|
|
It also neglects to acknowledge that a substantial % of the population supports him (populism sells for the simple, destitute masses.)
Of course he is popular. His critics are demonised by the state-owned media,
and censored, so they can't defend themselves.
Stalin was popular too.
The Vietnam War was not the USA against Vietnam.
It was South Vietnam, backed by the USA and some other countries, against North Vietnam, backed by the PRC and the Soviet Union.
Both sides were _big_ dogs.
People also forget that some 56,000 Americans, versus some 1,000,000 Vietnamese, died in that war.
Actually cockroaches can learn
According to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070927132543.htm
cockroaches can learn.
I still agree that a human analogy is irrelevant, though.
The left complains about Scalia, but not about that California judge who was in a same-sex sexual partnership
and ruled that maintaining the definition of marriage was unconstitutional.
Abortion has only been legal since 1973.
The right to life for human beings might be paramount. Legally, until a baby is born, there is only one human being and she is an adultmy body.
Legally, maybe. Morally, no.
And I disagree with your claim that the life of a person is paramount. If you are trying to invade my home, I have a legal right to use deadly force to stop you. And that's just my home, not
The right to life of a completely innocent person is another story.
And even in the case of the burglar, it might be argued that you only have the right to use deadly force because there is a chance that he would kill you, but I don't want to go there, because it would be changing the subject.
Anyway, cockroaches are clearly sub-human.
Do you really think that all animals have the same dignity?
Including a sponge, which has no neurons?
So people should not go camping, for fear of stomping
an ant?
Clearly, beings with higher intelligence, self-awareness, conscience and free-will are superior
to beings that are, essentially, simple robots made of carbon.
I have no fear of eating meat. Or of killing/harming (while minimising their pain) insects for scientific experiments
No, this is utter bull shit. The stat, which is a Brady creation, is that for people with a gun in the home, they are more likely to be "harmed" by a gun. Now, think that through. If you want to commit suicide and you have a gun at the house, um sure you will use a gun. This does not mean you will fall victim to a gun homicide nor does it mean your gun will be used against you.
But can't we argue that owning a gun increases the chance of suicide?
I mean, a shot to the side of the brain is pretty painless (AFAIK).
So people who don't want to suffer the pain of a knife suicide
could decide to kill themselves with a gun.
Therefore, if the government makes it harder to own a gun,
it might avert some suicides.
I don't have a strong opinion here, so any replies that show
holes in my logic will actually be appreciated.
Regards
the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society.
Wrong, because the right to life is the most important human right, as I wrote elsewhere and can easily be deduced by simple logic.
I can't swing my arm at your face because my right to freedom of movement is subordinate to your right not to be punched.
There is a hierarchy of rights; some rights are more important than others.
And clearly the right to life is right at the top. One of the reasons for that, is the fact that without life no other right can be exercised.
Therefore, the unborn baby's right to life is more important than the pregnant woman right to not be inconvenienced by a pregnancy.
Nothing in progression can rest on its original plan. We may as well think of rocking a grown man in the cradle of an infant. -- Edmund Burke