The Center Stage

[KrazyGlue]

Yeah, I think you should be fine; I don't think anyone actually said no either.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

What about a preteen or young teen girl whose small body may not be able to handle the physical pain and stress of birth? Should the mother be sacrificed for a baby even if it isn't even embedded in the uterus yet? What if the "mother" is a 13 year old girl who was ***** and may die during birth? Should she just have to lie and wait for her young life to end painfully because of something that wasn't her fault?

Could you provide links for the examples you provided?

Honestly, I'm curious. I just think that when discussing abortion, you need to discuss the extent of your opinions and special cases such as ****.

You don't have to be so frank >_>

And the **** piece of information was in the back of my head somewhere.

Masturbation was brought up because some people believe that the sperm is being wasted and could have been saved for procreation.

Let's see... There probably a lot of sperm in you body (don't know the exact amount, got the "a lot" part from health class.) It really doesn't matter wether you lose a couple.


Also, I don't feel like continuing, as:
1. You're not cheeseball
2. You're a debater
3. This stuff isn't my cup of acid >_>


Yeah, recommending cheese.

 

[Sieguest]

Let's see... There probably a lot of sperm in you body (don't know the exact amount, got the "a lot" part from health class.) It really doesn't matter wether you lose a couple.

Just wanted to make a quick correction here. The amount of sperm the male can produce is indefinite. The male continually produces sperm through his lifespan.

Though the female does only have a specific number of eggs that she may release for reproduction.

 

[asianaussie]

Masturbation releases and kills millions of sperm per drop, but males produce similar amounts every few seconds anyway.

Back to the debate.

From what I can see, you believe that the combination of an ovum and a sperm cell (the zygote and all following stages) constitutes life, and ending this life is therefore murder. What exactly constitutes life, though? Is it the potential to be life? The genetic potential to become life? I find this flawed, as there are scarcely examples where the potential can be counted as the real thing. All sperm have the genetic potential to become life, yet you do not regard masturbation as murder.

Following this point, the exact moment where life can be considered life is questionable, and isn't something we should make judgement on. While we shouldn't be hasty and label the elimination of an embryo/foetus as murder, this is a debate, so I'm going to go all out and say that until a fully-functioning brain, nervous system and ability to survive without sustenance from the placenta are inherent in the embryo, it is not considered life, as it would perish outside the womb anyway

Spoiler

god i sound so cold and utterly hatable

Most abortions take place before then, as this does not happen until (if I recall correctly) the beginning/middle of the third trimester, so in most cases, abortion cannot be labelled as murder.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

From what I can see, you believe that the combination of an ovum and a sperm cell (the zygote and all following stages) constitutes life, and ending this life is therefore murder.

Correct.

What exactly constitutes life, though?

Er..living. Being alive.

Is it the potential to be life? The genetic potentialI find this flawed, as there are scarcely examples where the potential can be counted as the real thing.

Ditto.

All sperm have the genetic potential to become life, yet you do not regard masturbation as murder.

That's because it's potential-based, which I am against.

While we shouldn't be hasty and label the elimination of an embryo/foetus as murder, this is a debate,

How is this hasty and why shouldn't it be labeled as life?

so I'm going to go all out and say that until a fully-functioning brain, nervous system and ability to survive without sustenance from the placenta are inherent in the embryo, it is not considered life, as it would perish outside the womb anyway

Spoiler

god i sound so cold and utterly hatable

See the movie "Johnny got his gun" (Or the song "One", by metallica). The solider in question is quadruple amputated, and cannot see, hear, smell, speak, or move; however his brain & hert still function. Is he dead? According to your logic, yes.

Most abortions take place before then, as this does not happen until (if I recall correctly) the beginning/middle of the third trimester, so in most cases, abortion cannot be labelled as murder.

And why?

 

[asianaussie]

I'm going to propose that life is not truly regarded as life unless its standard mode of survival can be attained without external factors unnecessary to that standard state, and it will not stop displaying all signs of life unnaturally without external factors. When all of these signs of life are unsustainable, that is when it progresses into a state of death.

Signs of life include (and are almost, but not quite limited to)

• respiration
• active brain function
• assimilation of nutrients
• the capacity and drive to reproduce
• excretion
• active ability of movement

An embryo or foetus will, if the mother continues to sustain and nourish it, become human and alive. Before the middle of the third trimester, a removed embryo/foetus cannot survive without the placenta or similar measures to sustain it. Therefore, I argue that until this point, embryos and foetuses are not truly 'living', but merely contain the 'potential to become life'.

There is an assumption I must employ is that in order to define embryos and foetuses as not alive. I must assume they are already human, albeit a subcategory of human, and that their state of survival is the same as that of normal humans. For that reason, I would regard corpses as human as well, in the basest sense.

 

[ballin4life]

Um... ****?



Well, you obviously have to set a cutoff somewhere. It's just a matter of where you set it. There are whole ranges of opinions.

Is killing a child before it is self-aware murder?
Is killing a child when it's partially out of the mother murder?
Is killing a fetus murder?
Is killing an embryo murder?
Is killing a fertilized egg murder?
Is using contraception/birth-control murder?
Is masturbation murder?

You have to define where you stand on the scale to have a debate. People who are mega-pro choice think it's ok to kill a born child who isn't self-aware yet, whereas the other extreme argues that even masturbation is murder.

I'd go one step farther and point out that every woman who does not procreate with me is killing our children.

You have to kill things to nourish yourself to stay alive. Why is it ok for you to murder plants and animals, but not humans? What criteria separates those who have the right to not be murdered from those who don't?

 

[Ballistics]

Just wanted to make a quick correction here. The amount of sperm the male can produce is indefinite. The male continually produces sperm through his lifespan.

Though the female does only have a specific number of eggs that she may release for reproduction.

Waiting for you here Guest =D

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=289310

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

[*]active ability of movement

See my example in my last post.

[*]the capacity and drive to reproduce

How i a person dead if they do not "drive to reproduce"?

There is an assumption I must employ is that in order to define embryos and foetuses as not alive. I must assume they are already human, albeit a subcategory of human, and that their state of survival is the same as that of normal humans. For that reason, I would regard corpses as human as well, in the basest sense.

SO you agree that they' killing a human. Proving my point more.

 

[asianaussie]

I said death was characterised by a loss of all of those signs, not a few. The drive to reproduce is a well-documented internal drive that most biologists agree is pivotal to eukaryotic life.

I did not agree that it was murder. I stated that they were not yet alive, therefore they could not yet be killed. Re-read that quote, the very first phrase states my intention in even writing out that assumption.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'd go one step farther and point out that every woman who does not procreate with me is killing our children.

I don't get it...

You have to kill things to nourish yourself to stay alive. Why is it ok for you to murder plants and animals, but not humans? What criteria separates those who have the right to not be murdered from those who don't?

You answered your own question. "You have to kill things to nourish yourself to stay alive." The food chain? Yeah that thing. Basically we're at the top of it, so it's okay that we eat anything under us, animals and plants. Biologically speaking, anyway. IF you want to get into the morality of grilling USDA steak, well... good luck. I know the slaughterhouse may seem grotesque and farm-raised cattle insensitive, but dammit I want my steak, medium rare, and there's billions more of me out there, and without modern industrial meat making, there just wouldn't be enough cows.

 

[ballin4life]

I don't get it...



You answered your own question. "You have to kill things to nourish yourself to stay alive." The food chain? Yeah that thing. Basically we're at the top of it, so it's okay that we eat anything under us, animals and plants. Biologically speaking, anyway. IF you want to get into the morality of grilling USDA steak, well... good luck. I know the slaughterhouse may seem grotesque and farm-raised cattle insensitive, but dammit I want my steak, medium rare, and there's billions more of me out there, and without modern industrial meat making, there just wouldn't be enough cows.

1) Well they are preventing children from being born, right?

2) Yes, but what makes it ok to do that to animals and plants, but not humans? We could nourish ourselves by killing and eating humans, but presumably you would object to a "human farm". And what about aliens? If Vulcans came down to Earth, presumably we would say that it's not ok to kill Vulcans either. So what is the criteria that sets a cut off for which life forms can be killed and which should not be?

 

[Sucumbio]

1) Well they are preventing children from being born, right?

Not at all. They're perhaps preventing them being born from you, but you're not the only guy on Earth. If you were, then your assessment would be more correct.

2) Yes, but what makes it ok to do that to animals and plants, but not humans? We could nourish ourselves by killing and eating humans, but presumably you would object to a "human farm". And what about aliens? If Vulcans came down to Earth, presumably we would say that it's not ok to kill Vulcans either. So what is the criteria that sets a cut off for which life forms can be killed and which should not be?

Our position on the food chain establishes our "weight" in the scheme of things. Being at the very top means we can harvest/eat anything -below- ... not sideways. True there are other animals at the top of their food chains, but they're still below humans. The main defining factor in this is intellect, which is how we got to the top of the food chain to begin with (the ability to manufacture weapons with which to hunt). Your premise would make more sense if you were analyzing prehistoric man. But for today's culture, there's no sense in choosing to eat one another instead of a nice salad, or steak.

And an extraterrestrial may in fact be delicious! A Vulcan, however, I think not. They're arguably more intelligent than humans, and so if anything by this rationale would have a right to eat us, but at the same time their intellects would no doubt elevate their thinking past the notion of eating anything that has intellect nearly as great as theirs.

 

[ballin4life]

Not at all. They're perhaps preventing them being born from you, but you're not the only guy on Earth. If you were, then your assessment would be more correct.



Our position on the food chain establishes our "weight" in the scheme of things. Being at the very top means we can harvest/eat anything -below- ... not sideways. True there are other animals at the top of their food chains, but they're still below humans. The main defining factor in this is intellect, which is how we got to the top of the food chain to begin with (the ability to manufacture weapons with which to hunt). Your premise would make more sense if you were analyzing prehistoric man. But for today's culture, there's no sense in choosing to eat one another instead of a nice salad, or steak.

And an extraterrestrial may in fact be delicious! A Vulcan, however, I think not. They're arguably more intelligent than humans, and so if anything by this rationale would have a right to eat us, but at the same time their intellects would no doubt elevate their thinking past the notion of eating anything that has intellect nearly as great as theirs.

Ok then, but every day that they aren't pregnant is preventing children (not necessarily mine) from being born.

If the defining factor that makes it wrong to kill humans is intelligence, then can we say that killing fetuses/babies is not wrong, as they are not intelligent?

 

[Sucumbio]

Ok then, but every day that they aren't pregnant is preventing children (not necessarily mine) from being born.

Preventing is the wrong word here, though. Not being pregnant can be the result of several things. The only one that's actually a prevention is if the woman/man is on birth control/using contraception, or abstaining from intercourse. We're of course only talking about fertile females at this time. So "every day that they aren't pregnant because they're abstaining from sex or on birth control is preventing pregnancy" would more accurate, though it's also redundant. Obviously being on birth control prevents pregnancy, it's the purpose of it.

If the defining factor that makes it wrong to kill humans is intelligence, then can we say that killing fetuses/babies is not wrong, as they are not intelligent?

Uh, the presence of intelligence in humans is a reason to not EAT THEM. Killing in general, different topic.

 

[ballin4life]

I'm not sure what you are saying about killing vs eating. It's wrong to kill and eat humans because they are intelligent, but it's not wrong to kill them?

 

[Sucumbio]

Basically. I mean in an ideal sense it may be wrong to kill one another, but that's why it's a different topic: justifiable homicide.

 

[Sieguest]

Waiting for you here Guest =D

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=289310

I don't really have much to contribute to that topic besides that one post I made a week(?) ago in this thread. And I think the other posters in that thread may have all ready hit on most of what I said. But I haven't really read the thread in its entirety. So I'll probably read all of the posts made in there before I post.

 

[th3kuzinator]

I would like to make a case for myself regarding my admission into the DH.

Thought I have only been posting in the PG for about a week, I have debate experience from other areas.

Besides debating in the Current Events section of the PR for quite some time before coming to the PG, I also debate/argue with people in the smash64 section fairly frequently.

this is a thread constructed by me in the smash64 section where I argue my character opinions on the entirety of smash64

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=290406

here is another post fairly recently where I compare smash64 and brawl in an attempt to reach common ground between the two sections.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11586133&postcount=66

Besides debating online, I am also in the Model UN club at school and have learned about formal debate and casual debate through this extracurricular activity.

As for some of the threads I have participated in the PG:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=290282

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=290799

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=289330

Here is a thread I created and defended vigorously:

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=290766

Thanks for considering me.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Edit: You're already +3/+4 and it would be selfish of me to hold you back for another week and a half, when I haven't put in the time this week to debate with you personally. You definitely meet "DH standards", but I was curious how talented you could be when it comes to focused detailed (vertical) point making [i.e. source checking, consistency, detail] rather than broad topic spread (horizontal) point making [themes/creativity]. Blah blah blah blah blah.

Earlier Post: th3kuzinator, I apologize for being unable to respond to your previous comment in the Debate Hall Reform Thread (the offhanded comment about motives behind PG and DH members) as I've been blasted with work and am flying out to Missouri to attend a funeral (perhaps I'm the one who is currently too selfish to accommodate the recent burst in activity for the DH). However, I would appreciate if you went through a 1 vs. 1 to illustrate your inherent debating talents in a match-up topic of your choice with me or any other DH member. As stated previously, I will not likely be available this weekend, however I am not one to avoid a good challenge once I see one. This is just my opinion, therefore you can refuse and argue off the merits of your previous posts. I would prefer a 1 vs. 1 though, before I back you up.

 

[th3kuzinator]

Ahaha sorry about my kinda late response, I pretty much just wrote an essay in terrywjs topic in the PG.

As for my talent in vertical point making, if I am not mistaken I make a pretty detailed and consistent argument in this thread regarding my position on liberal arts schools and my stance on related favoritism.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=290766

Although refuted several times, I back up and clarify my argument with sources and try to convey my sense of distress regarding Dartmouth's admission process to el nino & fynal, which I feel I end up succeeding in.

If this is not enough proof, there are a couple of smash64 thread where I really go in depth, using rhetoric, frame data, and quotes from distinguished TASers etc. Puu could probably back me up on this, as I see him in the section a lot.

I am glad I have +3/+4 so far. Thanks for the support everyone!

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I avoided the smash threads as I'm more or less a casual player that only plays around with the CPUs every now and then. Sorry. As for the college thread, it isn't quite what I was looking for as there is a lack of hard-data (i.e. the student's GPA and SAT Score). The first level of a vertical point would be comparing GPA and SAT score from the student to the average data from Dartmouth (not that impressive). The second level might be to then compare the presence of Native-Americans in comparison to other ethnic/racial backgrounds, therefore establishing "minority status" and reducing the level of personal assessment further (background establishment). The third level might be extrapolating the % of accepted students from each segregated section and observing if the pattern remains consistent, therefore suggesting "cut-off" statistics that Dartmouth uses for acceptances and giving objective credence that affirmative action exists (argument establishment). Involving quotations and overall statistics are appreciated, but mixing in words with numbers is more indicative of spreading the argument rather than stacking it on statistical acceptance data that can be analyzed and evaluated by other debaters to decide whether the correlations you spotted do exist.

 

[DanteFox]

Here I am, trying to fill the void that blue left me.

So I guess this is where I make my case for myself. The proving grounds move pretty slowly it seems. Not a whole lot of activity per hour, but the level of discussion seems refreshingly high, so I would like to be able to post in the debate hall.

I'm not sure how I would prove myself, but if someone wants they can start an argument with me about religion or philosophy.

 

[metalreflectslime]

So I guess this is where I make my case for myself. The proving grounds move pretty slowly it seems. Not a whole lot of activity per hour, but the level of discussion seems refreshingly high, so I would like to be able to post in the debate hall.

I'm not sure how I would prove myself, but if someone wants they can start an argument with me about religion or philosophy.

This is the thread where you link to debate threads proving your readiness. You don't actually do any debating here.

 

[Dre89]

No a PGer can request to debate a DHer as a test to see if they're ready to be accepted into the DH.

 

[DanteFox]

nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say, but nothing comes out when they move their lips, just a bunch of gibberish and mofos act like they forgot about dre.

 

[Dre89]

I'm representing for the gangsters all across the world, still hitting them corners in them low low's girl, still taking my time to perfect the beat, and I still got love for the streets, it's the D-R-E.

 

[Aesir]

Alright guys cut it out.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

so how does this work?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

so how does this work?

You can (1) make a case for yourself explaining why you deserve to be in the Debate Hall using previous posts that you've written in the past as reference (usually the best posts that you've written or feel good about) and/or (2) you can choose a topic of choice (i.e. drug legalization, affirmative action, pretty much anything under the sun) to debate with another DH member in a 1 vs. 1 debate in this thread that will be used as an evaluation to see how you fare in a focused conversation setting. I tend to prefer (2) as I've already seen what you've written, however you may want to present a different case for your admission that differs from my own approach. Thus either option is acceptable, but undertaking both would be appreciated.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

I have a pretty short track record (like one day)

so I don't think I have much a shot at Option numero uno

so how do I go about following #2?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

I have a pretty short track record (like one day) so I don't think I have much a shot at Option numero uno so how do I go about following #2?

Sure. Come up with a debatable topic and a side. I'll take on the counter-position. As an example: US legislation should be revised so that pregnant females are able to abort sooner than their second to third trimester due to physical risk factors and its contribution to science (the unborn fetus can be harvested for stem cells, but cannot be taken because cells have already developed by the second trimester and cannot be used). And then a paragraph for both points. Standard stuff. Just write it as if you were writing the opening to a thread.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

sure why not

Censorship of the Internet: Should a government be able to control what is posted or written on the internet?

1. The first point is obvious. Writing on the internet is no different than writing a letter or making a speech in public. It is simply a different medium. The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right to free expression, and since the internet is a means of expression, the government shouldn't be able to regulate it.

2. The internet is, or will become, the world's leading source for information and news. When the framers of the US Constitution were considering their free nation, they considered the powerful media system, at that time the printing press, and how its freedom was required to prevent our country from falling into tyranny. Times have changed however, and the press is growing weaker in its influence. The internet is gradually replacing it as the supplier of information and therefore should be given the same freedoms as the press.

3. How do you propose regulation of the internet should be implemented? To what extent should the internet be censored? Why?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Thank you for being patient and waiting for me to finish my immediate school work. I wanted to have enough time to provide a thorough response. Let me add in a disclaimer by stating that I am not extremely knowledgeable about server systems and only know about the rudimentary basics from Wikipedia. Therefore if I upset you or some Network Tech Guru perusing through Smashboards, then I apologize and would appreciate corrections to any technical mistakes I might make in the examples used and the phrasing of this argument.

Censorship of the Internet: Should a government be able to control what is posted or written on the internet? AND 3. How do you propose regulation of the internet should be implemented? To what extent should the internet be censored? Why?

The US government should be able to regulate the internet in order to protect United States citizens from Pharming attacks such as DNS Cache Poisoning, that jeopardize the security of international businesses and illicitly obtain vital information from the user without their consent.

The following four paragraphs are sourced from the following one-minute video.

1. When a user accesses the internet, they input a url thereby sending a request to their Local DNS Server to send them to the website addresses. Therefore when I tried to access smashboards, I send the request for smashboards.com and the Local DNS Server kindly sent me to the address designated, 72.46.238.56.

2. Local DNS Servers expedite this process by "caching" website addresses so it doesn't have to obtain the information from the internet (Root DNS Server) which would consume more time. "Caching" is when information is temporarily stored for temporary use, before this information is discarded if it is not frequently requested. This process is useful for storing popular requests and facilitates time and resources.

3. If the request is not cached, then the Local DNS Server will forward the request to the Root DNS Server which should provide the required information to the Local DNS Server which will forward the proper address to the user.

4. DNS Cache poisoning is when a Cracker sends a request to the Local DNS Server that they know will require the Local DNS Server to request from the internet (Root DNS Server). Before the Root DNS Server can issue a response, the Cracker floods the Local DNS Server with several fake responses. The Local DNS Server may "cache" the fake response and therefore redirect other computers that make the request for the same website to the fake response site that is disguised as the original website in order to obtain vital information from the user.

The US Government should be able to censor malicious websites that are established by crackers via DNS filtering/redirection and/or IP blocking in order to make the fraudulent website unable to be accessed by regular users. If divisions in the NSA notice such sites, they should have the ability to close down such sites when the opportunity arises in order to protect the security of the users who may fall prey to such a trap.

1. The first point is obvious. Writing on the internet is no different than writing a letter or making a speech in public. It is simply a different medium. The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right to free expression, and since the internet is a means of expression, the government shouldn't be able to regulate it.

The medium behind the use of the internet provides several questions that need to be tackled. The First Amendment of the US Constitution is seen as the right to free expression, but the notion is that such expression is under mutual consensus by the party involved and the party receiving. In the case of crackers, website security can be breached and information can be exchanged that may not necessarily be at the consent of the user. Furthermore, common applications that may be employed by the user may be rendered useless if they are using a poisoned DNS cache that is linked to a fraudulent website intended for pharming information. The medium of the internet also effects how censorship will be undertaken by the US Government as the network is advance and involves its own series of technical complexities.

When smallpox was eradicated in 1979, the DNA sequence for the virus was posted online for the public to view after it was finished. Without the plasmids and the biotechnological tools that we have today, it was impossible to reconstruct the virus simply from the information provided. When engineering of RNA using polymerase and other constructs began to appear, information of the smallpox virus vanished from the internet. Yet one can imagine that someone, somewhere managed to save the information on their hard-drive. Perhaps the scientists have the information stored on their computers. If the information gets put on the internet, then it could potentially spell disaster as there may be someone who will engineer their own version of the virus for use in biological warfare. In this circumstance, censorship is paramount towards protecting national security and the government should prevent such information from leaking out.

2. The internet is, or will become, the world's leading source for information and news. When the framers of the US Constitution were considering their free nation, they considered the powerful media system, at that time the printing press, and how its freedom was required to prevent our country from falling into tyranny. Times have changed however, and the press is growing weaker in its influence. The internet is gradually replacing it as the supplier of information and therefore should be given the same freedoms as the press.

Not to hate, but the framers of the US Constitution couldn't have possibly predicted DARPA developing ARPANET and the complexities that run along the lines of the internet. The internet has grown to both shape and reflect the needs of society. The term 'expression' has been replaced with 'information accumulation' as sites like Wikipedia have become vastly popular for the information they provide on a bevy of topics. Information has always been a vital part of the Revolutionary War, as learning of planned tactics could make or break the outcome of a decisive battle. In a similar manner, hackers and crackers threaten the information infrastructure that has been established and need to be fought by constantly shifting the method in which the internet is handled in order to protect valuable data that is used by the entire world. Whether we like it or not, the internet needs to be regulated by the US to censor out information that could pose serious security threats to the public.

 

[A Pimp Named Slickback]

The US government should be able to regulate the internet in order to protect United States citizens from Pharming attacks such as DNS Cache Poisoning, that jeopardize the security of international businesses and illicitly obtain vital information from the user without their consent.

The US Government should be able to censor malicious websites that are established by crackers via DNS filtering/redirection and/or IP blocking in order to make the fraudulent website unable to be accessed by regular users. If divisions in the NSA notice such sites, they should have the ability to close down such sites when the opportunity arises in order to protect the security of the users who may fall prey to such a trap.

Illegal websites are not "censored" in the way that I assume it to be meant. It is taken down not because it is offensive, but because it is harmful and malicious in nature and purpose.

I will surrender to your point that the government should be able to regulate sites that are deemed harmful to your computer or your identity. While the word "harmful" is up for interpretation, know that when I say harmful, I mean harmful to your computer (viruses), your security (keyloggers), or your finance (hacking into your bank account etc.). There is a distinct difference between these illegal harmful sites and sites such a lemonparty and meatspin, for example. The first should be taken down, and already are by an ISP or police etc. The latter should not be censored because they are not illegal, albeit pretty **** gross.

The medium behind the use of the internet provides several questions that need to be tackled. The First Amendment of the US Constitution is seen as the right to free expression, but the notion is that such expression is under mutual consensus by the party involved and the party receiving. In the case of crackers, website security can be breached and information can be exchanged that may not necessarily be at the consent of the user. Furthermore, common applications that may be employed by the user may be rendered useless if they are using a poisoned DNS cache that is linked to a fraudulent website intended for pharming information. The medium of the internet also effects how censorship will be undertaken by the US Government as the network is advance and involves its own series of technical complexities.

When smallpox was eradicated in 1979, the DNA sequence for the virus was posted online for the public to view after it was finished. Without the plasmids and the biotechnological tools that we have today, it was impossible to reconstruct the virus simply from the information provided. When engineering of RNA using polymerase and other constructs began to appear, information of the smallpox virus vanished from the internet. Yet one can imagine that someone, somewhere managed to save the information on their hard-drive. Perhaps the scientists have the information stored on their computers. If the information gets put on the internet, then it could potentially spell disaster as there may be someone who will engineer their own version of the virus for use in biological warfare. In this circumstance, censorship is paramount towards protecting national security and the government should prevent such information from leaking out.

You bring up a very good point. Should information that may prove harmful be posted on the internet?

Yes and no. While the genetic code of smallpox may not be available (I'm going assume you're right), there is a lot of dangerous information posted on the internet, from building a homemade firecracker to how to build an atomic bomb. Of course, the argument could be made that building an atomic bomb requires considerable resources, but then again doesn't a construction of a strand of smallpox as well? Why is the information for building an atomic bomb available with a quick google search?

More importantly, what does the government have to say about it? Consider the cases of Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) and New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971), both of which deal with the issue of "prior restraint," which is to essentially give the government the right to allow or disallow what you publish.

Perhaps the more relevant case is NY Times vs. US, in which the Times sought to publish what is known as the Pentagon Papers, a top-secret file documenting the US involvement in Vietnam. Nixon opposed the publication and took it to the Supreme Court. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Times and its grounds that it had 1st Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled to allow the publication of dangerous classified information pertaining the Vietnam War while the war was still being fought.

This can be interpreted as a good or bad case, but I will use it as evidence to say that the 1st Amendment protects the right to publish such information. If a huge newspaper like the NY Times is allowed, there should be no restrictions on such information being posted on the internet.

Not to hate, but the framers of the US Constitution couldn't have possibly predicted DARPA developing ARPANET and the complexities that run along the lines of the internet. The internet has grown to both shape and reflect the needs of society. The term 'expression' has been replaced with 'information accumulation' as sites like Wikipedia have become vastly popular for the information they provide on a bevy of topics. Information has always been a vital part of the Revolutionary War, as learning of planned tactics could make or break the outcome of a decisive battle. In a similar manner, hackers and crackers threaten the information infrastructure that has been established and need to be fought by constantly shifting the method in which the internet is handled in order to protect valuable data that is used by the entire world. Whether we like it or not, the internet needs to be regulated by the US to censor out information that could pose serious security threats to the public.

The principle of the US Constitution has withstood centuries of the fastest technological development ever seen. The framers did not predict the telephone, 24-hour news networks, or indoor plumbing either (dunno about the plumbing tbh), yet the Constitution has still withstood the test of time.

When the framers wrote the Constitution and proposed the 1st Amendment, they clearly did not mean "press" so literally as to mean only paper and ink. By press, they mean the public's source of information, their news. Freedom of information is perhaps one of the greatest freedoms provided in America and to inhibit this would be the first step on a slippery slope.

Your last statement, that the US needs to "censor out information that could pose serious security threats to the public" worries me greatly. Is the public not allowed to know what goes on? Are you supporting the shady coverups and lies that are fed the ignorant populace? I would certainly hope not. There is definitely information that the public would be happier without, but the government has no place in the flow of information around the world.



and np I would hate for you to rush a reply.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

The following paragraphs are to solidify common understanding and were not written for the sake of refutation. This of course does not restrict you from refuting the following assessments, as common understanding is a two-party venture. Establishing consensus is important for building up detailed points and denying others that may appear to contradict the common consensus that has been established. Of course, changes can always be made to reflect the consensus after subsequent points have been made, even though it is often a hassle.

Illegal websites are not "censored" in the way that I assume it to be meant. It is taken down not because it is offensive, but because it is harmful and malicious in nature and purpose.

In response to your first sentence, I took a technical and bare bones approach to the topic: When a website is “censored”, the government performs this action by blocking the IP, redirecting root servers to irrelevant pages, so on and so forth. If IP blocking and root server redirection are seen as an implementation of “censorship”, then it is important to distinguish between a normative definition of ‘censorship’ that favors a personal form of thought and contrast that to a technical definition of ‘censorship’ that attempts to establish how censorship would occur through the internet as it is a different medium than paper-based publication products. Drawing a line between ‘offensive’ and ‘harmful/malicious’ is addressed in your next paragraph.

I will surrender to your point that the government should be able to regulate sites that are deemed harmful to your computer or your identity. While the word "harmful" is up for interpretation, know that when I say harmful, I mean harmful to your computer (viruses), your security (keyloggers), or your finance (hacking into your bank account etc.). There is a distinct difference between these illegal harmful sites and sites such a lemonparty and meatspin, for example. The first should be taken down, and already are by an ISP or police etc. The latter should not be censored because they are not illegal, albeit pretty **** gross.

To be technical, my initial argument was not intended to cover the compromise of individual home computers (user-end problem) by malicious software programs (viruses and keyloggers). The example I used which was DNS cache poisoning, refers to network security that will ‘dope’ a computer regardless of whether or not it contains any malicious software/hardware content as this deals with malicious information being sent to servers (server-end problem). I have heard of meatspin (never went on the site) and agree that my initial point was to cover matters that are of importance to national security. However, certain sites needs to be considered on a case-by-case scenario based on their content and the track record of their provider.

1/3 Done. Will Cover Further Points Later!

 

[DanteFox]

alright I feel like my abilities can be evaluated by now. you can see what I have to offer by reading through the atheism and morality thread. Gimme that pink name now. :]

 

[Ganonsburg]

After Dante's request has been addressed, I would like to apply/be evaluated/whatever.

EDIT: Most/all of my work is in the ID thread.

Starting here:

Spoiler

No, intelligent design should not be taught in schools in a science course. Science classes are meant to discuss science, not disputed theories. At best, the disputed theories can be a mention at the end of the book for those students who would like to do some reading and research on their own.

However, when I say that science classes are meant to discuss science, what do I mean? I mean, they should discuss science (systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation), the scientific process, applications of this knowledge in the real world, and such topics as that.

Now, the problem here is that science comes from observation. So no ID, because we couldn't observe it and the ideas in ID are ones of faith (which, in and of itself is not an issue, because people are entitled to their beliefs...but faith is a belief or trust that is independent of physical proof, whereas science is dependent on proof). However, this also means that biological molecules-to-man evolution can not be taught as well.

Before I go on, it is important to notice what I said there. Biological molecules-to-man evolution (macro-evolution). I'm talking about humans being descendants of monkey-like animals, who were descendants of something else, etc. If you define evolution as gradual changes in organisms over time, then I am not arguing with you.

Now, if you define evolution as any change in an organism's DNA, then yes, it has been shown to happen and be true. The process of natural selection, by which organisms that survive have desirable aspects that enabled them to survive, and because they survived they are able to pass on those aspects to their offspring. This process does show differences in DNA from generation to generation because undesirable traits are weeded out little by little. I would not personally call it evolution, and as such when I use the word evolution it will not be in reference to natural selection.

However, in molecules-to-man evolution, what is being discussed are the changes that may or may not have happened in the past. What these evolutionists do is they look at what exists now, and they look at fossils, and they try to fill in the blanks. So what they are doing is trying to reconstruct a history. This history was not observed, and can not be replicated through experimentation (see above paragraph before saying anything about natural selection).

What does this mean? It means that molecules-to-man evolution should not be taught as a science, for it is not a science by any means. It is one attempt of many to explain the origins of the universe. Like the other explanations, it can not be "proven," experimented on, replicated in a lab, or observed.

Instead, what should be taught in classes are such things that can be observed, such as micro-evolution or the aforementioned natural selection. Scientists can and do breed a variety of animals, from fish to flies to dogs and so on. Their findings show that animals change in their genetic material over time, but their findings do not show new species being made. Only variations of existing species, such as fish growing larger, squirrels changing color, or flies growing extra appendages (useless copies of already existing body parts).

and going to page 20, and then starting here:

Spoiler

Wait a second...

Evolution, if you are talking about molecules-to-man evolution, is certainly not a fact by any stretch of the imagination. Because it is an event in history, it can not (by definition) be experimented on or observed. The fossil record tells us very little, and in order to get anything from it we have to start out with massive assumptions.

At the very least, the fossils tell us a few things.

• Stuff died
• Stuff died at different times
• There are some animals/plants similar to what we see today, some that are vaguely similar, and some that are almost carbon copies of what we see today

Maybe there are few more basic points I missed, but that's the gist of it. Other than that, we really don't know much. Carbon-14 dating really doesn't tell us much about the age of the fossils, despite what many people think. Scientists have to make an assumption that the amount of C12 and C14 have remained constant, or at least at a constant ratio. They have to assume that there has been no contamination from the environment. Additionally, the magnetic field of the earth affects the production of C14 in the atmosphere. Stronger field = less C14. This means that in the past there was less C14 production, which is another issue with radiocarbon dating.

So, C14 dating is not quite so reliable for dating things in the (supposedly) distant past. The problem now is that scientists date rock layers by the fossils found inside them. So the age of the fossils and their rock layers are not very reliable, and really can not be used as fact.

As for evolution being observed in real time, that is only microevolution and speciation that you can see. It says nothing for macroevolution (see a few pages ago).

Which is why my point a few pages ago was that M2M evolution should not be taught in schools: because it is not a science.

and going to pg. 29.

 

[Nicholas1024]

I think I'm ready for the debate hall. Most of my work has been in Christianity-related threads (mainly the Evidence behind the New Testament one), but I'm willing to engage in a non-spiritual center stage debate if anyone wants me to.

 

[Dre89]

I'll debate the legitimacy of Protestantism with you.

Of all opposition, Protestants are the ones I have yet to condition myself not to get worked up against, so this should be fun.