zapatos

I don't think so.

Venison is a healthy alternative to other forms of meat, although I'm curious why you think obtaining meat via hunting is the most ethical way of getting it. Shooting a deer does not always rapidly end its life, while killing chickens can be done quite humanely.

Just recently watched Radio Days. One of Woody Allen's best.

+1 That was a really good article. Thanks for sharing. I'm glad I read it.

Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee An example of how good marketing ("Manifest Destiny") can get an entire nation behind the movement to steal the land and destroy the culture, religion, and way of life of Native Americans. By comparison, our mistake of nominating Trump for President is a minor blip in our history.

Trump and his supporters have to do some serious mental gymnastics to feel comfortable calling these women who are coming forward "liars", when all they are doing is confirming what Trump claimed he did.

Interesting idea. We can build a "Ten Moral Commandments" much like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that we should actually be able to get people to agree to. They would just have to be general enough to be applicable to the varying environments of different places.

So the same behavior is moral under some circumstances but not under other? If so that is what I (and I believe StringJunky) have been arguing. Morals change in time and place.

Is abortion in the best interest of the well being of humans?

Since you think it is possible to determine morality objectively, perhaps you can resolve a morality debate my mother and I had for years. Is it immoral if I don't keep holy the sabbath, or isn't it? From the perspective of the devout Muslim for example, what you call 'oppressing women', they call 'following God's will to protect women'. Why should they follow your 'objective' view of morality over a morality derived from God's word?

Yes, you should definitely propose now. Don't wait. Do it this very minute.

I don't see how, given that you introduced the possibility of the patient living, just as you introduced the possibility of people surviving the planet killing comet. I get the feeling we are using different premises in our arguments, which means we are simply arguing past each other.

In the words of my friend StringJunky, I don't think you are answering in the spirit of the question. The assumption - by whatever means as a consequence of this comet illness - is that everything is destroyed you die.

So if they didn't tell you they wanted to be healed, or ask how long, then the doctor is no longer ethically bound to tell the patient? Say for instance the patient went for his annual wellness exam so that he can get cheaper insurance rates through his provider, and the doctor just happens to figure out the patient has one week to live. Since the patient never gave any indication he wanted to be healed, and never asked how long he would live, you feel the doctor is not ethically bound to tell the patient his situation? He can now make the decision that his patient would be better off not knowing?

"Everyone"? Or will some people spend their time with family and friends instead of re-grouting the tile in the kitchen, or being pissed at their spouse for buying that new table saw without checking first? I don't see how you can decide for others that their last week of life be spent as you think they'd like it, rather than allowing them to decide for themselves. If you have cancer and one week to live, should it be up to the doctor to decide whether or not to tell you? Do you want him deciding for you? Is it okay that instead of spending time with your loved ones, you instead finally got around to cleaning out the garage? Will you make that decision for a close family member?

True, but not having to 'pay the consequences' for my actions won't change what is fair and what is not.

Generally speaking, I think fairness resides with those who want to know. In my mind, it is not fair to withhold reality from those who wish to know it. Telling people who don't want to know should be avoided if possible (although that is not possible in this scenario), but my right to be aware of reality is more important than your right to not be upset by reality. In a similar vein, if a person is dying of cancer, I don't have the right to withhold that information from them just because their family might get upset when they hear about it.

I'd want to know. I'd hate to waste any of my last week putting up with that idiot brother-in-law of mine. And while some would want to know while others would not, I think that withholding the information from those who would want to know is not fair to them.

Glad to hear they found something readily actionable. On a side note, I regularly seek feedback from others in medical situations and find it to be quite useful to hear from others who have had similar experiences. People with similar experiences can provide context that you often don't get from your doctor. That is after all one of the reasons we have things like support groups. I assume that like me, you know who is providing background information and who is providing actual medical advice. I think that asking for feedback is a great idea. Good luck to you!

If you don't mind me asking, why are you eliminating Elsevier journals?

If you don't Google the evidence and post it here it is less like a discussion and more like a debate of whether Aquaman or Batman would prevail at snooker.

You make it sound like stupid people will only be able to make Staffordshires mean, while other breeds will be immune to their stupidity. Stupid people can also make tea kettles dangerous. Perhaps we should ban tea kettles. After all, nobody needs a tea kettle.

China might be your best bet for freedom from religious people. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/04/14/map-these-are-the-worlds-least-religious-countries/

Thanks! I was not familiar with that. There is no room for the weak!