Mine is an ancient Thinkpad, the true weapon of our Lord!
Oh man, I WANT THIS THING! That is what I call a cool feature in home design. Time to think how to do it relatively cheaply in my study...
To give it credit, Japanese cars are now among the best in class, and can be enjoyed on a global market at a "reasonable" price. Took them a few decades to get there though. When/if Chinese manufacturers get to that level - that would be a win for the common consumer anywhere. And European companies with their trend to sell less, but more expensive, cars, will likely be outcompeted.
Now that is mind-bending trickery! Having a degree in applied matha millennia ago did not help...
AI is not overrated. We just don't have it yet.
Well, its okay not to win in the natural selection) Luckily for people we do not have to adapt to an environment, we have means to either change it or move to another, more fitting one. You are evolved for higher latitudes, did you consider moving to an icy region?
Sweating is what allows you to survive in most climates as well, what is wrong with it on that front? It even helps with pheromones delivery, double whammy! )
As long as it does not involve kids - why would we care?
It is also illegal to be in, at least in the UK where your instance probably is. Fixed penalty illegal, not prison time.
But he actually can not. He must have promised the world to shareholders, so now he has to deliver.
Lets give it to him, he is really good at it!
I do have that setting! Thank you. When I was doing the set up i concentrated on denying permissions and blocking useless stuff, and missed this one.
Judging by the length of your replies i make a conclusion that either the topic in question is rather important to you, or you just enjoy arguing. In any case - thank you, it is always a pleasure to have a meaningful debate. Cannot say that the topic in question was ever in my focus (I am getting agitated mostly about personal rights and freedoms in general, rather than this particular sub-case), but your time committed deserves a slightly more detailed response. Also, thanks for a particular paper you mentioned - I enjoyed reading it, and it only highlights the differencies in our views. So let me use the same way of responding to specific lines in your posts. "You completely miss the point of that question" - nope, you provide a specific example of a killer, I respond that killing anybody is bad. The big question is how to define this "anybody". Based on that single paper you mentioned - the only one I ever read on the subject - this is indeed a central question of the whole debate, as both sides recognise the unacceptability of killing. I draw the line at birth, you do it sometime before. Oversimplification, I know, but I have no intention to contribute to the whole debate with my humble attempts on writing a tome. All I am saying - and it seems you agree, but that is up to you really - is that there is no definitive way to establish the bulletproof concept around abortion rights, so there is no ground to impose a restriction on a woman to do as she sees right. "You abandoned the bodily autonomy argument" - how so? I did not mention it in the short reply, that is true. But I stand convinced that bodily autonomy is the inherent right of every single person living. Moreover, the vaccination case does not contradict it, if taken together with the principle of limiting one's rights by rights of others. I do not see who's rights are affected in the abortion case (with a potential exception of a father who could really want this particular baby). "Thats literally what legislation is" Moral code evolved into the legislation, that is not something to argue against. Moral norms, however, as argued by evobiologists, were initially based on natural factors that helped the population to survive and expand. Killing one of your kin is bad, sleeping with your sister or your father is bad, stealing food is bad etc. Then there were less obvious additions and then there come religions that totally screwed it all. The whole idea of a proper legislation is to remove everything arbitrary (as it violates someone's rights with no purpose) and keep the rules that are accepted by the majority and work. Abortion ban is obviously not accepted by everyone (majoriity is to be seen for any of the sides, from what I heard about US politics, the ban is in minority), and the purpose of it is unclear outside of a particular understanding of the morality. That is what I basically am trying to say: there is no universal moral system, hence there should not be a law based on someone's belief that something is moral or not. A good basis of a law is the natural right to live, but in my view it does not emerge before someone is born. The deprivation argument from prof Marquis is, as I read it, by his own definition too broad to be practical (animals, contraception, plants,...?).
Blondes are people, fetuses are not - that is my view. Moral arguments can form opinions, not legislation.It is ok for you to hate me if you choose to do so, it however does not grant you a right to stop me doing my immoral in your view thing. That is, unless my immoral thing infringes your rights, then we can talk and see what can be done.
As mentioned, I am always keen to accept a rational argument (as in vaccination, where there is science behind), so can i please politely ask you to point me in the direction of academic studies on the immorality of abortion? Never saw one, so forgive my ignorance.
That will take a few hundred million years to recover then. Not to the same biome, there will certainly be some crazy species popping up. From what i recall, Earth still has a few billion years before it is consumed by the Sun, should be ok.
Yes, but it also switches off after some time, and I tend to like exploring new music, so have to use either switches frequently anyway. Still raging!
Oh, my bad, apologies. Scan reading sometimes leads to mistakes like that, and that one was too funny for my brain to let go.
But now it makes even less sense to me with the body thing. I would never accept someone else forcing me to do (or not do) something with my own body - and i see no reason whatsoever for anyone to accept that.
There is an issue of vaccination where some enforcement is justifiable, as there is a true risk for other people in you not doing it. How does someone's decision of not having a child threatens you?
Any and all restrictions or instructions should be based on a rational argument, otherwise it is just a limitation of your freedom.
And given that the argument in favor of imposing the limitations in question lies in the area of someone else's beliefs - that becomes even more ridiculous.
On the taxes side - there i can see a strong argument for it in principle, as it allows the society as a whole to do better. You want to use infrastructure built by society - you pay. Now, there is a whole other problem of how exactly the monies collected on the basis of a rational idea are spent. Holding the people in charge accountable is truly a big issue, not for this thread though.