kokigami

Principal may be over rated.

That is an interesting legal observation. Still, for legal purposes the drunk having sex is seen as a victim of someone taking advantage of their state. The Drunk in the car is seen as the actor putting others at risk. The real problem comes when two drunks have sex. (Ain't that the truth). reckless risks is such a subjective concept. The settlers crossing America with kids in tow were taking pretty reckless risks. We punish the drunk driver because society has decided that the risk they pose is greater than the benefit that society gets from them driving. Taken to the extreme, all actions have some potential to cause harm to others. Breathing can spread disease. But, as a society we recognize that breathing offers more societal benefit than societal risk, in most cases.The Prof is right, this isn't a question of morality.

it would seem to me that terrorists in general are not brothers who wish to live in peace. That does not mean that we are not brothers of the same God. Siblings fight, after all. Often over how they interpret the instructions of parents who are away. When I think about it, I am also convinced that even terrorists want to live in peace. They just don't have that as their highest priority. It falls below the goal of everyone conforming to their ideals. (If everyone conformed, they would be happy to live in peace.. )

I can't. At the very basic, Newtonian application, if we get the result we expected, we chose the right actions, (for that particular goal). That is, if we throw a stone to break a window, and the window breaks, then we did it right. Beyond that, pretty much a crap shoot. Ultimately, this question is more about what goal one is trying to achieve. And isolating that goal from unintended consequences. Your goal seems to be adhering to an unspecified objective morality that may or may not exist. Personally, I think it is unlikely. But, I can probably agree that some of the things you might attribute to that objective morality are, in most cases, likely good. But accepting that I can't "know" that they are universal goods, keeps me introspective. Once we establish for ourselves that something is objectively good/bad, we are no longer going to examine our moral choices on that issue. For example, if the color puce is inherently evil, by objective morality (or my assumption about said objective morality), I will no longer consider the color for interior decorating.

oooh. good marketing..

I recall you.. vaguely.. welcome back..

huh? society doesn't necessarily work to create equal circumstances. But, that said, often the circumstances that make some wealthy do so by making others poor. Again, society isn't a perfect engine of equality. Those with wealth tend to manipulate to make it easier for those with wealth. For example, housing assistance will happily pay rent for a poor person (enriching a rich person) but will not pay a poor persons mortgage, enriching the poor person. These rules can be changed, of course, but power and wealth tend to oppose that kind of change. No, not really, to the extent that society is, in fact, responsible. to the extent that one has free will - and I consider that to be limited to none - one can claim a share of credit or guilt for ones own circumstance. But the circumstance of others is more complicated algebra, because I, as an individual, have less direct influence on most others. WE, as society, bear a good deal of guilt and/or credit, however. Probably. We really misunderstand the concepts, I think. tough to respond point by point, because, honestly, I don't follow all the statements.

well, they wouldn't if souls don't exist.. for starters..

The power to destroy ones creations is not a given..

hehe.. current religions.. hehe.

well, that is a conundrum. capitalists and rope, as they say.

no ones job is safe so long as the objective is maximizing profit over maximizing the social contract. People complain about unemployment, then use self checkout lanes.

yes, this discussion first needs a defining of terms. android and soul are both open for debate.

you are just being modest..

my point exactly.

that depends on whether souls exist. which depends on the definition of a soul. As it is much easier to argue that an androids non physical essense (if we use that as our loose definition) can carry on outside its body, it is seems more likely they would have souls than we would, based upon evidence.

What, pray tell, constitutes traditional? Blood Sacrifice? Hallucinagens? Gongs?

there are a lot of holes still left in the claim.. I wouldn't get too excited yet. There are questions of provenance, dating techniques, etc. But it has also generated a bit of controversy about the process, and the relative values of the original artifact vs the subsequent discoveries in terms of culture and science. If this is just a bit of paper with the same words as other copies of Mark, and no "new information", it may prove that the other bits of papyrii, containing financial records, and such, are more important, and it is all less important than the damaged mask..

there are protocols of etiquette that keep communications open between countries..

Well, my best friend became Catholic while ordained, so I don't think they will excommunicate you simply for that. It takes a lot to be excommunicated. But, it also appears it is a local decision, so, depending on the nature of the local cardinals and Bishops, your mileage may vary.

It is possible their God likes a joke as much as the next deity..

That is how all property works. IP has the advantage that, if one never reveals it, it cannot be taken. Once revealed, of course, it is fairly easy to reproduce. But, in theory, eminent domain could be used to seize IP, just as it can be used to seize land. I would call for less drastic IP reform.. but.. I think I have a bunch of old 5 1/4s too. I think. I know my mom was getting rid of a byte ton of them not long ago..

possession isn't property. Some animals do have property concepts, of course, but not most. The concept of property only exists if the social group recognizes the concept. That is, if, on the whole, you can leave your stuff unattended, and others will still view it as yours. In many places, property rights only exist for those with might (in both the human and animal worlds). Government, at its most basic, is a social contract to acknowledge property as a more universal concept, and a social pledge to use the collective might to enforce the contract. Property isn't necessary for survival. This is evident as many creatures have no concept of property. I doubt worms do, for a simple example. I am not sure why you think IP should be taken rather than the value of IP. We don't confiscate peoples land to redistribute. We tax a value, not a thing.IP has value.. (it is hard to establish that value, of course..) There have been attempts to address it. The haven't been successful for various reasons. The largest is probably mis information about the nature of poverty in America, but followed closely by the meme that those on welfare are the "takers", and the class warfare that has been promoted by the wealthy between the middle class and the poor.. well, more or less true, over 50 years of programs. A large part of that problem has been that, as I said before, the money is never used to improve the net worth of the recipient. It is simply channeled through them to the wealthier portion of America. A welfare program will pay your rent to a landlord, and improve their net worth, but won't pay your mortgage. And as much as any part of the system was designed to not help the poor, this is somewhat intentional. It comes from the belief that we can end economic inequality by keeping the poor just barely afloat. It isn't about spending more money. It is about spending it correctly. That said, because our economic system is fluid, there will always be poverty. It is very easy to go down the economic ladder. Wanna buy some? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/kathryn-edin-poverty-research-fatherhood

That is a definition of property. But, it is really just a definition of objects. Property is really more of a legal concept, and comes from the word, roughly, to possess which we use frequently to describe non object concepts. He possesses great charm, or great intellect.. As far as property law, it is really about communal agreement on the term. Legally, IP is real, because most people agree it is real. Just as legally personal property is real because most people agree it is real. If we all agreed tomorrow to eliminate personal property, there would be no personal property. Just things we possessed. Possession is different, in that it has no lasting social standing. There is some of this, certainly. When Amiga computers went under, the IP rights to the OS and technology all went up for sale to pay off creditors. Most of the patents are now dormant in the legal hold of companies that have no interest in using them, but only keep them to a) keep others from using them, and b) to bolster the number of patents they can claim to own. In this way, IP law is definitely damaging to trade commerce and competition. I have been wondering if IP is taxed. I think it should be.. Well, kind of, yes. Welfare is not envisioned as a way to improve ones net worth, for example. This is, in my opinion a mistake, but it is socially supported. Welfare will help to pay for housing rental, but not for housing purchase, ostensibly because the welfare recipient would then be gaining net worth from the system. Instead, of course, the landlord is increasing his net worth from the system. No one seems too upset about this, though, conceptually it isn't different. It is just a matter of who is gaining from the system. The restaurant worker mentioned by cuchulain is caught in a different part of the system, of course. I have seen a lot of people in that particular trap. It wasn't intentionally designed as such, I think. But it has become such. There are unintended consequences of the structure. Like the way that Walmart uses the system to maintain low wage employees. I can say that eliminating the welfare system won't actually improve the users situation, however. It is a difficult problem to solve.

All legal questions are answered with "it depends". In this case, a lot depends on the state issuing. search for marriage statute State (where state is the one in question...) and read the statutes. If it isn't clear, ask a lawyer in that state. But, probably not.. I once did two weddings for the same couple, one on each side of the local state line, because they had an out of state license, but an in state venue. That wedding was for show. The legal wedding took place in a goodwill parking lot.. in the state issuing the license.