Should the FDA regulate tobacco?

[GenSeneca]

Yes, I suppose that defending the US could be extended to defending her interests abroad, but where do you draw the line?

We should stop propping up and defending unpopular governments, dictators and regimes with financial aid and military assistance. Just as we need to let failing businesses fail, we need to do the same with foreign governments.

As for "entangling alliances", should we really go it alone every time?

If need be. Remember though, I'm not a "boots on the ground" kinda guy.

...limit the number to so that they can actually be assimilated...

That goes against the point of it being open... But I agree we need the infrastructure and organization in place to handle the load because nearly 1/4 of the worlds population would show up at our door. As for worrying about becoming a 3rd world nation... Exactly where do you think our ever expanding Welfare State is taking us?

Is there really a scientific way to determine when life begins?

Let me try to hit you between the eyes on this one....

Is there really a scientific way to determine when life ends?

I don't think there is any way to prove any of that.

Before you determine that the life is gone... must you also proove that the soul is gone, etc. etc.?

Besides, I stated they should focus on when that life becomes an individual.

A sperm is alive, an egg is alive... Disagree?

they both have the exact same DNA as the parent they came from... Disagree?

Once they combine, its scientifically indisputable that its not only still alive but also an unique individual with DNA distinct from that of both parents.

Everything else is irrelevent.

Sure, taxes need to be kept to a reasonable level, but that doesn't mean no taxes at all.

As I said... ALL taxes, direct and indirect, should be rolled into a sales tax so that the only way to raise any taxes is through raising that one direct tax... no more hiding tax burdens by passing indirect taxes or targeting specific groups through direct taxes.

 

[Andy]

Six years of war, hundreds of billions of dollars, over four thousand US soldiers' lives, tens of thousands of our soldiers wounded, hundreds of thousands of civilian lives, and we might have an ally in the Middle East. Had we known the cost up front, would we still have gone ahead?

No, we DO have an ally in the middle east. Absolutely. Saddam was a national security risk according to the information available. We had to act, or risk getting a nuclear dirty bomb in one of our cities.

The fact we were able to free a people from a murderous dictator, and gain an ally in the middle east, were all bonuses for doing what had to be done.

Your definition of human life is supportable if you believe that a human being is a body only. If you believe that we are a soul as well, then human life, that is to say, life on Earth, begins when the soul enters the body. As I said before, no one knows when that happens. No one can, in fact, prove that it does happen.

The biblical stance, is that the soul enters the body at conception. David talks about G-d forming him in the womb. One of the prophets speak about G-d knowing him from inside his mother. The old testament law, puts a value on un-born children, and requires harsher punishment if a man causes a women to lose the child. So if you want to go from that perspective, then clearly conception is when the soul and body are formed.

Ironically, it seems to be the Christians who argue that life begins at conception, rather than the atheists, but still, neither side really knows that they are right. They simply believe themselves to be right.

I don't believe G-d to be right. He is right, regardless of what I think. But then, you brought up religion in this topic.

But we do have taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, and we don't have the same result as prohibition.

Yes we do. I just detailed that exactly that is going on.

Just what do you think would happen should the authoritarian extremists among us manage to outlaw tobacco?

The same as would have if they over taxed tobacco, namely a black market would ensue. Which is exactly what's happening.

 

[PLC1]

We should stop propping up and defending unpopular governments, dictators and regimes with financial aid and military assistance. Just as we need to let failing businesses fail, we need to do the same with foreign governments.

Correct. Propping up and defending failing regimes is just as costly, and ends in disaster.

That goes against the point of it being open... But I agree we need the infrastructure and organization in place to handle the load because nearly 1/4 of the worlds population would show up at our door. As for worrying about becoming a 3rd world nation... Exactly where do you think our ever expanding Welfare State is taking us?

Completely open borders is not practical. As you said, 1/4 of the population of the third world would show up on our doorstep if we allowed it, and then what? Our ever expanding welfare state would crash, and we would have a third world country.

And yes, we have to put an end to the welfare state. Just look at what it did to Ancient Rome.

Let me try to hit you between the eyes on this one....

Is there really a scientific way to determine when life ends?


Before you determine that the life is gone... must you also proove that the soul is gone, etc. etc.?

Well, when the body gets stiff and starts to stink, it's likely that earthly life has ended. Other than that, no there is no scientific way to show when life ends. From a metaphysical point of view, life does not end at all. Life on Earth ends when the body dies. Usually, it is obvious when the body has died, but not always. That is why we have cases like Terri Schaivo.

Besides, I stated they should focus on when that life becomes an individual.

A sperm is alive, an egg is alive... Disagree?

they both have the exact same DNA as the parent they came from... Disagree?

Once they combine, its scientifically indisputable that its not only still alive but also an unique individual with DNA distinct from that of both parents.

Everything else is irrelevent.

Only if you think that a human being is a body only. If it is a spirit in possession of a body, then life has no beginning, but life on Earth begins when the spirit enters the body. None of us knows when that happens.

As I said... ALL taxes, direct and indirect, should be rolled into a sales tax so that the only way to raise any taxes is through raising that one direct tax... no more hiding tax burdens by passing indirect taxes or targeting specific groups through direct taxes.

Why should I have to pay to keep the potheads in the passenger seat if I don't smoke it? No, some things have to pay their own way.

I pay a voluntary tax of around $35 a year. It is called a fishing license, and the money goes to the state general fund. It shouldn't go there, of course, but it does. Some of the money is used to enforce fishing laws, plant trout, and improve habitat. All of it should be used for that purpose, but that's another story.

Now, just why should a non fisherman have to pay that tax? I'm the one fishing, so I pay for my hobby and don't expect anyone else to pay for it. That is as it should be. I don't hunt, so I don't pay the voluntary tax for a hunting license. Those who do pay so that there can be game wardens, habitat improvement, game management, and so on.

Gasoline taxes are supposed to be used to build and maintain roads. A lot of them are syphoned off for other things, which is wrong, but then someone has to pay for roads. Doesn't it make sense for the users of gasoline to pay for roads, and for those who use them the most to pay the most? The gasoline tax is fair and just. Of course, the money should only go for roads, just as the fishing and hunting fees should go only for those sports, but why should everyone have to pay equally for things that they don't use?

 

[PLC1]

No, we DO have an ally in the middle east. Absolutely. Saddam was a national security risk according to the information available. We had to act, or risk getting a nuclear dirty bomb in one of our cities.

The fact we were able to free a people from a murderous dictator, and gain an ally in the middle east, were all bonuses for doing what had to be done.

By that logic, we should go in to North Korea, Iran, and any other nation that might pose a security risk eventually. We can't rid the world of dictators, however much we might like to do so.

The biblical stance, is that the soul enters the body at conception. David talks about G-d forming him in the womb. One of the prophets speak about G-d knowing him from inside his mother. The old testament law, puts a value on un-born children, and requires harsher punishment if a man causes a women to lose the child. So if you want to go from that perspective, then clearly conception is when the soul and body are formed.

The child is in the womb until birth, so the soul could enter at any time between conception and birth.

I don't believe G-d to be right. He is right, regardless of what I think. But then, you brought up religion in this topic.

It is not a matter of believing that god is right or wrong, but in believing that you know what he has to say. Do you think you know the mind of god?

Yes we do. I just detailed that exactly that is going on.



The same as would have if they over taxed tobacco, namely a black market would ensue. Which is exactly what's happening.

I don't smoke myself, so am unaware of any black market for cigarettes in this area. I suppose there may be. I do know that they are sold openly in stores everywhere. If that is so, how can the legitimate sellers make any sales when smokers can buy more cheaply on the black market?

And, the news has many stories about drug arrests, but none about arresting smugglers of tobacco products, or of moonshiners. Maybe that's just the liberal press defending an unnecessary tax?

Sure, if taxes become prohibitive, then there is likely to be a black market, but if drugs such as cigarettes and whiskey can be purchased more cheaply openly, despite the taxes, then the black market has no chance. I think that's the situation we have now, where it is actually cheaper to pay the tax than to try to maintain an underground economy.

I've seen cigarettes advertised for less than $5 a pack, and been told that there are 20 smokes in a pack. That makes them 25 cents apiece or less.

Can a doobie be purchased for 25 cents? It should be a lot less than that, logically, since there is no tax.

Just how much does a doobie cost, anyway?

 

[GenSeneca]

Completely open borders is not practical. As you said, 1/4 of the population of the third world would show up on our doorstep if we allowed it, and then what? Our ever expanding welfare state would crash, and we would have a third world country.

I guess I wasn't clear when I said this before so I'll condense what I've said:

I do not want "open borders" (that's when we don't even try to keep track of people coming and going) but I'm for open immigration (no limit to how many can come but they must assimilate - learn English, Civics and History of America) but as I said, I would ONLY be for open immigration on the PRE-CONDITION that we first END the welfare state.

Well, when the body gets stiff and starts to stink, it's likely that earthly life has ended. Other than that, no there is no scientific way to show when life ends.

Bullshat... a doctor calls the time of death when the body can no longer be resuscitated. Legally, that is when that life ended.

From a metaphysical point of view, life does not end at all.

Irrelevant to my point because that's not a quantifiable, or verifiable, proof.

Life on Earth ends when the body dies. Usually, it is obvious when the body has died, but not always. That is why we have cases like Terri Schaivo.

Her body was alive, regardless of whether or not her brain had function... if she were already dead, then unplugging her would not caused any change in her condition.

Besides, the quality, or the intelligence, or the cognizance, of being alive has zero bearing on whether or not the subject is alive or dead. If it did, we could start gassing the sick, the elderly, the insane because our standard of life is no longer quantifiable but subjective.

Only if you think that a human being is a body only.

You asked if I could answer when life began, and I tried to point out that its a trick question. You can only pinpoint when life ends. However, you CAN identify the exact moment that LIFE becomes and INDIVIDUAL.

Please answer the following:

Is a sperm alive? Yes or No

Is an egg alive? Yes or No

If you agree that both are alive, which you'd be silly to claim otherwise, then the following should not be in any way controversial:

When the sperm and egg combine (conception), the existing life combines to create an individual life with DNA different from both of its parents.

"We are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The point of conception is where we are created and from that point on we become individuals. Whether you want to call that "human" or a "clump of cells" is totally irrelevent because you cannot dispute that it is an individual.

If it is a spirit in possession of a body, then life has no beginning, but life on Earth begins when the spirit enters the body. None of us knows when that happens.

I'll let the religious and philosophical scholars debate that, it cannot be empirically proven... My case can be and has been.

Why should I have to pay to keep the potheads in the passenger seat if I don't smoke it? No, some things have to pay their own way.

Why do I have to pay for a school levy when I have no kids? Every year or so they pass a new one and my taxes just go higher and higher. I agree some things have to pay their own way but we pay for a WHOLE lotta stuff we never get to see the benefit of having paid for.

I pay a voluntary tax of around $35 a year. It is called a fishing license, and the money goes to the state general fund. Now, just why should a non fisherman have to pay that tax?

Don't mistake what I'm saying... Fees for things like a fishing license and vehicle registration are fine but as you said, they need to go to fund that specific program and not into a general fund. Fees like that are not a tax like the ones previously discussed.

I'm the one fishing, so I pay for my hobby and don't expect anyone else to pay for it. That is as it should be.

I agree. If the school levies were done as a fee, I wouldn't give a CRAP if they raised the fee every year because I wouldn't be forced to pay it, only those sending children to the school would have to pay it.

Gasoline taxes are supposed to be used to build and maintain roads....The gasoline tax is fair and just.

The direct taxes on fuel are two taxes rolled into one: Federal and State. I'm suggesting that Federal taxes be rolled into one sales tax.

States can continue to keep whatever system they like, current system, fair tax, flat tax, whatever... Point is, currently the lion share of road maintenance is done with the tax collected from the state gas tax and generally does fill the road budget first with spillover going to the states general fund.

On the other hand, the federal gas tax is just another revenue stream to the black hole of Washington and whatever the fed does send to a state for highway funding is paltry compared to what they've already collected and most often come with strings attached.

 

[PLC1]

I guess I wasn't clear when I said this before so I'll condense what I've said:

I do not want "open borders" (that's when we don't even try to keep track of people coming and going) but I'm for open immigration (no limit to how many can come but they must assimilate - learn English, Civics and History of America) but as I said, I would ONLY be for open immigration on the PRE-CONDITION that we first END the welfare state.

Even so, we can't take on an unlimited number of immigrants. We need to set limits on their numbers, and most certainly need to do background checks. As it is now, whoever is able to sneak past the Border Patrol is home free. That is no system at all.

Bullshat... a doctor calls the time of death when the body can no longer be resuscitated. Legally, that is when that life ended.

Legally, but not scientifically. Were it proven scientifically, then there would be no cases of patients in a "persistent vegetative state", who are neither alive nor dead, but kept functioning by artificial means.

Her body was alive, regardless of whether or not her brain had function... if she were already dead, then unplugging her would not caused any change in her condition.

Besides, the quality, or the intelligence, or the cognizance, of being alive has zero bearing on whether or not the subject is alive or dead. If it did, we could start gassing the sick, the elderly, the insane because our standard of life is no longer quantifiable but subjective.

I suppose you could say that a person with no brain function can be "alive" in the sense that a tree is alive. It boils down to how you define "life". If breathing and having a pulse, whether or not supported by machinery is "life", then yes, there is a scientific way of determining when life is over. It is a matter of defining the term.

You asked if I could answer when life began, and I tried to point out that its a trick question. You can only pinpoint when life ends. However, you CAN identify the exact moment that LIFE becomes and INDIVIDUAL.

Yes, it is a trick question, and no, there is no definitive way of proving when life begins.

Please answer the following:

Is a sperm alive? Yes or No

Millions of sperm are alive during any given ejaculation, yes.

Is an egg alive? Yes or No

Yes, every 28 days a new life comes to being in the form of an egg.[/QUOTE]

If you agree that both are alive, which you'd be silly to claim otherwise, then the following should not be in any way controversial:

When the sperm and egg combine (conception), the existing life combines to create an individual life with DNA different from both of its parents.

Of course, the DNA of the zygote is unique. Whether or not that means life has begun depends on your definition. If you define a new "life" by a cell with a unique DNA, then sure, life has begun. If life depends on having pulse and respiration, then it begins at birth. Since you have argued that the absence of pulse and respiration means life has ended, then it follows logically that life begins when pulse and respiration begins.

"We are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights, among them Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The point of conception is where we are created and from that point on we become individuals. Whether you want to call that "human" or a "clump of cells" is totally irrelevent because you cannot dispute that it is an individual.

When is the creator finished creating a new life? Is that creation complete when there is one cell with a unique DNA? Is it complete when the fetus begins to move on its own? Is it complete when there is pulse and respiration? When? There is no definitive answer to that question.

I'll let the religious and philosophical scholars debate that, it cannot be empirically proven... My case can be and has been.

Your "case" depends on religious and philosophical concepts, and can not be proven.

Why do I have to pay for a school levy when I have no kids? Every year or so they pass a new one and my taxes just go higher and higher. I agree some things have to pay their own way but we pay for a WHOLE lotta stuff we never get to see the benefit of having paid for.

Do you get any benefits from living in a society in which at least a majority of people are literate?

Don't mistake what I'm saying... Fees for things like a fishing license and vehicle registration are fine but as you said, they need to go to fund that specific program and not into a general fund. Fees like that are not a tax like the ones previously discussed.

Yes, a fee should go toward the purpose for which it is collected only. Usually, they don't.

I agree. If the school levies were done as a fee, I wouldn't give a CRAP if they raised the fee every year because I wouldn't be forced to pay it, only those sending children to the school would have to pay it.

Again, we all benefit from having an educated populace. If we did go to a "fair tax," then schools would logically be funded from it.

The direct taxes on fuel are two taxes rolled into one: Federal and State. I'm suggesting that Federal taxes be rolled into one sales tax.

States can continue to keep whatever system they like, current system, fair tax, flat tax, whatever... Point is, currently the lion share of road maintenance is done with the tax collected from the state gas tax and generally does fill the road budget first with spillover going to the states general fund.

On the other hand, the federal gas tax is just another revenue stream to the black hole of Washington and whatever the fed does send to a state for highway funding is paltry compared to what they've already collected and most often come with strings attached.

Yes, gas taxes, as I've already said, should only go into roads and the like. I agree.

 

[PLC1]

Interestingly enough, an article from the Associated Press presents an argument against the tobacco tax. It seems smoking actually saves money in the long run.

Maybe we should subsidize smokes and encourage people to take up the habit, what do you say?



FACT CHECK: There's another side to claims that less smoking saves money

Of course, we could make the same argument for encouraging Russian Roulette.....

 

[Andy]

By that logic, we should go in to North Korea, Iran, and any other nation that might pose a security risk eventually. We can't rid the world of dictators, however much we might like to do so.

Really... so we have intelligence right now that both are developing UAVs with map information of the US on them? They have violated a cease fire with the US, and accompanying UN resolutions, they agreed too? That they are trying to establish working relationships with terrorist networks to pass off WMDs for use against foreign countries?

If they do, then I completely support going in and dealing with them.

The child is in the womb until birth, so the soul could enter at any time between conception and birth.

According to the bible it happens at the start.

It is not a matter of believing that god is right or wrong, but in believing that you know what he has to say. Do you think you know the mind of god?

Without question, on the specific matters outlined in the Bible. Obviously not for things like what car I should buy, or what company I should work for. Because those things are not discussed in the Bible.

I don't smoke myself, so am unaware of any black market for cigarettes in this area. I suppose there may be. I do know that they are sold openly in stores everywhere. If that is so, how can the legitimate sellers make any sales when smokers can buy more cheaply on the black market?

That's exactly what happened in New York. The sales of cigarettes declined, while the number of active smokers increased. Now obviously there are always those that obey the laws, and buy high taxed cigarettes.

However, it didn't end there. As is normal for the Mafia, they found another way to subvert the law, and make a killing. By importing cigarettes from Canada, they were able to subvert the taxation, while selling them at retail price. In other words, you might go in to a quick-mart and pick up a pack, unknowingly buying illegally imported tobacco, that was marked the same price as legit cigarettes. Meanwhile, the Mafia collected the part of the price that would be taxes, and pocketed it.

All of this was on, I think 60 minutes, but it was years ago now. Of course the mass media was bemoaning the fact the reduced taxes collected meant they could afford childrens health care. As if taxation hikes reducing taxes collected was a shocking new phenomenon.

And, the news has many stories about drug arrests, but none about arresting smugglers of tobacco products, or of moonshiners. Maybe that's just the liberal press defending an unnecessary tax?

Right now, it's small time. The two guys I know doing it, are just college students who travel down to Kentucky to buy tax free cigarettes from the Indian reservation there. If only it wasn't illegal, I considered driving there myself, and loading the massive Buick up with crates of smokes. You can sell a carton of smokes for nearly $20 less than the retail stores, and still make $15 profit per carton. And the taxes are going to increase next month too. Business will be good. I figure about 1000 cartons, is $15K profit, minus fuel and time. However, you have to find buyers. Of course this is highly illegal, but I know people who do this. College campus is a great place to find buyers. Obviously I don't have that connection.

Beyond that, the 60 minutes program back when New York had massive smokes tax, the whole spot revolved around a massive police bust of cigarette shops selling illegally imported smokes from Canada. In one specific shop they raided, nearly half of the entire inventory of smokes, were illegally imported. So it has happened, and I promise it will happen again.

I've seen cigarettes advertised for less than $5 a pack, and been told that there are 20 smokes in a pack. That makes them 25 cents apiece or less.

Can a doobie be purchased for 25 cents? It should be a lot less than that, logically, since there is no tax.

Just how much does a doobie cost, anyway?

You forgot supply and demand, as well as risk assessment. The supply of Tobacco is much higher than pot given Tobacco isn't banned completely. Further, there is a risk fact that must be incorporated into the price. Obviously the risk of driving to Kentucky to buy smokes from an Indian Reservation, is lower in the lower chance of being caught, and lower in the penalties given when caught. Obviously you haven't seen many Tobacco sniffing dogs lately.

Clearly a joint is going to cost you far more than a cigarette, even without taxes, when you consider the rest of the economic equation.

 

[Andy]

Interestingly enough, an article from the Associated Press presents an argument against the tobacco tax. It seems smoking actually saves money in the long run.

Maybe we should subsidize smokes and encourage people to take up the habit, what do you say?



FACT CHECK: There's another side to claims that less smoking saves money

Of course, we could make the same argument for encouraging Russian Roulette.....

Absolutely not. Smoking is an awful habit that no one should be encouraged to do. It ruins your voice, ruins your skin and makes you look old, taints everything you have with a nasty odor, and makes your breath smell like total crap. It seems to have an even worse effect on women for some reason I'm not quite sure of. Though it's possible I just notice the effect more on women. But not a chance. Smoking should never be encouraged.

 

[PLC1]

Absolutely not. Smoking is an awful habit that no one should be encouraged to do. It ruins your voice, ruins your skin and makes you look old, taints everything you have with a nasty odor, and makes your breath smell like total crap. It seems to have an even worse effect on women for some reason I'm not quite sure of. Though it's possible I just notice the effect more on women. But not a chance. Smoking should never be encouraged.

How about russian roulette?
Both would save money, according to the article I cited.

Maybe we just need to allow individuals to make their own decisions, and not try to impose our values on others. How's that?

 

[GenSeneca]

As it is now, whoever is able to sneak past the Border Patrol is home free. That is no system at all.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on whether it can be limited or unlimited. Ultimately, we agree on the need for reform to our welfare state and the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Please take 4 mins of your time to watch this and give me your thoughts:

Bordering on Insanity

Legally, but not scientifically.

You have just admitted the definition of death is not a scientific one.. yet... you are arguing that we must resolve not only the scientific but philosophical and theological uncertainties of "Life" before it can have a legal definition?

It boils down to how you define "life"....It is a matter of defining the term.

We just disagree... I think this is a trap door argument, another trick question because you're restricting my argument through the fallacy of Loki's Wager.

Life does not start and stop: Life itself began sometime long, long, long ago and since that time it has faced two alternatives, continue or die. Life can continue or it can die. My inability to pinpoint the moment in time that life itself began (sometime long ago) in no way detracts from my ability to pinpoint the exact moment in time that the life of an individual begins.

Life itself cannot "begin" because that is simply not an option, as life has already begun; Dead matter cannot "begin" living. Inanimate matter cannot be inanimate one moment and suddenly "begin" living the next moment and yet... You insist that moment of transformation, a moment that can never happen, be identified before you will acknowledge any definition as acceptable.

What can "begin" is the life of an individual through the continuation of life itself.

Yes, it is a trick question, and no, there is no definitive way of proving when life begins.

You mean "began"... and no, we can't know when it began but we do know that since it did begin, it has either continued or died. I think asking to prove when life begins is irrelevent and misleading for the reasons stated above. What is provable, and what is relevant, is when the life of an individual begins.

If you define a new "life" by a cell with a unique DNA, then sure, life has begun.

Life itself did not begin, it continued. The life of an individual is what has begun.

Since you have argued that the absence of pulse and respiration means life has ended, then it follows logically that life begins when pulse and respiration begins.

Simply not true... I didn't bring that up to imply it as my argument for when death has occurred, merely to point out that we didn't have to deal with the mind, soul, or other ethereal arguments in order to have a legal definition of death. When it comes to deciding when the life of an individual begins, people like yourself argue that we must answer the unanswerable, measure the unmeasurable and know the unknowable before you will accept any definition as suitable.

When is the creator finished creating a new life?....
There is no definitive answer to that question.

Because its a trick question. For there to be "new life", something dead, or some inanimate matter, must be given life and as far as I know, that is simply not possible.

As I have stated, there is no "new life". Life started at some point and since that unknown point in time, life has either continued or died. Individuals have a starting point, that is measurable, that is knowable, that is provable.

Your "case" depends on religious and philosophical concepts, and can not be proven.

If you think that, then I have not done a very good job of making my case because I know you're intelligent enough to understand the concepts I'm trying to explain.

Do you get any benefits from living in a society in which at least a majority of people are literate?

You like these trick questions... If there were no government schools to teach my kid to read, are you suggesting my child would remain illiterate... that without public school, there would be no way to learn to read?

I'd actually suggest that with government schooling, we are slowly working our way towards an illiterate society! Public schools are always complaining that they don't have enough money and if only they had a few bazillion more, then the system would work... but every time they get more money, things seem to get worse and its always because we didn't provide enough money.

Again, we all benefit from having an educated populace.

Where do you draw the line between education and indoctrination? Are you in favor of "free" college?

If we did go to a "fair tax," then schools would logically be funded from it.

A Fair Tax would be for revenue to the federal government. Local schools are funded by local taxes (usually property tax) and they get relatively little federal funding. Federal funds are most often funneled to the poorest schools and, on occasion, used to help build new schools. Federal government does not fund your local school system, at best, it subsidizes them.

 

[Andy]

How about russian roulette?
Both would save money, according to the article I cited.

Maybe we just need to allow individuals to make their own decisions, and not try to impose our values on others. How's that?

Everyone tries to impose one value or another. I try to be consistent with the constitution, which is the values the country was built on.

 

[PLC1]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on whether it can be limited or unlimited. Ultimately, we agree on the need for reform to our welfare state and the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Please take 4 mins of your time to watch this and give me your thoughts:

Bordering on Insanity

OK, fair enough.

Your video wouldn't load for some reason.

You have just admitted the definition of death is not a scientific one.. yet... you are arguing that we must resolve not only the scientific but philosophical and theological uncertainties of "Life" before it can have a legal definition?

What I'm saying is that it can't have a legal definition, as we don't know just when it begins. You have your opinion, based on DNA, but it doesn't coincide with your definition of death, and isn't shared by everyone. You may be right that life begins at conception, and you do make a good case, but to say that that's how it is, and everyone has to accept it is not acceptable from a libertarian point of view. What it is is an authoritarian point of view that has been adopted by the "conservatives."

We just disagree... I think this is a trap door argument, another trick question because you're restricting my argument through the fallacy of Loki's Wager.

Life does not start and stop: Life itself began sometime long, long, long ago and since that time it has faced two alternatives, continue or die. Life can continue or it can die. My inability to pinpoint the moment in time that life itself began (sometime long ago) in no way detracts from my ability to pinpoint the exact moment in time that the life of an individual begins.

Life itself cannot "begin" because that is simply not an option, as life has already begun; Dead matter cannot "begin" living. Inanimate matter cannot be inanimate one moment and suddenly "begin" living the next moment and yet... You insist that moment of transformation, a moment that can never happen, be identified before you will acknowledge any definition as acceptable.

What can "begin" is the life of an individual through the continuation of life itself.

I didn't make myself clear, obviously. I'm not discussing when life began on Earth, or whether it may have begun somewhere else, nor about dead things springing to life. I'm talking about an individual life. If you accept the concept of an immortal soul, then an individual life did not begin, but has always been. The earthly phase of that life begins, then, when the soul enters the body. No one knows when that happens, nor is it possible to prove that it even does happen. If you accept the philosophy that a human is a body only, ashes to ashes and dust to dust and all of that, then your argument that an individual life begins at conception has some merit. Of course, then we could argue that life begins when consciousness begins, and no one knows when that is either. It certainly isn't when the zygote is a microscopic blob, nor is it likely that the soul, if you believe in a soul, inhabits that microscopic blob.

It does seem strange that the religious types, the ones who say that they believe in the immortal soul, are the same ones who say that life begins at conception. It seems to me to be a contradiction in philosophy. Why isn't it the ashes to ashes people who believe that life begins at conception? That makes no sense to me.

You mean "began"... and no, we can't know when it began but we do know that since it did begin, it has either continued or died. I think asking to prove when life begins is irrelevent and misleading for the reasons stated above. What is provable, and what is relevant, is when the life of an individual begins.

I don't think so. See above.

Simply not true... I didn't bring that up to imply it as my argument for when death has occurred, merely to point out that we didn't have to deal with the mind, soul, or other ethereal arguments in order to have a legal definition of death. When it comes to deciding when the life of an individual begins, people like yourself argue that we must answer the unanswerable, measure the unmeasurable and know the unknowable before you will accept any definition as suitable.

But, if the definition of when life has ended and death has occurred is the cessation of respiration and heartbeat, then the definition of when life has begun must be the same.

As I have stated, there is no "new life". Life started at some point and since that unknown point in time, life has either continued or died. Individuals have a starting point, that is measurable, that is knowable, that is provable.

That is true only if you don't believe in the immortal soul. If you believe that a human life begins at conception, and ends at death, then there is no soul, no life after this one. If that's your belief, then life ends when the heart and respiration stop. Therefore, it must begin when both begin. If you do believe in an immortal soul, then individual life has no beginning and no end. Life on Earth begins, then, when the soul enters the body, and ends when it leaves.

Except, of course, in those instances when the soul leaves, but comes back in a near death experience.

If you think that, then I have not done a very good job of making my case because I know you're intelligent enough to understand the concepts I'm trying to explain.

Obviously, I didn't do a good job either, not if you think I'm writing about the beginning of life in general. That is not relevant to my point at all.

Let's clarify. My personal belief is that a human being is immortal, has always been and always will be. Life on Earth, being temporal, is simply a part of that infinite life. The human body begins at conception, but life on earth doesn't begin until the soul enters the body.

Do you buy that concept? I can't prove it, of course, as it is not a scientific point of view, but a philosophical belief. If you think that a human being begins when his/her body begins, and ends when that body dies, then you are coming from a totally different philosophical perspective.

You like these trick questions... If there were no government schools to teach my kid to read, are you suggesting my child would remain illiterate... that without public school, there would be no way to learn to read?

No, educated people who value education would educate their children with or without schools. The best the school can do is to help the parent.

When the school fails to educate a child, it is almost always because there is no support for education in the home.

That's not based on a study or a poll, but on 38 years of classroom experience.

I'd actually suggest that with government schooling, we are slowly working our way towards an illiterate society! Public schools are always complaining that they don't have enough money and if only they had a few bazillion more, then the system would work... but every time they get more money, things seem to get worse and its always because we didn't provide enough money.

There are some basic reforms that need to be made in our educational system. Some of them would cost money, some would not. I think that is a good subject for another thread.

I don't buy the idea that we are becoming less and less literate. What is happening is that advanced literacy is becoming more and more important, while children are increasingly coming from backgrounds that don't support education, meaning a dissolution of family life, drug abuse, influence of gangs, and all of the societal ills that seem to be getting worse.

I graduated high school in '60. At that time, the dropout rate was 40%. I don't know how many illiterates were getting diplomas, but I do know some classmates who did. Student failure is nothing new.

Where do you draw the line between education and indoctrination? Are you in favor of "free" college?

There is no such thing as a free college, nor a free high school, or elementary school. There is no such thing as a free education, even if the learner isn't charged. It takes effort. Furthermore, someone has to pay the financial cost as well.

Children should not be indoctrinated. They need to be taught critical thinking. Sometimes, that happens, and sometimes not.

A Fair Tax would be for revenue to the federal government. Local schools are funded by local taxes (usually property tax) and they get relatively little federal funding. Federal funds are most often funneled to the poorest schools and, on occasion, used to help build new schools. Federal government does not fund your local school system, at best, it subsidizes them.

Yes, and it tries to dictate what must be taught. The federal government should get out of the school business, and try to do what it is supposed to do.

 

[Petunia]

are you ok with the rest off us paying alot more for health care to take care of smokers?

It's actually a wash when you factor in the shorter life span..

 

[pocketfullofshells]

It's actually a wash when you factor in the shorter life span..

becuse being sick for years of cancer at 60 is cheaper then at 70 with something else?