SBRFS

I am curious as to whether you think I'm reading too much into it. Giving statists the ability to imprison someone for a thousand years, artificially keeping the person alive just to live out the sentence? That it's even discussed as an option, I can't help but think back to the Wikipedia syopsis I read about a story called "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream".

I just read “Enhanced punishment: can technology make life sentences longer?” by Rebecca Roache.It's a perfect example of forward-thinking scientists letting their stupid, apish natures keep them in the past. Instead of discussing how peaceful parenting might breed a generation that finds violence incomprehensible, the writer instead assumes that we'll be punishing and imprisoning people for the rest of history — and so we should turn peaceful options for enlightenment and life extension into tools of inhumane cruelty, just to be sure that future punishments have enough of that good ol' satisfying “crunch” that tickles the sadist ape-mind so wonderfully.With a single article, this person has not only dashed my hopes for the peaceful, non-coercive, near-utopia that could await us, but also tipped off the “powers that be” to the perfect method for continuing the status quo: domination through threats and tortures forever more.By necessity, I leave this to more eloquent speakers (and cooler heads). Please do what you can to nip this perversity in the bud before it gets accepted into the unthinking public consciousness as another “good idea”.(Thanks to The Corbett Report for putting me onto this.)

I've heard it said that the reason Turing was the only one "pardoned" is because, otherwise, there would be a surge in claims for compensation. Even putting that aside, it's a disgusting shame that so many people read about this controversy, yet cannot bring themselves to question the notion of the state having authority in it. Instead, they do a U-turn and head right back into its arms, by asking to be treated fairly.

So, Alan Turing was "pardoned" yesterday. What a slap in the face! To be hounded to his grave, then posthumously granted permission to be homosexual? Can you think of any fate worse than having your own unjust demise co-opted into a tool for aggrandizing the very class that persecuted you? I should think people around the world would be outraged at this, though I doubt much will come of it.

While not hydroponic-specific, you might also find "underground" greenhouses to be of use, allowing you to grow crops year round with little or no heating. In such systems, barrels of water are sometimes used to store heat for night time; perhaps the hydroponic reservoir can serve a similar function.

I'm sorry, gwho, if I hijacked your topic. I thought my question was related, though upon reflection it only appears to be tangentally so. STer, I agree that it's a mixed bag. We can't force people to associate, yet the use of ostracization is in some way akin to aggression. I wonder how this will be treated in the future, when people start using technology to re-wire how their own brains work.

Both Tadas' and cherapple's replies, while explanatory, leave me feeling as if the underlying idea being put forth is that there's some kind of coveted "true" adulthood to which we should aspire -- one where people are so detached and objective that no outside influence can affect their state of mind what-so-ever. I get the impression that the goal is to be a ghost, floating through the world in an intangible state, intractable yet fickle, taking interest in a thing only as long as it piques the curiosity, then gliding away pre-emptorily in search of something new. The concept dredges up all I fear about enlightenment: aloofness; emotionless logic; giving as much thought to the effects of one's phantasmal comings and goings as the contemplation an elephant gives to the insects beneath its feet.

Thanks for the reply, but I'm uncertain as to how that answers the question I was trying to ask. A perfectly rational and ethical person can "invite" ostracism upon himself (as you put it) by being ethical and rational amongst those who are not. Yet, I don't see how that makes the brain-pain not an attack, regardless of how causally-deserved it might be. Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the standard, and it's physical harm that is prohibited (i.e. property damage) and not the brain-pain that it results in. Yet even by that standard, is not elevated cortisol resulting in shortened lifespan grounds for "property damage"? This is a very confusing and frustrating issue for me, because it seems that all the solutions ever presented to answer it revolve around taking your lumps and going home.

This brings up a question I've had for at least a year now, ever since Stef started putting forth two seemingly-contradictory ideas: How can it be "wrong" to torture someone (even without physical damage), yet not be equally "wrong" to cause mental torture (causing someone's brain to light up in the same was as from physical pain) by way of ostracization, shaming, or ridicule? It seems to me that the brain's the brain, and any form of "attack" that causes anguish to the consciousness must, in order for consistency to win out, be treated pretty much the same. In short, is a dullard supposed to tear out his hair, run away in tears, or curl up in a ball of self-hatred every time a sadist decides to make him into verbal plaything? A slippery slope, perhaps, but surely the brain-pain evidence implies some level of legitimacy to the notion of defending one's mental health with physical force. Am I misunderstanding something?

If the goal is to spread ideas and promote freedom, then it would be good to make it as easy as possible for people from around the world to participate in as anonymous a fashion as they wish. The desire for privacy should always be assumed, for to have it the other way around would make it a constant, up-hill battle for the user. (Failure to opt out is not the same as opting in!)

Just another reason to migrate to software such as Friendica running on equipment such as FreedomBox. Perhaps FDR should promote GNU- and privacy-oriented projects, if it doesn't already. FDR doesn't even use HTTP Secure, does it? I find that a bit strange for a site where so many people spill the beans about their personal issues.

Here's a question I've always wrestled with: In a scenario like that listed above, would a passerby be justified in using deadly force to prevent the involuntary mutilation from occuring? Similarly, though I assume it would be acceptable for the victim to use deadly force to prevent the attack, would it be right for him (in whatever weakened state he may be) to use deadly force after the attack? Where do you draw the line between "stopping that guy from mutilating me" and "stopping that guy from getting away with mutilating me", or even "stopping that guy from getting away with mutilating someone else"? On a less horrific note, about a year ago, I got the idea of circulating the Doctors Opposing Circumcision "Genital Integrity Policy Statement". I had a few bound copies made, but then ran into a stone wall when trying to get a list of local obstetricians. Do you have any suggestions how I can accomplish this without going through the phone book line by line? And how does one actually deliver the information to the doctor (and get it back in one piece)? I would expect that receptionists are trained to pre-emptively dispose of any literature that might be "morally inconvenient" to the doctor's practice.