|
|
Personally owned flying robots today have the power to change the balance of power between individuals and large bureaucracies in much the same way the Internet did in the past.
Are not these words from the same people that are buying laws to be created so that their unconscionable actions of shear greed are not actionable?
Are you implying that we're being fleeced?
I will be interested in a new discussion system when it supports three things:
My kingdom for a killfile!
A clone of a person is a person. What's so hard to grasp about this blindingly obvious fact?
In general, I agree with you. Yet, consider the abortion debate:
- One side passionately maintains that the developing organism within the mother is a person (and thus possessing of various rights) from the moment of conception
- Another side passionately maintains that the same entity cannot be considered a person until some (varying) period of time subsequent of conception
Two different views of "personhood" with strongly divergent results as to what can be done to the thing in question. If the quote in the summary is followed:
... in the near future people would overcome their concerns if cloning became medically useful.
Then I expect that for some "utility" could stand in as a valid justification to viewing a clone as not-a-person.
However, Tiberius died in 37 CE, long before the Romans got the difference between Christianity and Judaism sorted out.
Indeed, by AD 37 the Christians and the Jews themselves hadn't really gotten themselves sorted apart.
Next the rover will find tall four-armed green men.
If it's all the same, I'd rather it find and image Dejah Thoris
Holy shit, look at that drone skimming the tree tops!
"Jimmy, bet ya' a Miller Lite that you can't hit that thing with yer twenty-two."
"Jesus saves...but Gretzky gets the rebound!" -- Daniel Hinojosa (hinojosa@hp-sdd)