You don't have to agree with someone to support their right to free speech. I don't agree with Republicans or Democrats, but I support their free speech rights. Even contraversial speech is free speech. A judge has ruled against choose life license plates. I find this to be in direct violation of free speech rights. While I have issues with both sides of the abortion and contraception debate, I will still support and defend their right to free speech. The link, my lovelies: http://www.thegatewaypunit.com2014/02/appeals-court-choose-life-license-plates-are-unconstitutional
If a university official's letter accusing a speaker of having a proclivity to commit speech crimes before she's given the speech—which then leads to Facebook postings demanding that Ann Coulter be hurt, a massive riot and a police-ordered cancellation of the speech—is not hate speech, then there is no such thing as hate speech. Either Francois goes to jail or the Human Rights Commission is a hoax and a fraud.
The idea that IVM might have a part to play in a cleaner, fairer food system runs counter to a central idea put forward by many critics of industrial agriculture: that farming needs to be based more on traditional, natural, biological and ecological systems not artificial mono-cultures. Surely in vitro meat would be the most artificial mono-culture of them all.
If IVM is the greenest, most animal-friendly meat, yet it is even more artificial than a pitiful, intensively reared broiler chicken, then no one can maintain the fantasy that bucolic nature has a monopoly on good, ethical food.
For those who have campaigned for a more ethical and sustainable food system, IVM is a good test of where their values really lie: with hard-nosed ethics or soft-focus sentiment. After all, it is hard for anyone concerned about the environment or animal welfare to disagree with Post’s claim that ‘from an ethical view [IVM] can have only benefits’. Cultured meat has the potential to replace lame, belching, farting, grain-guzzling, confined beasts with clean, safe, sustainable meat, direct from the factory floor.
Interestingly, none of the objections (to IVM) raised by the two major UK vegetarian societies have anything to do with the two main ethical reasons for giving up meat in the first place: concern for animal welfare and the environment.
Why should there be such reluctance among vegetarians to welcome IVM when, from an animal-welfare point of view, it is nothing other than good news?
The only logical way to make sense of the reluctance of many vegetarians to back IVM is that their choices are not as driven by animal welfare and environmental considerations as they — assume.
Vegetarians, are at risk of confusing their base disgust and distaste with high principle. ‘Natural’ food feels right, ‘synthetic’ food feels wrong, so they are all-too-quick to dismiss the evidence that lab meat might be a good thing after all.
If you are an expert shooter and you have cornered a bad guy at point blank range (he's not moving, he has no where to go), the bullet will go where you will it. There is no predetermined outcome. You can either shoot to kill, shoot to mame, shoot to miss or not shoot at all. You decide. One thing that is predetermined is that whatever your choice (assuming a closed system), it will come to pass because you are an expert shooter. However, in a non-closed system, your will can be circumvented by random events, like a strong earthquake just before you make your choice.
Another way of saying is that you have free will within the confines of predeterminism. For example, you can chose to jump off a cliff without a parachute, or some smilar device, but you will not be able to fly by willing it because of the confines of predeterminism which says that you will fall because of gravity and because you are not a flying species.
So it is possible to have determinism and free will working side by side without any contradiction.
Use the following link to download (Windows version only):
Read the story behind this new development here:
OK, so I started a new web page but I only got as far as a "Coming soon" template. I'll let you guys know when I've updated it but for now, here's the link:
Most imature people, who cannot take care of themselves, but who are too old to have mommy and daddy take care of them, look for a surrogate parent (like the government) to take care of them and offer security.
There is already a precedence for this.Jesus died on the cross and then he came back to life(not as a zombie, mind you, but I digress...)Anyway, the point is that the Romans did not put Him back on the cross.As far as they were concerned, He served His life sentence.
The SNAP/Food Stamp Program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is pleased to be distributing the greatest amount of free meals and food stamps ever. Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed The Animals." This is because the animals may grow dependent on handouts and not learn to take care of themselves. Thus endeth today's lesson.
Homeland security is a necessity given global terrorist networks.
Abortion is...., not so much a necessity as it is a choice. Which is why the group supporting abortions is called Pro-Choice not Pro-Necessity ;)
I'm willing to make an exception for rape and incest victims. I'm also willing tomake an exception if the mother's health is at stake. But I am not willing to make any exceptions for a woman who is trying to rid herself of her responsibilities.
Gambling is also a choice. Which is why if you gamble and you lose, the government (i.e., the tax payer) is not responsible for covering your loses. If you gamble that you will not get pregnant and you have sexual intercourse (instead of some other form of sexual activity) and you lose (i.e., you get pregnant) then the government (i.e., the tax payer) is not responsible for covering your loss (i.e., your abortion).