First time submitter jan.van.gent writesMore of Renegade's "cockroaches"?
"The European Parliament is on the verge of adopting a directive reforming standards, reform which would introduce FRAND patent licensing terms, an undefined term which has been seen as a direct attack on the fundamental principles of Free and Open Source software. The Business Software Alliance has been very active trying to get FRAND terms into the directive."
Maybe they will soon have the appointment of an EmperorNaked ambition?-IainB (February 28, 2012, 07:29 AM)
Har-de-har-har. Very droll. ;)Maybe they will soon have the appointment of an EmperorNaked ambition?-IainB (February 28, 2012, 07:29 AM)-cranioscopical (February 28, 2012, 10:40 AM)
EU bureaucrats making up this seemingly bonkers type of legislation-IainB (February 28, 2012, 07:29 AM)
EU bureaucrats making up this seemingly bonkers type of legislation-IainB (February 28, 2012, 07:29 AM)
Care to elaborate?-Eóin (February 28, 2012, 12:26 PM)
I should probably thank @40hz for doing that much better than I probably could have done! :Thmbsup:EU bureaucrats making up this seemingly bonkers type of legislationCare to elaborate?-IainB (February 28, 2012, 07:29 AM)-Eóin (February 28, 2012, 12:26 PM)
AAARRRGGGHHH!!!
I see red... Rivers of red...-Renegade (February 27, 2012, 07:44 AM)
Meanwhile the EU populations lie down and passively allow this non-democracy (or reversal of democracy) to roll right over them.
Maybe they will soon have the appointment of an Emperor...it's what they probably deserve.-IainB (February 28, 2012, 07:29 AM)
Is blatant anti-EU racism, something which is becoming depressingly more common on DC.-Eóin (February 29, 2012, 11:10 AM)
You can disagree without being personal.-mouser (February 29, 2012, 11:21 AM)
I don't really knows whats happening with the political propaganda being spammed on DC recently.-Eóin (February 29, 2012, 09:28 AM)
...the real issues are [often] a little more nuanced than our first reactions.-mouser (February 28, 2012, 08:40 PM)
there has been a bit of a "bandwagon" lately here...-tomos (February 29, 2012, 12:54 PM)
there has been a bit of a "bandwagon" lately here...-tomos (February 29, 2012, 12:54 PM)
???-40hz (February 29, 2012, 01:37 PM)
I don't really knows whats happening with the political propaganda being spammed on DC recently.-Eóin (February 29, 2012, 09:28 AM)
Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled
Guys and gals please take a deep breath.. especially long time members.. this is not the DC way -- we are supposed to go to extreme lengths to not insult and attack each other, and not to name call. Please for the benefit of setting a good example try to be kinder to one another. You can disagree without being personal.-mouser (February 29, 2012, 11:21 AM)
Allow me to cite an example of utter, complete, pure evil that I cannot possibly express my disgust for, but that I do not believe should be censored or banned:
http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.abstractAbstractYes. They advocate killing newborn babies. It's difficult to imagine anything more callous or evil.
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.-Renegade (February 29, 2012, 11:11 PM)
J Med Ethics doi:10.1136/medethics-2011-100411- then it would seem eminently reasonable to present the argument in that paper, since it would seem to formalise a logical and structured conclusion that could be drawn from the apparent mess of contradictory/conflicting ethical and moral perspectives that collectively seem to currently allow killing a foetus.
Law, ethics and medicine
Paper
After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?
...the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion ...is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.There was nothing in the paper (that I could see, anyway) that specifically suggests that the authors of the paper:
...advocate killing newborn babies.
Author Affiliations
1. Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
2. Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
3. Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4. Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK
We are not suggesting that these are definitive reasons against adoption as a valid alternative to after-birth abortion. Much depends on circumstances and psychological reactions. What we are suggesting is that, if interests of actual people should prevail, then after-birth abortion should be considered a permissible option for women who would be damaged by giving up their newborns for adoption.- and the start of the Conclusions says:
Conclusions
If criteria such as the costs (social, psychological, economic) for the potential parents are good enough reasons for having an abortion even when the fetus is healthy, if the moral status of the newborn is the same as that of the infant and if neither has any moral value by virtue of being a potential person, then the same reasons which justify abortion should also justify the killing of the potential person when it is at the stage of a newborn...
Top 10 most depressing quotes from Orwell's 1984 (http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/top-ten/display_review.php?id=00085):
(see attachment in previous post (http://www.alternativereel.com/includes/top-ten/display_review.php?id=00085)) (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=12641.msg105535#msg105535)
"We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent there will be no need of science. There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always—do not forget this Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler....-zridling (March 14, 2008, 12:59 AM)
(see attachment in previous post (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=16974.msg275693#msg275693))-IainB (January 23, 2012, 04:47 AM)
I want IainB to start a blog, that once a week dissects (as is his wont) some late breaking web issue. The mind boggles... ;D
P.S. I hope they never abolish orgasm. It's still the cheapest form of entertainment going. ;)-40hz (March 01, 2012, 07:24 AM)
The argument being put forward is that:...the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion ...is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.There was nothing in the paper (that I could see, anyway) that specifically suggests that the authors of the paper:...advocate killing newborn babies.-IainB (March 01, 2012, 07:06 AM)
‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible
killing a newborn should be permissible
advocate killing newborn babies
The paper appears to be making a rational argument.-IainB (March 01, 2012, 07:06 AM)
Without quoting the text rendered in the referenced text (and having to add the spoiler tag), it would appear that it is an argument of semantics rather than substance, and that after-birth abortion is a euphemism on the same level as collateral damage.
(spoilered argument on killing babies/after-birth abortions)-Renegade (March 01, 2012, 08:52 AM)
I thought we were far enough off-topic already :(-tomos (March 01, 2012, 09:05 AM)
I thought we were far enough off-topic already :(-tomos (March 01, 2012, 09:05 AM)
Hey, I think my circle is funnier.
...ok, not... ;D-wraith808 (March 01, 2012, 01:42 PM)
I didn't mean for baby killing to really enter in here... It was merely meant as a radical example. Please forgive the diversion...I understood that. I did apologise for "chipping in".-Renegade (March 01, 2012, 08:52 AM)
Without quoting the text rendered in the referenced text (and having to add the spoiler tag), it would appear that it is an argument of semantics rather than substance, and that after-birth abortion is a euphemism on the same level as collateral damage.-wraith808 (March 01, 2012, 09:03 AM)
Charles C. Camosy is Ast. Prof. of Theology at Fordham University in New York City. He is author of Too Expensive to Treat? and Peter Singer and Christian Ethics, and blogs at CatholicMoralTheology.com.
Despite the wide public outcry over their article, Giubilini and Minerva’s arguments in defense of infanticide are nothing new. Peter Singer has become one of the best known philosophers in the world in part because of the attention he has received from defending the practice.
Infanticide was such an established part of the culture of ancient Greece and Rome that Christians and Jews became subjects of public mockery for opposing it. Even today, infanticide is consistently practiced in places where the Judeo-Christian tradition does not serve as a moral foundation, such as China and India.
For many people, but perhaps especially for Christians who are committed to nonviolence and special concern for the vulnerable, these conclusions are morally repugnant and can produce strong emotional reactions. And it is often appropriate to react with strong negative emotion in response to a great and violent injustice directed a particularly vulnerable population. I know, for instance, that when I first started reading Singer’s arguments about infanticide I became very angry, and today I believe quite strongly Giubilini and Minerva’s arguments are fundamentally wrongheaded. And yet, something needs to be said about the way many have reacted to their
article. Though anyone advancing an argument in the public sphere on a controversial issue should expect to get strong negative attention (especially when doing so in a deliberately provocative way), it must be said that the personal attacks and threats of violence that have been leveled at Giubilini and Minerva—especially when the attacks come from those who identify as Christians—have been absolutely disgraceful. That hate and vitriol are spewed by people on all sides of these controversial debates is nothing new, but Christians are called to love and solidarity even with those who oppose us on massively important issues like this. When we behave in ways which undermine our own values of love, solidarity, and respect for life, we not only fail to live the life to which Jesus called us, but we also undercut the effectiveness of our own arguments.
"Don´t be afraid to see what you see." (Ronald Reagan)