Embryonic stem cell research
-
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject. Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something). But there is something I else that I find quite politically bizarre, and that's the left's unwavering support for federal tax dollars (which basically only benefit big pharmaceutical businesses) for something that is really very unproven. This morning I was stuck in traffic for an hour and wound up listening to a conservative radio show (not Rush Limbaugh...and believe it or not I don't typically listen to right-wing radio) and they had called an MIT professor of molecular biology to discuss the topic. He said that he was once enthusiastic about embryonic stem cell research, but had changed his position a few years ago because embryonic stem cells always result in tumors when applied to adults. Apparently adult stem cell research has the same benefits without this problem. More interestingly, he said that numerous successful treatments have come from adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells have to date yielded no results. Pharmaceutical companies are also investing heavily in adult stem cell research, but not embryonic stem cell research. This professor's assertion (which may be in dispute...as I'm no expert I can't say) supports a suspicion that I've held for some time. I think the left has irrationally attached itself to embryonic stem cell research not because of the potential but because of its association to abortion. In other words, by attaching the concept of "life" to abortion, it confuses the issue to where abortion is no longer merely justified by "personal choice", but implies that those who oppose abortion are actually anti-life (thereby reversing the political position on the issue). In other words, the current "pro-choice" crowd would become the "pro-life" crowd and the current "pro-life" crowd would become the "pro-disease" crowd. That's my crazy theory for the day. "Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
Your train left the tracks in your second sentence:
espeir wrote:
Personally, I oppose it because I find it absolutely immoral and a bit sci-fi bizarre to kill one person to medically benefit another (it's like soul-sucking or something).
Nobody does that, nobody has proposed doing that, nobody is discussing it, except the wingnuts who want to ban something else.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Mill articulates it well.
At your recommendation, I've been reading up a little on Mills, and I think I understand a little better now why Europe became so entirely fucked up. Thanks "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson -- modified at 21:45 Thursday 20th July, 2006
Yeah, he did strongly favor socialism toward the end of his life :). But "On Liberty" really deserves a read. Sovereignty of the individual is a powerful concept, and he articulates it well. I think embracing the concept would benefit this country (which is what I was struggling to say during most of that last painful thread), and we already have a political system capable of resolving the inevitable ambiguities.
-
Yeah, he did strongly favor socialism toward the end of his life :). But "On Liberty" really deserves a read. Sovereignty of the individual is a powerful concept, and he articulates it well. I think embracing the concept would benefit this country (which is what I was struggling to say during most of that last painful thread), and we already have a political system capable of resolving the inevitable ambiguities.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Sovereignty of the individual is a powerful concept
And completely unworkable.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I think embracing the concept would benefit this country
I think re-embracing our founding principles would benefit the county far more. I think many of Mills' principles were considered and rejected by our founders along with those of Hagle, Marx, etc, for good reason. The problem with the notion of avoiding "tyranny of the majority" is that civilization requires tyranny of some kind. You can either divide it up, as the Jeffersonians intended, or centralize it, as all other political persuasions do (including Mills and other libertarians). But you cannot get rid of it. So the choice is between tyranny expressed in a million little places, or in one big one. I choose the former, you choose the latter. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
At your recommendation, I've been reading up a little on Mills, and I think I understand a little better now why Europe became so entirely fucked up. Thanks
You should read On Liberty in full (it is a short book). One of the classics of Western civilization. John Carson "To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." Thomas Paine
I intend to. But I must say, I'm not impressed with the descriptions of it I've read on the internet. I find Hayeks, 'Road to Serfdom' the classic work on the subject of liberty. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
How do I know where they are coming from if this research takes off? Will they start harvesting clones?
You can't be morally opposed to a possibility. It's possible I could snap tomorrow and end up in a clock tower with a high powered rifle but I doubt anyone would be morally opposed to me living my life simply due to the possibility. "The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Isn't that the basis of law? There is a possibility that you might end up in a clock tower with a rifle, so we make a law saying that you shouldn't shoot people. Blindly throwing money towards research, without consideration of potential immoral activity in the research, is like giving free rifles to people who live near clock towers. Science can be corrupted by greed, pride, arrogance, etc. Before we throw tax money at stem cell research, we should outlaw clone (and non-clone) harvesting and look at other ethical problems that might arise.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
espeir wrote:
The problem you're encountering with me is that I understand both the ceoncept behind Mill, and the fact that they are contrary to both human nature and our successful government. Your philosophy is basically this: The people should be stripped of the power to legislate anything unless it passes my personal opinion of what is harmful. In other words, only the laws you approve of can be passed.
You keep saying you understand, but your comments indicate otherwise. My philosophy is basically this: Government should only have the power to prohibit an act if that act causes harm to other people or their property. Levy taxes for the purposes of defense and other infrastructure, and to keep the government in operation. Let the people decide how much they want to be taxed, and for what. But in matters of prohibition, consider as inviolate the idea that over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. That's it. Anything public affects other people, and the harm principle can be decided by community standards. But, in the privacy of my own home, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want. Two or more consenting adults, in a private setting, should be able to do whatever the hell they want. It's important enough, and central enough, to bear repeating that, over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
espeir wrote:
It is entirely hypocritical and this is the major flaw of this philosophy. A display of the 10 commandments does not cause any physical, psychological or other form of harm to anybody. However, you personally believe that it's harmful and therefore the government must restrict its display, regardless of democratic preference. Your personal view of what is "harmful" therefore trumps the will of the people and effectively creates a despotic regime.
Again, it's not hypocritical at all, and again, you misunderstand. I don't consider the display of the commandments itself to be harmful -- there's a difference between an individual, or a non-governmental organization, displaying the commandments, and a governmental authority displaying them. If an individual, or group of individuals, want to display the ten commandments -- any of the many sets of commandments, in fact -- on their property, nothing should stop them (unless they're 400-foot glowing commandments, in which case they might be considered harmful to property values in t
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You keep saying you understand, but your comments indicate otherwise. My philosophy is basically this: Government should only have the power to prohibit an act if that act causes harm to other people or their property. Levy taxes for the purposes of defense and other infrastructure, and to keep the government in operation. Let the people decide how much they want to be taxed, and for what. But in matters of prohibition, consider as inviolate the idea that over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
I still think that I understand, but you fail to understand the implications of your philosophy. In one breath you're stating that you want to ensure self-government and that self-government be disallowed if it fails an obscure test of "harm". Such an obscure and prohibitive test has huge implications in that it's arbitrary. Your intent is to strip the people of self-determination in favor of an arbitrary test (which would have to be determined by a small minority in order to be consistent with your philosophy. The result is demonstrated in our conflicting views of what constitutes "harm". I will continue using our examples:
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Again, it's not hypocritical at all, and again, you misunderstand. I don't consider the display of the commandments itself to be harmful -- there's a difference between an individual, or a non-governmental organization, displaying the commandments, and a governmental authority displaying them.
What this suggests is that you're not interested in a purely Millian (if that's a term) style of government. I asked for a specific example of how such a display causes any physical, psychological or other type of harm (a definition which would surely be expanded in your government). You simply stated that it would violate the "harm principle" without explaining why (an example of how easily your government would subvert the will of the people). Additionally, any example of how this causes harm would not pass my harm test and we would therefore have a conflict of interest that could be solved only either by democracy or tyranny.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It most certainly does not. It guarantees that government cannot take away anyone's right of self-determination. Not lawless, not totalitarian. Just the opposite. Limited laws, laws for the public good that respect individu
-
espeir wrote:
if Bush had not vetoed it, I would not have claimed tyranny, though I be in the minority.
I guess we'll never know now, but I suspect that if Dub hadn't vetoed the bill, you'd be whining about it anyhow. The evolution of the human genome is too important to be left to chance.
Tim Craig wrote:
I guess we'll never know now, but I suspect that if Dub hadn't vetoed the bill, you'd be whining about it anyhow.
Plenty of crap gets passed. But when I "whine" about it, I do so regarding the merits of the legislation (for example, the prescription drug benefit is a short-sighted attempt to grab votes and will bankrupt our country). I don't claim tyranny and demand that Americans be stripped of their right to self-determination as a result.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Isn't that the basis of law? There is a possibility that you might end up in a clock tower with a rifle, so we make a law saying that you shouldn't shoot people. Blindly throwing money towards research, without consideration of potential immoral activity in the research, is like giving free rifles to people who live near clock towers. Science can be corrupted by greed, pride, arrogance, etc. Before we throw tax money at stem cell research, we should outlaw clone (and non-clone) harvesting and look at other ethical problems that might arise.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote:
Blindly throwing money towards research
There nothing blind about it. You just want to percieve it as so to support your agenda.
Jason Henderson wrote:
Science can be corrupted by greed, pride, arrogance, etc. Before we throw tax money at stem cell research, we should outlaw clone (and non-clone) harvesting and look at other ethical problems that might arise.
So it's your opinion that we need to address every single possible corruption of the system before allowing the system to perform and "to hell" with the millions of people suffering from the ravages it may well fix. Not a very christian attitude in my opinion. :^)
"The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You keep saying you understand, but your comments indicate otherwise. My philosophy is basically this: Government should only have the power to prohibit an act if that act causes harm to other people or their property. Levy taxes for the purposes of defense and other infrastructure, and to keep the government in operation. Let the people decide how much they want to be taxed, and for what. But in matters of prohibition, consider as inviolate the idea that over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
I still think that I understand, but you fail to understand the implications of your philosophy. In one breath you're stating that you want to ensure self-government and that self-government be disallowed if it fails an obscure test of "harm". Such an obscure and prohibitive test has huge implications in that it's arbitrary. Your intent is to strip the people of self-determination in favor of an arbitrary test (which would have to be determined by a small minority in order to be consistent with your philosophy. The result is demonstrated in our conflicting views of what constitutes "harm". I will continue using our examples:
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Again, it's not hypocritical at all, and again, you misunderstand. I don't consider the display of the commandments itself to be harmful -- there's a difference between an individual, or a non-governmental organization, displaying the commandments, and a governmental authority displaying them.
What this suggests is that you're not interested in a purely Millian (if that's a term) style of government. I asked for a specific example of how such a display causes any physical, psychological or other type of harm (a definition which would surely be expanded in your government). You simply stated that it would violate the "harm principle" without explaining why (an example of how easily your government would subvert the will of the people). Additionally, any example of how this causes harm would not pass my harm test and we would therefore have a conflict of interest that could be solved only either by democracy or tyranny.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It most certainly does not. It guarantees that government cannot take away anyone's right of self-determination. Not lawless, not totalitarian. Just the opposite. Limited laws, laws for the public good that respect individu
What you should be seeing in your own posts is that it is your exceedingly broad view of "harm" that is the problem. My philosophy narrows the definition. Ideally, it would constitutionally narrow the definition. I have been clear that there is ambiguity at the edges, and that this ambiguity would be resolved by the democratic process, just like it is now. The only difference is that there would be an additional core criteria to consider -- the harm principle. Certainly as ambiguous as freedom of speech, but I think as effective.
espeir wrote:
What this suggests is that you're not interested in a purely Millian (if that's a term) style of government. I asked for a specific example of how such a display causes any physical, psychological or other type of harm (a definition which would surely be expanded in your government). You simply stated that it would violate the "harm principle" without explaining why (an example of how easily your government would subvert the will of the people). Additionally, any example of how this causes harm would not pass my harm test and we would therefore have a conflict of interest that could be solved only either by democracy or tyranny.
How can I make this clearer? THE DISPLAY HARMS NO ONE. THE DISPLAY DOES NOT VIOLATE THE HARM PRINCIPLE. It indicates governments disregard of the harm principle. It would be like a government building today with a display stating "thou shalt not speak freely", or "thou shalt not bear arms". Clearer?
espeir wrote:
or example, the vast majority of people do not want prostitution and public drunkeness permitted and therefore do not allow it.
Prostitution? I believe the government and people are hypocritical on this issue. Once public health issues are addressed, it comes down to morality, and, true, that wouldn't pass the standard of harm. Public drunkenness would be dealt with like it is today. If the person is a danger to others, they would be isolated until they are not. If they are not a danger, they are not bothered. Regardless of statute, that is how the law is applied today. People who want to impose their morality on others, regardless of harm -- you, for instance -- would be unhappy. Much like people in favor of gun control are regularly disappointed now.
espeir wrote:
The potential for harm certainly exists. An accident is the cause of harm.
What did I say
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Sovereignty of the individual is a powerful concept
And completely unworkable.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I think embracing the concept would benefit this country
I think re-embracing our founding principles would benefit the county far more. I think many of Mills' principles were considered and rejected by our founders along with those of Hagle, Marx, etc, for good reason. The problem with the notion of avoiding "tyranny of the majority" is that civilization requires tyranny of some kind. You can either divide it up, as the Jeffersonians intended, or centralize it, as all other political persuasions do (including Mills and other libertarians). But you cannot get rid of it. So the choice is between tyranny expressed in a million little places, or in one big one. I choose the former, you choose the latter. "You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Stan Shannon wrote:
So the choice is between tyranny expressed in a million little places, or in one big one. I choose the former, you choose the latter.
You can't divide it much smaller than individual sovereignty, Stan. I'm not quite sure how you're translating the concept of individual sovereignty into a central, tyrannical government.
-
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
You keep saying you understand, but your comments indicate otherwise. My philosophy is basically this: Government should only have the power to prohibit an act if that act causes harm to other people or their property. Levy taxes for the purposes of defense and other infrastructure, and to keep the government in operation. Let the people decide how much they want to be taxed, and for what. But in matters of prohibition, consider as inviolate the idea that over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
I still think that I understand, but you fail to understand the implications of your philosophy. In one breath you're stating that you want to ensure self-government and that self-government be disallowed if it fails an obscure test of "harm". Such an obscure and prohibitive test has huge implications in that it's arbitrary. Your intent is to strip the people of self-determination in favor of an arbitrary test (which would have to be determined by a small minority in order to be consistent with your philosophy. The result is demonstrated in our conflicting views of what constitutes "harm". I will continue using our examples:
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Again, it's not hypocritical at all, and again, you misunderstand. I don't consider the display of the commandments itself to be harmful -- there's a difference between an individual, or a non-governmental organization, displaying the commandments, and a governmental authority displaying them.
What this suggests is that you're not interested in a purely Millian (if that's a term) style of government. I asked for a specific example of how such a display causes any physical, psychological or other type of harm (a definition which would surely be expanded in your government). You simply stated that it would violate the "harm principle" without explaining why (an example of how easily your government would subvert the will of the people). Additionally, any example of how this causes harm would not pass my harm test and we would therefore have a conflict of interest that could be solved only either by democracy or tyranny.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
It most certainly does not. It guarantees that government cannot take away anyone's right of self-determination. Not lawless, not totalitarian. Just the opposite. Limited laws, laws for the public good that respect individu
I am simply amazed how you can read Mr. Reynolds arguments and completely fail to grasp what he is saying. He argues for limits on government and you see tyranny. He argues for the individual to be free of government interference in the personal realm and you see giving up self-determination. Mr. Reynolds believes you are not dumb, I'll take his word on it. Perhaps, then you are simply willfully ignorant.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
So the choice is between tyranny expressed in a million little places, or in one big one. I choose the former, you choose the latter.
You can't divide it much smaller than individual sovereignty, Stan. I'm not quite sure how you're translating the concept of individual sovereignty into a central, tyrannical government.
How do you guarantee "individual sovereignty"? Where does the power, the authority come from to achieve that?
"You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
-
What you should be seeing in your own posts is that it is your exceedingly broad view of "harm" that is the problem. My philosophy narrows the definition. Ideally, it would constitutionally narrow the definition. I have been clear that there is ambiguity at the edges, and that this ambiguity would be resolved by the democratic process, just like it is now. The only difference is that there would be an additional core criteria to consider -- the harm principle. Certainly as ambiguous as freedom of speech, but I think as effective.
espeir wrote:
What this suggests is that you're not interested in a purely Millian (if that's a term) style of government. I asked for a specific example of how such a display causes any physical, psychological or other type of harm (a definition which would surely be expanded in your government). You simply stated that it would violate the "harm principle" without explaining why (an example of how easily your government would subvert the will of the people). Additionally, any example of how this causes harm would not pass my harm test and we would therefore have a conflict of interest that could be solved only either by democracy or tyranny.
How can I make this clearer? THE DISPLAY HARMS NO ONE. THE DISPLAY DOES NOT VIOLATE THE HARM PRINCIPLE. It indicates governments disregard of the harm principle. It would be like a government building today with a display stating "thou shalt not speak freely", or "thou shalt not bear arms". Clearer?
espeir wrote:
or example, the vast majority of people do not want prostitution and public drunkeness permitted and therefore do not allow it.
Prostitution? I believe the government and people are hypocritical on this issue. Once public health issues are addressed, it comes down to morality, and, true, that wouldn't pass the standard of harm. Public drunkenness would be dealt with like it is today. If the person is a danger to others, they would be isolated until they are not. If they are not a danger, they are not bothered. Regardless of statute, that is how the law is applied today. People who want to impose their morality on others, regardless of harm -- you, for instance -- would be unhappy. Much like people in favor of gun control are regularly disappointed now.
espeir wrote:
The potential for harm certainly exists. An accident is the cause of harm.
What did I say
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
How can I make this clearer? THE DISPLAY HARMS NO ONE. THE DISPLAY DOES NOT VIOLATE THE HARM PRINCIPLE. It indicates governments disregard of the harm principle. It would be like a government building today with a display stating "thou shalt not speak freely", or "thou shalt not bear arms". Clearer?
Huh? It does not violate the harm principle, but indicates the governments disregard of the harm principle? That's contradictory. Which is it? It is also quite different that stating "thou shalt not speak freely" as the equivilent to religion would be "thou shall practice [state religion]". Being a Christian, I have no objection to a courthouse containing a relevant Islamic quote. So no...You still are not being clear.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Prostitution? I believe the government and people are hypocritical on this issue. Once public health issues are addressed, it comes down to morality, and, true, that wouldn't pass the standard of harm. Public drunkenness would be dealt with like it is today. If the person is a danger to others, they would be isolated until they are not. If they are not a danger, they are not bothered. Regardless of statute, that is how the law is applied today. People who want to impose their morality on others, regardless of harm -- you, for instance -- would be unhappy. Much like people in favor of gun control are regularly disappointed now.
And this is where tyranny comes in. Very few American would want to put up with either of these and our current form of goernment allows the citizens to outlaw this behavior while yours does not. Another example would be abortion. You probably believe that it does not violate the harm principle while I clearly believe that it does. So who gets their way? You might say that the supreme court confirmed that you do, but what if you turn the tables and the Supreme Court had ruled against abortion? Do you prefer that a couple of judges make that decision rather than the people? That is the very definition of tyranny.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
What did I say right before that? Potential for harm is not harm. Stop being a troll.
Because accidents are not intentional by definition and therefore cannot be outlawed. However, they are inevitable, so I contend driving a Hummer H1 does violate the harm principle because some H1 owners will inevitably kill people with the
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
Blindly throwing money towards research
There nothing blind about it. You just want to percieve it as so to support your agenda.
Jason Henderson wrote:
Science can be corrupted by greed, pride, arrogance, etc. Before we throw tax money at stem cell research, we should outlaw clone (and non-clone) harvesting and look at other ethical problems that might arise.
So it's your opinion that we need to address every single possible corruption of the system before allowing the system to perform and "to hell" with the millions of people suffering from the ravages it may well fix. Not a very christian attitude in my opinion. :^)
"The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
Mike Mullikin wrote:
There nothing blind about it. You just want to percieve it as so to support your agenda.
My agenda? Please tell me what my agenda is? I don't think this sort of thing should be taken lightly. And no, I never said we should address every single possible corruption issue - thats not very realistic. But, the big ethical issues that have already been brought to light should be addressed before we fund any research - not just stem cell research.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
"to hell" with the millions of people suffering from the ravages it may well fix. Not a very christian attitude in my opinion.
So someone who is not a christian is telling a christian how christians are supposed to act? Does that make sense? Suffering is a bad thing, but unethical research practices are as well. This research might lead to a cure for various diseases, but if there is a possibility that this could lead to embryo harvesting, I will be against it until sufficient steps have been taken to guard against such practices.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blog -
I am simply amazed how you can read Mr. Reynolds arguments and completely fail to grasp what he is saying. He argues for limits on government and you see tyranny. He argues for the individual to be free of government interference in the personal realm and you see giving up self-determination. Mr. Reynolds believes you are not dumb, I'll take his word on it. Perhaps, then you are simply willfully ignorant.
dennisd45 wrote:
I am simply amazed how you can read Mr. Reynolds arguments and completely fail to grasp what he is saying. He argues for limits on government and you see tyranny. He argues for the individual to be free of government interference in the personal realm and you see giving up self-determination. Mr. Reynolds believes you are not dumb, I'll take his word on it. Perhaps, then you are simply willfully ignorant.
I understand what he is attempting to argue for, but refuse to concede that the implications of his arguments are anything but tyrannical. He is suggesting that citizens be permitted to do anything as long as it is considered "harmless" to others. The obvious problem with that is twofold: 1. The "harmfulness" of any action is arbitrary: I could state that my neighbor owning a dog is harmful because it might occasionally bark and disturb me. Would the administrator of the "harm test" unreasonably agree with me? It's certainly possible. 2. It removes the right for self-determination: What if my neighbor owned 100 barking dogs, and my community wants to put a limit dog ownership in residential neighborhoods? My neighbor could simply argue that it's not harmful to me. Would the administrator of the "harm test" unreasonably agree with me? It's certainly possible. In both cases the ability to come to a reasonable decision is removed from the people and placed in the hands of a single person (or very small group of people).
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
There nothing blind about it. You just want to percieve it as so to support your agenda.
My agenda? Please tell me what my agenda is? I don't think this sort of thing should be taken lightly. And no, I never said we should address every single possible corruption issue - thats not very realistic. But, the big ethical issues that have already been brought to light should be addressed before we fund any research - not just stem cell research.
Mike Mullikin wrote:
"to hell" with the millions of people suffering from the ravages it may well fix. Not a very christian attitude in my opinion.
So someone who is not a christian is telling a christian how christians are supposed to act? Does that make sense? Suffering is a bad thing, but unethical research practices are as well. This research might lead to a cure for various diseases, but if there is a possibility that this could lead to embryo harvesting, I will be against it until sufficient steps have been taken to guard against such practices.
"Live long and prosper." - Spock
Jason Henderson
blogJason Henderson wrote:
But, the big ethical issues that have already been brought to light should be addressed before we fund any research - not just stem cell research.
I read where a Catholic bishop wants to deny communion to anyone associated with stem cell research (embryonic or adult). Is this a "big ethical" issue? Who gets to decide which ethical issues are big and which ones are not? Only christians? X| The general population and the congress has already decided - it's only Bush and the hard-core christian right that are balking.
Jason Henderson wrote:
o someone who is not a christian is telling a christian how christians are supposed to act? Does that make sense?
Even us non-christians are still allowed opinions. ;) I'm simply expressing mine and pointing out a percieved hypocrisy.
Jason Henderson wrote:
I will be against it until sufficient steps have been taken to guard against such practices.
Which is certainly your right but I for one am hoping that the will of the people superceeds the will of Bush and his eroding base.
"The trouble with jogging is that the ice falls out of your glass." - Martin Mull
-
espeir wrote:
Let me begin by saying that I know nothing technical whatsoever about this subject
Then learn about it before commenting otherwise you're just repeating heresay and not adding anything valuable. Please say: I've read some papers on the subject and I'm in favour/not in favour because... Then we can have a discussion. cheers, Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
Chris Maunder wrote:
Then learn about it before commenting otherwise you're just repeating heresay and not adding anything valuable.
This clearly wasn't aimed at being a technical discussion, nor did I say that I oppose it on technical grounds, so it's irrelevant. I just wanted a disclaimer to discourage the random tangential attacks on my technical ignorance. Clearly I failed in that attempt.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-- modified at 12:42 Friday 21st July, 2006
-
How do you guarantee "individual sovereignty"? Where does the power, the authority come from to achieve that?
"You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson
Constitutionally. I would amend the constitution. The founders felt that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights. Life is protected, the pursuit of happiness is vague. All I'm asking is to codify, in the Constitution, the right to liberty, so that the concept is included as a test when enacting new laws. I think the harm principle is a good start, and we have the system already in place to resolve any ambiguities.
-
Constitutionally. I would amend the constitution. The founders felt that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights. Life is protected, the pursuit of happiness is vague. All I'm asking is to codify, in the Constitution, the right to liberty, so that the concept is included as a test when enacting new laws. I think the harm principle is a good start, and we have the system already in place to resolve any ambiguities.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
The founders felt that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights.
While these rights were enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, their implementation in the constitution was done more realistically. Remember that the Declaration of Independence was not a legal document, nor was it intended to be.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Life is protected, the pursuit of happiness is vague.
The "pursuit of happiness" was originally penned as the "right to property" (again, a John Locke sentiment), but was changed to make it sound more idealistic.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
I think the harm principle is a good start, and we have the system already in place to resolve any ambiguities.
Not as you define "harm". As I have already demonstrated in numerous examples, "harm" can be attributed to virtually anything, guaranteeing that any law arising democratically can be shot down. It could go so far as to shoot down other provisions in the constitution, such as our right to amend it. One thing to note: In most cases I and most other Americans agree that most behavior that is benign is not worth illegalizing even when you disagree with it, so your concept of the "harm principle" is already addressed via the democratic process (e.g. If I don't like snakes, I don't feel compelled to ensure that they can't be owned). However, we may at times feel that some behavior which might fail your arbitrary "harm test" should not be permitted just to ensure a more pleasant life. Making panhandling illegal is another example of something that would fail your harm test but which would make visiting downtown more pleasant.
"Everything I listed is intended to eliminate the tyranny of the majority." -Vincent Reynolds on American Democracy
-
Constitutionally. I would amend the constitution. The founders felt that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights. Life is protected, the pursuit of happiness is vague. All I'm asking is to codify, in the Constitution, the right to liberty, so that the concept is included as a test when enacting new laws. I think the harm principle is a good start, and we have the system already in place to resolve any ambiguities.
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Constitutionally
So you would specifically define within the body of the constitution what liberty means, and to require the federal courts enforce that definition? You would actualy put something in the constitution like "The citizens right to do anything they please as long as they harm no other citizen shall not be infringed" ?
"You have no concept of the depth and complexity of my beliefs." Jim A. Johnson