Housepig

It was something used for [bleep] headaches for [bleep]'s sake. And she was only [bleep] 13. School is a place where you are supposed to feel safe, it must have been [bleep] embarrassing for her to have to do that infront of adults. Adults who shouldn't and don't have that kind of power. Why do you think they keep child abusers out? Even if its for child porn, they are not allowed in because it puts the children at risk. People can get in trouble for taking pictures of school children, without the parental permission of course. So why the [bleep] should these [wagon] get aways with something this bad? What if she had had the drug and he'd backed out of searching her for fear of being sued? She'd get away with breaking the rules and the school's discipline would have been undermined.

Sorry--double post.

I do think the school were a bit over-zealous considering the circumstances, but I don't see why teachers shouldn't be able to do this kind of thing with good reason. The problem with education is lack of discipline; we should be empowering school authortities, not backing of from doing things like this because of worries about the student's rights.

Who counts it? Murder is the unlawful taking of human life, and something being unlawful doesn't make it categoricaly wrong.

Sorry if I seem like a brainwashed American, but I was raised to think that "wrong" is when something infringes on the rights of something else, whether or not said rights apply in whatever country. E.g. Bobby punches Billy, Billy has the right not to be punched. What Bobby did is "wrong" in this scenario. What if Bobby only punched Billy because Benny was screaming at him to do so while about to press a button to detonate a bomb destroying the 60km^2 of the surrounding area? At least Billy's rights weren't violated. I appreciate that that was hardly a fair analogy, but basicaly I don't believe in rights. I mean, when you say "whether or not said right applies in whatever country", you seem to be infering that an absolute set of rights exists. If you mean they come from God, that's a bigger argument--but whose set of rights do you chose to apply when judging morality? It's too subjective. I think in that scenario Billy wouldn't mind being punched if it mean saving a alot of people. Some pain that'd be over soon against annihilation of alot of people. What would you choose? By "rights" I mean a set of things that should be punishable by law. I also am now having trouble with the concept of "right" and "wrong". 9/11 is wrong to America and probably right to Al Qaeda or whoever whe blamed for it. So you believe actions which 'should' be punishable by law are wrong? That's like saying "actions which are wrong are wrong because they are wrong". It doesn't make sense--that's why I think Utilitarianism is the best judge of morality.

The forest is burnt down to make room for a cattle ranch supplying beef to McDonalds. I extract your unrecognizable corpse from a cow's stomach and pry the now-inedible cheese from your still-grapsing hand.

Sorry if I seem like a brainwashed American, but I was raised to think that "wrong" is when something infringes on the rights of something else, whether or not said rights apply in whatever country. E.g. Bobby punches Billy, Billy has the right not to be punched. What Bobby did is "wrong" in this scenario. What if Bobby only punched Billy because Benny was screaming at him to do so while about to press a button to detonate a bomb destroying the 60km^2 of the surrounding area? At least Billy's rights weren't violated. I appreciate that that was hardly a fair analogy, but basicaly I don't believe in rights. I mean, when you say "whether or not said right applies in whatever country", you seem to be infering that an absolute set of rights exists. If you mean they come from God, that's a bigger argument--but whose set of rights do you chose to apply when judging morality? It's too subjective.

It's not surprising that people reacted badly. Alot of left-wing views seem to be based on something along the lines of "OMG thats realy harsh we have to help them", ectr. Sympathy is never rational. I don't think all mentaly disabled people should be euthanized or anything, but I do think anyone who is destined to merely suffer and achieve nothing should be. I disagree on the "contributions to society" basis for judgement (I try to base my opinions on Utilitarian principles), but I think the bad reactions are just ignorant. Basicaly, I just want to say how some of the posts on here are pathetic: they're just angry, small-minded, upset responses to a different concept of morality. Why is killing wrong anyway?

Uhh...the guy who said that was withdrawn as a mayoral candidate. And he never said it should be legalised; he just suggested that rape is not a problem. I don't agree of course, but saying they want to legalise it is just ever so slightly misleading.

I wouldn't go so far as to call them Nazis, but they're certainly very racist. I remember reading their policy on deportment on their wesbsite: it was very well-worded, but they were essentialy saying the want to pay off anyone not British and ship them back where they came from. People who vote for them are just ignorant racists themselves. I do think some of their policies are based on sensible ideas (people get away with discrimination against white people too much), but their whole manifesto is founded on bigotry.

Yes, but democracy is more likely to produce a corrupt leader. A well-meaning leader is less likely to elected than a corrupt one because his ideas may conflict with what the public wants.

Absolutely right. But I still think some systems produce a better result than others--and a well-moderated, limited dictatorship, I feel, would produce better results than democracy. Yes, but with the right system, those people would be caught. I'm not thinking of a Stalinist style dictatorship where people routinely dissapear or can be shot for criticising the government; I mean a system whereby leaders are chosen by an elite council who where themselves chosen, and where people are allowed to criticise and have their ability to do so protected by constitution. No incorrupt government needs to practice extreme dictatorship anyway, as a more moderate dictatorship with freedom of speach would lead to greater trust between the people and the government. Public inquiries could still be held in an ideal system; it's just the voting aspect I'm against. Of course, but a dictatorship doesn't have to be extreme authoritarian. I don't see why a system with a dictator who could be held to inquiry and cannot violate a set constitution couldn't be implemented. Corruption would probably be lessened, in fact, as those with the oppurtunity to become corrupt would have been chosen by an intelligent, rational body. Potentialy, yes. But I imagine that in a system where the leaders chose each other and are moderated by a constitution, corruption would run in spirals. Only corrupt people would vote for other corrupt people, and one corrupt politician in a hundred honest ones isn't going to be able to do much damage without being caught. I accept that it's vastly unlikely, but it could happen. If just one or two totaly honest leaders chose the first council, the council would be bound to be as honest as feasably possible. And as long as corruption never reaches the level when it becomes corrupted, corrupt leaders would remain isolated and would be able have little impact. It could go wrong at so many points, but I mantain that it could be done. The standards I'm thinking of are utilitarian ones. How else can you rationaly judge the desirability of an action? Aside from that, yes, I more or less agree. I still think that a dictatorship would be best, but your idea is the best low-risk alternative. The consequences of a dictatorial government becoming corrupt would be terrible.

You mean we created God, as in we just made him up? No, that's the way I was trying to avoid. We could have created God through our belief in Him. A sort of hero syndrome - you create a hero by believing in them. I see human belief as a very powerful tool. So, you're saying that God only exists in our minds and only because we believe in him? But that's very similar to believing we made him up: the only difference is whether the original theologins believed it themseleves, or whether they knew it was a lie. Or did I misunderstand you--did you mean we literaly, physicaly created God by believing in him?

I like being in a hurry. If I don't have anything to do and start relaxing, before I know it, the day's over and I've accomplished nothing. For me, a perfect schedule would keep me busy almost alll the time; people say that hurring wastes life, but I'd rather hurry through life than sit there bored.

Or, in other words, we are selfish creatures. Many times, it makes us feel happy to help others and better our society. In fact, many of us bend our lives around trying to capture that form of happiness. So yes, we are selfish in our selflessness. And selfless in our selfishness. All you're basically saying is that simply because we help others, even if we do it for selfish reasons, that doesn't matter because we're helping others. Or, we are never truly capable of selflessness, and as a species we will forever be plagued by selfishness, at the core of every aspect of our reasoning and of our morality. Anyone can spin it to sound positive or negative. This still doesn't demonstrate how happiness is the "point" to life. It makes it the only fundamental motive for any human action. That's about as close to a point as there can possibly be.

a slippery slope towards autocracy. But is autocracy categorically bad? Absolutely right. But I still think some systems produce a better result than others--and a well-moderated, limited dictatorship, I feel, would produce better results than democracy.

Well, of course the happiness stuff is arbitary. It's just a rational, independant, objective judge of human action, and without any higher purpose or truth, it's the only way to judge anything. The fact is that everything we do is to seek happiness, not because of any higher truth, but because we can't do anything else. You may not realise it, but whatever you do in life you do because it makes you happy--even if indirectly, i.e. believing certain actions will get you eternal life or are just "right".

To be honest, probably a little less intelligent but quite a bit happier. :| I guess it depends on your personality. I'd find that sort of life unfulfilling, but maybe others might like it.

While believing stuff because you were brought up to is ignorant, I think it was unfair for her to loose because of that. What she said may have united alot of Americans (I'm not saying a nation united by homophobia is good; I'm just working with his argument), but spouting some equivocal, over-PC bull about States having the right to decide for themselves can't possibly unite anybody.

There is no meaning or purpose. All we can do--all we do do--is to seek happiness. The purpose of life is to enjoy it while you can; the only genuine goal for leaders is to try and make as many people as happy as possible for as long as possible. No God, no morals, no purpose.

What idiot's gonna pay £4.50 to play once a month? They want people to play enough to buy membership, but they don't endorse no-lifing. Of course, it's somewhat difficult to get 99s or whatever without no-lifing, so in a way you could say it's their fault.

Sooner or later--later if we do nothing--she'll realise that something is wrong with her baby. And then her baby will die. And that will destroy her. And the longer she goes on believing she is looking after a healthy, happy baby girl, the more painful it will be when she realises the truth.

That certainly wouldn't make me happy. If you don't like the world and it's making you unhappy, change it. Or try your best anyway. Not even reading the news because you dislike some of it is just about as ignorant as you can get; where would society be if everybody took that attitude?

A slippery slope to what? No voting at all would be most advantageous. Letting some people vote while others can't is a bad idea; meritocracy would produce the best candidates for government.

1.Go skydiving 2.Go stormchasing 3.Publish a book 4.Have a film produced 5.Study at Oxford University 6.NOT end up a forty-year-old virgin 7.Run a marathon 8.Actualy do all these things.