[karajorma]

Originally posted by Su-tehp


I admit, I don't know what motor neurone is,

Think Steven Hawkins.

[Nico]

Originally posted by CP5670
I never heard of that, but can't she just kill herself anyway? I mean, after you are dead, there is not a whole lot the law can do to punish you.

you gotta learn some more stuff than your 2+2=4 crap, man

[CP5670]

Um, CP, how can a woman suffering from motor neurone kill herself? I admit, I don't know what motor neurone is, but if it's anything like multiple sclerosis or muscular distrophy, where your nerves and/or muscles don't function, how could this woman even be able to pick up a gun to kill herself in the first place?

ah, if it's a form of paralysis then never mind. But if she is incapable of talking or writing then how does anyone know that she wants to die?

The right to privacy isn't a political idea, it's a legal one. And I've been studying it off and on for three years and I never found anything funny about it.

whatever, same thing. It's funny because it makes no sense; how is anyone supposed to have any "privacy" if they exist in the universe and thus are linked to all the other particles? From a more practical perspective, this is one of those "rights" that the people will never know if violated, so the government can certainly use spy satellites, phoneline tappers and such things for whatever reason and nobody will ever care.

[Nico]

from one who talks about connections between particles and stuff, you're particularly disconected from reality, man.

anyway, to answer to your question about how she can communicate ( coz you don't seem to know anything ), there's many ways, like the optic captors that read the eyes movements, the ones that use the movement of the tips of the fingers ( when those poor people are lucky enough to be able to slightly move those ), things like that. that will be translated by a vocal synthetizer.

[CP5670]

from one who talks about connections between particles and stuff, you're particularly disconected from reality, man.

sorry, but that is a rather pathetic argument.

anyway, to answer to your question about how she can communicate ( coz you don't seem to know anything ), there's many ways, like the optic captors that read the eyes movements, the ones that use the movement of the tips of the fingers ( when those poor people are lucky enough to be able to slightly move those ), things like that. that will be translated by a vocal synthetizer.

but in that case they are not completely paralyzed, right?

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by CP5670

whatever, same thing. It's funny because it makes no sense; how is anyone supposed to have any "privacy" if they exist in the universe and thus are linked to all the other particles? From a more practical perspective, this is one of those "rights" that the people will never know if violated, so the government can certainly use spy satellites, phoneline tappers and such things for whatever reason and nobody will ever care.

When in actual fact, the Vacuum in space actually means we are not linked to all other particles. I am not ionically bonded to the oxygen in the air, i am not linked to those particles.

[CP5670]

There are still the gravity forces between all the particles, so they must have effects on each other regardless of any vacuum (that's what i meant by "link").

[karajorma]

I love it when the off topic part of a thread comes back together with the on topic part.

1) This thread is about homosexuals and their right to do anything they wish in privacy.

2) CP has claimed that the right to privacy is nonsense.

Therefore he doesn't have the right to stop any homosexual from taking pictures of him getting changed in the swimming baths/any other communal area and then doing whatever he wants with the pictures as long as it's in private.

[Knight Templar]

But its not private! Those perverted particles are always watching!

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Venom
from one who talks about connections between particles and stuff, you're particularly disconected from reality, man.

[rationalist] Pah, our sense-reality is useless and merely a subjective illusion all our minds fashion! Our reason reigns supreme, "I think, therefore I am" as Descartes said [/rationalist]

[Rictor]

CP you try to make EVERYTHING absolute, from privacy, to government, to thought...when in fact, nothing is absolute, not even physics or math, and particularly not human emotion

I am against extremism. I'de rather come up short on a few issues by being moderate on all issues, than by being extreme on all issues. Extremism in any form has a)never been succesful, and b)never made of people very happy.

Back to the point, I think Trudeau (a former Candian PM) said it best: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of its citizens"

I am much more against afeminate guys (cause how can girls be afeminate) than against gays. If you're gay, you're gay. Theres not a whole lot of things that could convince you to eat ass if you're not genuinly for it. But society sort of has this effect where it turns people afeminate, dont exactly know how though. People can be subconciously influenced to act more "girly" or more "artsy" and I find "artsiness" as a concept pretty bad. I'm not takling about like Leonardo, but rather about the hundreds of fashion designers, interior designers and hair dressers who act in a specific way simply because its expected of their profession and they think it somehow gives them more class. I think you know what I'm talking about, and if you dont, then someone else can explain it.

[Kamikaze]

since when did he try to make anything "absolute"? He's simply looking at things objectively, rather than from a clouded human (emotional/irrational) point of view. However, you could also argue to consider right/wrong/silly/sensible you have to think of the histo/cultural settings, i.e. right/wrong is contextual. I believe that was what Hegel proposed...

BTW: How do you define absolute?

[Rictor]

Absolute would be something like: People should have no privacy, or people should have total privacy. The government should have no involevemnt whatsoever in your daily life, the government should have total control over your daily life.

Moderation is a very important virtue.

How can you (and why would it be a benefit?) to think absolutley rationally and act without human emotion, when the action itself is being done by humans to humans. Theres nothing but humans in every step of the process, so why should you seek to distance emotion from the whole thing. Even in this respect, I believe in moderation. You should be logical enough to identify the shortcommings of human nature, and to compensate for them. However, you should alo not be too logical, so as to exclude emotion totaly. Modertion ensures that nothing drastic happens, and I consider that a good thing. Moderation overrules and checks all other humans emotions (hate, love, fairness, violence, rationality, irrationality, etc etc) so that none of them can be taken to the extreme. Very few things, even good thing, remain good if taken to the extreme

Therefore, moderation is the at the top (or one of the few top) of the list of desirable qualities in a person or governement

BW do you think that since all particles in this universe are held together by gravity, that means that gays should be illegal?

Thats some sound, thought-out reasoning there:lol:

[diamondgeezer]

So, Descartes goes in to his local bar. The landlord says 'the usual?'. Descartes says 'I think not!', and disappears.

Now that's comedy

[mikhael]

How did you people completely misinterpret this judgement?

Yes, the couple that pushed this through to the SCOTUS are gay, however this is not a ruling for gay rights. This is a ruling for everyone's rights. The basis for the ruling, in the end, is that such laws violate not just the (putative) right to privacy, but the right to equal protection under the law. This ruling makes anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional.

In Texas, the laws dealing with Sodomy specifically target homosexual couples. In my state, however, the law covers heterosexual AND homosexual sodomy, married or not. There are 12 states in the Union that currently have laws on the books that criminalize sodomy--and in some of them, having anal or oral sex with your wife means that you have to register as a sex offender. Can you imagine that: consensual sex with your lawfully wedded spouse means that you're not just a criminal, you're a violent sexual predator. You can't live in buildings that have children. You can't hold certain jobs.

Someone asked how often laws like this get enforced? Generally they are not, but they are used in other ways. Gays and lesbians who attempt to adopt children are often DENIED their adoption petitions on the grounds that they are CRIMINALS. In states that had antisodomy laws, gays and lesbians could be denied membership in professional organizations for their criminal behavior.
Just because they don't go to jail, or get a fine, doesn't mean that it doesn't affect them.

Of course let's not forgot the wonderful case in Georgia at the beginning of the 90's, where a man was thrown in jail for sodomy--with a sentance of nine years--for performing oral sex on his wife. She turned him in, because she knew he intended to divorce her. It took a team of lawyers paid for by (of all people) Playboy. Nine years, for oral sex.

This ruling lets me have sex in my home, in the way I wish, with the person I love, without repercussions. This isn't about gay or straight people, its about all Americans' rights.

[Stryke 9]

Most of this is either complete horse**** which shouldn't be dignified with a response or is settling itself nicely. Or I don't wanna bother read this frickin' eight-page post. So...

Goober: Look at the historical trends, and you'll find this absolutely isn't the case. Teen pregnancy used to be a universal, most births occurred some six months after marraige, and child exposure was commonplace. STDs weren't quite rampant then, but hey- they didn't have SARS, either. You could get herpes or syphilis pretty easily, but they didn't have the deadly effect, or spreading power, of modern diseases. Which has far, far more to do with the jumbo jet than the jimmy hat.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Su-tehp
Goob, I don't know whether you live in the UK or here in the States (I know DG is in Great Britain), but in either case, if we didn't have contraceptives, we'd have more teen pregnancies and STDs, not less. Just because contraceptives are available doesn't make more people have sex.

USA.

No contraceptives available to youth --> premarital sex carries increased risk --> higher incentive not to have premarital sex --> fewer pregnancies and STDs transferred.
 
Because of the availability and cavalier treatment of contraceptives nowadays, a general cultural attitude has developed that "premarital sex isn't so bad if you use a contraceptive".  This leads to a larger acceptance of it and a more relaxed attitude toward it.  This in turn means that youths are more likely to have sex even if they don't have a contraceptive handy.

I don't know how things are done in England, (again, Goob, I don't know where you live) but in America we have the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment, which basically prohibits the US government from supporting or helping to establish any particular religion over any other religion while at the same time letting each American citizen practice his or her own religion (or practicing none at all) in his or her own individual way.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Establishment Clause.  It prevents the establishment of a "Church of the USA."  It does not disallow the right of legislators to conduct business according to their religious convictions.

The danger of letting legislators "administer the law according to their religious convictions" is that once you allow that, which religious convictions should be allowed to govern? Protestants and Catholics have been at odds over some religious ideas for centuries. Then there are the Jews, Hindus and Muslims. How do you reconcile their religious ideas in the law? And what about the atheists (like me)? If religion is injected into the law, how are we atheists supposed to deal with religious values and laws we want no part of?

If you (generic "you") don't like it, vote them out of office.  Or emigrate.  When you elect a person, you elect everything about that person, including their political affiliation, their social outlook, and their religious beliefs.

[CP5670]

Therefore he doesn't have the right to stop any homosexual from taking pictures of him getting changed in the swimming baths/any other communal area and then doing whatever he wants with the pictures as long as it's in private.

If anyone, homosexual or not, can find me at a swimming pool in the first place then that would already be quite remarkable. Anyway, if I don't find out that I am being photographed, then this "right" is quite irrelevant since even if I do have the right by law I will still do nothing, which was why I was saying that this is a pretty silly right in a technology age.

CP you try to make EVERYTHING absolute, from privacy, to government, to thought...when in fact, nothing is absolute, not even physics or math, and particularly not human emotion

okay...what in the world is your argument and how does it relate to this thread?

I am against extremism. I'de rather come up short on a few issues by being moderate on all issues, than by being extreme on all issues. Extremism in any form has a)never been succesful, and b)never made of people very happy.

How can you (and why would it be a benefit?) to think absolutley rationally and act without human emotion, when the action itself is being done by humans to humans. Theres nothing but humans in every step of the process, so why should you seek to distance emotion from the whole thing. Even in this respect, I believe in moderation. You should be logical enough to identify the shortcommings of human nature, and to compensate for them. However, you should alo not be too logical, so as to exclude emotion totaly. Modertion ensures that nothing drastic happens, and I consider that a good thing. Moderation overrules and checks all other humans emotions (hate, love, fairness, violence, rationality, irrationality, etc etc) so that none of them can be taken to the extreme. Very few things, even good thing, remain good if taken to the extreme

If you are always moderate, then you are extreme in terms of your moderation; you cannot be always moderate or always extreme on every issue, but only somewhere in between (i.e. moderate on some issues and extreme on others), which is what both of us are. You seem to have this habit of suddenly moving off topic all the time in arguments; when did I say anything at all about human nature in this thread? And how is excluding the effects of emotions, or anything else for that matter, in the analysis of human behavior logical? Full moderation ensures that nothing drastic happens, but that itself is among the most drastic things that can happen, because drastic things have been happening for thousands of years due to a blend of moderation and extremism.

BW do you think that since all particles in this universe are held together by gravity, that means that gays should be illegal?

When did I ever say anything about that? I personally couldn't care less about whether homosexuality is legal or not actually.

Thats some sound, thought-out reasoning there

riiight...

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Goober: Look at the historical trends, and you'll find this absolutely isn't the case. Teen pregnancy used to be a universal

The teenaged mothers were married when they got pregnant.  Or else they married very quickly afterward, due to the prevalent social stigma against unwed pregnancies.

most births occurred some six months after marraige, and child exposure was commonplace.

Probably attributable to poor sanatation and health conditions back then.

STDs weren't quite rampant then, but hey- they didn't have SARS, either. You could get herpes or syphilis pretty easily, but they didn't have the deadly effect, or spreading power, of modern diseases.

Speculation: They weren't as harmful because they weren't as prevalent.  Now that they're so much more prevalent than before, they've had a chance to mutate into more harmful variants.

[vyper]

If a couple are so intimate that they're in the position of possibly having sex, no lack of supplies will stop 'em. They'll just hope the guy can know when to withdraw, shoot elsewhere and then finish the job another way.

The truth is, better availability of contraceptives will cap (pardoning the pun) the increase of teenage and unplanned pregnancies. The god-send of all couples who have accidents was the morning after pill. That should come down in price (but carry other restrictions to prevent abuse).

[q]and their religious beliefs.[/q]

NO. YOU. DON'T.
RELIGION IS NOT ALLOWED INTO PARLIAMENT (or US equiv)