WTO is not particularly concerned with human rights violations, only the free flow of goods and services between its member countries.
I don't know about all that. My take on prohibition era history is that alcohol was made legal because practically everybody drank before during and after prohibition, and so, practically everyone realized that it was pretty stupid to prohibit a vice that they loved dearly.
That and prohibition fostered organized crime as we know it. If you make a bunch of people criminals overnight they're going to start acting like it. Essentially all the harm caused by alcohol was less than the harm caused by bootleggers. Repealing prohibition stopped dumping money into the hands of organized crime.
The fact that the government now gets a cut is just a happy side effect (for the government.)
If as many people were as pissed off about suspension of habeas corpus, the war on terror, the war on drugs, or any other government program, I'd bet that they'd end pretty quickly. The repeal of prohibition is actually a pretty good demonstration of democracy in action. Now, if we could only get people to care about current events as much as they care about booze we'd be in good shape.
Slashdot Mirror
If only that were so... I know that rightwingers on slashdot and rightwingers in general are two very different things, but it is my opinion, that in general anyways, the right is still firmly controlled by the neo-cons, who apparently couldn't care less about any economic theory. I am, by no means a libertarian, but at least in an argument with a libertarian I can attempt to appeal to logic - logic holds no sway over neo-cons.
First, Bravo, very succinctly insightful post.
Second, while I agree that there is very little evidence on either side, I'm tempted to say that people who possess some wealth, and therefore have something to loose, are much less likely to take up arms to try and change the system.
People like Bin Laden and other wealthy people who are proponents of social upheaval likely have their interest protected in a way that an average (middle upper class and below) person never could. Basically, Bin Laden will be fine regardless of what the government looks like, his foot soldiers have so little to lose that they aren't even concerned with what they have to gain. Which is a situation that strikes me as similar to when the Russians overthrew the czars - they didn't care who they were getting so long as the status quo changed - it turns out it was possible for things to get worse.
I guess what I'm saying is that even if the problem is philosophical, if we elevate their standard of living the violent symptoms are likely to go away.
I think it is important to separate the failings of Communism (Marxism in practice) with the failings of Marxism (the theory.)
My take is that the theory fails to account for human nature competitive nature, while in practice this fatal flaw is compounded with the inevitability of power to corrupt in a system without checks on the ruler or party.
I also think that private property arises from envy, not the other way around. The prohibition of private property has been shown not only to be futile, but even were it to succeed envy would cause people would to naturally separate people into haves and have-nots based on some other attribute.
Finally, I find it interesting that you consider facism a branch of socialism, I
consider it a branch of corporatism, which is essentially capitalism run amok, and as such is squarely at odds with socialism.
Ooh, so thats when you use lim(x->0).
The science part comes from social science. Where social is synonymous with not-a-real.
Dammit. I knew I shouldn't have put that oxygen condenser on my delivery van.
Probably on the grounds of the EULA that you agreed to to run their software and access their servers. Doesn't it basically say that you are entitled to throw money at them, and they can do whatever the hell they want?
But why would printing car parts ever be cheaper than just stamping metal? Sure maybe you could make arbitrarily shaped fiberglass-like parts (which is why it's called rapid prototyping, but if you are going to mass-produce it, how much would it cost to make a mold or die when compared to the total cost of all the raw materials?
I hope your being facetious, but at least one mod didn't thinks so, so please ignore the moderately harsh things I'm about to say if you really don't believe the things you've said.
First Star-Trek isn't real. I'm sorry, but neither is the easter bunny. If anything can be duplicated cheaply people will only do the stuff they enjoy doing, but no work will be done. Society will stagnate, innovation will come to a halt, and the social consequences will be immense. Perhaps no one would go without, but I'd hardly call it utopian.
If someone is able to invent a replicator (probably impossible due to the energy requirements for arbitrarily re-orienting atoms) no amount of draconian laws would be able to put that genie back in the bottle. Imagine the police come to arrest me within days of inventing the the very first replicator. There are a couple of ways that could play out. Either I've already replicated enough replicators and handed them out to my friends and exponential growth has made it unstoppable. Or, I've holed myself up in a fortress and set about replicating the types of wepons required to fend off a small army - or replicated myself an ICBM and entered my self into the MAD proposition. Even if they were able to successfully stop me from distributing my machine, someone would be interested enough to focus their research in a similar direction and it would only be a matter of time before they succeeded, and avoided learned from the mistakes that prevented me from getting my inverntion out.
Of course this all comes back to the original point. The question becomes is the fetus a human life? If so then its right to life cannot be trumped by the mothers wishes. To go back to the violinist argument - if only you can sustain the life of the violinist - for a limited amount of time, and you are responsible for his current condition, then yes you would be obligated to be inconvenienced.
Yeah except follow the links and and find out the third one is the only one that is likely to win.
Or at 10AM for that matter
Thanks those charts are what I've been looking for, it makes choosing a linux disto as easy as playing darts.
First, could you qualify what you mean by 100% human DNA? Specifically what markers define human, does someone with Down Syndrome have human DNA and does someone who has undergone gene therapy have 100% human DNA?
Second a life isn't the same as alive. People, dogs, bacteria, tumors, and cell cultures are all alive, which ones contain a life?
Tell me in scientific terms how I would distinguish between uterine cancer and a fetus. Pointing to structures is cheating - if a bone/organ makes me human am I less human if I have it removed? Oh, and there was this recent study that showed a transmissible carcinoma that maintains the DNA of the original carrier. Yes it is with dogs, but in principle the same could happen to humans. The only thing I can think of that would distinguish them is that we know that the fetus should come to term, but that is the argument of potentials. Just because it is a potential human life, does not make it a human life today. (Please don't flame me for comparing fetuses to cancer - just making an illustration.)
I don't have a particular issue with people taking either side, but I'm on a campaign for logical consistency and simplicity in arguments. Science can't say what is a life because ultimately it is a philosophical question. If you are making an argument with regards to abortion the simple question is, is it a life?
Human life is not the same as human and alive - which is why science isn't well equipped to answer the question.
Discrete human life might be a bit more accurate.
I'd say that is a subset of (2) unintentional and morally highly undesirable. The distinction lies in the intentions. Actively killing someone, and someone dying due to failure to act are two different things. Your argument is a matter for another debate, well framed by Peter Singer in Famine, Affluence, and Morality, and as I said, I'm not going to argue about prioritization of funding, and what level of intervention is morally required.
I don't think my statement, "If it is a human life then you can't end it," is full of holes at all. Although I'd like to rephrase to: "If it is a human life then you can't deliberately end it," with exceptions for self-defense (health of the mother). The argument that abortion is morally acceptable in cases of rape is more difficult to make if the fetus is a human life. It essentially boils down to unsolicited dependence. I'd challenge you to give it some "trivial consideration," and come up with some examples where you can deliberately end another's life.
The reason people on both sides expand abortion arguments beyond the issue of whether the fetus is alive is because they know that that real issue is a stale mate, and they need something that appears more convincing.
Yes, we end human lives all the time. How often do we deliberately end a human life in a way that is morally justifiable. (note: personally I don't consider the death penalty to be morally justifiable, but that is a debate for another day.)
That thousands of children die every day is not something that I consider acceptable. Also note that the death of a child falls into three classes (1)intentional and morally reprehensible, or (2) unintentional and morally highly undesirable, or (3)wholly accidental and unavoidable.
Anti-abortionists think that abortion is a more important issue than cancer because, as they see it, abortion falls into class 1, whereas cancer and other diseases fall into class 2. I'm not going to argue about prioritization of funding, and what level of intervention is morally required. Also note, that I'm not taking a stand on abortion, simply pointing out underlying issue.
If or when a fetus, embryo, or zygote is a distinct human life it is morally reprehensible to take direct action leading to its death. If it isn't a distinct human life then abortion is morally acceptable.
Hybrid technology is no where near mature enough for widespread use. The problem, quite simply, is batteries. They're too expensive and don't have enough capacity - same story with solar cells.
Personally, I think real conservationists should be buying small turbo-diesels. That really is a mature technology for you - did you know that Rudolf Diesel demoed a compression ignition engine ran on peanut oil at the Paris World's Fair in 1902? Great gas mileage, and it is possible to have a transparent transition to bio-fuels.
If you love cities, living an hour or two from one won't cut it. Trust me I'm in that situation now. When I want to do something in a city I want to do it now - not after I drive for an hour and pay for parking. I really want to be able to walk to a coffee shop, a bar, and a grocery store - that is part of the main draw of urban living for me. As you move further from the city public transportation dries up rapidly. Sure, its nice to think that you'd drive to the city every couple of weeks, but after a couple of months I don't want to go to the same museum, and the drive into the city becomes a drag.
I'm convinced that the next housing boom will be in urban condos. Many cities across the country are revitalizing their urban areas, and I think many people in their twenties don't hold the aversion to cities that those in their thirties and forties do (I know I'd rather live in a high-rise condo than in suburban sprawl.)
When the cost of gas and heating really starts to get painful it will catalyze this shift. The very relevant question then becomes what do we do with the poor that live in places prime for urban renewal. I think that we really should be addressing this issue today in our cities, but as is the way with politics, since it will be pushed aside until it is an immediate concern.
Someone needs to mod the parent up, and quickly.
The ONLY issue relevant to abortion is whether the fetus is a human life, or when it becomes one. If it is a human life then you can't end it (with the exceptions of health of the mother and possibly rape). If it's not then you can do whatever you want.
Parent is also quite correct in saying science isn't well equipped to answer the question.
Eh, who cares anyway?
Sincerely,
Mr. AB+
I disagree. Morality might be a hot button that some politicians push when campaigning against gambling, but I don't think that anyone really takes it seriously. It is a religious issue even less so. I don't know about all sects, but I know of many churches that make a fair amount of money with Bingo, 50-50s, and carnivals (which always have some gambling.)
The real reason, which you touched on, is state lottos, but also church bingo, horse/dog races and local slots. The only explanation then is that online gambling is illegal as a protectionist measure.
WTO - World Trade Organization
The WTO cares because one of Antigua's chief exports is gambling. Since we're a member of the WTO we've agreed to not apply protectionist measures to other WTO countries. Banning over-seas gambling is a de facto protectionist measure.
The WTO is not particularly concerned with human rights violations, only the free flow of goods and services between its member countries.
I don't know about all that. My take on prohibition era history is that alcohol was made legal because practically everybody drank before during and after prohibition, and so, practically everyone realized that it was pretty stupid to prohibit a vice that they loved dearly.
That and prohibition fostered organized crime as we know it. If you make a bunch of people criminals overnight they're going to start acting like it. Essentially all the harm caused by alcohol was less than the harm caused by bootleggers. Repealing prohibition stopped dumping money into the hands of organized crime.
The fact that the government now gets a cut is just a happy side effect (for the government.)
If as many people were as pissed off about suspension of habeas corpus, the war on terror, the war on drugs, or any other government program, I'd bet that they'd end pretty quickly. The repeal of prohibition is actually a pretty good demonstration of democracy in action. Now, if we could only get people to care about current events as much as they care about booze we'd be in good shape.