https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Monday, January 25, 2016
the politics page is done. kaput. deleted.
i dropped it all in temporary files, so i've got hundreds of pages to merge into the main file. but it's done...
i dropped it all in temporary files, so i've got hundreds of pages to merge into the main file. but it's done...
at
21:37
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
january, 2012
i'd rather they kept this closed.
personally? i'm both pro-choice and accept the catholic doctrine of life at conception, albeit for genetic reasons. i think the mp is correct to point out that modern scientific concepts of 'life' uphold the traditional view of conception.
that doesn't factor into my decision to be pro-choice, though, nor should it factor into the law. i'm pro-choice because i accept the mother's right to not be inconvenienced - and i've stated it in those terms on purpose - in any way by an unwanted pregnancy or an unwanted child, right up to the point of umbilical cord separation when the child gains rights of it's own.
in order for me to be intellectually consistent, the piece of christian dogma i need to throw away is not life at conception but the sanctity of life. i would need to throw that away to stay consistent on other related issues as well, such as legalized suicide (assisted or not) and euthanasia for people that can't exist without the aid of machines.
so, this is an irrelevancy for me, personally, and i suspect it is for most people on both sides of the debate.
http://nationalpostnews.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/tory-mp-calls-for-abortion-debate-using-modern-medically-accurate-evidence/
i'd rather they kept this closed.
personally? i'm both pro-choice and accept the catholic doctrine of life at conception, albeit for genetic reasons. i think the mp is correct to point out that modern scientific concepts of 'life' uphold the traditional view of conception.
that doesn't factor into my decision to be pro-choice, though, nor should it factor into the law. i'm pro-choice because i accept the mother's right to not be inconvenienced - and i've stated it in those terms on purpose - in any way by an unwanted pregnancy or an unwanted child, right up to the point of umbilical cord separation when the child gains rights of it's own.
in order for me to be intellectually consistent, the piece of christian dogma i need to throw away is not life at conception but the sanctity of life. i would need to throw that away to stay consistent on other related issues as well, such as legalized suicide (assisted or not) and euthanasia for people that can't exist without the aid of machines.
so, this is an irrelevancy for me, personally, and i suspect it is for most people on both sides of the debate.
http://nationalpostnews.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/tory-mp-calls-for-abortion-debate-using-modern-medically-accurate-evidence/
at
19:32
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
april, 2012
i know he's right - i've concluded the same thing through my own calculations, and while my calculations are undoubtedly less complex, i may argue that the problem of whether this is in our reach or not is perhaps less complex than he's undoubtedly constructed - but i'm still holding out hope that a big break through in quantum computing combined with a revolutionary epiphany may get us closer....
i know it's just hope, though. mortality sucks.
==========
Horgan: Is DARPA [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] supporting your research at Caltech because it wants to create bionic soldiers?
Koch: No
Horgan: I’ll take your word for it. Have you become a member of the Singularity cult? Because I would find that very depressing.
Koch: Most certainly not. I have an article under revision right now that provides a quantitative argument for why the belief that we will understand the brain of a mouse, let alone that of a human, within a decade is as sound as the belief that the rapture is imminent.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/04/02/christof-koch-on-free-will-the-singularity-and-the-quest-to-crack-consciousness/?WT.mc_id=SA_MindFacebook
i know he's right - i've concluded the same thing through my own calculations, and while my calculations are undoubtedly less complex, i may argue that the problem of whether this is in our reach or not is perhaps less complex than he's undoubtedly constructed - but i'm still holding out hope that a big break through in quantum computing combined with a revolutionary epiphany may get us closer....
i know it's just hope, though. mortality sucks.
==========
Horgan: Is DARPA [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] supporting your research at Caltech because it wants to create bionic soldiers?
Koch: No
Horgan: I’ll take your word for it. Have you become a member of the Singularity cult? Because I would find that very depressing.
Koch: Most certainly not. I have an article under revision right now that provides a quantitative argument for why the belief that we will understand the brain of a mouse, let alone that of a human, within a decade is as sound as the belief that the rapture is imminent.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/04/02/christof-koch-on-free-will-the-singularity-and-the-quest-to-crack-consciousness/?WT.mc_id=SA_MindFacebook
at
18:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
april 13, 2012
i don't see how any thinking person could see denying marriage or denying a prescription as a right. it's not even a question of positive or negative rights or freedom. in both of these cases, the need to ask permission at all - for permission to ingest a drug or to marry somebody - is really a rights breach; the doctor or priest has the choice between standing in the way of something they have no real place standing in the way of or getting out of the way as a legal formality.
my response to something like this would be to make birth control available over the counter and get the state out of marriage altogether (it's a personal contract).
http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Wildrose+favour+conscience+rights/6414747/story.html
<create meme>
i'm always a civil libertarian.
...except when people act in ways i don't like.
</end meme>
it would be different if doctors denying prescriptions and priests performing marriages weren't both performing functions of the state. i'll grant you that.
but, as they are, a doctor denying a prescription is equivalent to the state denying it - which is functionally carrying out prohibition. similarly with the priest...
so, because they're not acting in an individual capacity but as state functionaries, enforcing their individual beliefs is equivalent to acting oppressively on behalf of the state; we can argue about whether this is just or not, but, so long as they are functionally state actors, if they wish to act oppressively then they should be fired or otherwise restricted from carrying out their *statist* functions.
what i mean is that a priest that does not wish to marry homosexual couples should not be allowed to legally marry heterosexual couples either because he is not willing to accept the state's legal definition of marriage.
and, yes, of course the state/people/democracy determine what marriage (a civil contract) is, not the church. suggestions to the contrary are so specious as to not be worth entertaining.
the more i think about it, the more i think that the best way forward is to prohibit ordained religious people (priests, pastors, whatever) from having the right to perform legal marriages and restricting legal marriage to a purely secular process. that would allow them to have their sacraments as they want them, and deny whoever they want, but would also force *all* couples to go through a *second* legal ceremony.
ultimately, religious and legal marriages are two different things and should be treated differently under the law.
i guess the difference between the way i see it and the way mainstream american pols see it is that i don't think the solution is to create civil unions and make them secondary to religious marriages, i think it's to throw religious ceremonies out of the secular legal realm and restrict them to purely symbolic/sacramental processes.
i mean, the real problem here is that marriage encroaches religion too far into the state, isn't it?
...and maybe doctors should be forced to sign a contract with the state, just like every other employee does with their employer. that contract would certainly have to deny the employee's rights to act independently in contradiction to the will of the employer. doctors that do not wish to abide by their contractual obligations would have the choice of finding another profession or moving elsewhere.
i can cut a little slack with the marriage thing, but i have no patience for a doctor denying a prescription on religious grounds. that's simply a bad doctor, imo, and one that should be immediately de-licensed.
i don't see how any thinking person could see denying marriage or denying a prescription as a right. it's not even a question of positive or negative rights or freedom. in both of these cases, the need to ask permission at all - for permission to ingest a drug or to marry somebody - is really a rights breach; the doctor or priest has the choice between standing in the way of something they have no real place standing in the way of or getting out of the way as a legal formality.
my response to something like this would be to make birth control available over the counter and get the state out of marriage altogether (it's a personal contract).
http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Wildrose+favour+conscience+rights/6414747/story.html
<create meme>
i'm always a civil libertarian.
...except when people act in ways i don't like.
</end meme>
it would be different if doctors denying prescriptions and priests performing marriages weren't both performing functions of the state. i'll grant you that.
but, as they are, a doctor denying a prescription is equivalent to the state denying it - which is functionally carrying out prohibition. similarly with the priest...
so, because they're not acting in an individual capacity but as state functionaries, enforcing their individual beliefs is equivalent to acting oppressively on behalf of the state; we can argue about whether this is just or not, but, so long as they are functionally state actors, if they wish to act oppressively then they should be fired or otherwise restricted from carrying out their *statist* functions.
what i mean is that a priest that does not wish to marry homosexual couples should not be allowed to legally marry heterosexual couples either because he is not willing to accept the state's legal definition of marriage.
and, yes, of course the state/people/democracy determine what marriage (a civil contract) is, not the church. suggestions to the contrary are so specious as to not be worth entertaining.
the more i think about it, the more i think that the best way forward is to prohibit ordained religious people (priests, pastors, whatever) from having the right to perform legal marriages and restricting legal marriage to a purely secular process. that would allow them to have their sacraments as they want them, and deny whoever they want, but would also force *all* couples to go through a *second* legal ceremony.
ultimately, religious and legal marriages are two different things and should be treated differently under the law.
i guess the difference between the way i see it and the way mainstream american pols see it is that i don't think the solution is to create civil unions and make them secondary to religious marriages, i think it's to throw religious ceremonies out of the secular legal realm and restrict them to purely symbolic/sacramental processes.
i mean, the real problem here is that marriage encroaches religion too far into the state, isn't it?
...and maybe doctors should be forced to sign a contract with the state, just like every other employee does with their employer. that contract would certainly have to deny the employee's rights to act independently in contradiction to the will of the employer. doctors that do not wish to abide by their contractual obligations would have the choice of finding another profession or moving elsewhere.
i can cut a little slack with the marriage thing, but i have no patience for a doctor denying a prescription on religious grounds. that's simply a bad doctor, imo, and one that should be immediately de-licensed.
at
17:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/04/2012457232669440.html
http://www.masonicinfo.com/illuminati.htm
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=66
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/08/is-the-us-really-responsible-for-post-war-libya/243966/
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/libyan-rebels-rounding-up-thousands-of-black-citizens-and-immigrants-1.381988
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/22/hillary-clintons-failed-libya-doctrine-2/
http://www.colorlines.com/articles/thousands-kids-lost-parents-us-deportation-system
http://www.masonicinfo.com/illuminati.htm
http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=66
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/08/is-the-us-really-responsible-for-post-war-libya/243966/
http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/libyan-rebels-rounding-up-thousands-of-black-citizens-and-immigrants-1.381988
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/22/hillary-clintons-failed-libya-doctrine-2/
http://www.colorlines.com/articles/thousands-kids-lost-parents-us-deportation-system
at
15:25
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
dammit.
i've still never bought a smartphone. to be frank, i couldn't imagine what anybody actually uses the thing for - it just strikes me as a waste of money. but, i don't have a landline right now, either - and fat chance i'm paying for that. so, i'll have to get something eventually - just so i have a phone.
although, fact is, i haven't had any phone at all in over five years, now. maybe i've just proven that i don't really need one.
but, generally, i wait until technology plateaus and pick up something they can't move at absolute discount. so, if the iphone 7 is coming out, i'd be looking at something like an iphone 3. the idea is that there's basically no loss of meaningful functionality - and that i'd refuse to pay more than $50 for it.
i wouldn't actually buy an apple product, i'd buy something non-proprietary. but, it seems like each new model is inferior to the previous one, which is going to act as a hold on people upgrading and throw a wrench in my careful plan.
i've still never bought a smartphone. to be frank, i couldn't imagine what anybody actually uses the thing for - it just strikes me as a waste of money. but, i don't have a landline right now, either - and fat chance i'm paying for that. so, i'll have to get something eventually - just so i have a phone.
although, fact is, i haven't had any phone at all in over five years, now. maybe i've just proven that i don't really need one.
but, generally, i wait until technology plateaus and pick up something they can't move at absolute discount. so, if the iphone 7 is coming out, i'd be looking at something like an iphone 3. the idea is that there's basically no loss of meaningful functionality - and that i'd refuse to pay more than $50 for it.
i wouldn't actually buy an apple product, i'd buy something non-proprietary. but, it seems like each new model is inferior to the previous one, which is going to act as a hold on people upgrading and throw a wrench in my careful plan.
at
11:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
listen, if you're going to work a 9-5 job and then complain that your life sucks, you get absolutely no empathy from me.
do the world a favour: quit your stupid fucking job.
do the world a favour: quit your stupid fucking job.
at
10:31
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)