Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 430

Which is a pretty good analogy. Most peoplr think not donating in that situation would be despicably murderous. But its not illegal. The state does not force you to give up your bodily autonomy for a living person's life. Heroism cannot exist if it is mandated. So forcing somebody to do so for a clump of cells which is about as humanlike as a tadpole should not be legal either.

Comment Re: No. (Score 1) 342

It's closest example you can have. The fact that there is some payback - even if it's 100% and even with interest would however ONLY get the money BACK - it would NOT give you a consistent 700% over and above what you spent.
That's the return on investment. Yours is a typical example of somebody focussing on an irellevant detail because they cannot actually disprove the conclusion so they pretend that some minor detail which wasn't fully clarified must nullify it.

How does anything you say account for this being one of the only investments that *exist* which shows a consistent 700% return ?

Comment Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 430

Only if you limit the definition of "human" to the people who had those rights in the 17th century and continue to think of everybody as property.

In fact, you will find that so called classic liberals were very concerned with protecting property and ensuring that whatever is property will be so for ever, at a time when the definition of "property" included the vast majority of the human race - and those ideas about liberty is designed to ensure that everybody didn't fit the bill would *remain* property for ever.
It does not protect the rights of everybody else - because it was DESIGNED to ensure they wouldn't HAVE any.

Comment Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 430

And the problem with personal responsibility rhetoric is that its logically impossible to be responsible for things you do not control, have no authority over and cannot change.
Nearly everything that rhetoric opposes falls in that category. Defending the weak and powerless against things that are done to them by the powerful (or just bad luck) and which cannot be prevented or planned for or prepared for.

Comment Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 430

Ive never met a prochoice person who didnt think abortion was terrible. Ive met plenty who opted to have an unplanned baby instead if gettng an abortion.
But its not killing by any stretch. If not sacrificing bodily autonomy so a fetus can live is killing, then not being an organ donor is mass murder.
Why should dead people have more bodily autonomy than live women ?

Comment Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 1) 430

Stolen wealth is when the people who actually produce things gets rewarded so little they can barely eat while people who contributed nothing at all get 4000 times more than them of the fruits of their labour.

Stolen wealth is when banksters commit fraud that cost ordinary people a 13 trillion dollar bill and then profit off the resulting suffering and not one if them goes to jail.

Capitalism is nothing but a system to steal the wealth produced by the industrious many and deliver it to the lazy few.

Comment Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 3, Informative) 430

Religions cannot even agree on what the belief is. Using the same old testament as primary source Christianity concluded that humanity starts at conception and so are anti-abortion.
But Jews, noting genesis in particular, concluded that life starts at the first breath and so they dont have an issue with abortion. Both are wrong. Scientifically consciousness is the closest appriximation of human and that happens between those extremes.

Interestingly most fundamentalists even oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest: despite the bible flat out authorising it in those cases. Biblical law allows for stoning babies resulting from rape or incest at birth. Modern medical abortion is just a less cruel way to do that.

Comment Re: Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 5, Insightful) 430

It's pretty amazing how almost everybody who is anti-abortion is also anti-welfare and anti-public-school and almost always pro-death-penalty. They will force a life to come into this world, but they won't bat an eye if that child and her mother starve to death a week later (nor will they move an inch to pay the not insignificant medical costs involved in giving the birth they forced her to give).
And if that child growing up in hardship ever does something wrong, they will be quite happy to electrocute and adult instead.

Whatever the hell the anti-abortion crowd is they sure as fuck are NOT "pro-life" - they are, at best, "pro-birth".

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 4, Interesting) 430

Then why do I have the right to NOT donate blood that will save your life and let you die?
Why do I have hte right to choose not to be an organ donor.

Seriously why does my dead CORPSE have the right to let you die if it doesn't CHOOSE to be violated to save you, but a woman doesn't have that autonomy ?

In every other case where bodily autonomy and a third party is involved the legal standard in every free nation is that you must opt IN, you must CHOOSE to save that life, you can't be forced to give up your bodily autonomy to save somebody else.

Comment Re:Authoritarians will always rule. (Score 0) 430

1) It's not a baby. Not by a long shot yet. Science trumps belief.
2) Your claim requires women to accept LESS bodily autonomy than we give DEAD people.

If somebody is about to die, and you can save his life by donating blood - even if you're the only person in the city with the right blood type and not donating is tantamount to murder - they still cannot FORCE you to donate blood or prosecute you for failing to do so. And that's an adult human - no ambiguity about whether it's a person in the science there. You can let him die, to preserve your bodily autonomy, and nobody can stop you from doing that by law. We could question the morality of it - but we can't force you to agree to that morality.

If that same person is dying and needs a heart transplant and you are DEAD we cannot put your heart in him unless you gave consent before you died. Your CORPSE has the right not to have his bodily autonomy violated to save another person's life.
Yet you want to demand that women be forced to give up their bodily autonomy for the life of something that isn't even close to human yet.

Your bodily autonomy is NOT violable for the sake of a third party, no matter who the third party is, no matter if you are related or not. There is no sane version of an abortion law. No version of one that does not lead to endless death, violence, carnage and horrors like prosecuting woman for having miscarriage. There is no version or example of one that has ever existed that did not have these outcomes and did not flagrantly go against every principle of liberty.
Oh and coincidentally, there is no example anywhere in the world, anytime in history, where an abortion law has reduced the number of abortions whatsoever. Abortion laws simply do not work. They do not save fetusses lives. The only thing they do is to drive abortions underground where they are done unsafely and instead of just a few dead fetusses you end up with a bunch of dead women on top.
In fact, to the extent that abortion laws affect abortion rates at all - it is to push them slightly UPWARDS because generally where they access cheap and easy access ot birth control does not.

Comment Re: Fundamentals (Score 1) 342

So what you are saying is that people who probably committed no crime, if given fair trials are likely to be exonerated and you think that is a bad thing because what if they commit crimes after they are released ?

You should vote for Cruz. When Cruz was a state attorney general a 16 year old boy was convicted of robbery and got 10 years. 6 years later while investigating another crime the police found incontrovertible proof that their suspect had committed that old robbery and done it alone. Incontrovertible proof that the boy was innocent. The now 22 year old applied to have his conviction overturned in light of the new evidence (while the other guy had the old robbery tacked onto his charge sheet). Generally the government doesnt contest such applications when there is such strong proof of evidence. Not Cruz though. Ted the evangelical Christian from the religion of remorse fought that application through every level of appeal and lost badly while the state suppreme court severely reprimanded him for it.
Ted Cruz shares your values. He would fight to keep an American in prison despite incontrovertible proof of evidence, imagine what he will do to pesky browmskinned foreignors where there is no evidence.

PS. the rules of war sure as fuck dont allow even real POWs to be held indefinitely.

Slashdot Top Deals

If it happens once, it's a bug. If it happens twice, it's a feature. If it happens more than twice, it's a design philosophy.

Working...