Logic begins quite early James... extremely early... in some rudimentary form...

Either way sometime would be much better than no time...

As long as it is taught along the way...

Of course by the time one could understand Spinoza, they would.... And we would all be pantheists...

and what kind of pantheists are you CS.....

no rely cs

CS I really want to know.........who is your higher power.....what kind of panthiest are you......

I gave Abra a charitable reading. Christian philosophy dates back to at least the second and third centuries with men like Tertullian and Origen. It's the "faith in Christ through argument" approach.

IMO, Augustine of Hippo had a huge impact. Aquinas, Anselm and William of Ockham also had a significant influence on it.

William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne and Alvin Plantinga are some modern Christian philosophers I can think of.

Abra
Just a quick note on car insurance. In Mo the min amout is 25000. you can put up a interest bearing bond as security and satisfy your insurance requirement. I do not know your finiancial situation. It might be like that in your state also. I though with no accidents would pay the premium for liability. To me with a perfect record and age it should be 4 or 5 hundred a year. I would prefer that than take a chance of loosing that much money at this stage in life. To each his own though. Thought u might be interested. Take Care blessings..Miles

a law that keeps people from keylogging you as i consider that stalking

key logging?
what is that?

look it up dear

daniel

it is spyware. they put a little program on your computer when u download something that u have no idea is thier. it then records every key you hit and sends it back to them.. this is one way identity theft is done. she is right it is even more than invation of privacy i believe it is criminal. it is a good idea to have a good ketlogger program on your computer... miles

doesn't have to be downloaded it can be messaged

Wouldn't this already be illegal generically speaking?

I mean, it should be covered under "wire-tapping" laws, or invasion of privacy, or "spying".

I mean they shouldn't need to come out with specific laws for every different means of invading someone's private actions without their permission.

OR, if they don's already have blanket laws like that then many be that's what they need to make! Just make a law that it's illegal to spy or tap any information without consent. Period!

Why do laws need to be 'means specific'.

Laws against murder don't include what method you use. If you kill someone intentionally, it's murder no matter how you do it.

The same should hold true with things like spying on people's activities without their knowledge or consent. Keylogging should automatically be illegal under existing laws.

Thank you Miles, As soon as you said spyware I knew what it was, lmao everything just made sense at that point. And you are all right, in my book it should be illegal as well, as it IS an invasion ov privacy. If I do nt want someone to know something, then why should they know? right?

The mian problem there, I think, in the United States, is that as soon as you step out your door, you lose most of your privacy rights. You are considered to be in public so it is public knowledge.

Now, dont shoot me for saying that as I dont agree with it, but thats how it is looked at here.

I don't see how that would apply to keylogging software being placed on your computer in your home via spyware. You're not stepping out of your door in that case.

Whiteboy...

I absolutely respect your knowledge base, and it seemingly far exceeds my own, however, the only 'philosophy' that Christians can use, even according to Platinga, must keep 'man being created in God's image' on their platform... and that argument itself is anthropomorphism... which does not hold up in a logical argument...

Now, I do realize that I am quite 'wet behind the ears', but I assure you that I am no dummy.





Sorry for the interruption...ooops...

Carry on... spyware!!!

It’s not so easy, is it? An existing country, already massively webbed in red tape, is difficult to break into.

In the U.S. we have a Federal government whose main purpose was, originally,to ‘protect’. Ensure that the main goals of the constitution would not be usurped or damaged in any way by the legal actions of the States, or by any federal amendment to that constitution. Also, to ‘protect’ its citizens by creating and maintaining an appropriate armed forces.

Over some 200 years this ‘protection’ was somehow turned inward. What was meant to be a security blanket has become a hotbed of individuality. Those who made it this way, have confused ‘socialism’ with a ‘republic’, the freedoms of a constitution with the power of a dictatorship.

This is why, anyone who commits a crime, can be ‘more’ or ‘less’ responsible based on ‘individual’ circumstances. It is also why, we are mandated to carry liability insurance, because the ‘governments’ don’t want ‘innocent’ individuals to suffer, in the case of harm by another who can not pay to make amends.

We also have a government who feels, somehow, responsible to make sure that “every” person have the means to support themselves, even if we must ALL pay into a ‘pot’ to be metered out to those who have been unable, or inept in providing for their own future (social security, medicare). The government also creates dozens of other entitlements based on ‘socialism’ so that no one goes without. But this has given the government a great deal of power to act in bias or to without ethics which harms all of society.

So we have a community, whose morals, and ethics, and conscience is lacking, but that lacking is led by the government. And so the abuses to this system and inept ability of the government to ‘run’ and ‘oversee’ such entitlements, has created, only,partially effective programs, that are abused and often biased.

On top of all this, we have given “dictatorship” rights to the head of this country. Simply put; a President has the right to declare what laws its ‘office’ will be held to and each President can declares this, in accordance to their own ‘personal’ agenda.

We also have a military, whose citizens must sign away their ‘constitutional rights’ when they enter into service for our country. We have seen what power the office of the President can wield, very recently, with such legislature as the Patriot Act, and many others.

In conclusion, considering all that has been ‘requested’ at this point by your responces, is consistent of proving ‘exactly’ why this country and others are in the mess they are in.

A law, added or changed in any way, must first be considered from the point of all other laws in effect at both the state and federal level. But this is not how it was meant to be.

The Fed was to dictate only laws that are found to be impediments to the philosophy behind the constitution, and to be the military intelligence and force providing ‘protection’ of that constitution and all those whose rights are covered by it.

The States jobs were to see to the health and welfare of those who pay for that local government and vote on how those laws will be developed.

So for me, the first law I WOULD REQUEST would be that the Federal government, be forced to review, and correct, all ‘federal code’ that have created abuses to its original design.

My request would include that all States, subsequently, begin ‘reconstruction’ of their own State legislature for revision, updates and to take control of their original design of a commitment to the citizens supporting and ‘underwriting’ the laws for health and welfare.

My responses to some of the suggestions follow:




Actually, these two work together. We can begin to teach philosophy, even before, 1st grade.

When a 4 your old in Day Care exhibits actions that are harmful to others or their property, we can and should ‘communicate’ effectively with that child.

Corporal punishment, of course, is limited to restraint when a child is out of control. (don’t get crazy with this idea) Restraint as in, one, or two if required, caring adults with their arms around or restraining a child having a tantrum, until the child calms down.

Then a course of communication, probably illustrative, to teach the child (treat others as you would have them treat you). Later, depending on the child it gets taken to other levels, ‘controlling temper’ by logically and patiently considering the situation, how to analyze ‘their’ part and apologize and/or make amends, how to gracefully accept apologies and on and on.

This is social philosophy and it is the beginning of ‘reason’ and acting with ethical responsibility.

I LIKE the idea of changing ALL environments in which other peoples children are cared for to conform to philisophical standards.

Currently, it is Federal code that all children be educated. However, the states play a big role in the curriculum that is required, so this curriculum would fall under States mandates. But the past has shown that states are happy to incorporate the programs of other states when success seems prevalent.



This would not make for a well rounded ‘country’. There must always be those who opt to do the manual labor. Often those jobs NO-ONE really wants, are done by the uneducated.
However, I might agree, IF the States provided ‘free college, including room and board’ for those students with the highest scholastic achievements in their state – providing those students continued to perform, well in their continuing education.



Only capital crimes should be at the federal level. Therefore, it would be the States who control the laws regarding punishment (except in capital offenses). So this is not Federal code.

Although, it seems a good idea. Unfortunately, how many people actually have the means to PAY restitution when it is mandated? Hense, why the ‘government’ has decided that ‘insurance’ is a mandatory thing, or that 'families' can be put under obligation, and far worse they (government) are attempting to take that even further in many ways.




NO ONE wants to see a child harmed (in any way). But the problem with that statement is that EVERYONE, is not in agreement with what ‘harm’ means.

The fact is, that in the U.S. no parents’ rights exceed the law of the state. BELIEVE IT!

How did that happen? Because NO ONE wants to see a child harmed... (see above).

So now anyone, the child, a neighbor, an enemy can cause the state to interfere with families. In a socialistic society, it is the social responsibility of the STATE to see to the welfare of each child, and THEY have rights that precede the parents and family of that child. Are we a socialism or a republic? If we had a nation of adults with strong morals, and ethics and an ability to analyze and take responsibility for their own actions. . . would we ‘really’ NEED to have such overwhelming and obvious government intervention?

Of course harm to a child can come from many sources, a person who knows they are epileptic gets behind the wheel of a car and an accident injures a child. An alcholoic, same scenario. A person, suffering a first heart attack or stroke, and an accident that takes the life of a child?
Making laws requires that a great many scenarios be explored – this is also how we have become a country of ‘individuality’ in our laws.



Property taxes are not a Federal Code, these are state and locality affiliated. Also, such a law, repealing property taxes, must take into consideration, what those taxes pay for. A large proportion of those taxes support fire departments and local law enforcement, as well as contributing and supporting the ‘running’ of those state and affiliated governing agents.

BUT – here is a thought. IF our federal government got out of the business of socialism and back into the role it was meant for – our federal taxes would be ‘extremely’ minimal, leaving the majority of our taxes payable at the state and local level. The State cold then repeal property taxes, as it could ‘raise’ the funds needed to replace them, through taxation of Its states citizens.





Keylogging, dataminers, cookies – are not federal or state, they are global and no one, has yet, determined how this can be policed and by whom. One thing is for sure, as long as there is no law, and no way to uphold such a law, individuals will pay. This may be in additional security, and search and destroy programs – OR, as long as people are, uninformed, they will pay higher prices with identity theft, loss of money and loss of computer programs & data. This is a world problem and one we MUST be very careful about how we approach, because it is, currently, the only frontier that keeps us (the real people), of the world, connected.


Are you asking why one punishment doesn’t fit all? Or are you suggesting that one law should cover a multitude of scenarios?

If the latter, than I agree, but the problem is that there are circumstances that might make a person or persons, guilty of ‘greater’ or ‘lesser’ offences and punishment may likewise follow those revelations. This is what the courts do, they review all available data. When Precedent is set, it is not actually ‘law’, however the courts have ALWAYS based cases on such precedent.

So perhaps the correction to this would be to ‘disallow’ precedent and go back to trying all cases on an individual basis. Stop taking the shortcuts.

One law should cover a multitude of scenarios. (like the law against murder already does) Murder is murder, they don’t need to have separates for murder by stabbing, murder by strangling, murder by poison, etc. It’s just sufficient to have a law against murder. It doesn’t need to specify what method was used.

This same type of thing should apply to something like keylogging. There should already exist laws that make it illegal to harass, spy, tap-into, or otherwise do the things that keylogging facilitates.

In other words, keylogging should already be illegal just because of what it accomplishes.

Like the law against breaking end entering. We don’t need to specify what is being broken into, or how it is being broken into, it’s just illegal to break and enter a place where you have no business being.

Keylogging should already be covered by something along those lines.




I think all cases should be tried on an individual basis. It’s never good to take shortcuts when implementing the law. But I know that many times that courts are definitely not fair. I used to watch “Court TV” years ago. It made me sick to my stomach to realize how inept our legal system really is!

I watched while people were found guilty of crimes (including murder) and sentenced to punishments when I felt that they should have gotten off altogether. Either because I felt, that they had a good enough case for self-defense or because I felt that the evidence was not convincing beyond a reasonable doubt.

So I’m not at all happy with how our court systems operate. And I could clearly see that many people who are in prison genuinely don’t deserve to be there! Or at least I wasn’t convinced that there was enough evidence to put them there!

But then I am a very lenity judge of others, and before I will convict anyone of anything I want PROOF! Not mere flimsy ‘circumstantial’ evidence. If you going to put someone away for 5 or 10 years of their life (or possible for life itself) you had damn well better know that they are guilty!

Just as a quick example, I saw one man convicted of a rape murder that took place in California. The man lived in the Midwest and claimed that he had never even been to California. But the prosecution had his DNA all over the crime scene. NO FINGERPRINTS! Just DNA! They couldn’t even put him in California. They found him guilty of murder and sentenced him to live in prison.

Three years later they found out he was innocent and was telling the truth all along! They found the real rapist who had confessed to many more murders.

So much for the courts. They just didn’t have enough evidence to convict this guy, but they convicted him anyway! They put too much faith in DNA which turned out to be WRONG!

Abra, just a reminder - the intenet is world-wide. The infiltrations can come from any source anywhere in the world - no single authority controls the world, in that fashion. Therefore, our law means nothing to the global cyber world.

As far as one law covering a multitude of scenarios, that is a matter of opinion. Your particular example of murder has so many variables that it can not be considered a prime example.
If any one law covered every scenario of an offence that offence would have the same penalty, ALWAYS. But it can not, because other laws are inter-related and because circumstances are never the same.

I'm not at all sure I would like to see a 'the letter of the law' extended 'absolutely'. Example: I have known several people to, innocently, be in the wrong at the wrong time. But becasue of the no-tolerance drug laws they are guilty by association and subject to the fullest extent of penalty. I guess I would rather take a chance on a guilty party being freed rather than to see so many suffer injustice, simply by association.