Jim

Finally, their are just too many non-sequitor leaps between saying "animals cant appreciate opera" and "its ok to kill animals to serve human interests". Aside from the fact that animals lack no more "uniquely human experiences" as their mentally similar human counterparts, animals and humans share many important interests that have almost nothing to do with uniquely human experiences at all. Animals and humans have an interest in being free from torture, having something to eat rather than starving, having freedom of movement, having shelter, and so on; wheres the argument that says causing two being identical amounts of profound suffering for identical durations of time have drastically different moral consequences because one being enjoys opera and another being doesnt? I dont think its justified to weight moral characteristics that arent even affected in a moral equation at all.

To be fair, the author didn't just talk about enjoying opera. His point was:

There are many uniquely human experiences to which we ascribe high value-deep interpersonal relationships, achieving a life's goal, enjoying a complex cultural event such as a play or an opera, or authoring a manuscript. Therefore, it would seem improper that social and ethical considerations regarding animals be centered entirely on the notion of a biological continuum, because there are many kinds of human experience-moral, religious, aesthetic, and otherwise-that appear to be outside the realm of biology.

You reduce this large spectrum of human activity to "enjoying opera." He makes a point which I've tried to make in the past and which is often ignored in this debate: "In the strict biological sense, human beings are animals too, but in the broader sense, human beings are much more than animals. The life of a man, woman, or child is worth far more than the life of a mouse, rat, dog, or monkey." This language speaks to the difference in kind, not degree, between humans and animals.

Finally, their are just too many non-sequitor leaps between saying "animals cant appreciate opera" and "its ok to kill animals to serve human interests".

He simply said that the life of a human is worth far more than that of a mouse, rat, dog or monkey.

Aside from the fact that animals lack no more "uniquely human experiences" as their mentally similar human counterparts, animals and humans share many important interests that have almost nothing to do with uniquely human experiences at all. Animals and humans have an interest in being free from torture, having something to eat rather than starving, having freedom of movement, having shelter, and so on; wheres the argument that says causing two being identical amounts of profound suffering for identical durations of time have drastically different moral consequences because one being enjoys opera and another being doesnt? I dont think its justified to weight moral characteristics that arent even affected in a moral equation at all.

You are reducing what has value down to the most basic elements - not suffering, not dieing, freedom of movement, comfort, security. Humans and many animals want these things. This does not address the point that the loss of a human risks losing many high-value human experiences which are not shared with animals.

The author, I suspect, is using linguistic sleight of hand, and he probably argues that humans having some experiences makes them entitled to better treatment in all respects.

Why is this linguistic sleight of hand? He clearly says that he does believe that humans have more value because they have more enriched experiences.

However, thats an inferior ethic with respect to the following: we treat creatures similarly in so far as they have similar capacities, and we can entitle some creatrues to particular rights if they have capacities which other creatures lack.

 

Simple demonstration: men and women are moral equals with respect to the capacity to suffer, be rational, and practice moral reciprocity, but only women are entitled a right to an abortion. With respect to uniquely human experiences, we can take animal suffering just as seriously as human suffering, but we can also say humans are entitled a right to vote and listen to opera because they have the requisite capacities that animals lack. In this way, we can rationally afford animals and humans equal moral status with respect to their similar capacities, and they have unequal moral status with respect to their differing capacities. What could be simpler

If simplicity is a goal, it would be simpler to (i) recognize human beings, not animals, legally and morally as persons, (ii) define the taking of the life of a person without legal cause as murder, (iii) err on the side of protecting human life. This is an enforceable rule which protects the sanctity of human life. Having some sliding scale dependent on animals’ capabilities at a given age does not seem simpler than the status quo. It seems unworkable and would more likely lead to the diminution of the worth of human life… as is evidenced by your answer to the Child v. Chimp issue.

Your approach of affording animals and humans equal moral (and legal?) status with respect to similar capacities draws an equivalency between biological capabilities and the non-biological high-value capabilities described. Animals have some enhanced biological capabilities relative to humans – strength, speed, sonar, etc. Perhaps they have an enhanced ability to feel pain relative to humans. However, the high-value capabilities you value, e.g. the “morally relevant” capabilities, are capabilities which are enhanced in humans. Why not just take the extra step and recognize that humans themselves have enchanced value and that we can get into trouble having a soft changing line when it comes to the question of what life human society will value.

Please note that these arguments do not even require a transhuman POV.

 

Here's the quote from the abstract.

 

I maintain that giving more value to human lives over animal lives achieves reflective balance with the commonsense notions that most of us have developed. Because utilitarianism, contractualism, and the classical philosophical methods of Kant and Aristotle all may allow favoring human interests over animal interests, it seems reasonable to suspect that animal rights activists embrace narrow, extremist views. There are many uniquely human experiences to which we ascribe high value-deep interpersonal relationships, achieving a life's goal, enjoying a complex cultural event such as a play or an opera, or authoring a manuscript. Therefore, it would seem improper that social and ethical considerations regarding animals be centered entirely on the notion of a biological continuum, because there are many kinds of human experience-moral, religious, aesthetic, and otherwise-that appear to be outside the realm of biology.

 

I've never seen anything so silly in my life

Well, I've no doubt lived longer than you.

I've italicized the part I don't really care about defending and bolded the part I have no hope of defending. I'm more interested in the substantive points made rather than going toe-to-toe with you in assessing the author's relative familiarity with Kant, Aristotle and the rest. I've learned to pick my battles more carefully.

I've underlined the part that caused me to post the link. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you respond to this point as follows:

Finally' date=' their are just too many non-sequitor leaps between saying "animals cant appreciate opera" and "its ok to kill animals to serve human interests". Aside from the fact that animals lack no more "uniquely human experiences" as their mentally similar human counterparts, animals and humans share many important interests that have almost nothing to do with uniquely human experiences at all. Animals and humans have an interest in being free from torture, having something to eat rather than starving, having freedom of movement, having shelter, and so on; wheres the argument that says causing two being identical amounts of profound suffering for identical durations of time have drastically different moral consequences because one being enjoys opera and another being doesnt? I dont think its justified to weight moral characteristics that arent even affected in a moral equation at all.

 

The author, I suspect, is using linguistic sleight of hand, and he probably argues that humans having some experiences makes them entitled to better treatment in [i']all[/i] respects. However, thats an inferior ethic with respect to the following: we treat creatures similarly in so far as they have similar capacities, and we can entitle some creatrues to particular rights if they have capacities which other creatures lack. Simple demonstration: men and women are moral equals with respect to the capacity to suffer, be rational, and practice moral reciprocity, but only women are entitled a right to an abortion. With respect to uniquely human experiences, we can take animal suffering just as seriously as human suffering, but we can also say humans are entitled a right to vote and listen to opera because they have the requisite capacities that animals lack. In this way, we can rationally afford animals and humans equal moral status with respect to their similar capacities, and they have unequal moral status with respect to their differing capacities. What could be simpler

I'm taking my kiddos to the movie this afternoon so I don't have time to respond right now in any kind of detail. Also, I'm having to think about your points. Beyond my obvious problem with the conclusions of your argument (e.g. sacrifice a child for a chimp), I have concerns about the practicality and desirability of judging the "morally relevant characteristics" on an individual by individual basis. I'm not sure this can be done or even if it should be attempted. Sometimes, you need bright lines, e.g. killing human beings (except for very narrow recognized exceptions such as war and self-defense) is murder. I wouldn't want to place this kind of principle on a sliding scale where the wrongness of the thing depends on particular "morally relevant" characteristics of the individual victim.

I'll give this some more thought while I'm watching Superman and hope for an epiphany.

There seem to be two questions:

1. Is there a basis for drawing moral distinctions in the absence of a belief in God?

2. If we accept as a given that moral choices must be made, what is the basis for treating humans differently than animals?

#1 I accept on faith. #2 requires more thought on my part. I agree that a distinction based solely on membership in a species is not valid although the term "speciesm" seems like a cheesy appeal to the baggage of racism.

Although I couldn't find this full article, I tend to agree with the point made in this abstract:

I maintain that giving more value to human lives over animal lives achieves reflective balance with the commonsense notions that most of us have developed. Because utilitarianism, contractualism, and the classical philosophical methods of Kant and Aristotle all may allow favoring human interests over animal interests, it seems reasonable to suspect that animal rights activists embrace narrow, extremist views. There are many uniquely human experiences to which we ascribe high value-deep interpersonal relationships, achieving a life's goal, enjoying a complex cultural event such as a play or an opera, or authoring a manuscript. Therefore, it would seem improper that social and ethical considerations regarding animals be centered entirely on the notion of a biological continuum, because there are many kinds of human experience-moral, religious, aesthetic, and otherwise-that appear to be outside the realm of biology.

You think only since 9/11? Hell, I could "monitor chat rooms" myself just by going to them, couldn't I? There's no way this is a Patriot Act thing, if that's what you're getting at.

That's my guess but I said "probably" because efforts of this type ramped up post 9/11. I did not say this required Patriot Act authorization. I suspect, but do not know, that there is now a systematic high tech program in place to crawl through such rooms.

How long have they been monitoring chat rooms? That's always been legal, hasn't it?

Probably ever since 9/11.

Regarding the legalities, most privacy cases have to do with whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. I'd have to do some research to see what the law is regarding various forms of chat communications. Surely there is no privacy expectation in a public chat forum. I'm not sure about IMs.

At the end of the day' date=' doesn't matter who takes the credit. There is need for team work and when it comes to terrorism, its a team effort that involves everyone.

 

There are many unsung heros out there who are doing their part to help keep a safe US and rather than wasting their time complaining about US politics, they're stepping up to the plate and engaging in career paths and job positions that allow them to directly influence safty and, as a consequence, political aims. However, chances are you'll never know their names! They're satisfied with known that the job has been done. So whether is DHS, FLE/IC, local PD taking the credit, I think we all owe them a big thank you and a big BRAVO!!!![/quote']

 

I'm not so much interested in who gets the credit but, if I were a policy maker, I would want to know what has worked and what has failed. Apparently, this was a win for the FBI:

 

A federal official said FBI agents monitoring Internet chat rooms used by extremists learned of the plot in recent months and determined that tunnels possibly were being targeted after investigators pieced together code words from their conversations.

 

With help from Lebanese authorities:

 

Officials said the FBI monitored internet chat rooms and cited the arrest of a key suspect by Lebanese authorities as a significant breakthrough.

 

A senior Lebanese security official said that Lebanese authorities, working with US law enforcement agencies, arrested an al-Qa'eda operative who admitted the plot.

 

He identified the suspect as Amir Andalousli, but said his real name was Assem Hammoud, a Beirut native linked to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader killed in Iraq last month.

Tulsa, Oklahoma. Friendly unpretentious solid people in the heart of the red states. Progressive by Oklahoma standards. Gentle hills to the north east, rolling plains to the southwest. OU football. My family and friends live here and this is where I've happened to build my life. Most places are what you make of them.

We're in luck. Only 2 more years everybody, and we can get a regime in there capable of handling this problem.

What should be done now to handle this problem?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/07/04/korea.missile/index.html?section=cnn_topstories

 

North Korea attempted to test fire a new version of their Taep'o Dong-2 ICBM earlier today. It failed less than a minute into the flight.

 

Is this just sabre rattling' date=' or should it be construed as an act of aggression? Is the US foreign policy towards North Korea effective, or is it putting us all in harm's way?[/quote']

 

I do not know whether we could have a more effective policy re N. Korea. They seem determined to go there own way.

I think we already have' date=' to a certain extent. Litigation is increasing all the time.

 

But worse, in the political sense, is that people have no time to really think through all the news that the media makes available to them, so we're often assaulted by mere bytes of sound, simplistic arguments that carry too much weight with the force of brevity. Look what effect the simple sound byte "WMD" has on people.

 

Politicians have to be careful these days, since a lengthy, eloquent defense of freedom of speech and the right to symbolic protest can be rebutted by "he supports flag-burning". Four little words that would probably stir up a lot of false patriotism against someone who truly wanted to protect the US Constitution more than a piece of cloth that merely represented it.

 

I do think people will be watching what they say a bit more in the future. Unfortunately, in the US, our democracy is strong but our freedom of speech is very fragile lately.[/quote']

 

Politicians do have to be more subtle today when vilifying the opposition. A certain amount of self-censorship is not a bad thing::

 

More than one historian has described the election of 1828 as one of the nastiest in the history of the republic. Mudslinging and innuendo were practically raised to an art form. Newspapers and zealous campaigners in both camps accused the candidates of immoral conduct. Some in Adams' s camp--although not Adams himself--focused on Rachel Jackson's first marriage and divorce. Although rare, divorce did occur in the early 1800s, but due to a technicality, Jackson married Rachel before the courts could declare her legally divorced. As a result, the two went through a second ceremony a few years after their first. Whatever the case, the Adams press raised the charge that the two were "adulterers" and, hence, Jackson was unfit for the presidency. In addition, the Adams campaign charged Jackson with a sordid list of crimes, including murder, treason, drunkenness, theft and cockfighting.

 

Jackson men, for their part, charged that while Adams was serving as a U.S. minister to Russia, he supplied young women to a lust-crazed Czar. Furthermore, Adams was portrayed as an aristocratic, aloof New Englander who distanced himself from the very people he supposedly represented. The Democrats accused him of spending public money on lavish furniture, including a billiard table for his home. One earnest Jacksonian newspaper even claimed Mrs. Adams was born out of wedlock.

 

Whether the speaker be Coulter, Kenedy or Durbin, the media and Internet make it more difficult to get by with outrageous statements. The hyperbole isn't left to percolate in a local group. It often rises to the top and gets vetted by the media so we know about more of the off the wall stuff. At least we get some basic fact checking.

I agree with Jim on this one. I think the article's goal was to make social commentary about the comments made by liberals who are making excessive statements about their own government which are unfounded and thoughtless.

 

He is in no way suggesting that we start legislating this criticism.

 

These people are making statements in anger that are not based on fact' date=' but emotion. They only serve to make the United States worse in the public eye, which is not OK, considering the source of the comments are baseless and exaggerated.[/quote']

 

There were many other excellent concepts in this article which had me figuratively nodding my head.

 

First, of course, is the fighting itself to preserve the elected democracy of Iraq . Twenty-five-hundred Americans have died for that idea — the chance of freedom for 26 million Iraqis, and the more long-term notion that the Arab Middle East’s first democracy will end the false dichotomy of Islamic theocracy or dictatorship. That non-choice was the embryo for the events of September 11.

 

Put this way, it almost seems chauvinistic or worse to oppose the war.

 

For all the propaganda of al Jazeera, the wounded pride of the Arab Street, or the vitriol of the Western Left, years from now the truth will remain that our soldiers did not come to plunder or colonize, but were willing to die for others’ freedom when few others would. Neither Michael Moore nor Noam Chomsky can change that, because it is not opinion, but truth — something that the Greeks rightly defined as “not forgetting” or “something that cannot be forgotten ” (alêtheia).

 

I can't say it any better. This paragraph indicts anyone who would seize on Haditha or Abu Ghairb to tar the entire mission.

 

Note also that after the hysteria over body armor and unarmored humvees, the Democratic opposition offers no real concrete alternatives to the present policy .

 

Why not? Because there are none.

 

The choices are really only two: either leave right away and quit the war on terror, or train the Iraqis and draw down carefully as planned all along. The Democrats will clamor for the former. But when put in the public spotlight, they will hold off from Vietnam-style funding cut-offs to claim credit for the success of the latter.

 

We saw this in the recent debate about time tables. The dems who had voted for a timetable were left to disingenuously claims that their position had been supported by Gen. Casey. I only hope Hanson is right that they will hold off on Vietnam style funding cuts.

Yet, because George Bush is in his second term, and is not Clintonian in obsession with polls and being liked, he can still guarantee the military two more years to stabilize the country. Then the hope is that the Iraqis will be able to secure their democracy in the future with a small number of American advisors and civilian aides, which might allow Iraq an opportunity something akin to that offered to the postwar Balkans.

 

I wish he were more eloquent and, in particular, I wish he had defined the conditions of victory differently. However, there is a firm courage to George Bush which is only underscored by his unpopularity. He understands that there is no choice but to finish what we started and all of the Sunday morning gas bags are not going to change his course.

There is a third war: that for the larger future of the Middle East . Pessimists point to the Gulf, Egyptian, and North African autocracies. And they see there only failure in the American efforts at democratization.

 

But the point is not to see Rotary Clubs and school boards sprouting up in the failed states of the Middle East . Instead, we can be happy enough with the beginning of the end of the old “stability” that nurtured terrorism. The public is nursed on news of car bombs, and the tired canard that supporting democracy always ensures perpetual Islamism. But if we remain calm and rational, then we can already see signs of real change in the unease and agitation of the Middle East, from Libya to Lebanon . All this was unleashed by the removal of Saddam Hussein and the American effort to stay on to foster something different despite base slurs, escalating oil prices, and the politicization of the war in a soon to be third wartime national election.

 

Nascent democracy is the reason that Afghans and Iraqis, alone in the Middle East , get up each morning and risk their lives to hunt down Islamic terrorists. For all the mess on the West Bank , it was only the free elections that brought in Hamas which offered the Palestinians the opportunity of self-expression. And now they alone suffer the responsibility to live with the economic and military consequences of their disastrous decision. Perhaps they may wish to reconsider next election.

 

Arafat’s pernicious façade of a “legitimate” government that “sincerely” tried to rein in “rogue” elements is now shattered in both Europe and America . After the Palestinians willingly voted a terrorist government into power, the Hamas politicians are simply fulfilling campaign pledges and doing what terrorists always do: rocketing civilians, murdering, and kidnapping. And now, since there is no more shady, so-called “Hamas,” but only the Hamas-led legitimate government of Palestine , there may be soon a conventional struggle at last, between two sovereign and legitimate states. Such are the wages of moral clarity that accrue from democracy.

 

I have to shake my head at how seldom this view is expressed. I particularly agree with the value of making the Palestinian's responsible for their decisions.

 

After the section of the article I quoted in the OP, Hanson concludes in part:

 

The military is doing its part. It defeated Saddam Hussein, and prevented a plethora of terrorists from destroying a fragile democracy abroad and the contemporary world’s oldest here at home. Despite the caricature and venom, the original belief of the 2002 Congress that there were at least 23 reasons to topple Saddam remains valid and is reaffirmed daily...

 

This is the part that mystifies me. What is the source of the venom with which the war is treated both domestically and internationally? I can see how a parent whose child was risked, killed or injured might not think the effort worthwhile, but how can so many so easily dismiss the opportunity for freedom which is being handed to 26 million Iraqis and the entire Middle East?

 

The world should again be thanking America for its sacrifice. I cannot account for the mindless venom.

hello

 

believe you stated to having practiced law. how do you feel about say a client of your being forced to give dna samples' date=' on being merely arrested, not charged but only arrested. and would you consider it violation of the right to non incrimination. should there not be enough other evidence

present to aquire a court order for dna samples before they can be obtained.

under such circumstances if i as a law enforcement official whom wished to obtain a sample i would need merely find some charge and arrest you on. automatically acquiring a sample. yes i understand as currently written it pertains to only certain catagories of offenses. but such laws have a nasty way of expanding. especially under the current climate of fear over terrorism, and a general get tuff on crime attitude amounst most citizens of variuos countries. as an attorney would you advise a client to volunterily give up dna samples?

secondly, they say in most cases if not convicted the information will be returned. but what safe guards are there to insure the information is removed from state-federal systems. will you be allowed to check on that status. and in the electronic age where information is shared quickly. how does that apply to information traded between state databases sharing with federal, or even foriegn nations.

in you opinion as a law person if say i was accused of a crime in michigan, dna taken and enter in the the state database. the states of florida and texas, plus the country of germany aquire the data. i'm released as innocent and michigan removes my data. under current law are florida and texas also required to remove the data, or do laws vary per state. what are the laws regarding the sharing of such data between countries.

 

thank you

 

mr d[/quote']

 

Sorry for not responding earlier. This is outside of my area but as I recall, and as this link suggests, the case law does a balancing test on this kind of bodily test. If the state has probable cause for the search, it is allowed.

I don't know what most people think who are against the war, but my personal feelings are that I am against limiting criticism because it is the nature of debate that ideas and strategies can be improved upon.

No one in this thread has argued that we should limit criticism. Except for possibly the flag burning amendment and a desire to curb the despicable antics of Mr. Phelps, I am aware of no proposal by anyone in a position of power to limit criticism.

What Hanson said was "too many have misdirected their anger at the very culture that produced and nourished them."

For example, the KKK once demonstrated in Skokie Ill because they dissented from racially neutral laws.

My bad. It was the Nazis that the ACLU fought for in Skokie.

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

No, it's not. I'll not judge what is the highest form of patriotism but a far higher form of patriotism than mere dissent would be defense of the right to dissent. While the right to dissent is beautiful, dissent itself comes in all forms. Dissent isn't always courageous, helpful or even interesting. Dissent can be moronic, hurtful and even racist.

For example, the KKK once demonstrated in Skokie Ill because they dissented from racially neutral laws. This wasn't patriotism. What was patriotic was the ACLU's courage in defending that right all the way to the US supreme court. The ACLU's briefs in this appeal no doubt made clear that the ACLU deplored the KKK's dissent. It was the right of dissent which is precious and it is a strawman #1 to imply that Davis was questioning that right when he expressly stated the ". . . problem is not that the majority of Americans have voiced doubts about the future of Iraq — arguments over self-interest and values happen in every long war when the battlefield does not daily bring back good news."

With the right to dissent comes responsibility and making extreme comments such as those mentioned by Davis is simply being mindless. There's nothing patriotic about going to such extremes.

Most of the article was OK (not exactly thrilling),

I note that you don't take him on though.

but the condemnation of some people who were merely excessively hyperbolic in thier criticism reeks of strawman, and condemning the NYT for exposing how the government has been spying on it's own citizens and seriously infringing civil liberties is just nothing more than pathetic whining about having been caught doing something they shouldn't have been doing anyway.

Strawman #2: He didn't condemn the people; he condemned the "mere" excessive hyperbole. He expressly stated that he had no problem with the NYTs editorializing about government secrecy. His point was that it was irresponsible for the NYT to be "publishing sensitive, leaked material in a time of war." I don't see how you respond to that point.

Sure, there's a noble purpose. But the ends do not justify the means, no matter how badly the author wishes it were so.

Strawman #3: I cannot see any portion of Davis' article that suggests that the ends justify the means.

As I read this article by my hero, Victor Davis Hanson, I felt the warm glow that only comes when someone extremely smart, knowledgable and articulate encapuslates what I've already been thinking.

Wow. This is my position in a nutshell. I wanted to stand up and applaud when I read:

Finally, we are witnessing a larger existential war, in which Iraq is the central, but not the only, theater. Put simply: will the spreading affluence and liberality of Westernization undermine the 8th-century mentality of the Islamists more quickly than their terrorists, armed with Western weapons, prey on the ennui of a postmodern Europe and America — with our large gullible populations that either don’t believe we are in a real war, or think that we should not be?

 

Americans know exactly the creed of the Islamists and what they have in store for us nonbelievers. Yet if we are not infidels, can we at least be fideles? That is, can we any longer articulate what we believe in, and whether it is worth defending?

 

The problem is not that the majority of Americans have voiced doubts about the future of Iraq — arguments over self-interest and values happen in every long war when the battlefield does not daily bring back good news.

 

Instead, the worry is that too many have misdirected their anger at the very culture that produced and nourished them. Sen. Kennedy could have objected to Abu Ghraib — so far the subject of nine government inquiries — without comparing the incident to the mass murdering of Saddam Hussein.

 

Sen. Durbin might have had doubts about Guantanamo — the constant site of Red Cross and congressional visits — but there was no need to tie it to the fiendish regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot.

 

Cindy Sheehan could have recanted her initial favorable remarks after meeting George Bush without later labeling him the world’s greatest terrorist.

 

The New York Times might have editorialized about the dangers of stealthy government security measures without publishing sensitive, leaked material in a time of war. It is precisely this escalation from criticism of the war to furor at our elected government and civilian-controlled military that is so worrisome — and so welcomed by the enemy, as we see when it cleverly regurgitates our own self criticism as its own.

Obviously I disagree' date=' but even if that's so then it's obvious that opposition to public smoking predates any kind of proof that [i']second-hand[/i] smoke is harmful.

 

It's not so much the opposition to smoke that bothers me, as it is the witch-hunt atmosphere that surrounds the issue. Even if it turns out that the fears were right all along, that doesn't excuse the way presumptions and political correctness have dominated the public debate. I have a problem with society's rules vacilating with the winds of popular opinion. And so should you.

 

At any rate, I've promised to read the relevant material before commenting further on whether or not second-hand smoking is actually dangerous, and I've not forgotten that pledge. I've learned from this thread already, and I've no problem with keeping an open mind about the issue until I've become more educated on the science involved.

 

I just think it's a shame that more people don't do that. These decisions should be based on science and the presumption of freedom, not "ew gross, that should be banned".

Is it appropriate for society to ban potentially dangerous and obnoxious conduct from public gathering places? Let's suppose that for reasons unknown a sizable minority of the public developed the habit imbibing freshly squeezed garbage juice. Not satisfied to drink this noxious brew in their own homes, the garbage drinkers want to come to public restaurants and drink it next to others.

They argue that restaurant owners have the right to ban them from the premises but that drinking garbage juice only hurts themselves and that the majority should not be able to eliminate the choice. Non-drinkers don't have to come to restaurants which allow or serve garbage juice.

It will take years to get hard science on the danger of second hand bacteria from the public consumption of garbage juice.

This may sound flippant but I actually do not know what I think about this hypothetical.

One of the surprising aspects of smoking bans has been the increase in patronage at bars and restaurants that previously allowed smoking. It seems that the ban has shown owners an aspect of their business that they did not previous realize.

I've been saying for years that a non-smoking bar would be a huge draw. My wife and I would like to go out for a drink but simply can't stomach the smoke.

No. We have no importance beyond what we give ourselves, to whom we are the most important things in the universe. There are no illusions of any "inherent" importance, and certainly none that anyone or anything besides ourselves cares at all or has any purpose for us.

Interesting. As some Christians may believe in God because it is comforting, socially advantageous or to hedge their bets against hell, you choose to believe human beings are important out of self-interest?

There may have been strife all along, however, the British and other empiral powers (e.g. France, etc) really didn't help matters and they really laid the primary foundation for the problems we are seeing today in the Middle East and Africa.

Yes, but who cares? The deed is done.

If you think there's nothing to remember here' date=' you should have tuned in right-wing radio today, which was [b']aghast[/b], or left-wing radio, which was elated.

 

Obviously I understand this well -- I post about it incessently. It's the extremists (on both sides) that fail to get it. That's why I'm hoping they're remember this case the next time the Supremes make a decision they dislike.

I completely agree Pangloss. Anyone spending 30 minutes scanning this opinion, the DC opinion, the transcript of the oral arguments and any of the briefs filed in the case would come away knowing that this was a legal issue on which reasonable minds can differ. Yes, the orientation/judicial philosophy of the Justices played a role in the outcome but this was a complex issue on which I would not even begin to opine. Literally hundreds of lawyers spend countless hours at a cost cetainly in the millions.

At the end of the day it was a 5-3 decision which would have been 5-4 had Roberts not recused himself. I do not get how anyone could pretend this wasn't a highly complex case which could have fallen in either direction.

It just shows how wacko-right things have gotten - that we even have the issue of tribunals to make a ruling on in the first place at all.

Have you read the dissenting opinions? What in them do you find to be "wacko-right?"

If they want credibility with the left, they could rule in favor of something moderate, instead of against something so far to the right you can't believe its on the table at all.

I would be interested in your critique of the dissents. Better yet, how about showing me exactly where Judge Randolf, with then circuit judge John Roberts, were "wacko" in the DC Circuit court opinion. I haven't had time to digest the opinion but you should be very leary of any opinion formed on the basis of news reported within minutes and hours of the issuance of the opinion.

If you feel very strongly about the case, you might review the transcript of the oral arguments.

hello

 

some to see about dna' date=' innocent till proven guilty

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060629/ap_on_re_us/dna_accused;_ylt=Akd0MfVgrEyuO25OZdiiBAas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-[/quote']

 

Eh?

I'm discussing more than just the NSA terrorist surveillance program and there seems to be a growing number of Senate Republicans[/b'] who are not satisfied with the President's legal position as they are holding hearings on some of the issues revolving around signature statements.

I can't discuss an aggregate of programs so I threw out the NSA program as one specific example which I have researched to some degree and discussed in other threads.

The first inclination of any politician is to defend his own power and prerogatives which explains why republicans are willing to buck a president with low approval ratings. This kind of contesting for power is exactly what the framers intended.

President's typically get away with signature statements when Congress doesn't have the political strength or will to stand up to the President and take him to court. Since the days of Andrew Jackson, signature statements were a challenge from the President to Congress to challenge him in court. They are in short a Presidential bluff. The difference this time is the sheer quantity of them that Bush is using to avoid a veto show down.

 

In reality the signature statements are a challenge of Congresses power and I think the concern over the balance of power is starting to tip Senators including Republican Senators from the position of party loyaties to protecting congressional powers.

As I said, I've not researched the particulars of these statements to know whether they were reasonable. I do not think we are nearly to the point that we have to worry about an imperial presidency. Congress is well able to express its views publically and go to court if necessary.

Part of the difference in the perception of Bush's powers is that he views himself to be a wartime president. I am nervous about the nature of this "war" which really can have no end. However, rightly or wrongly, Bush has acted consistently in that manner and his motivations are not a mystery.

Just typical of your average small-minded' date=' self-centered human is all.

 

 

 

Not true! Consciousness is important to us, who are conscious. How could you possibly say anything less (or more)?[/quote']

 

But isn't that being.... er... a tad anthropic?