User talk:LethargicParasite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Interests

It sure is, but then again it is hard to call myself libertarian because I do not allign myself with the Libertarian Party either. It is a difficult situation. Liberalism is dominant where I live and I often find myself reminding people that being socially liberal is very different from being politically liberal. in my political science class, we were asked on a scale of 1-9 how liberal-conservative we r. my friend marked a 2 and i asked her if she was a socialist. she had no idea that socialism was considered liberal.

as far as what the media is, i would have to say it is mostly liberal. the majority of journalists are liberal as surveys have shown but it is also what people perceive as fair. for example, Diff'rent Strokes aired an episode where Arnold attempts to be "bused" into a better neighborhood. the show would never have been produced had it been the protagonists who want to limit or halt busing. if a news report had to report on woman's abortion, would the report be criticized for asserting this woman's right to choose too much? probably not.

that does not mean i dont agree with those positions. i am for abortion but against busing. this may be due to my being brought up in an upscale neighborhood.

also for the iraq war, i somewhat agree with Nonie Darwish: "My views on Iraq are 50/50 hope for Iraq itself; but I believe that it was right for America to take out Saddam. The same people who criticized Bush senior for not taking out Saddam in 1991, are the same people who criticized President George W. Bush for taking out Saddam. Unfortunately we are playing too much politics when it comes to the war on terror. Iraq was doomed with or without the removal of Saddam who was never going to hesitate in helping terrorists. Terrorists are not accidentally in the Middle East; they are the product of the political and religious system and they are defended and given excuses and called heroes in Arab media."

I also hate when leftists say that we are "creating" terrorists.

this all might sound more conserv to you, but ive actually been told that i lean democratic.

those are my values, and theres more where that came from. Cheers. --Shamir1 08:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username

Hello, Bladebot. I regret to inform you that your username violates Wikipedia:Username policy, as usernames with ending in "bot" are reserved for "robot" editors. However, it shouldn't be too hard to change your username (keeping your contributions, etc.) at Wikipedia:Changing username. Thanks, Λυδαcιτγ 18:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, neat. Even down to liking Neal Peart, but not the Beatles? Λυδαcιτγ 21:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
That actually kind of makes sense, as all those traits seem likely to appear together: Jews are likely to be libertarians (we don't like oppressive governments); libertarians are likely to support gay marriage, euthanasia, pacifism, etc... Still, that's pretty neat. I bet I'm different from you in one political issue, though: unlike many libertarians, I favor stricter abortion laws than the current ones.
Have you taken the World's Smallest Political Quiz? Λυδαcιτγ 03:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
A strong argument can be made for using sentience as the line of demarcation. But I'm not confident that we're sure enough about the age at which the fetus reaches sentience to say that it is definitely in the third trimester. At the same time, I don't see the need for abortion in the second trimester - why can't a woman make the decision in the first three months of her pregnancy? For these two reasons, it seems wise to restrict abortion to the first trimester of pregnancy. Λυδαcιτγ 23:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Now let me ask you: do we want to "Replace government welfare with private charity"? Is it realistic to think that individuals would donate to charity, or would we face a type of freeloader problem where everyone reckons that his neighbor can pay to help starving kids in Africa? Λυδαcιτγ 00:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
With abortion, I guess I'm not sure exactly when a fetus becomes human, but I know it's sometime between conception and sentience. I recognize that making all abortion illegal will lead to back-alley abortions. I guess I would like to see a policy that forces women who are going to have an abortion to do it as early as possible. The end of first trimester seems a reasonable deadline to me, as by then a woman is virtually certain to be sure she is pregnant.
I agree about private charities, though that's not how I read the question. I think that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will make much more effective use of its billions of dollars than a government would.
What about a National ID card? I kind of like the idea of simplifying all the forms and bureaucracy into one card. Λυδαcιτγ 23:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
You are correct; I should have said "human being" rather than "human". In regards to future happiness, I think you are right that it doesn't make sense to say that the loss of anything that could become a life is bad; but at the same time it's impossible to ignore the value of future happiness, as it's clearly wrong to kill a person, even if it is done painlessly, while he is unconscious. The only way to get out of that dilemma is to say that past happiness counts for something, which seems to go against utilitarianism.
With the National ID card, I don't see why such a card would be any more dangerous than the combination of Social Security cards, driver's licenses, and credit cards that we already carry around. Λυδαcιτγ 01:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The dilemma I referred to is that one can't prohibit killing anything that could be life, but one also can't ignore the claim of a being to future happiness. Some have resolved the dilemma by saying that it is only wrong to kill a being that has both had and will have happiness, but that contradicts utilitarianism, which should only be concerned with present and future happiness.
My way to deal with the problem you bring up is to forbid any government action based on race: affirmative action, racial profiling, and the identification of Jews on the identity card. Preferably through a constitutional amendment, to make it harder to undo. Λυδαcιτγ 00:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What is your solution, then: how is killing a fetus different than killing an unconscious adult, if both cannot currently feel anything, but will be able to feel and be happy in the future?
  • I pretty much agree that the dissolution of country borders is generally a good thing, although with our current socialist democracy-type programs such as Social Security and Medicare I think uniting with Mexico would be unwise. Λυδαcιτγ 02:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Allowing all abortion isn't very utilitarian either, though, because the baby's happiness will not necessarily be taken into account by the parents. It seems unlikely that the happiness gained by the parents will equal the happiness of the entire life of the child. I understand that you would rather not have to judge, but there's going to have to be a judgment call at some point to determine at what point abortion is illegal. Λυδαcιτγ 03:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SW binary sunset.png

Thanks for uploading Image:SW binary sunset.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Malkinann 11:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)