Profanity, though not the prettiest of words, are words in the English language for a reason, and they have their place. It is true that when they are over used, they often show a small vocabulary (there are better words you could to say what you mean on a regular basis), but when an extreme emphasis is due, they do get people's attention.
In any case, you shouldn't discount an entire argument just because of one use of profanity. It is just a word, and you will miss good opinions if you close your mind like that. Specifically, you might just hear opinions like your own, which is pointless.
And, personally, I am surprised he swore only once when talking about Microsoft. Talk about restraint.
Which doesn't mean they aren't liberal. No one who is resonable like terrorism, no matter what politics it is for. And almost all the sides have resonable people.
Read the posts by devbiowonk (638623) above. I'll post the pertinent part:
The animals were always treated with the utmost care (we need healthy and happy animals to do experiments) and any time an animal needed to be sacrificed it was anesthetized (CO2 or tricane). There are not really any ethical issues in my view, but I really disliked having to sacrifice pregnant mice to get their embryos.
See? He wasn't lacking in empathy, but he believed that the ends justified the means. And that is the political question: Does then ends justify the means?
He says all those important things, and you attack his GRAMMAR. Did you consider that he may be thinking about more important things? Like, I don't know, ANYTHING ELSE.
I don't support harassment if that is what you are implying, but just as they have right to loudly shout their opinion, you have the right to shout at them that they are wrong. Use freedom of speech as the power it was meant to be.
While it is true that the support and furtherance of violence is morally deplorable, you play with free speech laws, which as most slashdoters can tell you, is a dangerous thing indeed. I agree that if they order specific violent action, they are criminals, (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater) but otherwise you are penalising a person for their opinion. If you start to do that, the metaphorical slope is very slippery. People who support a war could be called murderers: they are patting on the back people that kill people, who in some people's opinions could be considered murders. People who defend pro-choice could be called murders as well: they are sanctioning abortion, what in some people's opinions is murder. People who criticize the government could be called traitors, because they do often support large change, and that in some people's opinions undermines the country.
The key term is "some people's opinions". In your opinion, supporting this behavior is murder, but not theirs. For the market place of ideas, and ultimately democracy, to work, all ideas must be allowed, no matter how extreem they are or dissagred with they are. As Voltaire wrote, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
God doesn't care about rights violations, why should I?
Doing something just because an old book told you to is bad enough. Now you are saying it's okay to do something because an old book didn't say not to?
This idea has other uses, like insuring high quality and low chance of contamination. Normal meat was once a living animal, and those can be very, very messy.
After some of the sci-fi I have read, that is nothing. Plus, you don't think eating an animals muscle is kind of creepy? You have muscles too, you know, which, from what I hear, taste of chicken.
vegan (vgn, vjn) n. A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.
The dictionary definition doesn't distinguish them, why should we? We have a name for animal rights activists: animal rights activists. You calling someone who doesn't eat meat for diet reasons a "fakeatarian" is elitism, and purposfully insulting. Bad things!!! Just ask Germany. (a leap, I know, but I couldn't think of anything else).
Personally, I have always seen the dietary reasons as some of the best not to eat meat. Eating higher up the food pyramid means it takes more energy to feed you, which is inefficient and a little unfair considering that people starve in this world.
Note: I do eat meat, but that's because I am spoiled and like how it tastes.
I just said that potential life trumps actual life, not that it wasn't worth something. It isn't black and white. If the eggs hurt the species in the long run, omelet away.
It is a very nuanced issue. That is why, until you can resolve all those nuanced issues, I am going to come down on the side of individual freedom (pro-choice). If the issue can't be resolved, then let each women decide what they should do. And you have the freedom to try to talk them all out of it.
You missed the "potential life" part. I refuse to sacrifice the life of this mother for this potential life. Technechly, one could claim that the mother might comit suicide to save this child from a life of poverty. It still is her body. Once the child is born, though (or can be born), it is then the reponcibility of their parents, and the society above that.
Technechly, all body cells have two sets, so should all cells be protected? I know that seems silly, but the issue I am pointing out is can you really call something a seperate organism if it cannot, in any way, live outside in another organism? If you remove an embryo from a mother, it would die, just like if it were skin cells you scraped off. Also, if the mother is not in good condition for some reason (injury, malnutrion, ect.), the body will get rid of it, causing a miscarrage. It is totally dependent, and therefore, IMO, it isn't a life yet, just another part of the woman carrying it.
Also, no matter what you do, women will have abortions by inducing miscarrages, often in unhealty ways. By making it illegal, you are trading potential lifes for actually lifes of women everywhere.
Mice don't feel taunted by the universe, to figure out it's secrets. Mice DON'T change the world. Mice invent new tools to save back breaking labor.
To quote the Douglas Adams: For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons.
On a more serious note, just because mice deal with different issues, who is to say their depression is any different. First of all, all pain in relative: being hanged by the tail might be as big of a deal for a mouse as you losing a job is for you, there is no way to tell. Second, as previous posters have pointed out, continuous depression is less a factor of the situation and more a factor of how your body deals with it. Biology makes it so that some people deal with the death of a loved one relatively well, while others break down completely at day to day activities. Basically, who are you to say that similar ways of dealing with depression can be used on mice and people.
I don't really think that anyone will use this method on humans. This gene evolved for a reason, and just removing it could cause problems. What this does do, though, is show that influencing the genes themselfs can stop depression, which could lead to new cures. This is less of a way of tackling the problem, and more a way of looking at it differently.
Though at the moment it is true that the people are played, they do have power. But they don't exert it because they don't realize they are being played. The reason thing like this are depressing is that it shows that "the people" aren't educated, so are easily swayed by politicians and media and don't think for themselves. There is hope for the nation, if we can just remove peoples' blinders.
Okay, I know saying this won't be extremely popular on slashdot, but the legalization of drugs isn't so simple. First of all, the argument about freedom has some kinks in it. Sure, you exert your free will when you first try drugs, or even the second or the third or the tenth, but eventually you get addicted, and so much for free will. One could argue that the government saves our freedom by preventing use of drugs. I'm not going to, because I like my karma, but you could.
Second, you have to deal with welfare systems. When you ruin your bodies on drugs, many of you will depend on the pulic welfare system, which uses my tax dollars. Now, I'm not going to deny you welfare, because at a certain point it isn't your fault (see above), but that doesn't mean the taxes couldn't be spent in better places.
Third, like it or not, you are part of a society, which means you have responsibilities. The government provides you with roads, schools, safety, and many, many other things, and in return you pay taxes. If you get addicted to drugs, though, especially the more extreme ones, your ability to add to society goes way down. You don't pay taxes, therefore things that need to be done don't get done, and the people who didn't do drugs suffer. Your still part of the social contract, just like everyone else.
In any case, I agree that the "war on drugs" as it currently stands isn't working. I know it may be over-said, but it should be treated like a public health problem, not a moral issue. Treating it like a moral issue just makes rebels drawn to it and criminals part of it. The focus should be on prevention and rehabilitation. If you need to legalize drugs to do that, fine, but drugs are a societal issue, and must be dealt with.
Okay, the Declaration of Independence argument is common, and though it is true, it is usually a little out of context. I wanted to set the record straight.
One- The argument is usually used how it was first intended: emotional appeal. If you think about it, it isn't a very supportable argument. "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" are not exactly attainable goals, because someone can't really have absolute rights. Your freedom stop at the other persons rights. So it isn't as much a logical argument as an appeal to basic ideals, which brings me to my next point--
Two- The "rich white man" argument isn't really relevant, because the important part is what that means to people today that is important. Almost every child in the US sat in a classroom and was read the words of this document, and many of us are touched by them, tying them to our basic values. When people say "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal," they are trying to call upon those values that are considered universal in our nation, to bring us back to our base. We make those words ours, and they are then important because they speak to us, not because they were said by a person 200 years ago.
I personally feel that most people read the words as they are written, and just sometimes forget about them because of all the mess. If I am wrong, I am not living in the nation I thought I was.
I agree with most of what you said, but I just had to point out that little flaw. It has been used a lot and I feel it takes away from the meaning of the words.
You must admit there is the argument that a civilized society would follow it's own rules, which we don't. It isn't just the torture thing, either. Remember all that illegal wire tapping the NSA did? And the Patriot Act? Sure, the Patriot Act follows the WORDING of the constitution, but it doesn't exactly follow the spirit. Getting a warrant after the search? What if the warrant was unsupported, what recourse would they have? How does that comply with right "against unreasonable searches and seizures"?
I find it funny that, in trying to fight terrorism, we did the very thing they wanted all along. Disrupted our way of life.
Is the US a modern county? Yes. Is it civilized? Arguable.
Slashdot Mirror
Profanity, though not the prettiest of words, are words in the English language for a reason, and they have their place. It is true that when they are over used, they often show a small vocabulary (there are better words you could to say what you mean on a regular basis), but when an extreme emphasis is due, they do get people's attention.
In any case, you shouldn't discount an entire argument just because of one use of profanity. It is just a word, and you will miss good opinions if you close your mind like that. Specifically, you might just hear opinions like your own, which is pointless.
And, personally, I am surprised he swore only once when talking about Microsoft. Talk about restraint.
But will the french save our ass this time?
Which doesn't mean they aren't liberal. No one who is resonable like terrorism, no matter what politics it is for. And almost all the sides have resonable people.
Read the posts by devbiowonk (638623) above. I'll post the pertinent part:
The animals were always treated with the utmost care (we need healthy and happy animals to do experiments) and any time an animal needed to be sacrificed it was anesthetized (CO2 or tricane). There are not really any ethical issues in my view, but I really disliked having to sacrifice pregnant mice to get their embryos.
See? He wasn't lacking in empathy, but he believed that the ends justified the means. And that is the political question: Does then ends justify the means?
He says all those important things, and you attack his GRAMMAR. Did you consider that he may be thinking about more important things? Like, I don't know, ANYTHING ELSE.
They weren't. They were blaming the athorities for not stoping the criminals, even when the athorities tout stoping these kind of criminals zelously.
And that is how you deal with it.
I don't support harassment if that is what you are implying, but just as they have right to loudly shout their opinion, you have the right to shout at them that they are wrong. Use freedom of speech as the power it was meant to be.
While it is true that the support and furtherance of violence is morally deplorable, you play with free speech laws, which as most slashdoters can tell you, is a dangerous thing indeed. I agree that if they order specific violent action, they are criminals, (you can't yell fire in a crowded theater) but otherwise you are penalising a person for their opinion. If you start to do that, the metaphorical slope is very slippery. People who support a war could be called murderers: they are patting on the back people that kill people, who in some people's opinions could be considered murders. People who defend pro-choice could be called murders as well: they are sanctioning abortion, what in some people's opinions is murder. People who criticize the government could be called traitors, because they do often support large change, and that in some people's opinions undermines the country.
The key term is "some people's opinions". In your opinion, supporting this behavior is murder, but not theirs. For the market place of ideas, and ultimately democracy, to work, all ideas must be allowed, no matter how extreem they are or dissagred with they are. As Voltaire wrote, "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Which is why it is only a little unfair, and I only feel a little guilty.
God doesn't care about rights violations, why should I?
Doing something just because an old book told you to is bad enough. Now you are saying it's okay to do something because an old book didn't say not to?
Dr. Jackson slowly nodded. "The entire East Coast has been eating -- ME!"
And you say that like it is a bad thing. You know, cannibals say we taste of chicken, and I for one like chicken.
This idea has other uses, like insuring high quality and low chance of contamination. Normal meat was once a living animal, and those can be very, very messy.
Was it treated humanly? Fed well, given lots of exersice?
After some of the sci-fi I have read, that is nothing. Plus, you don't think eating an animals muscle is kind of creepy? You have muscles too, you know, which, from what I hear, taste of chicken.
From dictionary.com:
vegan (vgn, vjn) n. A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.
The dictionary definition doesn't distinguish them, why should we? We have a name for animal rights activists: animal rights activists. You calling someone who doesn't eat meat for diet reasons a "fakeatarian" is elitism, and purposfully insulting. Bad things!!! Just ask Germany. (a leap, I know, but I couldn't think of anything else).
Personally, I have always seen the dietary reasons as some of the best not to eat meat. Eating higher up the food pyramid means it takes more energy to feed you, which is inefficient and a little unfair considering that people starve in this world.
Note: I do eat meat, but that's because I am spoiled and like how it tastes.
I just said that potential life trumps actual life, not that it wasn't worth something. It isn't black and white. If the eggs hurt the species in the long run, omelet away.
It is a very nuanced issue. That is why, until you can resolve all those nuanced issues, I am going to come down on the side of individual freedom (pro-choice). If the issue can't be resolved, then let each women decide what they should do. And you have the freedom to try to talk them all out of it.
You missed the "potential life" part. I refuse to sacrifice the life of this mother for this potential life. Technechly, one could claim that the mother might comit suicide to save this child from a life of poverty. It still is her body. Once the child is born, though (or can be born), it is then the reponcibility of their parents, and the society above that.
Technechly, all body cells have two sets, so should all cells be protected? I know that seems silly, but the issue I am pointing out is can you really call something a seperate organism if it cannot, in any way, live outside in another organism? If you remove an embryo from a mother, it would die, just like if it were skin cells you scraped off. Also, if the mother is not in good condition for some reason (injury, malnutrion, ect.), the body will get rid of it, causing a miscarrage. It is totally dependent, and therefore, IMO, it isn't a life yet, just another part of the woman carrying it.
Also, no matter what you do, women will have abortions by inducing miscarrages, often in unhealty ways. By making it illegal, you are trading potential lifes for actually lifes of women everywhere.
Mice don't feel taunted by the universe, to figure out it's secrets.
Mice DON'T change the world. Mice invent new tools to save back breaking labor.
To quote the Douglas Adams:
For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much - the wheel, New York, wars and so on - whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man - for precisely the same reasons.
On a more serious note, just because mice deal with different issues, who is to say their depression is any different. First of all, all pain in relative: being hanged by the tail might be as big of a deal for a mouse as you losing a job is for you, there is no way to tell. Second, as previous posters have pointed out, continuous depression is less a factor of the situation and more a factor of how your body deals with it. Biology makes it so that some people deal with the death of a loved one relatively well, while others break down completely at day to day activities. Basically, who are you to say that similar ways of dealing with depression can be used on mice and people.
I don't really think that anyone will use this method on humans. This gene evolved for a reason, and just removing it could cause problems. What this does do, though, is show that influencing the genes themselfs can stop depression, which could lead to new cures. This is less of a way of tackling the problem, and more a way of looking at it differently.
Though at the moment it is true that the people are played, they do have power. But they don't exert it because they don't realize they are being played. The reason thing like this are depressing is that it shows that "the people" aren't educated, so are easily swayed by politicians and media and don't think for themselves. There is hope for the nation, if we can just remove peoples' blinders.
Okay, I know saying this won't be extremely popular on slashdot, but the legalization of drugs isn't so simple. First of all, the argument about freedom has some kinks in it. Sure, you exert your free will when you first try drugs, or even the second or the third or the tenth, but eventually you get addicted, and so much for free will. One could argue that the government saves our freedom by preventing use of drugs. I'm not going to, because I like my karma, but you could.
Second, you have to deal with welfare systems. When you ruin your bodies on drugs, many of you will depend on the pulic welfare system, which uses my tax dollars. Now, I'm not going to deny you welfare, because at a certain point it isn't your fault (see above), but that doesn't mean the taxes couldn't be spent in better places.
Third, like it or not, you are part of a society, which means you have responsibilities. The government provides you with roads, schools, safety, and many, many other things, and in return you pay taxes. If you get addicted to drugs, though, especially the more extreme ones, your ability to add to society goes way down. You don't pay taxes, therefore things that need to be done don't get done, and the people who didn't do drugs suffer. Your still part of the social contract, just like everyone else.
In any case, I agree that the "war on drugs" as it currently stands isn't working. I know it may be over-said, but it should be treated like a public health problem, not a moral issue. Treating it like a moral issue just makes rebels drawn to it and criminals part of it. The focus should be on prevention and rehabilitation. If you need to legalize drugs to do that, fine, but drugs are a societal issue, and must be dealt with.
Okay, the Declaration of Independence argument is common, and though it is true, it is usually a little out of context. I wanted to set the record straight.
One- The argument is usually used how it was first intended: emotional appeal. If you think about it, it isn't a very supportable argument. "Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" are not exactly attainable goals, because someone can't really have absolute rights. Your freedom stop at the other persons rights. So it isn't as much a logical argument as an appeal to basic ideals, which brings me to my next point--
Two- The "rich white man" argument isn't really relevant, because the important part is what that means to people today that is important. Almost every child in the US sat in a classroom and was read the words of this document, and many of us are touched by them, tying them to our basic values. When people say "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal," they are trying to call upon those values that are considered universal in our nation, to bring us back to our base. We make those words ours, and they are then important because they speak to us, not because they were said by a person 200 years ago.
I personally feel that most people read the words as they are written, and just sometimes forget about them because of all the mess. If I am wrong, I am not living in the nation I thought I was.
I agree with most of what you said, but I just had to point out that little flaw. It has been used a lot and I feel it takes away from the meaning of the words.
You must admit there is the argument that a civilized society would follow it's own rules, which we don't. It isn't just the torture thing, either. Remember all that illegal wire tapping the NSA did? And the Patriot Act? Sure, the Patriot Act follows the WORDING of the constitution, but it doesn't exactly follow the spirit. Getting a warrant after the search? What if the warrant was unsupported, what recourse would they have? How does that comply with right "against unreasonable searches and seizures"?
I find it funny that, in trying to fight terrorism, we did the very thing they wanted all along. Disrupted our way of life.
Is the US a modern county? Yes. Is it civilized? Arguable.