The point is there's no point in arguing with you.
How would you know? You haven't tried.
In fact you've ignored my entire post except for one phrase where I assumed you were a left-wing democrat. I've explained what lead me to that conclusion, but you don't seem interested in actually arguing or discussing or even communicating.
What it really comes down to is that I'm sick and tired of of people who get their panties in a twist because the world doesn't realize what a unique and individual political snowflake they really are.
If I guessed your politics wrong, I did so based on what you wrote. So explain to me why I'm wrong. Or just tell I'm wrong, I'll be more than happy to believe you. It really doesn't affect the rest of my post in the least.
That's what you'd have found out if you tried arguing, instead of just assuming that it wouldn't work.
You can stop right there, bubba. You know nothing about my political views.
Look dude, I'm sorry if you feel hard-done by. But
A - the most important thing I need to know about your political views is that you think "Democrat" and "liberal" are the same thing. Very few people other than left-wing (liberal) democrats believe that. With the possible exception of right-wing republicans.
B - What's the point of just saying "you don't know me" and going home? Even if they don't apply to you, my comments do reflect on the left-wing of the democratic party.
Hell, their two Senate candidates lost badly in 2006 to liberals. As much as the media loves 'em and toots their horn, they're not that important.
Please tell me you don't have a voter card. There were no Senate candidates from the Blue Dog coalition. Not in 2006. Not ever. That's because "Blue Dog Democrats are conservative to moderate Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives" (Wikipedia).
More from Wikipedia:
Many members hail from conservative-leaning districts, where liberal Democrats and liberal values in general are a decided minority. Therefore, the Democratic Party (United States) has become more supportive of Blue Dog candidates in recent times. This was especially true in the 2006 election, where Blue Dog candidates such as Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth were elected in conservative-leaning districts, upending years of Republican Party (United States) dominance in these districts. (wikipedia)
Blue Dog candidates elected in 2006 include:
Baron Hill (Indiana) Heath Shuler (North Carolina) Tim Mahoney (Florida) Brad Ellsworth (Indiana) Kirsten Gillibrand (New York) Joe Donnelly (Indiana) Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania) Mike Arcuri (New York) Charlie Wilson (Ohio)
There are 42 members of the coalition in all.
Getting back to your original point, I have no idea what you mean by saying their two Senate candidates lost badly in 2006 to liberals. Are you talking about defeat in the primaries, Republican liberals, or what? 'Cause if you actually look at the Senate races, you see extremely conservative Republicans like Rick Santorum being defeated by *gasp* extremely conservative Democrats like Bob Casey.
Seriously, man, you are extremely confused, extremeley misinformed, or both.
Funny thing, that. In the 2006 elections not a single Republican congressman won against a Democrat.
Has nothing to do with this:
Yet we're led to believe that there's "no market" for radio with a liberal viewpoint.
Have you never heard of the Blue Dog Democrats? The Democrats gained a lot of traction in this election: a - by moving way to the right in a lot of districts b - by profiting from the usual 6-year itch.
Give me a break, if this election had anything to do with liberalism then Lieberman would not have trounced his democratic (and liberal) opponent. That was the real message of the election. Blue dogs win. Left-wingers try to take over by bouncing moderates out at the primary level, then get utterly slaughtered at the general polls. Yet some how, left-wingers think that they speak for the democratic party. Like most left-wing democrats you're cheerfully oblivious to the facts. The left-wing of the democratic party only helps win elections when it goes away. I wish you nuts would stop running your raving left-wing lunatics in serious elections, it makes it easy for the GOP to get Bush elected. Twice. As far as I'm considered, that's your fault for not giving serious opposition. The dems did way better than in 2006 by not by running liberals. If the dems take '06 as a license to move farther left you might as well not show up in '08.
Also: You're not "led to believe" anything. No one listens to Air America. And it's no wonder why - I tried several times and it was awful. There's no talent there. And what are the #1, #2 and #3 radio shows in America? Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. Conservatives one and all (although Beck is more libertarian than republican). If you call stating the obvious "being led to believe" something, then yes, the country is being led to believe no one really likes far-left liberals. (Not that they love right-wingers either.)
Wake up. Extremists are extreme because most people think they are nuts. That's what it means, by definition to be at the edge of either wing of politics.
That's hitting the nail on the head. Who determines what constitutes a controversy and what doesn't? A law like this concentrates a fantastic amount of power in the hands of government to dub one issue "controversial" (and therefore say that any kook needs his fair share of air time) and another issue "non-controversial" (and therefore no protection granted to a minority opinion, no matter how reasonable).
I've had enough of "fair and balanced" coverage, thank you.
Seriously. Can you imagine what the market penetration for MP3 players (compared to other portable devices) would have looked like before the first iPod came out? The iPhone intends to revolutionize the phone market the way the iPod revolutionized the portable music market: not by taking existing market share but by creating new market share.
Of course $500 is a lot for a phone, but if the iPhone is seen by the market as just a phone than it has failed already no matter what the price is.
It may be more integrated and out of the box, but that's kind of like saying an iPod shuffle is more integrated and out of the box than an xbox360. They're not even competing products! The base station is just a glorified router. Nothing wrong with this at all, but that's the extent of what it does. You could, I suppose, attach a hard drive to it externally. But mostly what it does is act as a router/network access point/printer share.
The WHS is an entirely different beast. It's supposed to act as a rather powerful and sophisticated back-up solution that includes better-than-RAID redundancy and has software to support entire-image restore. Would you expect a base station to help you restore your Mac from an image? I didn't think so.
So it may be easier for laymen: but it's not even remotely doing the same thing. WHS isn't superior, they're just totally different products. Please RTFA on this one.
I find it odd that I'm getting annoyed by so much Mac fanboyishness the week after I purchase my first Mac (MacBook Pro 15" - it's pretty).
Depends on the purpose of the ad campaign. If it's to get me to know the product, great. If it's to get me to buy the product, not so much. I have sworn a dark and binding magical oath (taken the unbreakable vow, if you will) that I will never, under any circumstances purchase their product.
As advertising becomes more and more pervasive in our daily lives (e.g. ad-supported software and web sites) I think people will start to realize that when they buy products like Head-On they directly contribute to getting more abominable ad campaigns. Hopefully purchasers will start to conscious exercise the power of the wallet to punish companies for polluting our brains with their obnoxious tripe.
If not, at least I can die a bitter but idealist old fart who never purchased from companies that annoyed him if he could possibly help it.
You really should read the posts before you submit. You're saying the same thing other Mac fanboys have said already. And you're wrong for the same reason.
With Windows I can spend $1,250 (literally) and have great home server (320GB on RAID1 with a 74GB 10K rpm main drive, core duo, decent vid card, etc.) This is a kind of do-everything box. I can back up my laptop and my wife's laptop etc., serve content back, but it also serves as a decent gaming machine, production machine, etc.
What are my options with Mac? Buy a mac mini? Then a couple of USB drives? That would be about the same cost, but now we're talking software RAID, slower specs, slower hard drive, and I'm running out of USB connections. It may be "sufficient" but it is obviously an inferior solution for the same price. The options get worse from there. I could get an iMac to get some more power to function as a desktop, but now I'm paying considerably more. I'm not even going to mention the PowerMacs. Even the old G5s start out way above 1250 at Apple.com (and I'm not going to be buying this on eBay!) and that's before I get to add extra hard drives!
I can go out and assemble a cheap Windows-based file/print server for my home. Why can't I do that with Apple?
You can. Out of the box OS X supports NFS, AFP, FTP, HTTP, CUPS and Samba. GUI configuration tools for all of them.
So far everything I do in Apples is photos (jpeg) and music (vanilla mp3s). I suppose I could stick those in WMP, but iTunes is so much nicer.
I guess it's not proprietary formats so much as just jurry-rigged applications. For example: I bought an HP scanner. All I want is a simple scanning program. Something in which I click "scan", have an option to preview the glass, set the scan options, and then scan either to a file or to another program. THAT IS ALL. But what do I get? A monstrous do-everything-with-me hydra that attempts to eat every jpeg on my computer.
I just have a feeling that the HP SmartMedia server is going to be the same kind of "do it our way or die" philosophy.
You're the perfect example of a fanboy. The mysterious reason my complaint makes sense is this: I can get a better solution for less money running Windows/PC hardware. I think the MacBook Pro is the best laptop on the market. So I bought one, even though it's expensive (thank you for the refurb price Apple!)
But if I want a decent tower with internal RAID that also functions a relatively fast desktop then I've got two options: $1,000 - $1,250 for a windows system and I'm all set, $2,500+ for a used/refurb G5 PowerMac (ha!) or $1,500 or so for an inferior solution involving either a MacMini or an iMac and some USB drives with software RAID or 3rd party enclosure.
And you still don't see what I'm complaining about? Apple is doing great at bringing us stand-along products like the MacBook Pro, MacBook, iPod, and we assume the iPhone. But instead of giving us a high-value solution for central storage they are bringing is the iTV. Thanks, but I'd rather not store my entire media library on a single disk in an iMac, nor would I like to spend way more money than I should have to in order to adress this deficiency.
-stormin
Re:With the introduction of AppleTV...
on
The Home Server Cometh
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
To all you guys that responded to me: no.
Look, for $1,000 I can get a home file server that also functions as a very decent PC. I'm talking everything: nice case, power supply, motherboard, RAM, core duo, etc. Including 3 hard drives, two 320GB and a 10K 74GB drive. That's $1,000 and I'm done. I know I can do this because I'm doing it right now.
Can I do that with Mac? It's possible. I could get a MacMini and eat up all the peripherals with USB drives and software RAID. So that's close to the same cost (the PC is cheaper) if I start with a refurbed mac mini. So those are my options: an upgradeable tower with hardware based RAID running drives over SATA, or a refurbed never-to-be-upgraded MacMini, software RAID, and a bunch of peripherals.
Is software-based RAID could enough for home use? Probably. Are a couple of external USB drives really that much worse than internal drives? Well - it's certainly not as good. The Mac solution is simply more expensive, less future proof, less fleixble and less elagant. In a word: it's not as good.
In general, Mac is a better system, but for setting up a home server that can also function as a decent desktop (and why not do both since the incremental cost increase is so low?) PC is clearly better. That's all I'm saying.
Net income means jack shit. I don't care if you bring in 2 billion a year if your costs are 4 billion. If my costs are 50,000, and I bring in 75,000, guess what: I have a higher profit margin, which means I have MADE more money than you.
Definitions of net income on the Web:
* Gross income less expenses, including taxes and insurance, but before depreciation, additions to reserves or distribution of earnings.
www.ncbuy.com/credit/glossary.html
* Income (profit) shown after all operating and non-operating income and expense, reserves, income taxes, minority interest and extraordinary items but before preferred and ordinary dividends.
www.misys.com/investors/shareservices/glossary/ind ex.asp
* Sum remaining after all expenses have been met or deducted: net profit or net loss, or simply "profit."
www.mastercardbusiness.com/mcbizdocs/smallbiz/fing uide/glossary.html
Get the picture? Profit is net income. You meant "gross income means jack shit".
This troll brought to you by the letter A and the number 4.
-stormin
Re:With the introduction of AppleTV...
on
The Home Server Cometh
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
WTF right back at you. Did you read my post? It would help with comprehension. I'll repeat for you, this time with emphasis:
The only reason I'm not Mac-only in the house is Mac's poor support for things like, I don't know, RAID. And please don't mention their giant steel monstrosity or the an XRAID server or whatever. I can go out and assemble a cheap Windows-based file/print server for my home. Why can't I do that with Apple?
What part of not mentioning their servers did you understand? Either the mac pro or the XSERVE are incredibly expensive. I can get RAID support from a windows box cheap. Or is there a mysterious RAID array tucked inside that mac mini or yours. Room for 3 drives in an iMac perhaps?
It's amazing how they give informative mods to illiterates now. Must be some kind of equal opportunity initiative.
-stormin
Re:With the introduction of AppleTV...
on
The Home Server Cometh
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The only reason I'm not Mac-only in the house is Mac's poor support for things like, I don't know, RAID. And please don't mention their giant steel monstrosity or the an XRAID server or whatever. I can go out and assemble a cheap Windows-based file/print server for my home. Why can't I do that with Apple?
Their iDisk backup is ludicrous: 1GB of storage. I have 38GB just of MP3s. Of course even if they offered 100GB of storage space (or more) that's a lot of data to push out through a cable modem/dsl, etc. Even with incremental back ups.
I'd be much more impressed if Apple were to come out with a simple Home Server than with this iTV. I need a Mac-Mini style device (headless, small, lower-end hardware, althogh obviously with more space for extra drives) that look beautiful and serves as the center for my home network.
MS, to their credit, is responding with exactly such a device. The HP MediaSmart (http://h71036.www7.hp.com/hho/cache/447351-0-0-22 5-121.html) running new Windows Server Home. Because I don't like to be locked into propeitary formats I'm going to end up going with my original plan (build your own) but it shows that at least MS is sensitive to the need.
In the rush to get the PC to your living room we have seen a proliferation of computer devices (Ipods, consoles, laptops, desktops, printers, etc.) with no way to tie those things together. Before we add yet another extension of the home network, we need a decent commodity server.
Therefore it can be asseted as a secret. If one guesses enough one is apt to guess right. Isn't that what brute-force password attacks are about?
A password hacked through brute force is still a password hacked, isn't it? It's not like you can say "sure, they did access all our data and steal our designs, but they did it with a brute force hack so really it's all still secret." The difference isn't that everyone was just guessing (e.g. a brute force attack) it's that there was no way to verify the guess before the announcement. That makes it not like a brute-force attack.
They seem to think it is pretty important to call the embryo a child. Why do you think this is? Could it perhaps be that "child" is a more emotional word, one which people relate to in their lives more than embryo?
As in the larger abortion debate, both sides have their preferential terminology. If you can dictate the terminology than you can dictate the terrain to your advantage. Thus you have the "pro-choice" side talking about the "products of conception" while the "pro-life" side talks about the "child".
In this case there is a technical term that is most appropriate: embryo. Insisting on application of a technical term in a moral argument is not necessarily correct, however. If we were discussing the holocaust and I continuously referred to the Jews as "homo sapiens" you would be quite right to insist on calling them "people". Despite the fact that "homo sapiens" (or any other technical term) is quite unambigiously technically correct, it's technical nature may mask the moral question that should take precedent.
The only way to decide whether the technical term or some more emotive term is more correct is to solve the argument. Thus there's no way to apply an unbiased terminology to this argument before it is solved. Anyone that claims to be doing so is engaging in hypocrisy for the simple reason that there is no alternative (and thus they do are using biased terminology whether they mean to or not).
But you're contradicting yourself here. You say we should argue definitions - but then you applaud the above argument, which appeals to the definition of a word on emotional and propaganda grounds. I'm finding your praise of it to be rather cryptic. I don't see what's so interesting or compelling about blatant emotional appeals.
I can only try to explain better what I have already said. An argument from definition is essentially an appeal to authority. You say "but the OED says X means Y and therefor..." The problem is the same as the problem with all appeals to authority. Keep in mind that an argument from definition rests on some pre-existing definition. It never argues what a definition should be, it relies on claiming what a definition already means.
Contrast this with the actual argument. As opposed to relying on some authority to provide a definition for child, the poster actually created an argument for what our definition should be. This makes it emphatically not a definition from argument, but an argument for definition. I don't think it was a very persuasive argument (for reasons already enumerated) but it was refreshingly different from an argument from definition.
An argument from definition is structurally flawed. It will never work. An argument for definition is not structurally flawed. It could work. That's why I liked the argument. Even though it didn't actually succeed, it was on the right track.
Further, why is this not plain? If someone calls an embryo (not X) a child (X), they are clearly turning "that which supports X" into "X" - how can they not be, even if they don't mean it that way?
Firstly, your "X vs not X" dichotomy of embryo vs. child is entirely unwarranted. There's no rule in the English language that a concept can have only one corresponding word. The opposite is true. An embryo could reasonably be both embryo and child - especially because child is such a generic word. An infant is also a child, a newborn is also a child. So let's dispose of this assumption immediately.
As to your misunderstanding of the argument it's a simple question of determining the object of a pronoun. This is the argument as originally stated:
"I assert an embryo is a child because it supports life and the bests interests of the child."
You think "it" refers to "an embryo". I find this rather silly. I think "it" refers to "I assert an embryo is a child". In other words, it is the assertion of the status of embryo as child that supports life and is in the best inte
There are two ways to understand the idea of a non-religious system of ethics. My own idea is simple. You don't need a person who has never been exposed to religion in their life, just a person willing to set aside religious belief and consider ethics from an atheist standpoint. We have had several great philosophers do precisely this, and therefore atheist ethics are a part of the Western tradition.
Your own understanding seems to require some kind of purified, non-religious environment. Based on that understanding you are right. There are no westerners who have not been influenced by religion and so there is no ethical framework entirely free from all religious entanglement. But this isn't a very interesting assertion, in my opinion, because the reverse is also true. There is no westerner who has not been influence by atheist thought, and thus it is impossible to consider ethics free from all atheist entanglements. Clearly the degree of entanglement from religion tends to be more pervasive, but you can't remove atheism from the modern western tradition any more possibly than you can remove christianity or judeaism.
Even the most ardent proponent of an atheist philosophy would have to admit that since the western culture is based on a Judeao-Christian background, it and it's views are influenced by those teachings (right or wrong).
1 - The ethics of judeo-christian traditions didn't spring from the void. They came from somewhere. You can't trace ethics back to there and then say "here is the foundation". Whether we can historically trace the development back futher, there were certainly ethics before there were Jews. As a result, it's fallacious to claim that western ethics from exclusively from those traditions. Atheism is well-developed in the West, and offers a possibility to access ethics - many of which are similar to judeo-christian traditions - without recourse to religion. All I'm saying is that there are non-religious ethical traditions in the West. They are the minority, but they exist. You can be a westerner, ethical, and completely secular.
however, that is not what the original poster stated, which was that they had no relationship. And that, for better or worse, is simply not true.
There's an excluded middle. I'm not saying they have no relationship, but you seemed to be saying they always have a relationship> I'm merely saying that even though they are generally related, they do not have to be. I'm just making some middle ground between you and GP.
Organizational structure would be a valid alternative to my suggested critieria: completeness. A tissue sample is human but it is not a human. It is merely part of one. An embryo is clearly not part of the mother in that sense. It is an entire entity.
As far as organizational structure is concerned, however, I would argue that the embryo has all required organization from the moment of conception. This is because I don't think the actual implementation of the characteristic is important - the intrinsic nature of it is. I'm not trying to prove I'm right and you (or anyone else) is wrong: just explaining my own viewpoint. We all agree that, for example, consciusness is a part of being human. However I think we would also agree that being unconscious does not make you not-human. So consciousness matters, but not in terms of it's manifestation at a certain point in time. The same goes for things like fingers. Humans have 10 fingers. It's part of the Platonic form of "human" (metaphorically, I don't really believe forms exist). And yet if someone loses a finger it doesn't make them non-human, or even any less human at all. They are simply a human missing a finger. We know that the intrinsic nature of that human is to have 10 fingers. They just, through an accident of time and coincidence, only have 9 at this point in time.
I see embryos in the same way. An embryo - in terms of intrinsic quality - has 10 toes and self-conciousness already. Of course it is not actually conscious until (as far as we can tell) at least a year or two after birth. And it obviously doesn't have any toes or fingers at conception - it is just one cell.
Nevertheless it is a new instance of the object "homo sapien". And thus, in my opinion, it deserves all the rights of a human being regardless of the fact that it has not yet expressed most of those characteristics. We don't treat sleeping people as less human, we don't amputees as less human, we don't treat pre-adolescents as less human and we don't treat babies as less human. Despite the obvious lack they all demonstrate of some human characteristic, we don't deduct from their humanity a single iota as a result. Why should we then expect to suddenly abandon this logic and declare that, based on characteristic x or y an embryo is not human - not a person?
Our own inttuition holds the key: humanity is about intrinsic characteristics (which is not the same as potential), and not about the exprssion at any given time of those characteristics. The organizational structure of a human being, eyes, toes, heart, liver, blood: all of the info necessary for that organization are present at the moment of conception. (The info is present as well in the sperm and egg, but info is not the only requirement for humanity, just one of them).
I'm being factual. The word "child" has a specific meaning, and an embryo is not a child. It's an embryo. It doesn't matter if it might later become a child.
I don't know why people take arguments from definition seriously. A word is just a sound that we've agreed has a certain fuzzy, non-specific meaning. Unless we're talking a specific scientific definition, than the fact is that there is no "dictionary in the sky" you can resort to that has it written down "child, definition:... not an embryo". In order for this argument about definitions to have to have traction you have to do something more than just refer to a definition. Even if you refer to the OED all you've done is say "most people think it means x". Usually we're more interested in knowing what people should think something means, not what they already think it means.
Interestingly enough, this is exactly the strategy that you found "didn't make any sense".
Here's the argument:
I assert an embryo is a child because it supports life and the bests interests of the child.
The argument is plainly not "that which supports x is x" (which is what you took it to be). The argument is simply "I think we should call an embryo a child because this course of action supports life and the bests interests of the child. Other than the glaring flaw of question-begging (calling something a child because it supports the best interests of the child means you've assumed it's a child before you defined it as a child. Oops.) it's an interesting and compelling argument for why we should define something a certain way. It's a pragmatic, not ontological, argument.
And really, this is the only kind of argument that makes sense. There's simply no way to find out what a word really means. It means what we say it means. Appealing to the definition of a word (again, unless the argument is about usage) is non-sensical. It makes much more sense to argue for why the definition should be a certain way because, among other reasons, that demonstrates that you've grasped the fact that definitions are subjective and not objective.
While it is true that one could theoretically develop an ethical framework without religion, it is simply naive to assume that any ethics system in place in modern society is devoid of a religious influence and therefore ethics and religion are definitely linked together.
This is an odd assertion. In the first place, you don't have to look hard to find a system of truly atheist ethics. Consider, for example, any of the atheist existentialists. Names like Camus and deBeauvoir (not to mention Sartre) are not exactly unknown to people who study ethics.
Next keep in mind that the average Joe on the street has more or less 0 knowledge of the theological basis to religious ethics. The elements of ethics transferred from religious prophets, scholars, and even authoritative texts (scripture) are only the most simplistic shadows of their original statements.
This same process has been operating for quite some time from atheist philosophy to the mainstream. Your average godless materialist has probably not read "Ethics of Ambiguity", but certainly employs some kind of watered-down remnant of atheist ethics. So while I'd agree that it's hard to talk about ethics without even mentioning religion, there are already competing non-religious ethical systems that have been around for quite some time (decades, generations).
Finally, and most importantly, you have to realize that people who take ethics seriously and are religious are still going to (for the most part) discuss ethics in a religion-neutral view. The evangelicals get all the press because they are so loud and out-there. Their idea of an ethical discussion is convince you to accept Jesus as your personal savior first, and then have you believe everything their pastor tells you that Jesus said second. But a lot of religious people debate their ethical and philosophical viewpoints without trying to convert you first (or at all).
In short, not only can any serious discussion of ethics take place without requiring people to assert a particular dogma (atheist or some variant of theism), that's how most serious discussions of ethics actually work.
You can usually tell when someone has been thoroughly spanked in an argument when they resort to the CAPS LACK OF ANGRY ANGRY DOOM(tm). The fact of the matter is that precise definitions are not always necessary. Here's a simple analogy. If I'm standing Richmond, VA and you're standing in Sacramento, CA I can say with complete confidence that I know we're in different cities, even if I don't actually have any idea what the precise city limits of either city are.
When you ask for a definition you're asking someone to put exact borders around an idea and say "everything on this side is x, everything on the other side is not x". If you're talking about a case right on the edge, this degree of precision may be a necessary. For example: is a virus alive? Tough question. But no one seriously asks "is bacteria alive" unless they are being philosophical or unnecessarily obtuse.
As far as your rejection of the analogy, I have to wonder if you know what an analogy is. When something can be agreed by analog, it means that two things are similar, but not the same. So, setting aside your questionable characterization of an embryo as "a group of embryonic cells", your point that an embryo is not a bacteria is rather odd. Of course it's not. If it was the same, it wouldn't be an analog, would it?
It's pretty clear that what is going on is that you are playing the part of a good reactionary. You have, for whatever reasons, a strong emotional attachment to the abortion issue. You see the argument that an embryo is a living human being to threaten your position and so you react. Your logic in the reaction has been pretty poor (as indicated by your unapologetic resort to ad hominem and the CAPS LOCK OF ANGRY ANGRY DOOM(tm)).
1. An embryo is alive. Your response: define life. As I've already shown, this is an unnecessary burden. Your other response: an embryo is not a bacterium. True, but hardly relevant.
2. An embryo is a human being. No response so far. And there can hardly be one. I'm waiting (heart racing, I assure you) for the inevitable my liver/sperm/hair is human response. And this is true, but your hair is not a complete human entity, it's a part of one. Same for liver, blood cells, etc.
In any case, the solution to your apparent philosophical crisis is simply to realize that there is, or can be, a distinction between a human being and a person. That an embryo is technically a human being at the point of conception is pretty much beyond question. It's a living and unique instance of the species homo sapiens. The question is whether human rights should be expanded to all human beings (which is my position) or just to "persons" (yet to be defined). If you read the other Slashdot comments, you can see that there are plenty of people who are happy to have more constrictive definitions of "person" that exclude (for example) the mentally handicapped.
1. I realize that sometimes people can have more meaningful relationships online, but this is an aberation. It's when something is wrong. Not necessarily wrong with the person. In your case, for example, it had to do with environment. Because of a crappy environment, you weren't able to have normal, healthy real-life relationships and thus your digital relationships became more important.
I'm not trying to attack people who, for whatever reason, are more socially active online than in real life. I think it's a crappy situation, but not necessarily their fault. I'm also not trying to attack digital relationships. They can be meaningful, fulfilling, and healthy. But they are simple not as meaningful in general.
2. Let's call a problem a problem. Here's my example. The deaf community is very tight-knit, and (to be frank) a little crazy. I probably would be too if I grew up without hearing in a world of people who could hear. The point is that to a lot of people in the deaf community deafness is no longer a negative, but a cultural positive. It got to the point where a surgeon who proposed a method for embryonic cochlear implants was called, and I'm not making this up, Hitler. The idea was that by "curing" deafness, he would be wiping out a culture. This impetus to convert a genuine negative into a cultural positive is, in my opinion, dangerous. The deaf community is close knit and unique, true. But that doesn't somehow change the nature of not being able to hear from a net deficiency into a net positive.
I feel like geeks have the same drive - and for the same reasons - when it comes to their digital relationships. To the extent that we can't (for whatever reason) engage in healthy social relations we tend to convert that deficiency into a kind of badge of honor.
I'm all in favor of embracing geek culture. Especially the most positive aspects: respect for innovation, free-mindedness, seeing academic and intellectual success as a positive. But we should not to get carried away and enshrine some elements of the culture that are deficiencies. Inability to have real-life social interactions is just such a deficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is there's no point in arguing with you.
How would you know? You haven't tried.
In fact you've ignored my entire post except for one phrase where I assumed you were a left-wing democrat. I've explained what lead me to that conclusion, but you don't seem interested in actually arguing or discussing or even communicating.
What it really comes down to is that I'm sick and tired of of people who get their panties in a twist because the world doesn't realize what a unique and individual political snowflake they really are.
If I guessed your politics wrong, I did so based on what you wrote. So explain to me why I'm wrong. Or just tell I'm wrong, I'll be more than happy to believe you. It really doesn't affect the rest of my post in the least.
That's what you'd have found out if you tried arguing, instead of just assuming that it wouldn't work.
-stormin
You can stop right there, bubba. You know nothing about my political views.
Look dude, I'm sorry if you feel hard-done by. But
A - the most important thing I need to know about your political views is that you think "Democrat" and "liberal" are the same thing. Very few people other than left-wing (liberal) democrats believe that. With the possible exception of right-wing republicans.
B - What's the point of just saying "you don't know me" and going home? Even if they don't apply to you, my comments do reflect on the left-wing of the democratic party.
-stormin
Hell, their two Senate candidates lost badly in 2006 to liberals. As much as the media loves 'em and toots their horn, they're not that important.
Please tell me you don't have a voter card. There were no Senate candidates from the Blue Dog coalition. Not in 2006. Not ever. That's because "Blue Dog Democrats are conservative to moderate Democratic Party members of the United States House of Representatives" (Wikipedia).
More from Wikipedia:
Many members hail from conservative-leaning districts, where liberal Democrats and liberal values in general are a decided minority. Therefore, the Democratic Party (United States) has become more supportive of Blue Dog candidates in recent times. This was especially true in the 2006 election, where Blue Dog candidates such as Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth were elected in conservative-leaning districts, upending years of Republican Party (United States) dominance in these districts. (wikipedia)
Blue Dog candidates elected in 2006 include:
Baron Hill (Indiana)
Heath Shuler (North Carolina)
Tim Mahoney (Florida)
Brad Ellsworth (Indiana)
Kirsten Gillibrand (New York)
Joe Donnelly (Indiana)
Patrick Murphy (Pennsylvania)
Mike Arcuri (New York)
Charlie Wilson (Ohio)
There are 42 members of the coalition in all.
Getting back to your original point, I have no idea what you mean by saying their two Senate candidates lost badly in 2006 to liberals. Are you talking about defeat in the primaries, Republican liberals, or what? 'Cause if you actually look at the Senate races, you see extremely conservative Republicans like Rick Santorum being defeated by *gasp* extremely conservative Democrats like Bob Casey.
Seriously, man, you are extremely confused, extremeley misinformed, or both.
-stormin
This:
Funny thing, that. In the 2006 elections not a single Republican congressman won against a Democrat.
Has nothing to do with this:
Yet we're led to believe that there's "no market" for radio with a liberal viewpoint.
Have you never heard of the Blue Dog Democrats? The Democrats gained a lot of traction in this election:
a - by moving way to the right in a lot of districts
b - by profiting from the usual 6-year itch.
Give me a break, if this election had anything to do with liberalism then Lieberman would not have trounced his democratic (and liberal) opponent. That was the real message of the election. Blue dogs win. Left-wingers try to take over by bouncing moderates out at the primary level, then get utterly slaughtered at the general polls. Yet some how, left-wingers think that they speak for the democratic party. Like most left-wing democrats you're cheerfully oblivious to the facts. The left-wing of the democratic party only helps win elections when it goes away. I wish you nuts would stop running your raving left-wing lunatics in serious elections, it makes it easy for the GOP to get Bush elected. Twice. As far as I'm considered, that's your fault for not giving serious opposition. The dems did way better than in 2006 by not by running liberals. If the dems take '06 as a license to move farther left you might as well not show up in '08.
Also: You're not "led to believe" anything. No one listens to Air America. And it's no wonder why - I tried several times and it was awful. There's no talent there. And what are the #1, #2 and #3 radio shows in America? Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. Conservatives one and all (although Beck is more libertarian than republican). If you call stating the obvious "being led to believe" something, then yes, the country is being led to believe no one really likes far-left liberals. (Not that they love right-wingers either.)
Wake up. Extremists are extreme because most people think they are nuts. That's what it means, by definition to be at the edge of either wing of politics.
-stormin
That's hitting the nail on the head. Who determines what constitutes a controversy and what doesn't? A law like this concentrates a fantastic amount of power in the hands of government to dub one issue "controversial" (and therefore say that any kook needs his fair share of air time) and another issue "non-controversial" (and therefore no protection granted to a minority opinion, no matter how reasonable).
I've had enough of "fair and balanced" coverage, thank you.
-stormin
Seriously. Can you imagine what the market penetration for MP3 players (compared to other portable devices) would have looked like before the first iPod came out? The iPhone intends to revolutionize the phone market the way the iPod revolutionized the portable music market: not by taking existing market share but by creating new market share.
Of course $500 is a lot for a phone, but if the iPhone is seen by the market as just a phone than it has failed already no matter what the price is.
The real question is: can it play Halo?
-stormin
It may be more integrated and out of the box, but that's kind of like saying an iPod shuffle is more integrated and out of the box than an xbox360. They're not even competing products! The base station is just a glorified router. Nothing wrong with this at all, but that's the extent of what it does. You could, I suppose, attach a hard drive to it externally. But mostly what it does is act as a router/network access point/printer share.
The WHS is an entirely different beast. It's supposed to act as a rather powerful and sophisticated back-up solution that includes better-than-RAID redundancy and has software to support entire-image restore. Would you expect a base station to help you restore your Mac from an image? I didn't think so.
So it may be easier for laymen: but it's not even remotely doing the same thing. WHS isn't superior, they're just totally different products. Please RTFA on this one.
I find it odd that I'm getting annoyed by so much Mac fanboyishness the week after I purchase my first Mac (MacBook Pro 15" - it's pretty).
-stormin
Depends on the purpose of the ad campaign. If it's to get me to know the product, great. If it's to get me to buy the product, not so much. I have sworn a dark and binding magical oath (taken the unbreakable vow, if you will) that I will never, under any circumstances purchase their product.
As advertising becomes more and more pervasive in our daily lives (e.g. ad-supported software and web sites) I think people will start to realize that when they buy products like Head-On they directly contribute to getting more abominable ad campaigns. Hopefully purchasers will start to conscious exercise the power of the wallet to punish companies for polluting our brains with their obnoxious tripe.
If not, at least I can die a bitter but idealist old fart who never purchased from companies that annoyed him if he could possibly help it.
-stormin
You really should read the posts before you submit. You're saying the same thing other Mac fanboys have said already. And you're wrong for the same reason.
With Windows I can spend $1,250 (literally) and have great home server (320GB on RAID1 with a 74GB 10K rpm main drive, core duo, decent vid card, etc.) This is a kind of do-everything box. I can back up my laptop and my wife's laptop etc., serve content back, but it also serves as a decent gaming machine, production machine, etc.
What are my options with Mac? Buy a mac mini? Then a couple of USB drives? That would be about the same cost, but now we're talking software RAID, slower specs, slower hard drive, and I'm running out of USB connections. It may be "sufficient" but it is obviously an inferior solution for the same price. The options get worse from there. I could get an iMac to get some more power to function as a desktop, but now I'm paying considerably more. I'm not even going to mention the PowerMacs. Even the old G5s start out way above 1250 at Apple.com (and I'm not going to be buying this on eBay!) and that's before I get to add extra hard drives!
I can go out and assemble a cheap Windows-based file/print server for my home. Why can't I do that with Apple?
You can. Out of the box OS X supports NFS, AFP, FTP, HTTP, CUPS and Samba. GUI configuration tools for all of them.
The operative word was "cheap".
-stormin
So far everything I do in Apples is photos (jpeg) and music (vanilla mp3s). I suppose I could stick those in WMP, but iTunes is so much nicer.
I guess it's not proprietary formats so much as just jurry-rigged applications. For example: I bought an HP scanner. All I want is a simple scanning program. Something in which I click "scan", have an option to preview the glass, set the scan options, and then scan either to a file or to another program. THAT IS ALL. But what do I get? A monstrous do-everything-with-me hydra that attempts to eat every jpeg on my computer.
I just have a feeling that the HP SmartMedia server is going to be the same kind of "do it our way or die" philosophy.
-stormin
You're the perfect example of a fanboy. The mysterious reason my complaint makes sense is this: I can get a better solution for less money running Windows/PC hardware. I think the MacBook Pro is the best laptop on the market. So I bought one, even though it's expensive (thank you for the refurb price Apple!)
But if I want a decent tower with internal RAID that also functions a relatively fast desktop then I've got two options: $1,000 - $1,250 for a windows system and I'm all set, $2,500+ for a used/refurb G5 PowerMac (ha!) or $1,500 or so for an inferior solution involving either a MacMini or an iMac and some USB drives with software RAID or 3rd party enclosure.
And you still don't see what I'm complaining about? Apple is doing great at bringing us stand-along products like the MacBook Pro, MacBook, iPod, and we assume the iPhone. But instead of giving us a high-value solution for central storage they are bringing is the iTV. Thanks, but I'd rather not store my entire media library on a single disk in an iMac, nor would I like to spend way more money than I should have to in order to adress this deficiency.
-stormin
To all you guys that responded to me: no.
Look, for $1,000 I can get a home file server that also functions as a very decent PC. I'm talking everything: nice case, power supply, motherboard, RAM, core duo, etc. Including 3 hard drives, two 320GB and a 10K 74GB drive. That's $1,000 and I'm done. I know I can do this because I'm doing it right now.
Can I do that with Mac? It's possible. I could get a MacMini and eat up all the peripherals with USB drives and software RAID. So that's close to the same cost (the PC is cheaper) if I start with a refurbed mac mini. So those are my options: an upgradeable tower with hardware based RAID running drives over SATA, or a refurbed never-to-be-upgraded MacMini, software RAID, and a bunch of peripherals.
Is software-based RAID could enough for home use? Probably. Are a couple of external USB drives really that much worse than internal drives? Well - it's certainly not as good. The Mac solution is simply more expensive, less future proof, less fleixble and less elagant. In a word: it's not as good.
In general, Mac is a better system, but for setting up a home server that can also function as a decent desktop (and why not do both since the incremental cost increase is so low?) PC is clearly better. That's all I'm saying.
-stormin
Net income means jack shit. I don't care if you bring in 2 billion a year if your costs are 4 billion. If my costs are 50,000, and I bring in 75,000, guess what: I have a higher profit margin, which means I have MADE more money than you.
d ex.asp
g uide/glossary.html
Definitions of net income on the Web:
* Gross income less expenses, including taxes and insurance, but before depreciation, additions to reserves or distribution of earnings.
www.ncbuy.com/credit/glossary.html
* Income (profit) shown after all operating and non-operating income and expense, reserves, income taxes, minority interest and extraordinary items but before preferred and ordinary dividends.
www.misys.com/investors/shareservices/glossary/in
* Sum remaining after all expenses have been met or deducted: net profit or net loss, or simply "profit."
www.mastercardbusiness.com/mcbizdocs/smallbiz/fin
Get the picture? Profit is net income. You meant "gross income means jack shit".
This troll brought to you by the letter A and the number 4.
-stormin
WTF right back at you. Did you read my post? It would help with comprehension. I'll repeat for you, this time with emphasis:
The only reason I'm not Mac-only in the house is Mac's poor support for things like, I don't know, RAID. And please don't mention their giant steel monstrosity or the an XRAID server or whatever. I can go out and assemble a cheap Windows-based file/print server for my home. Why can't I do that with Apple?
What part of not mentioning their servers did you understand? Either the mac pro or the XSERVE are incredibly expensive. I can get RAID support from a windows box cheap. Or is there a mysterious RAID array tucked inside that mac mini or yours. Room for 3 drives in an iMac perhaps?
It's amazing how they give informative mods to illiterates now. Must be some kind of equal opportunity initiative.
-stormin
The only reason I'm not Mac-only in the house is Mac's poor support for things like, I don't know, RAID. And please don't mention their giant steel monstrosity or the an XRAID server or whatever. I can go out and assemble a cheap Windows-based file/print server for my home. Why can't I do that with Apple?
2 5-121.html) running new Windows Server Home. Because I don't like to be locked into propeitary formats I'm going to end up going with my original plan (build your own) but it shows that at least MS is sensitive to the need.
Their iDisk backup is ludicrous: 1GB of storage. I have 38GB just of MP3s. Of course even if they offered 100GB of storage space (or more) that's a lot of data to push out through a cable modem/dsl, etc. Even with incremental back ups.
I'd be much more impressed if Apple were to come out with a simple Home Server than with this iTV. I need a Mac-Mini style device (headless, small, lower-end hardware, althogh obviously with more space for extra drives) that look beautiful and serves as the center for my home network.
MS, to their credit, is responding with exactly such a device. The HP MediaSmart (http://h71036.www7.hp.com/hho/cache/447351-0-0-2
In the rush to get the PC to your living room we have seen a proliferation of computer devices (Ipods, consoles, laptops, desktops, printers, etc.) with no way to tie those things together. Before we add yet another extension of the home network, we need a decent commodity server.
Apple, are you listening?
-stormin
Nit-picking, I know, but still:
Therefore it can be asseted as a secret. If one guesses enough one is apt to guess right. Isn't that what brute-force password attacks are about?
A password hacked through brute force is still a password hacked, isn't it? It's not like you can say "sure, they did access all our data and steal our designs, but they did it with a brute force hack so really it's all still secret." The difference isn't that everyone was just guessing (e.g. a brute force attack) it's that there was no way to verify the guess before the announcement. That makes it not like a brute-force attack.
I'm sorry. It's a compulsion.
-stormin
They seem to think it is pretty important to call the embryo a child. Why do you think this is? Could it perhaps be that "child" is a more emotional word, one which people relate to in their lives more than embryo?
As in the larger abortion debate, both sides have their preferential terminology. If you can dictate the terminology than you can dictate the terrain to your advantage. Thus you have the "pro-choice" side talking about the "products of conception" while the "pro-life" side talks about the "child".
In this case there is a technical term that is most appropriate: embryo. Insisting on application of a technical term in a moral argument is not necessarily correct, however. If we were discussing the holocaust and I continuously referred to the Jews as "homo sapiens" you would be quite right to insist on calling them "people". Despite the fact that "homo sapiens" (or any other technical term) is quite unambigiously technically correct, it's technical nature may mask the moral question that should take precedent.
The only way to decide whether the technical term or some more emotive term is more correct is to solve the argument. Thus there's no way to apply an unbiased terminology to this argument before it is solved. Anyone that claims to be doing so is engaging in hypocrisy for the simple reason that there is no alternative (and thus they do are using biased terminology whether they mean to or not).
But you're contradicting yourself here. You say we should argue definitions - but then you applaud the above argument, which appeals to the definition of a word on emotional and propaganda grounds. I'm finding your praise of it to be rather cryptic. I don't see what's so interesting or compelling about blatant emotional appeals.
I can only try to explain better what I have already said. An argument from definition is essentially an appeal to authority. You say "but the OED says X means Y and therefor..." The problem is the same as the problem with all appeals to authority. Keep in mind that an argument from definition rests on some pre-existing definition. It never argues what a definition should be, it relies on claiming what a definition already means.
Contrast this with the actual argument. As opposed to relying on some authority to provide a definition for child, the poster actually created an argument for what our definition should be. This makes it emphatically not a definition from argument, but an argument for definition. I don't think it was a very persuasive argument (for reasons already enumerated) but it was refreshingly different from an argument from definition.
An argument from definition is structurally flawed. It will never work. An argument for definition is not structurally flawed. It could work. That's why I liked the argument. Even though it didn't actually succeed, it was on the right track.
Further, why is this not plain? If someone calls an embryo (not X) a child (X), they are clearly turning "that which supports X" into "X" - how can they not be, even if they don't mean it that way?
Firstly, your "X vs not X" dichotomy of embryo vs. child is entirely unwarranted. There's no rule in the English language that a concept can have only one corresponding word. The opposite is true. An embryo could reasonably be both embryo and child - especially because child is such a generic word. An infant is also a child, a newborn is also a child. So let's dispose of this assumption immediately.
As to your misunderstanding of the argument it's a simple question of determining the object of a pronoun. This is the argument as originally stated:
"I assert an embryo is a child because it supports life and the bests interests of the child."
You think "it" refers to "an embryo". I find this rather silly. I think "it" refers to "I assert an embryo is a child". In other words, it is the assertion of the status of embryo as child that supports life and is in the best inte
There are two ways to understand the idea of a non-religious system of ethics. My own idea is simple. You don't need a person who has never been exposed to religion in their life, just a person willing to set aside religious belief and consider ethics from an atheist standpoint. We have had several great philosophers do precisely this, and therefore atheist ethics are a part of the Western tradition.
Your own understanding seems to require some kind of purified, non-religious environment. Based on that understanding you are right. There are no westerners who have not been influenced by religion and so there is no ethical framework entirely free from all religious entanglement. But this isn't a very interesting assertion, in my opinion, because the reverse is also true. There is no westerner who has not been influence by atheist thought, and thus it is impossible to consider ethics free from all atheist entanglements. Clearly the degree of entanglement from religion tends to be more pervasive, but you can't remove atheism from the modern western tradition any more possibly than you can remove christianity or judeaism.
-stormin
Even the most ardent proponent of an atheist philosophy would have to admit that since the western culture is based on a Judeao-Christian background, it and it's views are influenced by those teachings (right or wrong).
1 - The ethics of judeo-christian traditions didn't spring from the void. They came from somewhere. You can't trace ethics back to there and then say "here is the foundation". Whether we can historically trace the development back futher, there were certainly ethics before there were Jews. As a result, it's fallacious to claim that western ethics from exclusively from those traditions. Atheism is well-developed in the West, and offers a possibility to access ethics - many of which are similar to judeo-christian traditions - without recourse to religion. All I'm saying is that there are non-religious ethical traditions in the West. They are the minority, but they exist. You can be a westerner, ethical, and completely secular.
however, that is not what the original poster stated, which was that they had no relationship. And that, for better or worse, is simply not true.
There's an excluded middle. I'm not saying they have no relationship, but you seemed to be saying they always have a relationship> I'm merely saying that even though they are generally related, they do not have to be. I'm just making some middle ground between you and GP.
-stormin
Organizational structure would be a valid alternative to my suggested critieria: completeness. A tissue sample is human but it is not a human. It is merely part of one. An embryo is clearly not part of the mother in that sense. It is an entire entity.
As far as organizational structure is concerned, however, I would argue that the embryo has all required organization from the moment of conception. This is because I don't think the actual implementation of the characteristic is important - the intrinsic nature of it is. I'm not trying to prove I'm right and you (or anyone else) is wrong: just explaining my own viewpoint. We all agree that, for example, consciusness is a part of being human. However I think we would also agree that being unconscious does not make you not-human. So consciousness matters, but not in terms of it's manifestation at a certain point in time. The same goes for things like fingers. Humans have 10 fingers. It's part of the Platonic form of "human" (metaphorically, I don't really believe forms exist). And yet if someone loses a finger it doesn't make them non-human, or even any less human at all. They are simply a human missing a finger. We know that the intrinsic nature of that human is to have 10 fingers. They just, through an accident of time and coincidence, only have 9 at this point in time.
I see embryos in the same way. An embryo - in terms of intrinsic quality - has 10 toes and self-conciousness already. Of course it is not actually conscious until (as far as we can tell) at least a year or two after birth. And it obviously doesn't have any toes or fingers at conception - it is just one cell.
Nevertheless it is a new instance of the object "homo sapien". And thus, in my opinion, it deserves all the rights of a human being regardless of the fact that it has not yet expressed most of those characteristics. We don't treat sleeping people as less human, we don't amputees as less human, we don't treat pre-adolescents as less human and we don't treat babies as less human. Despite the obvious lack they all demonstrate of some human characteristic, we don't deduct from their humanity a single iota as a result. Why should we then expect to suddenly abandon this logic and declare that, based on characteristic x or y an embryo is not human - not a person?
Our own inttuition holds the key: humanity is about intrinsic characteristics (which is not the same as potential), and not about the exprssion at any given time of those characteristics. The organizational structure of a human being, eyes, toes, heart, liver, blood: all of the info necessary for that organization are present at the moment of conception. (The info is present as well in the sperm and egg, but info is not the only requirement for humanity, just one of them).
-stormin
I'm being factual. The word "child" has a specific meaning, and an embryo is not a child. It's an embryo. It doesn't matter if it might later become a child.
... not an embryo". In order for this argument about definitions to have to have traction you have to do something more than just refer to a definition. Even if you refer to the OED all you've done is say "most people think it means x". Usually we're more interested in knowing what people should think something means, not what they already think it means.
I don't know why people take arguments from definition seriously. A word is just a sound that we've agreed has a certain fuzzy, non-specific meaning. Unless we're talking a specific scientific definition, than the fact is that there is no "dictionary in the sky" you can resort to that has it written down "child, definition:
Interestingly enough, this is exactly the strategy that you found "didn't make any sense".
Here's the argument:
I assert an embryo is a child because it supports life and the bests interests of the child.
The argument is plainly not "that which supports x is x" (which is what you took it to be). The argument is simply "I think we should call an embryo a child because this course of action supports life and the bests interests of the child. Other than the glaring flaw of question-begging (calling something a child because it supports the best interests of the child means you've assumed it's a child before you defined it as a child. Oops.) it's an interesting and compelling argument for why we should define something a certain way. It's a pragmatic, not ontological, argument.
And really, this is the only kind of argument that makes sense. There's simply no way to find out what a word really means. It means what we say it means. Appealing to the definition of a word (again, unless the argument is about usage) is non-sensical. It makes much more sense to argue for why the definition should be a certain way because, among other reasons, that demonstrates that you've grasped the fact that definitions are subjective and not objective.
-stormin
While it is true that one could theoretically develop an ethical framework without religion, it is simply naive to assume that any ethics system in place in modern society is devoid of a religious influence and therefore ethics and religion are definitely linked together.
This is an odd assertion. In the first place, you don't have to look hard to find a system of truly atheist ethics. Consider, for example, any of the atheist existentialists. Names like Camus and deBeauvoir (not to mention Sartre) are not exactly unknown to people who study ethics.
Next keep in mind that the average Joe on the street has more or less 0 knowledge of the theological basis to religious ethics. The elements of ethics transferred from religious prophets, scholars, and even authoritative texts (scripture) are only the most simplistic shadows of their original statements.
This same process has been operating for quite some time from atheist philosophy to the mainstream. Your average godless materialist has probably not read "Ethics of Ambiguity", but certainly employs some kind of watered-down remnant of atheist ethics. So while I'd agree that it's hard to talk about ethics without even mentioning religion, there are already competing non-religious ethical systems that have been around for quite some time (decades, generations).
Finally, and most importantly, you have to realize that people who take ethics seriously and are religious are still going to (for the most part) discuss ethics in a religion-neutral view. The evangelicals get all the press because they are so loud and out-there. Their idea of an ethical discussion is convince you to accept Jesus as your personal savior first, and then have you believe everything their pastor tells you that Jesus said second. But a lot of religious people debate their ethical and philosophical viewpoints without trying to convert you first (or at all).
In short, not only can any serious discussion of ethics take place without requiring people to assert a particular dogma (atheist or some variant of theism), that's how most serious discussions of ethics actually work.
-stormin
You can usually tell when someone has been thoroughly spanked in an argument when they resort to the CAPS LACK OF ANGRY ANGRY DOOM(tm). The fact of the matter is that precise definitions are not always necessary. Here's a simple analogy. If I'm standing Richmond, VA and you're standing in Sacramento, CA I can say with complete confidence that I know we're in different cities, even if I don't actually have any idea what the precise city limits of either city are.
When you ask for a definition you're asking someone to put exact borders around an idea and say "everything on this side is x, everything on the other side is not x". If you're talking about a case right on the edge, this degree of precision may be a necessary. For example: is a virus alive? Tough question. But no one seriously asks "is bacteria alive" unless they are being philosophical or unnecessarily obtuse.
As far as your rejection of the analogy, I have to wonder if you know what an analogy is. When something can be agreed by analog, it means that two things are similar, but not the same. So, setting aside your questionable characterization of an embryo as "a group of embryonic cells", your point that an embryo is not a bacteria is rather odd. Of course it's not. If it was the same, it wouldn't be an analog, would it?
It's pretty clear that what is going on is that you are playing the part of a good reactionary. You have, for whatever reasons, a strong emotional attachment to the abortion issue. You see the argument that an embryo is a living human being to threaten your position and so you react. Your logic in the reaction has been pretty poor (as indicated by your unapologetic resort to ad hominem and the CAPS LOCK OF ANGRY ANGRY DOOM(tm)).
1. An embryo is alive. Your response: define life. As I've already shown, this is an unnecessary burden. Your other response: an embryo is not a bacterium. True, but hardly relevant.
2. An embryo is a human being. No response so far. And there can hardly be one. I'm waiting (heart racing, I assure you) for the inevitable my liver/sperm/hair is human response. And this is true, but your hair is not a complete human entity, it's a part of one. Same for liver, blood cells, etc.
In any case, the solution to your apparent philosophical crisis is simply to realize that there is, or can be, a distinction between a human being and a person. That an embryo is technically a human being at the point of conception is pretty much beyond question. It's a living and unique instance of the species homo sapiens. The question is whether human rights should be expanded to all human beings (which is my position) or just to "persons" (yet to be defined). If you read the other Slashdot comments, you can see that there are plenty of people who are happy to have more constrictive definitions of "person" that exclude (for example) the mentally handicapped.
-stormin
Two main points.
1. I realize that sometimes people can have more meaningful relationships online, but this is an aberation. It's when something is wrong. Not necessarily wrong with the person. In your case, for example, it had to do with environment. Because of a crappy environment, you weren't able to have normal, healthy real-life relationships and thus your digital relationships became more important.
I'm not trying to attack people who, for whatever reason, are more socially active online than in real life. I think it's a crappy situation, but not necessarily their fault. I'm also not trying to attack digital relationships. They can be meaningful, fulfilling, and healthy. But they are simple not as meaningful in general.
2. Let's call a problem a problem. Here's my example. The deaf community is very tight-knit, and (to be frank) a little crazy. I probably would be too if I grew up without hearing in a world of people who could hear. The point is that to a lot of people in the deaf community deafness is no longer a negative, but a cultural positive. It got to the point where a surgeon who proposed a method for embryonic cochlear implants was called, and I'm not making this up, Hitler. The idea was that by "curing" deafness, he would be wiping out a culture. This impetus to convert a genuine negative into a cultural positive is, in my opinion, dangerous. The deaf community is close knit and unique, true. But that doesn't somehow change the nature of not being able to hear from a net deficiency into a net positive.
I feel like geeks have the same drive - and for the same reasons - when it comes to their digital relationships. To the extent that we can't (for whatever reason) engage in healthy social relations we tend to convert that deficiency into a kind of badge of honor.
I'm all in favor of embracing geek culture. Especially the most positive aspects: respect for innovation, free-mindedness, seeing academic and intellectual success as a positive. But we should not to get carried away and enshrine some elements of the culture that are deficiencies. Inability to have real-life social interactions is just such a deficiency.
-stormin
Excellent point. Mod me redundant, I don't care. That was a great post.
-stormin