I assume this same technology could be used to print food. How about a 2 by 4 strip of fresh wood? A living cell replicator is actually going to be developed before a generic molecular replicator? Actually, it makes sense that this would be the case now that I think about it.
In the U.S.A., calling freedoms (or rights) "privileges" is very dangerous. Our rights do not come from government, they are either inalienable or come from the people. I remember everyone saying that driving is a privilege rather than a right. Huh? How about driving is a "freedom that can be taken away if you are not responsible." With freedom comes responsibility. Although this sounds similar to a privilege, it connotes something very different.
As far as music is concerned, your "rights" depend on your purchasing agreement with the company as well as copyright law (made by the people).
It's called New York City. If you like that lifestyle then go live there. How about a free standing house with lots of land? One size does not fit all.
Actually, the country was for the most part founded by a bunch of Christians who would not have minded the ten commandmens being hung up in courtrooms. The establishment clause has been blown way out of proportion these days.
The federal government was not as strong then as it is today, and states often had religious references in their laws and constitutions. Each state had laws that best fit the needs and wishes of their citizens. (Utah was founded as a Mormon Theocracy, for instance.) The establishment clause was meant to limit the federal government, as anti-federalists understood that one size does not fit all.
Federalists soon interpreted "Congress shall make no law" as applying to state law-makers as well. The Civil War led to a stronger federal government, and the civil rights movement led to the "equal protection under the law" amendment, which is now being misinterpretted. What a mess!
Most Environmentalists are really just anti-Capitalists in sheep's clothing. When they say that our rain forests are disappearing, what they are really saying is that "those evil greedy Capitalists are messing up our planet. You should vote for us on the left."
What they forget is that humans are part of nature and that Capitalism is one of the most natural forms of an economy one could have. One can be both pro-Capitalism and pro-Environment. Unfortunately, since they have abused the issue so much, us pro-Capitalist types start to disregard all warnings about environmental harm as being leftist propaganda.
The will of the people prevailed. This is why we live in a Democratic Republic and not an Anarchic Democracy. We value individual liberty, but it is not unbound.
Do individual liberties trump the will of the people even when it comes to our own private homes? One of the first tests of this was very early in our history--The Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington ordered the army to enter certain people's homes to collect taxes on their whiskey stills.
Do I think that the congress should have used international treaty and interstate commerce tax laws to circumvent the constitution in order to make drugs illegal? No. Do I think that the war on drugs leads to a criminal underworld and more crime? Yes. Does the war on drugs lead to bigger government? Yes.
Do I think that people should have the right to live in communities with like-minded people and like-minded laws? Yes.
An addictive drug enslaves its victim. Slavery by substance rather than another person.
Responsibility is sometimes put on the backburner when your body is screaming at you, when all you can think about is your next "fix." Some of these drugs cause hallucinations. You are not your "self," so how can you be expected to have "self" responsibility?
This goes back to freedom of assembly in the broadest sense. I wouldn't allow the stuff into my home, so why would I want it in my community?
As I said, the drug legalization special interest group!
I have nothing against hemp. I do have a problem with addiction. Addiction implies bondage to some substance. If you really want to discuss freedom, then discuss how an addictive substance makes you free. Talk about how having a crack baby is a good thing for society. Here's today's world with legalized drugs: A mother has a crack baby->having a crack baby is child abuse->but the mother was addicted to a powerful substance and could not break her addiction->the mother sues the maker of the drug->the mother wins, the maker goes bankrupt, crack prices go up (but that's okay, because the government will make more on taxing it)->repeat! It sounds like the tobacco industry today, but worse.
I do agree that we should attempt to treat addiction rather than just locking people up. However, if you should be able to sue a company out of existence for a dangerous product, then that dangerous product should probably not be allowed to be on the market.
As far as freedom goes, some people feel that the way to judge where freedom ends and where it begins is whether or not your freedom tramples on someone else's. I agree with this, however I also feel that humans need to have a culture, a level of civility (after all, we do try to separate ourselves from the animals), the ability to raise children in a community of somewhat like-minded people, and proper representation. This is why our country is a federal republic and not just a democracy. Unfortunately, the Civil War pretty much led to the demise of state's rights as we knew them.
Libertarians (or the pro-drug legalization special interest group) tend to have a more anarchic "one-size-fits-all" view of what freedom means. They seem to forget about freedom of assembly in the broadest sense (the freedom to live in a society of like-minded people with like-minded laws).
I've hardly ever known heroin to be victimless. However, that is for another discussion. My point was that if something doesn't work, you try to fix it, you don't go breaking everything else in the house.
The point that I was making about truth is that you can believe what you want, even lie to yourself, but in the end the truth will be exposed somehow. "A bad tree cannot bear good fuit."
You sound a little like Ayne Rand. Very few people got to work at what they loved during the depression. Putting food on the table for your children was more important. If you call this selfishness, then we will have to redefine "selflessness" as meaning "putting other people before yourself to satisfy a selfish need."
Depression can cause us to sink into the bottomless pit of despair, where things that used to be interesting and exciting are not anymore. This can sometimes be brought on by loneliness (even if you are around people). Hard work, which removes the focus off of yourself, can also help. As they say, "Idleness is the devil's workshop!"
That's funny, my grandparents lived in mill towns in smalltown Georgia where they worked for the rich Callaways in the Cotton Mill. They were dirt poor. My parents moved to the west where there were more opportunities. My Dad fixed commercial air conditioning systems and my Mom was a Nurse. Now my mother is a Doctor, and many of their NINE children have made it through college.
Most poor people in America have cars. They get fed and live in air conditioned houses. If you REALLY want to see poor people, please go elsewhere. Go down to parts of Mexico (you know the country that can't keep their poor from wanting to come here).
Capitalism is just free market exchange. It is human nature that causes inequality, and human nature exists in any political or economic system.
Whenever you limit competition, you limit Capitalism and therefore you do not get free market prices. This is why our medical costs are so high in this country. Insurance is just a pool of socialism swimming in a sea of Capitalism. So is medicare, etc. These artificial limits on Capitalism are what permit greedy companies to sell the elderly $300 scooters for $30000.
The US didn't exist in the 1600s, beavis. It was done under British rule, and replaced indentured servitude (British enslaving each other) as the primary source of cheap labor (not free labor, but almost).
One should not legalize all crime just because one crime exists and is ignored or overlooked. (An extreme analogy, I know.) I would be for reducing the number of divorces in this country.
It sounds like part of you did not wake up from that Coma. Were parts of the brain that were responsible for these feelings damaged?
Either way, one will never find a reason to live by way of worldly means (selfishness, lust for the flesh, worldly pleasure, or material things). Peace and happiness come through feeling good about one's self as a person. Doing good works and helping others is a great way to start feeling good about yourself as a person. Then you will start to realize what love and life is all about.
Truth and belief are two separate things. Truth will find a way to expose itself no matter what one believes.
The discussion was about the human race. I am very aware of how worms have sex. I am also aware of genetic abnormalities. These should be treated as such.
Even in polyamory, children still basically have one biological father and one biological mother. The other mothers are basically aunts or step mothers, etc. Usually these relationships degrade or morph over time. The child starts out a normal child, but in the end probably ends up without a father or as a step child or even an orphan. Jealousy is just part of our nature. Is there harm in this? I would think so. Divorce causes harm to children, so why wouldn't a revolving parenthood?
Are monogamous relationships best for humans? I think so. Fewer diseases, children know who their fathers are, etc. Should homosexuals and hermaphrodites stay in monogamous relationships? I think so. Should they be allowed to have civil unions? Yes, from a legal standpoint. But anyone who wants to enter into this type of agreement should be able to. It has nothing to do with children or marriage, and has everything to do with just signing a legal agreement. But don't get the wrong impression! What does one mean by a civil union?
By being agnostic, you are saying that you don't know the answer. By being an atheist, one is basically being pompous.
Faith does provide a level of comfort or peace of mind that many don't have. You, in particular, might call it a placebo though.
Harm comes in many forms, some not so obvious at first. If nature intended for this, then she would have made three mothers each give birth to one third of an ovum and then had the father join them together with his sperm (or something strange like that). Then she would also not have invented this thing called jealousy, etc. Nature intended one father and one mother for each child. I do agree that in some cases the child must be raised by people other than their biological parent(s), but these should be rare cases. The whole mentality about "anything goes as long as it does not cause harm to anyone" is in my opinion what is wrong with the world today. Sometimes we are blind to things that are harmful to society over the long run. Most of the time it is best to go with nature's rules. After all, she has worked them out over millions of years so they are fairly balanced.
Now here's the truth that you do not want to hear because you are probably P.C. and "closed minded":
Nature made sex pleasurable so that we would procreate, period. Yes, it is true that it brings a couple together (geez, go figure, they need to raise the child after they procreate). Gays, in the natural sense, are a genetic dead end. That said, we ALL have genetic differences (abnormalities is a strong word, but that is what different implies), so I am not saying that gays are inferior to anyone. I'm just saying that we must all learn to deal with the truth.
Off subject:
Here's an interesting thought experiment for all of you atheists:
Do you believe that there is absolute truth? If your answer is "there is NO absolute truth" then you would be saying that at least one exists.
Secondly, if you believe in the "many worlds theory," then you probably believe that "any world that can exist does exist" (mathematically speaking: any equation that can express self awareness defines a self-aware world, etc.). If you believe this, then you have to accept that their may be an all powerful "God" in one of those worlds/equations (or that the superset of such equations is the definition of absolute truth or God). Therefore, why do you call yourself an atheist?
Actually, our founding fathers had to work within the political confines of the day. Their mindset was different than ours. Fortunately (and unfortunately), they had the forsight to allow for the amending of the constitution. That said, these people were very educated and DID step out of groupthink (groupthink was to have a KING run your country).
How about "European liberties are at least on par with Americans". After all, it was our country that inspired the French Revolution and saved Europe from speaking German. While it is true that some European countries permit open drug use, most also have gun control, etc.
Why not three or more mothers and a Dad? What's the difference? If polygamists want to do it, then why shouldn't they? After all, we all came from Monkeys. We should start acting like them. Equal protection under the law does not mean that minorities can dictate social/cultural norms. (Don't even get a thread started!)
Slashdot Mirror
Fresh meat is not dead until you cook it. As for wood, you would print it fresh and let it die gradually.
I assume this same technology could be used to print food. How about a 2 by 4 strip of fresh wood? A living cell replicator is actually going to be developed before a generic molecular replicator? Actually, it makes sense that this would be the case now that I think about it.
In the U.S.A., calling freedoms (or rights) "privileges" is very dangerous. Our rights do not come from government, they are either inalienable or come from the people. I remember everyone saying that driving is a privilege rather than a right. Huh? How about driving is a "freedom that can be taken away if you are not responsible." With freedom comes responsibility. Although this sounds similar to a privilege, it connotes something very different.
As far as music is concerned, your "rights" depend on your purchasing agreement with the company as well as copyright law (made by the people).
It's called New York City. If you like that lifestyle then go live there. How about a free standing house with lots of land? One size does not fit all.
Actually, the country was for the most part founded by a bunch of Christians who would not have minded the ten commandmens being hung up in courtrooms. The establishment clause has been blown way out of proportion these days.
The federal government was not as strong then as it is today, and states often had religious references in their laws and constitutions. Each state had laws that best fit the needs and wishes of their citizens. (Utah was founded as a Mormon Theocracy, for instance.) The establishment clause was meant to limit the federal government, as anti-federalists understood that one size does not fit all.
Federalists soon interpreted "Congress shall make no law" as applying to state law-makers as well. The Civil War led to a stronger federal government, and the civil rights movement led to the "equal protection under the law" amendment, which is now being misinterpretted. What a mess!
That was rude. Of course I have done stupid things in my life, haven't you?
What part of what I wrote was stupid and why?
Most Environmentalists are really just anti-Capitalists in sheep's clothing. When they say that our rain forests are disappearing, what they are really saying is that "those evil greedy Capitalists are messing up our planet. You should vote for us on the left."
What they forget is that humans are part of nature and that Capitalism is one of the most natural forms of an economy one could have. One can be both pro-Capitalism and pro-Environment.
Unfortunately, since they have abused the issue so much, us pro-Capitalist types start to disregard all warnings about environmental harm as being leftist propaganda.
Maybe they should have called the televisions "Ion Displays" instead?
The will of the people prevailed. This is why we live in a Democratic Republic and not an Anarchic Democracy. We value individual liberty, but it is not unbound.
Do individual liberties trump the will of the people even when it comes to our own private homes? One of the first tests of this was very early in our history--The Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington ordered the army to enter certain people's homes to collect taxes on their whiskey stills.
Do I think that the congress should have used international treaty and interstate commerce tax laws to circumvent the constitution in order to make drugs illegal? No. Do I think that the war on drugs leads to a criminal underworld and more crime? Yes. Does the war on drugs lead to bigger government? Yes.
Do I think that people should have the right to live in communities with like-minded people and like-minded laws? Yes.
An addictive drug enslaves its victim. Slavery by substance rather than another person.
Responsibility is sometimes put on the backburner when your body is screaming at you, when all you can think about is your next "fix." Some of these drugs cause hallucinations. You are not your "self," so how can you be expected to have "self" responsibility?
This goes back to freedom of assembly in the broadest sense. I wouldn't allow the stuff into my home, so why would I want it in my community?
As I said, the drug legalization special interest group!
I have nothing against hemp. I do have a problem with addiction. Addiction implies bondage to some substance. If you really want to discuss freedom, then discuss how an addictive substance makes you free. Talk about how having a crack baby is a good thing for society. Here's today's world with legalized drugs: A mother has a crack baby->having a crack baby is child abuse->but the mother was addicted to a powerful substance and could not break her addiction->the mother sues the maker of the drug->the mother wins, the maker goes bankrupt, crack prices go up (but that's okay, because the government will make more on taxing it)->repeat! It sounds like the tobacco industry today, but worse.
I do agree that we should attempt to treat addiction rather than just locking people up. However, if you should be able to sue a company out of existence for a dangerous product, then that dangerous product should probably not be allowed to be on the market.
I agree.
As far as freedom goes, some people feel that the way to judge where freedom ends and where it begins is whether or not your freedom tramples on someone else's. I agree with this, however I also feel that humans need to have a culture, a level of civility (after all, we do try to separate ourselves from the animals), the ability to raise children in a community of somewhat like-minded people, and proper representation. This is why our country is a federal republic and not just a democracy. Unfortunately, the Civil War pretty much led to the demise of state's rights as we knew them.
Libertarians (or the pro-drug legalization special interest group) tend to have a more anarchic "one-size-fits-all" view of what freedom means. They seem to forget about freedom of assembly in the broadest sense (the freedom to live in a society of like-minded people with like-minded laws).
I've hardly ever known heroin to be victimless. However, that is for another discussion. My point was that if something doesn't work, you try to fix it, you don't go breaking everything else in the house. The point that I was making about truth is that you can believe what you want, even lie to yourself, but in the end the truth will be exposed somehow. "A bad tree cannot bear good fuit." You sound a little like Ayne Rand. Very few people got to work at what they loved during the depression. Putting food on the table for your children was more important. If you call this selfishness, then we will have to redefine "selflessness" as meaning "putting other people before yourself to satisfy a selfish need." Depression can cause us to sink into the bottomless pit of despair, where things that used to be interesting and exciting are not anymore. This can sometimes be brought on by loneliness (even if you are around people). Hard work, which removes the focus off of yourself, can also help. As they say, "Idleness is the devil's workshop!"
That's funny, my grandparents lived in mill towns in smalltown Georgia where they worked for the rich Callaways in the Cotton Mill. They were dirt poor. My parents moved to the west where there were more opportunities. My Dad fixed commercial air conditioning systems and my Mom was a Nurse. Now my mother is a Doctor, and many of their NINE children have made it through college. Most poor people in America have cars. They get fed and live in air conditioned houses. If you REALLY want to see poor people, please go elsewhere. Go down to parts of Mexico (you know the country that can't keep their poor from wanting to come here). Capitalism is just free market exchange. It is human nature that causes inequality, and human nature exists in any political or economic system. Whenever you limit competition, you limit Capitalism and therefore you do not get free market prices. This is why our medical costs are so high in this country. Insurance is just a pool of socialism swimming in a sea of Capitalism. So is medicare, etc. These artificial limits on Capitalism are what permit greedy companies to sell the elderly $300 scooters for $30000.
The US didn't exist in the 1600s, beavis.
It was done under British rule, and replaced indentured servitude (British enslaving each other) as the primary source of cheap labor (not free labor, but almost).
One should not legalize all crime just because one crime exists and is ignored or overlooked. (An extreme analogy, I know.) I would be for reducing the number of divorces in this country.
It sounds like part of you did not wake up from that Coma. Were parts of the brain that were responsible for these feelings damaged?
Either way, one will never find a reason to live by way of worldly means (selfishness, lust for the flesh, worldly pleasure, or material things). Peace and happiness come through feeling good about one's self as a person. Doing good works and helping others is a great way to start feeling good about yourself as a person. Then you will start to realize what love and life is all about.
Truth and belief are two separate things. Truth will find a way to expose itself no matter what one believes.
The discussion was about the human race. I am very aware of how worms have sex. I am also aware of genetic abnormalities. These should be treated as such.
Even in polyamory, children still basically have one biological father and one biological mother. The other mothers are basically aunts or step mothers, etc. Usually these relationships degrade or morph over time. The child starts out a normal child, but in the end probably ends up without a father or as a step child or even an orphan. Jealousy is just part of our nature. Is there harm in this? I would think so. Divorce causes harm to children, so why wouldn't a revolving parenthood?
Are monogamous relationships best for humans? I think so. Fewer diseases, children know who their fathers are, etc. Should homosexuals and hermaphrodites stay in monogamous relationships? I think so. Should they be allowed to have civil unions? Yes, from a legal standpoint. But anyone who wants to enter into this type of agreement should be able to. It has nothing to do with children or marriage, and has everything to do with just signing a legal agreement. But don't get the wrong impression! What does one mean by a civil union?
By being agnostic, you are saying that you don't know the answer. By being an atheist, one is basically being pompous.
Faith does provide a level of comfort or peace of mind that many don't have. You, in particular, might call it a placebo though.
Harm comes in many forms, some not so obvious at first. If nature intended for this, then she would have made three mothers each give birth to one third of an ovum and then had the father join them together with his sperm (or something strange like that). Then she would also not have invented this thing called jealousy, etc. Nature intended one father and one mother for each child.
I do agree that in some cases the child must be raised by people other than their biological parent(s), but these should be rare cases.
The whole mentality about "anything goes as long as it does not cause harm to anyone" is in my opinion what is wrong with the world today. Sometimes we are blind to things that are harmful to society over the long run. Most of the time it is best to go with nature's rules. After all, she has worked them out over millions of years so they are fairly balanced.
Now here's the truth that you do not want to hear because you are probably P.C. and "closed minded":
Nature made sex pleasurable so that we would procreate, period. Yes, it is true that it brings a couple together (geez, go figure, they need to raise the child after they procreate).
Gays, in the natural sense, are a genetic dead end. That said, we ALL have genetic differences (abnormalities is a strong word, but that is what different implies), so I am not saying that gays are inferior to anyone. I'm just saying that we must all learn to deal with the truth.
Off subject:
Here's an interesting thought experiment for all of you atheists:
Do you believe that there is absolute truth? If your answer is "there is NO absolute truth" then you would be saying that at least one exists.
Secondly, if you believe in the "many worlds theory," then you probably believe that "any world that can exist does exist" (mathematically speaking: any equation that can express self awareness defines a self-aware world, etc.). If you believe this, then you have to accept that their may be an all powerful "God" in one of those worlds/equations (or that the superset of such equations is the definition of absolute truth or God). Therefore, why do you call yourself an atheist?
Actually, our founding fathers had to work within the political confines of the day. Their mindset was different than ours. Fortunately (and unfortunately), they had the forsight to allow for the amending of the constitution. That said, these people were very educated and DID step out of groupthink (groupthink was to have a KING run your country). How about "European liberties are at least on par with Americans". After all, it was our country that inspired the French Revolution and saved Europe from speaking German. While it is true that some European countries permit open drug use, most also have gun control, etc.
Why not three or more mothers and a Dad? What's the difference? If polygamists want to do it, then why shouldn't they? After all, we all came from Monkeys. We should start acting like them. Equal protection under the law does not mean that minorities can dictate social/cultural norms. (Don't even get a thread started!)