Bacchus

here google > Don Marquis... audio interview i think. I haven't listened to it the BBC on Marquis argument Google owns. it was pretty easy to find stuff about Marquis. It would be interesting to find a biography or something about the man to see from which "mold" he's coming. anyway, i'm in a rush...i haven't read the aticles. I'll do it later.

Republican 101 Big download.

A coalition of medias joinded together and held polls around the world from Canada to Australia. The idea came from a discussion between marketing /comms pros who were wondering about the USA: since the US of A are acting like the world police and that any decision made by the pres can affect the world, what would happen if all free countries were to vote for an american pres? here are the results (i believe you can find them in a lot of medias from the Guardian, Le Monde, etc.): poll results thoughts?

I don't know about USA but better welfare regulations means more efficient control mechanisms and that in turn costs money in man power and in paperworks. It could even be that such measures would cost a whole lot more than what's being poached by abusers.

no, i wasn't trying to justify it. I was attemtping to see the extend of Aileron "moral theory" through exemples. If petrajs reread my post he should see that i wasn't trying to bash USA nor was i making a point of it. I was just asking if those exemples were covered by the "future life" theory.

why are you calling names Aileron? Ducky's views are as legitimate as yours. You seem to see the world through black and white lenses whereas Ducky sees shades of gray. All your arguments are based on ideas and premisses that are necessary to the argument itself. Your theory about "future life" is cute but it can't account for anything. Sure it's easy to use some sort of prepaid prefab genial ethic structure like the one you're defending. But unless you think this theory is the end of all things, you have to face the facts that people won't always agree with you and you also have to respect that by the way or you forfeit any real will to discuss and enrich your own personal views on the matter at hand. How can you justify 10k civilian deaths in Iraq? tchechens being systematically raped? US embargos killing thousands of people? How can you justify any unecessary deaths using this theory? Or does it work only with abortions? What if your wife, girlfriend, one night stand, etc...want to abort your fetus? What if your in love with her and she decides she doesn't want it? What if she cries herself to sleep, loose appe-*BAD WORD*-e, bleeds for two weeks and all the after effects not mentionning remorses...How will you react? telling her she's a murderer? that she just threw a "future life" away? That she should have denied her own for the simple fact that she can be pregnant? Man, if this is how you see life with a woman i'd say you're a poor !@#$%^&*ing insensitive moron. not to mention stupid. So stop calling names, everyone can do that.

true that. Should we clean up the mess?

By all means, stop eating...it's working

this is cute but you're avoiding the point. What exactly is murder refering to? What's your view on the fact that some think abortion is closely related to murder but killing while following orders isn't and some others, usually against war and unecessary killing by the way, won't see it that way? What's the difference? Do you think the pro-choicers are "morally misguided"?

But war casualties aren't? Those aren't muders? right? What exactly is "murder"refering to?

Your argument only works if you believe in its premisses: 1)That as far as human are concern, life true nature is moral. 2)Something moral answers to something grander than itself. You need a "guaranteeing" principle for moral to work, be it God or else. Hence the importance of the "future" in your argument. 3)Hence the fact that animal life is excluded from your argument; an animal is not a "moral agent". This state of being is reserved solely to privileged beings, humans. 4)Your argument absolutely needs some kind of salvation to work. A "moral agent" will be judged by a higher instance that holds some kind of moral knowledge and thus can "appraise" a life's value. Again, this is essential for the "future" to hold a shred of sense and value. This argument will only hold true for certain contexts like abortion and i believe euthanasy (spl). You won't use it in a war discussion because war is motivated by other moral grounds and higher moral instances, even if you rob a "future life" of every "moral agent" that is killed. This kind of thinking works very well in a strutured view of life, like those influenced by religion for exemple...it doesn't work at all when explained to people less affected by moral issues depending on a "future judgement" or something.

You wouldn 't know... And i don't think a non-existent would be living tissue would either.

magic word is should

I'm a left liberal

In my opinion, sovereignty of body should be extended to women. Respect of life should be equally granted to every life. would-be mothers or unwanted pregnancy should be something more openly discussed. social structures could be implemented to help those mothers, family or couples dealing with unwanted pregnancy: for exemple, an easier access to adoption, social, psychological support, etc. But in the end, it's a woman's, her body, her choice. It's hard enough as it is, no need to accuse her (them) of murder... Off course, if your beliefs teaches you that the soul is immortal, that God actually had a design, that a life's value can be measure on the age of an organism and all that, well...i understand why abortion can be an issue. But I can't see why women's rights would be any different from mine just because they can be pregnant...

yea, whatever. I'd be surprised that something as big as a "possible mediatic error" would be overlooked by the pres staff and secret service.

considering the fact that your commander in chief declared victory on may 1st and that american are still being skewered by ennemy (and friendly) fire...more then ever before... I'd say you're getting quite a beating. Not to mention that your pres look like an overgrown idiot. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2003/10/30/wirq30.jpeg

ok. so it's okay to have people killed because the death toll i lower than car accidents related death? is that what you call perspective?

Hence the 1000+ deaths and injured? You're getting quite a beating if you ask me.

Ask 50%, he'll hack one for you...i'm such a loser with coding.

man, ain't you some hot !@#$%^&*!? I'm flabbergasted by your leet skills and dedication! go code some sex-bot and have a blast. Kleenex are on me. 'til then, have a nice day mate.

50%, I suspect that you're overreacting because you lack real arguments to defend your views. Your simplistic mind can't cope with outside critics, even constructive one? too bad, you're digging your own hole. Cya.

yea, Ail has emotions too, people got to respect that if nothing else. Sorry, if you felt personnally insulted. I saw a lot of posts here that were sensitive and relevant informations. Those forums are lucky to have some "non-lazy" posters. Too bad, you didn't like, appreciate and/or use the info has inputs for your own perspectives. btw, i resent Live-Wire disappearance...his interventions were enlightening. Though i didn't always agree, i could at least see some consistencies or have a good idea of the contexts in which some policies took place. I've learned many things about USA and the world here since i have firsthand contact with some people from around the world. This is what discusson is about, no? kill somoene because he said your religion was a fairy tale? Then spank his parents for bad education?! Who do you think you are? Some Higher Moral Minister? need to go now.

http://lemondedejb.free.fr/archives%20fichiers%20et%20trucs%20marrants/images%20marrantes/imnotamerican.jpg

50%, the answer that you seek is : we discuss politics because we can and because we want. You don't like it, beat it. It's written "political discussion". Hence we discuss. USA is the only superpower in the world. It's overruling pretty much anything others tries to build and/or destroy. It has adopted interventionists (ical?) policies that affect the world at large...and you expect people to turn around saying: " oooh, that's nothing honey, just some yankees playing with guns"?