 |
Comments |
|
 | Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 1:54:43 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: John Harris
E-mail: John.Harris00 at gmail.com
http://rjwoodhead.blogspot.com/2008/08/menticulation-of-diet-coke-in.html
That's just very cool to watch.
John. |
|
| Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 6:39:18 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: djr
E-mail: dan.rohr(at)yahoo.com
Snapped a pic of a overloaded hatchback in St. Louis w/ Colorado state plate that had - for its saying - "Protect Life". |
|
| Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 8:24:54 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Grant Williams
E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail
Before a game a few days ago, Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees was stuck in traffic and running late. So what does he do? Well, of course, he does what anyone does when they're late for work: He flags down a police officer and requests a personal escort. Lights and Sirens and emergency speeds and everything.
These men are employees of a private business. They are not special. I can understand special police protection at the games or at public appearances - it's not their fault that noteriety attracts crazy people - but when it's the player's fault he's in a jam? Come on.
The police department is payed for by all of us and it exists in order to apprehend criminals; not to perform special services for members of "socially valuable" institutions. If Alex Rodriguez is late for the game and the reputation of the Yankees suffers as a result, so be it.
This is the flip side of the welfare state and it makes me sick. New York City, New York state, and The United States is going down the drain because of little things like this. We're seeing the reemergence of a Medieval class system - and the annointment of atheletes is one of the baby steps. |
|
| Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 14:05:02 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Sascha Settegast
E-mail: sascha.settegast(at)gmx.de
URL: http://heroicdreams.wordpress.com
I just saw The Dark Knight yesterday. I believe it is a brilliant movie in technical terms (and I would even go as far as to consider it Romantic, in the context of my limited knowledge), but it is extremely corrupt philosophically. Perhaps I am going to write a few notes on it in the next days. |
|
| Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 16:00:21 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
I'd like a comment from Diana on this if it's not too much trouble. You seem to be very involved in the abortion debate and I was wondering about something you could answer better than I could. To me its almost unbelievable that people would be upset about stopping the growth of a fertilized egg. If a sperm inside an egg is so important, why arent the sperm itself and the egg itself important? I never hear anti-abortionists decry the death of 1/2 of the equation. My thinking goes like this: isn't it logical that if the fertilized egg is property of god, so to speak, why isn't a sperm or a woman's egg also property? In fact, if it's murder to stop a fertilized egg, and people would go so far as to criminalize the pill, why isn't the whole apparatus (penis, testicles, ovaries, etc) also property of god and subject to the same criminalization for misuse? In fact, if its murder to abort a day-old egg which has been fertilized but hasnt been implanted, why isn't it also a crime to not carry out what god intended by not engaging in sexual intercourse at all?
I heard somewhere that it was a biblical sin to "spill the seed". In these people's twisted thinking, is masturbation also a crime because all of the potential fertilizing sperm being wasted? |
|
| Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 17:13:31 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Joseph Kellard
E-mail: theainet1(at)optonline.net
URL: http://www.theamericanindividualist.blogspot.com/
Grant,
I don't think the circumstance with A-Rod that you described is an indication of "the flip side of the welfare state,” nor an indication of the decline of America.
While it is not the job of the police to taxi an athlete to Yankee Stadium because he's stuck in a traffic jam, I also see no foul done either because he did it, given the circumstances. If the officer had just gotten a call about a crime being committed but chose to taxi A-Road to the stadium instead, that would be wrong. This was probably not the case at all.
And police officers can, at times, be found escorting or assisting the average person, something that is otherwise outside of his proper duties. Really, this is no big deal at all, given the circumstances.
Anyway, if the police are going to escort someone somewhere, let it be an athlete like A-Rod. At least he is a very productive player (although, alas, not in the clutch this season!). The same cannot be said about those who the police usually escort: politicians. I’d much rather see an officer take time out to assist a productive athlete like A-Rod, so that he can go hit some homeruns at the stadium, rather than escort some politician or diplomat"or much worse, the “president” of Iran"to the United Nations building.
Joseph Kellard |
|
| Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 17:52:37 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Grant Williams
E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail
Joseph,
I share your sentiments entirely. If the police are going to do such things, let it at least be to help those such as A-Rod. It's similar to Ayn Rand's sentiments regarding NASA.
My gripe was with the entire idea of the police helping anyone get to work. I find that morally obscene. Even if the violation of the rights of others hadn't been explicit (lights, sirens, pushing others out of the way), it would have been implicit in the fact that this officer's attention was diverted. I can think of a number of things besides helping A-Rod which he could be doing which would help the cause of crime prevention. Investigating past crimes, parking in a conspicuous area to intimidate would-be criminals, even just a friendly, "get to know you" conversation in order to sow good will in the community. Alex Rodriguez is responsible for his own well-being in regards to baseball. The police will ensure is in regards to crime. That is, if they're not preoccupied. |
|
| Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 17:53:20 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Grant Williams
E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail
Joseph,
I share your sentiments entirely. If the police are going to do such things, let it at least be to help those such as A-Rod. It's similar to Ayn Rand's sentiments regarding NASA.
My gripe was with the entire idea of the police helping anyone get to work. I find that morally obscene. Even if the violation of the rights of others hadn't been explicit (lights, sirens, pushing others out of the way), it would have been implicit in the fact that this officer's attention was diverted. I can think of a number of things besides helping A-Rod which he could be doing which would help the cause of crime prevention. Investigating past crimes, parking in a conspicuous area to intimidate would-be criminals, even just a friendly, "get to know you" conversation in order to sow good will in the community. Alex Rodriguez is responsible for his own well-being in regards to baseball. The police will ensure is in regards to crime. That is, if they're not preoccupied. |
|
| Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 22:04:32 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
z,
"In fact, if its murder to abort a day-old egg which has been fertilized but hasnt been implanted, why isn't it also a crime to not carry out what god intended by not engaging in sexual intercourse at all?
"I heard somewhere that it was a biblical sin to "spill the seed". In these people's twisted thinking, is masturbation also a crime because all of the potential fertilizing sperm being wasted?"
I think you have a point. I've been thinking about this too. It seems inconsistent for the "Pro-Lifers" not to just start advocating herding everyone into breeding farms. They think that a piece of DNA has a right to become a baby, and that people should be forced to give birth against their will. Awhile back, I was arguing with a Christian who claimed that a fertilized egg is a human being because it contains a complete human DNA blueprint. I told her that on her logic it would be murder to allow a single sperm to die -- that one would be morally obligated to ensure that every sperm a man makes becomes a baby. She said that no, it requires DNA from both parents to make a baby, that it's not a person until the two unite. But I think she switched the basis of her argument when she said that. If I understand it correctly, a sperm or an egg does contain a complete human DNA blueprint and so do all other human cells. So if one DNA blueprint equals one person, then wouldn't we have a moral obligation to save all the cells we shed that would otherwise perish and clone them into millions, then trillions, then googles (and so forth) of human beings? Something tells me the hard core Christians wouldn't support cloning. God never said people could clone anybody. Besides, if people made clones, God would have to give them souls, because we can't have people running around without souls. And what if He doesn't want to? Huge problems. |
|
| Sunday, August 31, 2008 at 23:27:24 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Richard Watts wrote,
"If I understand it correctly, a sperm or an egg does contain a complete human DNA blueprint and so do all other human cells."
Actually, no. Human beings, like all other multicellular animals, have a haploid-diploid cycle. In this, a cell that has two copies of each chromosome, and is diploid, undergoes a process called meiosis in which it splits into two cells, each with only one copy of each chromosome, called gametes, which are haploid. Then a gamete from one source fuses with a gamete from another, in a process called fertilization, to produce a new diploid cell. I believe the diploid cells are called zygotes, if I recall the terminology correctly from my undergraduate genetics course.
In multicellular organisms, a single diploid cell undergoes a different type of cell division, called mitosis, that duplicates all its chromosomes, and then splits into two cells with paired chromosomes, also diploid. This is how a single fertilized cell turns into an embryo, and then a fetus, and eventually an adult organism; these later stages are also called zygotes.
In humans, for example, there are 46 chromosomes in a diploid cell, but sperm and ova are haploid gamete, with 23 chromosomes. And cells with only 23 chromosomes cannot undergo mitosis, and thus cannot turn into multicellular adults. They don't have the complete blueprint; they have only half the blueprint.
But I think trying to apply logical reasoning to this, based on biological science, is beside the point. People who believe in those rules don't believe in them because God gave them a logically theory that they could be derived from; they believe in them because they're the rules that God decreed. Asking for rules that make sense is sinful pride. |
|
| Monday, September 1, 2008 at 8:42:30 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson
E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se
URL: http://www.nattvakt.com
Sexual abstinence is murder! It's the most effective way to stop new human beings from coming into existence.
Actually, Ayn Rand took this up once in a Q&A period. I don't remember the exact words, but the idea was that if the opponents of abortion and contraceptives were right, then we would all be murderers if we don't spend most of our lives in bed, procreating.
(Unfortunately, I don't remember which lecture, either. It might have been "On Living Death", as it deals with this subject.) |
|
| Monday, September 1, 2008 at 9:50:30 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson
E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se
URL: http://www.nattvakt.com
PS. Actually, the quote I mentioned is included in "Ayn Rand Answers"; it is on p. 126. (It is from Ford Hall Forum 1971, "The Moratorium on Brains".) |
|
| Monday, September 1, 2008 at 14:16:06 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
The Left's attack on the right to Life:
Obama's Civilian Draft
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_31-2008_09_06.shtml#1220239627
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_31-2008_09_06.shtml#1220243277 |
|
| Monday, September 1, 2008 at 14:17:47 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
And http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_24-2008_08_30.shtml#1219902544 |
|
| Monday, September 1, 2008 at 17:37:34 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Brian,
Aren't those more an attack on the right to liberty than on the right to life? |
|
| Monday, September 1, 2008 at 17:42:11 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
I would not make that claim, no. |
|
| Monday, September 1, 2008 at 18:25:28 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: jgb
A small request -- it seems that comments at NoodleFood are not preserved into past years... e.g. fall of 2006, or a random month in 2003-- could you please make available older comments? |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
