This is one of the most sensable things I have seen in a while. Exactly. Adultary is whatever the people involved agree that it is.
Every relationship is different. Every person has different expectations and beliefs. Me personally, I put a different value on sex than others. If my partner (at a time when I had one, recently I am without one) were to have gone off and had sex with someone else...well so what? _I_ am not bothered by that.
In fact, I just think sex is nice and feels good. If my partner wants to share that with someone else, then thats great. (now the issues of disease and other things would come into play, but thats a practicall consideration, not a "philosophical" one and as such doesn't come into play in this veiwpoint).
I often think that such ideas as "adultury" stem from peoples insecurity and fear of losing their lover more than anything else.
But hey... if you enter into a relationship, and then break the trust of that relationship, thats wrong. If the relationship is of the type where the action is not an issue, then its not wrong. It is ONLY wrong when a trust is being broken.
Which are things that not everyone signs, or is asked to sign. While its a standard practice for many jobs, he doesn't say what he is doing and many technology jobs (like sysadmin) don't require them.
Course, This is one of the many reasons that I refuse to sign NDAs and their ilk. I wont bargain away my free speech, never have and never will. Its worth a hell of alot more to me than some silly green peices of paper.
(well ok, I would sign an NDA if it only covered stuff that would be unethical to disclose anyway - like individuals medical records and such)
> And contrary to popular belief, dinosaur
> fossils have not proven evolution, but rather
> a massive flood or other catastrophe. If you
> really want me to find a link
> for it online I will try to do so for you.
Yes a massive flood that killed off even the large dinosaurs that lived in the sea. That sounds very plausable.
No need to find a link, ive seen the pseudoscience before. Perhaps you would like to know how it all relates to the law of fives? Really fascinating stuff.
> At least I've got some solid ground to stand
> on for my beliefs both scientific and
> spiritually. It is an amazing story, but hey,
> I'm not God so it's not my job to understand
> it, just believe it.
I supose if that ground feels solid to you, then it must be solid. Even if it looks and feels alot like sand to me.
As I said before... feel free to believe what you want. Just don't expect your beliefs to affect my decisions on what types of research or plans of action to support.
> Why worry about moving the earth 1 million years
> from now. If we survive that long, why would
> we use a 1 million year old technology?
And noone is arguing that we should. All I am advocating is that this idea be researched, becuase when the time comes that it has to move, thats not the time to START the research.
Thats exactly the kind of thinking that caused the "Y2K Craze"... "Oh plenty of time, this stuff will be long since replaced by then, no need for us to store dates right now".
> At least my 'ghost stories' (which I take
> literally from the Genesis account in the
> Bible) have never been proven false,
Whats to prove false? Its a story. A story with an all powerful God that can change the entire universe at his whim... makes it very easy to explain away just about anything. How convinient!
I supose the dinosaur bones we find are just Gods little practical joke to test our faith then? Or maybe whoever recorded the story simply forgot about the monstorous flesh eating lizards?
> while you choose to believe in Big Bang theory,
> also based on faith.
The only faith in science is the faith that reality exists, and we are not brains in jars being fed a virtual universe (like the matrix).
And even then... science would still be valid within that universe. (unless the program suddenly changed all the rules).
The "Big Bang" theory is just the best theory we have so far. The one that fits the most of the empirical evidence. When new empirical evidence is found that contradicts it, a new theory will replace it.
No Theory is written in stone.
> technology a 10-20 years from now will
> undoubtedly have much better solutions to global
> warming than this.
This is not the same global warming that environmentalists are going around talking about. This is not about the earth holding in heat.
This is global warming due to the Sun begining to die out. As it dies out, it gets hotter. Its output increases drastically. When it happens, it will FRY this planet.
> Sorry, but I just can't have the kind of faith
> required to think I'm just a product of
> extraodinary chance. What hope of a fulfilling
> life is there in that?
Reality exists the way it is completely without regard to your ability to accept it.
If you must participate in wild fantasy based on the speculations and ghost stories of ages past,to feel "Fullfilled" in your life... then enjoy I supose.
Do not, however, expect that everyone else will honor your ghost stories when it comes time to make decisions and shape plans to avoid the destruction of our home planet (which is currently the only one we have).
When the people jump, the force of their jump applies an equal, but pposite, force on the earth. Causing it to get slightly closer to the sun. The CENTER of mass stays the same, and thus the net forces still cancel out.
> Um, am I the only one who gets the idea that
> a physicist worked something out on the back
> of an envelope, while at a bar drinking,
> and somehow a reporter decided that it was a
> 'story'?
Nope... I was just defending the physics behhind it. I never said it was terribly practical:)
Imean sure, today we can't tow an asteroid like that... but we have several thousand years before we should need to.
My statment was SPECIFICALLY against the assertion that "If we have everyone in china all jump atthe same time"/
In that instance, you do have a closed system and no outside force.
Now as for the article... yea... exactly. It should work if its done right. The real question here.... how do you coax the asteroid to the right velocity to do this?
It is...and it *IS* "broke". In a billion years or so... no matter what we try to do locally, will be uninhabitable.
The Sun will begin to die out. It will get hotter, its output will increase...we WILL be incinerated.
Until I have a written copy of "Gods Great Plan" which states that this is a "Good thing", and necissary to the universe at large... I vote "Lets get this fucker out of the way"
Now... noone is saying we have to do it now. We have thousands of years before we have to DO anything. However, there is no point in refusing to talk about it and explore our options NOW.
I mean hell, assuming for a min that there is a "creator" (God, Gods, whatever) perhaps this is exactly what he would expecty us to do...I mean, any such being would be the same being that gave us the very intellect and resources that we need to solve such a problem...perhaps we are expected to solve it in time...maybe that is "the plan".
The fact is, we don't know what "His Plan" is, much less whether "He" is. (or at least, we can't all agree on it). So its insane to take "His Plan" into account...until we have a written copy in hand.
The Sun will heat up, and heat the whole earth up. No amount of pollution reduction will stop this. No amount of pollution reduction will have any effect on this whatsoever.
Well.... I dunno whats sillier...your idea or the fact that I am actually going to explain why it wont work:)
When a person jumps, they exert a force against the earth. Now...the mass distribution of the earth changes a bit...and thus the center of gravity changes...so if aenough people did this in a way that produced a net force, the earth would indeed move away from them. (it would take quite a few for this change to even be measurable.
However... unless they reach escape velocity... the gravitational force between them and the earth will pull them back... exerting exactly the same magnitude of force against both, but in an opposite direction.
Basically... the center of mass for a closed system (and in this case, we are indeed talking about a closed system) will not change. You need an EXTERNAL force to change the velocity, internal forces always cancel out.
Now...if you could get the entire population of china to jump AND reach escape velocity.... that would be quite a different story...however... they may not fare too well.
The gravitational pull between the two bodies would indeed produce a force pulling the two "towards eachother".
However, the idea is that it comes by with the right velocity and angle that it shoots right past, and just kind of pulls out our orbit a little bit.
Basically... the asteroid would slow down, and we would speed up....but not enough so that it would actually come into our orbit or even hit us...it would continue right along its path.
Its an interesting note that thats true and not true. Chess is such an amazingly complex game.
I could even argue that there are times when an oponent takes a knight or a bishop, they gain nothing, or lose more than they gain.
All in all, more important than the peices, is the position.The actual utility (value?) if a peice changes with its position.
Everything in the game though, is a tradeoff. There are times when the best move is the one that results in the loss of an important peice. (ever notice that most people will not trade their queen, even if its the only way to avoid checkmate? - even some really good players fall into that trap).
Actually.... that only protects the nameserver itself. Bind, remember, serves out information to the world (or at least th elocal network), so a compromised bind can be used in many many ways.
A Nameserver can usually be restored form backup without loss. Whether they have root on the box or not usually means little. I would be much more worried about them being able to have effect over what answers bind gives.
I can see a closed, and secured, list for the purpose of sending out pre-fix vulnerability notification to the people who are most vulnerable (TLD admins especially).
The problem I would have is if the information does not get released to the public in a timely fashion.
Ideally, if a report comes in, the "Right thing" to do would be to keep it silent (unless its already public knowledge and to release the fix and the report at the same time (that way attackers don't get a head start on admins).
In fact, this falls right in line with full disclosure if its done that way. The standard accepted procedure is to notify the vendor and NOT disclose a vulnerability openly immediatly UNLESS its being used actively. (not until a reasonable amount of time has passed and its gone unfixed or a fix comes out - whichever comes first).
Now...whether thats their plan, is another story. ALL that the anouncement said was that a list would be formed.
-Steve
Re:Other historical tragedies.
on
The Challenger
·
· Score: 2
I don't see how its completely illogical.
Of course I understand the difference bewtween disinfecting my toilet and performing an aborrtion. An abortion requires ALOT more skill - and care - as using the wrong tools/chemicals/techniques could kill the person being operated on (it would be excedingly hard fo rme to destroy my toilet bowl by cleaning it)
However, I see no MORAL difference bwteen the two.
"Thou shalt not kill" is a law made up by our society as a needed protection - a kind of glue to ease our fears and make society work. It does not apply to those who are not members of the society - or are not capable of being members.
It applies no more to a fetus than it does to a cow, or a deer, or any other animal that we regularly kill for our own ends.
-Steve
Re:Other historical tragedies.
on
The Challenger
·
· Score: 2
Which really has nothing to do with the issue.
Just because someone else may the child, doesn't give you any responsibility to follow through with the pregnancy.
What makes abortion wrong exactly? Really what?
I don't think its wrong. I do not believe that it is killing a human life. I don't see it as any different than using disinfectant soap to clean my toilet.
Abortion iwrong IF AND ONLY IF you believe that the fetus is a living thing, that deserves protection. I am sorry, but I just don't see it. Its just a clump of cells.
It has no more of a right to life than the bacteria and vinegar yeastes that are naturally in the honey I use to make mead - and I have no qualms about killing them before pitching the yeast that I want in there.
Until a human being is capable of learning language and forming relationships and being a member of society, then I don't recognize any right to life (which is really, a fabircation needed for our society to function).
-Steve
Re:Other historical tragedies.
on
The Challenger
·
· Score: 1
> This is obviously an argument engineered
> toward an end, the absolution of responsibility.
I disagree.
If you are pregnant...and you realise that you will not make a good parent, if your heart is not COMPLETELY in it. If you are not willing to make the sacrifices that are needed - then having an aboirtion IS a responsibility.
Realizing that you are not able or willing to care for another life, the ONLY responsable thing to do is to NOT bring a life into this world.
As a fetus it is not a human.... but it will be soon. If a person is not willing to care for it, then it is wholly right that they stop the process BEFORE it emerges as a new life that needs to be cared for.
> So much for the value of human life! And we
> wonder where the selfishness and moral decay is
> coming from?
Ahh yes, accusations of moral decay and cries of the sanctity of human life. Gee, noone has been harping on these for the past few thousand years have they?
What exactly is this "Value of human life". Im sorry, but what makes a person "Valuable" in my book is their personality...WHO they are - not WHAT they are.
A fetus is not a human, its a proto-human, a potential human. It is not a sentient being, and thus has no "right to live", any more than any other random clump of cells.
-Steve
Re:Other historical tragedies.
on
The Challenger
·
· Score: 1
> What I meant by praying in school was mostly
> public praying
Prayer in school sounds like a great idea. I support it 100%. However, the expense o fputting an alter in the classroom and a place to catch the blood - afterall, you can't really properly pray to Kali without a blood sacrifice.
(I have to thank a colleauge that I met at Usenix, of Indian decent, who provided me with that argument)
> Also, there are many schools where people are
> told they cannot have a Bible out in class
Yes, and my religion teachers in HS (I went to a private school) didn't like me having my french-english dictionary or math books out during religion class. I am sure that my Math teacher wouldn't have let me sit there and read the bible either.
This is also the crux of the arghument that law enforcement makes about why hemp should be illegal "We can't tell the difference between it and illegal marijuana".
Its a silly argument (even if you don't feel marijuana should be legal - like every other right thinking individual (j/k)).
It is law enforcements job to enforce laws, not to influence them. If enforcing the law is hard, then it is hard. Noone ever said that its suposed to be easy.
The law is suposed to be set because it is the right thing, not because it is easy.
> So by your logic heroin should be legal since
> banning it only makes someone want it more.
> Bzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.
So I supose you would rather I not bring up that studies in switzerland showed that when heroin addicts had legal and reasonably priced (priced at about hwat heroin would cost if not for being illegal and thus having the huge "black market markup") that they were able to lead otherwise normal lives, hol ddown jobs, and no longer harmed society by engaging in criminal activites like theft to "support their habbits.
A differnt issue? yup. Related? I think so.
> wanting sex with children is unhealthy, to say
> the least.
It is? In what way? I somehow doubt that you are going to say that desire is the cause of suffering and that they should follow the eightfold path.
Wanting is only a problem when it becomes "obtaining". Their "headspace' is their buisness. Not yours. It is up to them to decide what thoughts are ok for their brains, not you.
This is one of those topics that I find so very interesting to think about.
Our culture seems to have this hard wired "sex = bad" idea. Sex is dirty, sex is wrong blah blah.
There is only one thing that I have figured out. Sex feels good, and with the exceptions of a few individuals, everyone seems to enjoy it immensly (well ok, some women complain that its not as good as it could be much of the time, but thats another issue entirly).
STDs aside (they really isn't much special about them... just viruses that are not capable of going airborn. Nothing special - and no more common than any other). How can sex be harmful? Seriously, how? Ive heard it said that the psycological "harm" done by child molsstation is not done by the inital act, but by the person growing up and finding out ho w"evil and dirty" such acts are... the trauma of something that was war, loving, and fun at the time (which I realise is not true in all cases) suddenly cast in new light, siddenly is bad and evil.
All in all, I think this is indicitive of our societies unhealthy attitudes towards sex. We seem to insist on turning something that is fun, life affirming, and natural into something that is "dirty, bad, and evil".
It most certainly was...whether you intended it to be flame bait (which would make it a troll) or not is certainly open to question.... I am willing to believe that it was not your intent though.
> Adult pornography is between two consenting
> adults. However, when it is between children,
> the children usually are not concenting, or
> enjoying it in any way whatso ever.
No... pornography doesn't require consenting adults, or even humans. Pornography is any sort of imagry made with the intent of sexual arousal. (Yes I am including erotica. As far as I can tell, the accepted difference between them is "Erotica is OK because its what you like, Porn is wrong because its not the stuff you like" - at least thats what it seems)
Whether children consent, or enjoy themselves during sexual acts has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Here is the question.... WHY is child porn illegal? I see two possible answers.
1) Child porn is illegal because children are harmed.
If this is the case (and I think it is), then it is illegal because making child porn involves sexual activity with a person who has not consented to that activity (and legally cannot).
With this reasonaing, no children are harmed if I draw a picture of a naked child or a child having sex. So it shoul dbe legal.
2) Child porn is illegal because it is disgusting and we don't like it.
This allows for your veiwpoint. I don't share it however. I don't like the idea of making things illegal because some, nay, even most people don't like them. "Dislike" is not enough, if there is no harm, them there is no foul.
> In addition, if you post a story or something
> to an adult message board, you would not be
> permitted to post a story about children under
> the age of 18, regardless of if the story is
> true or not.
Or more correctly your post would be removed (in most cases I imagine) since its hard to stop someone from posting something (assuming most boards are not moderated...as is my experience with message boards in general)
That said.... so? Any message board is allowed to make up its own rules. Some of them may be made in fear of retribution (legal or otherwise, real or imagined), as such, I don't see how their rules have any bearing on this discussion.
In summary, I say "No Harm; No Foul". If a person gets off on looking at pictures of children having sex...thats fine with me. Just as long as noone gets hurt in the making of those pictures. I think drawing them, or generating them with the GIMP is a perfectly viable alternative, and I applaud their ability to find non-harmfull means towards satisfieing their needs.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of the most sensable things I have seen in a while. Exactly. Adultary is whatever the people involved agree that it is.
Every relationship is different. Every person has different expectations and beliefs. Me personally, I put a different value on sex than others. If my partner (at a time when I had one, recently I am without one) were to have gone off and had sex with someone else...well so what? _I_ am not bothered by that.
In fact, I just think sex is nice and feels good. If my partner wants to share that with someone else, then thats great. (now the issues of disease and other things would come into play, but thats a practicall consideration, not a "philosophical" one and as such doesn't come into play in this veiwpoint).
I often think that such ideas as "adultury" stem from peoples insecurity and fear of losing their lover more than anything else.
But hey... if you enter into a relationship, and then break the trust of that relationship, thats wrong. If the relationship is of the type where the action is not an issue, then its not wrong. It is ONLY wrong when a trust is being broken.
-Steve
Which are things that not everyone signs, or is asked to sign. While its a standard practice for many jobs, he doesn't say what he is doing and many technology jobs (like sysadmin) don't require them.
Course, This is one of the many reasons that I refuse to sign NDAs and their ilk. I wont bargain away my free speech, never have and never will. Its worth a hell of alot more to me than some silly green peices of paper.
(well ok, I would sign an NDA if it only covered stuff that would be unethical to disclose anyway - like individuals medical records and such)
-Steve
> And contrary to popular belief, dinosaur
> fossils have not proven evolution, but rather
> a massive flood or other catastrophe. If you
> really want me to find a link
> for it online I will try to do so for you.
Yes a massive flood that killed off even the large dinosaurs that lived in the sea. That sounds very plausable.
No need to find a link, ive seen the pseudoscience before. Perhaps you would like to know how it all relates to the law of fives? Really fascinating stuff.
> At least I've got some solid ground to stand
> on for my beliefs both scientific and
> spiritually. It is an amazing story, but hey,
> I'm not God so it's not my job to understand
> it, just believe it.
I supose if that ground feels solid to you, then it must be solid. Even if it looks and feels alot like sand to me.
As I said before... feel free to believe what you want. Just don't expect your beliefs to affect my decisions on what types of research or plans of action to support.
-Steve
> Why worry about moving the earth 1 million years
> from now. If we survive that long, why would
> we use a 1 million year old technology?
And noone is arguing that we should. All I am advocating is that this idea be researched, becuase when the time comes that it has to move, thats not the time to START the research.
Thats exactly the kind of thinking that caused the "Y2K Craze"... "Oh plenty of time, this stuff will be long since replaced by then, no need for us to store dates right now".
> At least my 'ghost stories' (which I take
> literally from the Genesis account in the
> Bible) have never been proven false,
Whats to prove false? Its a story. A story with an all powerful God that can change the entire universe at his whim... makes it very easy to explain away just about anything. How convinient!
I supose the dinosaur bones we find are just Gods little practical joke to test our faith then? Or maybe whoever recorded the story simply forgot about the monstorous flesh eating lizards?
> while you choose to believe in Big Bang theory,
> also based on faith.
The only faith in science is the faith that reality exists, and we are not brains in jars being fed a virtual universe (like the matrix).
And even then... science would still be valid within that universe. (unless the program suddenly changed all the rules).
The "Big Bang" theory is just the best theory we have so far. The one that fits the most of the empirical evidence. When new empirical evidence is found that contradicts it, a new theory will replace it.
No Theory is written in stone.
> technology a 10-20 years from now will
> undoubtedly have much better solutions to global
> warming than this.
This is not the same global warming that environmentalists are going around talking about. This is not about the earth holding in heat.
This is global warming due to the Sun begining to die out. As it dies out, it gets hotter. Its output increases drastically. When it happens, it will FRY this planet.
-Steve
> Sorry, but I just can't have the kind of faith
> required to think I'm just a product of
> extraodinary chance. What hope of a fulfilling
> life is there in that?
Reality exists the way it is completely without regard to your ability to accept it.
If you must participate in wild fantasy based on the speculations and ghost stories of ages past,to feel "Fullfilled" in your life... then enjoy I supose.
Do not, however, expect that everyone else will honor your ghost stories when it comes time to make decisions and shape plans to avoid the destruction of our home planet (which is currently the only one we have).
-Steve
> How long til someone dies from no fair catch?
Does it really matter?
The players know the rules and the dangers. They signed on knowing the rules and the dangers.
If thats what they want to do... so be it.
-Steve
Nope...
When the people jump, the force of their jump applies an equal, but pposite, force on the earth. Causing it to get slightly closer to the sun. The CENTER of mass stays the same, and thus the net forces still cancel out.
-Steve
> Um, am I the only one who gets the idea that
:)
> a physicist worked something out on the back
> of an envelope, while at a bar drinking,
> and somehow a reporter decided that it was a
> 'story'?
Nope... I was just defending the physics behhind it. I never said it was terribly practical
Imean sure, today we can't tow an asteroid like that... but we have several thousand years before we should need to.
-Steve
Very true, and I don't refute that.
My statment was SPECIFICALLY against the assertion that "If we have everyone in china all jump atthe same time"/
In that instance, you do have a closed system and no outside force.
Now as for the article... yea... exactly. It should work if its done right. The real question here.... how do you coax the asteroid to the right velocity to do this?
-Steve
And who is anyone else to say that its perfect?
It is...and it *IS* "broke". In a billion years or so... no matter what we try to do locally, will be uninhabitable.
The Sun will begin to die out. It will get hotter, its output will increase...we WILL be incinerated.
Until I have a written copy of "Gods Great Plan" which states that this is a "Good thing", and necissary to the universe at large... I vote "Lets get this fucker out of the way"
Now... noone is saying we have to do it now. We have thousands of years before we have to DO anything. However, there is no point in refusing to talk about it and explore our options NOW.
I mean hell, assuming for a min that there is a "creator" (God, Gods, whatever) perhaps this is exactly what he would expecty us to do...I mean, any such being would be the same being that gave us the very intellect and resources that we need to solve such a problem...perhaps we are expected to solve it in time...maybe that is "the plan".
The fact is, we don't know what "His Plan" is, much less whether "He" is. (or at least, we can't all agree on it). So its insane to take "His Plan" into account...until we have a written copy in hand.
-Steve
Oh whatever. why not?
If you believe that, then you surely believe that all the other planets were put where they are for a reason too.
And for that matter, the lakes and oceans and rivers were put where they are for a reason... building manmade canals or damns is just absurd!
I dunno, as far as I can tell, Your god is a lousy architech - its wholly apropriate to fix his mistakes.
-Steve
Because in the end....it wont matter.
The Sun will heat up, and heat the whole earth up. No amount of pollution reduction will stop this. No amount of pollution reduction will have any effect on this whatsoever.
-Steve
Well.... I dunno whats sillier...your idea or the fact that I am actually going to explain why it wont work :)
When a person jumps, they exert a force against the earth. Now...the mass distribution of the earth changes a bit...and thus the center of gravity changes...so if aenough people did this in a way that produced a net force, the earth would indeed move away from them. (it would take quite a few for this change to even be measurable.
However... unless they reach escape velocity... the gravitational force between them and the earth will pull them back... exerting exactly the same magnitude of force against both, but in an opposite direction.
Basically... the center of mass for a closed system (and in this case, we are indeed talking about a closed system) will not change. You need an EXTERNAL force to change the velocity, internal forces always cancel out.
Now...if you could get the entire population of china to jump AND reach escape velocity.... that would be quite a different story...however... they may not fare too well.
-Steve
The gravitational pull between the two bodies would indeed produce a force pulling the two "towards eachother".
However, the idea is that it comes by with the right velocity and angle that it shoots right past, and just kind of pulls out our orbit a little bit.
Basically... the asteroid would slow down, and we would speed up....but not enough so that it would actually come into our orbit or even hit us...it would continue right along its path.
-Steve
Its an interesting note that thats true and not true. Chess is such an amazingly complex game.
I could even argue that there are times when an oponent takes a knight or a bishop, they gain nothing, or lose more than they gain.
All in all, more important than the peices, is the position.The actual utility (value?) if a peice changes with its position.
Everything in the game though, is a tradeoff. There are times when the best move is the one that results in the loss of an important peice. (ever notice that most people will not trade their queen, even if its the only way to avoid checkmate? - even some really good players fall into that trap).
-Steve
Actually.... that only protects the nameserver itself. Bind, remember, serves out information to the world (or at least th elocal network), so a compromised bind can be used in many many ways.
A Nameserver can usually be restored form backup without loss. Whether they have root on the box or not usually means little. I would be much more worried about them being able to have effect over what answers bind gives.
-Steve
Depends on how its implimented.
I can see a closed, and secured, list for the purpose of sending out pre-fix vulnerability notification to the people who are most vulnerable (TLD admins especially).
The problem I would have is if the information does not get released to the public in a timely fashion.
Ideally, if a report comes in, the "Right thing" to do would be to keep it silent (unless its already public knowledge and to release the fix and the report at the same time (that way attackers don't get a head start on admins).
In fact, this falls right in line with full disclosure if its done that way. The standard accepted procedure is to notify the vendor and NOT disclose a vulnerability openly immediatly UNLESS its being used actively. (not until a reasonable amount of time has passed and its gone unfixed or a fix comes out - whichever comes first).
Now...whether thats their plan, is another story. ALL that the anouncement said was that a list would be formed.
-Steve
I don't see how its completely illogical.
Of course I understand the difference bewtween disinfecting my toilet and performing an aborrtion. An abortion requires ALOT more skill - and care - as using the wrong tools/chemicals/techniques could kill the person being operated on (it would be excedingly hard fo rme to destroy my toilet bowl by cleaning it)
However, I see no MORAL difference bwteen the two.
"Thou shalt not kill" is a law made up by our society as a needed protection - a kind of glue to ease our fears and make society work. It does not apply to those who are not members of the society - or are not capable of being members.
It applies no more to a fetus than it does to a cow, or a deer, or any other animal that we regularly kill for our own ends.
-Steve
Which really has nothing to do with the issue.
Just because someone else may the child, doesn't give you any responsibility to follow through with the pregnancy.
What makes abortion wrong exactly? Really what?
I don't think its wrong. I do not believe that it is killing a human life. I don't see it as any different than using disinfectant soap to clean my toilet.
Abortion iwrong IF AND ONLY IF you believe that the fetus is a living thing, that deserves protection. I am sorry, but I just don't see it. Its just a clump of cells.
It has no more of a right to life than the bacteria and vinegar yeastes that are naturally in the honey I use to make mead - and I have no qualms about killing them before pitching the yeast that I want in there.
Until a human being is capable of learning language and forming relationships and being a member of society, then I don't recognize any right to life (which is really, a fabircation needed for our society to function).
-Steve
> This is obviously an argument engineered
> toward an end, the absolution of responsibility.
I disagree.
If you are pregnant...and you realise that you will not make a good parent, if your heart is not COMPLETELY in it. If you are not willing to make the sacrifices that are needed - then having an aboirtion IS a responsibility.
Realizing that you are not able or willing to care for another life, the ONLY responsable thing to do is to NOT bring a life into this world.
As a fetus it is not a human.... but it will be soon. If a person is not willing to care for it, then it is wholly right that they stop the process BEFORE it emerges as a new life that needs to be cared for.
> So much for the value of human life! And we
> wonder where the selfishness and moral decay is
> coming from?
Ahh yes, accusations of moral decay and cries of the sanctity of human life. Gee, noone has been harping on these for the past few thousand years have they?
What exactly is this "Value of human life". Im sorry, but what makes a person "Valuable" in my book is their personality...WHO they are - not WHAT they are.
A fetus is not a human, its a proto-human, a potential human. It is not a sentient being, and thus has no "right to live", any more than any other random clump of cells.
-Steve
> What I meant by praying in school was mostly
> public praying
Prayer in school sounds like a great idea. I support it 100%. However, the expense o fputting an alter in the classroom and a place to catch the blood - afterall, you can't really properly pray to Kali without a blood sacrifice.
(I have to thank a colleauge that I met at Usenix, of Indian decent, who provided me with that argument)
> Also, there are many schools where people are
> told they cannot have a Bible out in class
Yes, and my religion teachers in HS (I went to a private school) didn't like me having my french-english dictionary or math books out during religion class. I am sure that my Math teacher wouldn't have let me sit there and read the bible either.
-Steve
This is also the crux of the arghument that law enforcement makes about why hemp should be illegal "We can't tell the difference between it and illegal marijuana".
Its a silly argument (even if you don't feel marijuana should be legal - like every other right thinking individual (j/k)).
It is law enforcements job to enforce laws, not to influence them. If enforcing the law is hard, then it is hard. Noone ever said that its suposed to be easy.
The law is suposed to be set because it is the right thing, not because it is easy.
-Steve
> So by your logic heroin should be legal since
> banning it only makes someone want it more.
> Bzzzzzzt! Wrong answer.
So I supose you would rather I not bring up that studies in switzerland showed that when heroin addicts had legal and reasonably priced (priced at about hwat heroin would cost if not for being illegal and thus having the huge "black market markup") that they were able to lead otherwise normal lives, hol ddown jobs, and no longer harmed society by engaging in criminal activites like theft to "support their habbits.
A differnt issue? yup. Related? I think so.
> wanting sex with children is unhealthy, to say
> the least.
It is? In what way? I somehow doubt that you are going to say that desire is the cause of suffering and that they should follow the eightfold path.
Wanting is only a problem when it becomes "obtaining". Their "headspace' is their buisness. Not yours. It is up to them to decide what thoughts are ok for their brains, not you.
-Steve
This is one of those topics that I find so very interesting to think about.
Our culture seems to have this hard wired "sex = bad" idea. Sex is dirty, sex is wrong blah blah.
There is only one thing that I have figured out. Sex feels good, and with the exceptions of a few individuals, everyone seems to enjoy it immensly (well ok, some women complain that its not as good as it could be much of the time, but thats another issue entirly).
STDs aside (they really isn't much special about them... just viruses that are not capable of going airborn. Nothing special - and no more common than any other). How can sex be harmful? Seriously, how? Ive heard it said that the psycological "harm" done by child molsstation is not done by the inital act, but by the person growing up and finding out ho w"evil and dirty" such acts are... the trauma of something that was war, loving, and fun at the time (which I realise is not true in all cases) suddenly cast in new light, siddenly is bad and evil.
All in all, I think this is indicitive of our societies unhealthy attitudes towards sex. We seem to insist on turning something that is fun, life affirming, and natural into something that is "dirty, bad, and evil".
-Steve
> That was not flamebait!
It most certainly was...whether you intended it to be flame bait (which would make it a troll) or not is certainly open to question.... I am willing to believe that it was not your intent though.
> Adult pornography is between two consenting
> adults. However, when it is between children,
> the children usually are not concenting, or
> enjoying it in any way whatso ever.
No... pornography doesn't require consenting adults, or even humans. Pornography is any sort of imagry made with the intent of sexual arousal. (Yes I am including erotica. As far as I can tell, the accepted difference between them is "Erotica is OK because its what you like, Porn is wrong because its not the stuff you like" - at least thats what it seems)
Whether children consent, or enjoy themselves during sexual acts has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Here is the question.... WHY is child porn illegal? I see two possible answers.
1) Child porn is illegal because children are harmed.
If this is the case (and I think it is), then it is illegal because making child porn involves sexual activity with a person who has not consented to that activity (and legally cannot).
With this reasonaing, no children are harmed if I draw a picture of a naked child or a child having sex. So it shoul dbe legal.
2) Child porn is illegal because it is disgusting and we don't like it.
This allows for your veiwpoint. I don't share it however. I don't like the idea of making things illegal because some, nay, even most people don't like them. "Dislike" is not enough, if there is no harm, them there is no foul.
> In addition, if you post a story or something
> to an adult message board, you would not be
> permitted to post a story about children under
> the age of 18, regardless of if the story is
> true or not.
Or more correctly your post would be removed (in most cases I imagine) since its hard to stop someone from posting something (assuming most boards are not moderated...as is my experience with message boards in general)
That said.... so? Any message board is allowed to make up its own rules. Some of them may be made in fear of retribution (legal or otherwise, real or imagined), as such, I don't see how their rules have any bearing on this discussion.
In summary, I say "No Harm; No Foul". If a person gets off on looking at pictures of children having sex...thats fine with me. Just as long as noone gets hurt in the making of those pictures. I think drawing them, or generating them with the GIMP is a perfectly viable alternative, and I applaud their ability to find non-harmfull means towards satisfieing their needs.
-Steve