Funny; I tend to think of the word "god" as being a title rather than a name. It's like "lord", "captain", "sir", "lieutenant", etc. By contrast, *names* of gods include "Aphrodite", "Loki", "Yahweh", "Kal-El", "Amaterasu", etc.

I was going to put "Papa Smurf" in the second list when I realized that's not a proper name either.

That's right: Papa Smurf. Bow down and praise him, bitches!

Those types never said they have all answers. (But if you have a counterexample, I would be willing to stand corrected.) And the answers that they do have tend to be pretty well substantiated. Take for example the establishment of common ancestry by comparisons of genomes. But do not mistake the kind of confidence that results from a firm grip on a specific subject for a delusion of omniscience. Also note that these people tend to promote a willingness to change their own opinions when new evidence challenges said opinions.

What harm do you think is done by calling bullshit? Do you think it's worse than the harm that may result from failing to face up to the nature of reality implied by observable evidence, and if so, why?

So, apparently you think the choice is between (1) being able to download software from Apple's app store and (2) having software distributed directly by 3rd parties to users (as with desktop PCs). Why not give each user the power to decide whether they will choose only (1) or only (2) or both (1) and (2)? Part of the FSF's point is that Apple has taken away some of the user's power of choice.

To me it seems you assume it's possible, under your proposed scenario, for a viable solution to exist for most copyright holders. To many of us it is not obvious that this is the case and it feels natural to assume differently.

IMO, the current system is *close* to being workable for all (or most) parties; the main problem, as I see it, is that the duration of exclusive rights has effectively become infinite when, in the age of instant global distribution, it should probably be no more than something like ten years. (And there are probably a lot of special cases that could reasonably trigger either instant release into Public Domain or a small extension of copyright.)

Also, I think you're missing an item in your list:

4. The probability of creation of a valuable intellectual work is multiplied by the extent to which the would-be creator(s) have a fair opportunity to be compensated for the act of creation.

Note that this sort of feeds into item 2: no one can benefit from a work if it's never created in the first place. So whatever we do, we really, really need something better than your personal faith in the market's ability to heal all that ails. Obviously, the market provides a lot of nice solutions to a lot of problems. I like the market for that reason. But the market does not---cannot---solve every problem. To assume that it can seems akin to assuming that natural selection *necessarily* leads to the "higher functions" of humanity (e.g. language, music, etc.) when in fact it's entirely possible for natural selection to lead many species into extinction. (And reflect on the fact that the vast majority of branches on the tree of life do not reach the present day.) So please do not underestimate the potential of the market to screw people over.

Because the set of all irrationally terrified people includes voters and some (if not most) of the policy-makers that said voters elect. It is therefore in everyone's interest for better-informed people to demonstrate and make clear the cases where an imagined threat is either (a) not real or (b) not severe enough to warrant action. And those demonstrations must be delivered to the general public, and they must come as earl early and often as possible and grab as much attention as possible.

This is part of the reason why Sagan wrote The Demon-Haunted World.

BTW JeanPaulBob, I'm not really asking about biology here; I'm asking about the foundations of why you think the life of a zygote is worth as much as the life of an adult. And merely stating that the would-be adult and the zygote have the same genotype isn't a satisfying answer. And citing the survival needs of the zygote isn't a satisfying answer. There are some drastic practical differences in form and function between zygote and infant, and I'd like to know why those differences shouldn't matter, because there's tons of evidence (particularly from neuroscience) indicating that they *do* matter .

Ok; so why do you buy into the idea that "I" was a "complete human being" at the point of genotype establishment? What are the foundations of that assertion? What evidence would you cite?

Regardless of definitions of "human being", "person", and so on: I don't understand what you're talking about. What "horror"? Please describe the nature of suffering that results (potentially or actually) from the destruction of a blastocyst. Or if that's not possible, please explain why you think the horror you mention has some actual referent outside your imagination.

I'm asking because I don't merely want to verbally tear into right-to-lifers; I honestly want to understand where you're coming from, and so far your position doesn't make sense to me, and I don't even see how it makes sense to you.

Also: I recognize that you don't agree with my position (briefly: "components of brain clearly generate components of the mind; therefore 'no brain' strongly indicates 'no person', for some definition of 'person' that includes the existence of emotions, impulses, perceptions and the like"). But do you at least understand how it makes sense to me?