Ah I see, you are talking about collective "liberty", i.e everybody has to do what 51% of people decide, and I am talking about individual liberty.
I thought liberals are about heavy regulation, not about the freedom to choose.
He may not have specifically called for euthanasia but its not hard to read between the lines.
"[old age] robs us of our creativity and ability to contribute to work, society, the world." In the article he even has a chart showing and what age people contribute the most to society (apparently all contribution ends at 60!?).
During the debate about Obamacare he was proposing rationing of healthcare based on age and disability and that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others".
To me, "progressive" "liberals" like this guy, who think that the purpose of individuals is to serve the society rather than the other way around, are a living example of why collectivism is evil. It is not a long way from thinking like him to Gulag.
Iran is not a democracy. Iran is a theocratic dictatorship run by the Ayatollah and the mullahs surrounded by a ridiculous complicated system designed to superficially resemble a democracy.
I don't know about you personally but I notice a miserable failure of perspective in many people in the west especially on the left. It seems that a lot of the same people who throw a fit and scream fundamentalism when some Christian group in the US pathetically tries to insert a disclaimer in some book about evolution or put up a religious monument on public land will happily give a pass to countries that are frigging controlled by religious clerics at the highest posts in government and with elements of Sharia as the law of the land! Iran has laws on the books right now that cause women to be arrested and whipped for not covering their head. Thieves are still getting amputations as punishment, woman's testimony is legally worth half of man's testimony, and a woman needs a written permission from a male in her family to work outside the house or travel, adultery and homosexuality is punishable by death etc etc. A lot of Iranian legal system is straight from Sharia. Apparently stoning to death (using small stones to prolong the suffering) was on the books until 2010.
Name a major Islamic country other than Turkey which has a meaningful separation of church and state, and even in Turkey that separation is crumbling under assault from the Islamists.
Typos are not interesting. A wannabe grammar pedant who confuses "as well" and "either" is
Let us not forget that there's nothing inherent to either Christianity or Islam when it comes to fundamentalism. Christianity generated the Crusades, after all...
I think that's an example of cultural relativism that is as dangerous to the West as the people who are anti-math or anti-science. It is part of the deluded unscientific mythology of the left just as intelligent design is on the right.
There are obvious differences between Christianity and Islam that make Christianity able to coexist with a modern secular state while Islam is showing all over the world that it can't. For example Sharia is a comprehensive legal framework that observant Muslims are supposed to put above the secular laws (you know the ones brought about by a democratic process). There is no such thing in Christianity.
Also, Jesus mythology beats Muhammad mythology hands down as an example to follow (regardless of how much if any of it is true). Jesus' teachings were generally peaceful and kind and never attempted to spread Christianity by force, preferring to suffer himself instead. Muhammad slaughtered and enslaved thousands, explicitly permitted murder, stealing and lying (as long as directed against non-Muslims), kept 13 wives, including a 9 year old one, in addition to sex slaves.
Yes, there are obvious differences in the implementation at the present time which can possibly change: can you imagine the Pope leading a frenzied crowd in the St. Peters square in chants of "death to infidels" the way legitimate Muslim leaders do, rather than urging them to love and respect their neighbor? But there are also many doctrinal differences that make Islam more dangerous which is why in literally every place in the world where Islam is in contact with another civilization there is conflict. Just look at the map.
It is untrue thought and you are stupid.
I wonder with 4 million voters who tend to overwhelmingly prefer Labour to Tories gone will Labour eventually cease to be a factor in the UK elections? UKIP: right, Tories: centre-right, Lib Dems: centre-left, Labour: loonie left.
What will UK be called if Scotland secedes? United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Ok, so here are some counter arguments to cop cameras:
1) Officer discretion is gone. Jay walking? Have a tiny amount of pot? Prosecute everything since it's on camera and cop might conceivably get into trouble if he lets it go.
2) Potential for privacy invasion. The cameras don't just record the cops actions, they record everything in their line of sight. 800,000 cops in the US = 800,000 cameras on the street and inside people's houses with data stored on government servers.
3) Slippery slope. If you can put camera on cops, why not put them on other government employees? How about post office workers - mail theft is a serious crime. How about private sector employees.
4) More criminals let out on a technicality. This footage is a gift to the Saul Goodman type lawyers who can now pore over every single thing an officer does or says.
5) Cops are people too. How would you like wearing a camera on your job? Would you behave differently? Idk, I think this has subtle implications on good officer retention and also performance as they avoid every even smallest risk in everything they do.
This is more or less off the top of my head. There are probably many more. I'm not even saying we shouldn't do it, but it's ridiculous to say this is obviously a good idea, no discussion necessary.
It's a place to put enemy combatants to whom you don't want to allow the status of POWs (which they are not under international law) but at the same time you don't want to give them access to the US court system by charging them as common criminals (which realistically they also are not as they are waging war on the US). Not really a bad idea.
Realistically, no. Russia is a capitalist country dependent on global capital and trade. It cannot afford to cut itself off like it thought it could when it was USSR and had a lot of satellite countries to buy its crappy goods.
FDA does actually require testing of the efficacy (in phase 2) as well as safety (phase 1) so you are wrong there. Testing drugs in the US is nothing but thorough. It takes on average 12 years and $350 million dollars to test a new drug and in some cases even longer and over a billion. After the 12 years of testing, the application for final approval (100,000+ pages) takes the FDA on average another 2.5 years to process.
The reasons for this excruciating process are obvious: approve an unsafe drug and your ass is on the line. Delay a life saving drug by years and you are just ensuring safety. People die in both cases but one is a lot more career threatening to than the other.
I'm not saying that testing drugs is not necessary but you have to look at both side of equation. Excessive requirements for testing and bureaucracy involved mean:
1, more expensive drugs
2. fewer drugs brought to market as many are not worth the expense
3. more people dying while waiting 15 years or more for a life saving drug to be approved
4. drug research is cost prohibitive for smaller companies leading to less competition
The interesting part is are some people really born with the ability to "do it". There is a lot of research that disputes that. Even studies of child prodigies like Mozart show that they have actually put in their 10,000 hours, it's just that they started at a very young age and had an opportunity for a very high quality practice (Mozart father was a famous music teacher and he started from the day Mozart was born).
That's exactly what it is. Like a master level chess player plays 20% by calculation and 80% by pattern recognition while with a recreational player it is the opposite.