Nobody seriously claimed he was actually working there though. Nobody in their right mind could imagine that this kind of political event would be anything other than setup. You can certainly talk about how extensively and controlled that setup might have been but to pretend that you thought...
In what way would that be called optimistic? In my experience, determinism is more often accused of being nihilistic.
Of course, your take on determinism (and to an extent, the definition quoted) is also too human-centric. The point of determinism is that everything in the universe is equally...
Did anyone really believe it was anything other than staged? It was hardly a hoax, it's just how this kind of campaign event works (regardless of who it's for).
There's plenty of negative things about Trump to criticise, I really don't see why anyone would feel the need to make up more.
I think you're projecting your own biases there. As far as I can tell, the general US response to this wasn't especially focused on the gender/sexuality either way (certainly not in the mainstream), it was more an issue of time and place. Even so, I'd expect even less of negative public reaction...
Do you want it fast or do you want it right?
First, Artificial Intelligence isn't a kind of tool, it is a way of making tools. There is nothing fundamental about AI that automatically makes AI tools better or worse than any of the alternatives. Also, and as with tools in general, what is at...
I don't think anyone in their right mind would believe they do. That is why they're criticised for hypocrisy when they promote laws based upon their religious doctrine.
What does that have to do with surrogacy? Their situation could be exactly the same if they'd had their own biological children. All sorts of things can cause difficulties in a marriage and children (be that having them or not) can obviously be a common factor.
Yet I'm not convinced it would be...
Yes you are, you're forbidding them from using surrogacy (or, a least, you're actively supporting the government policy).
If that's where your mind goes when you think "homosexual", I'd respectfully suggest that's your problem? I very much doubt they're any more (or less) likely to do that, but...
I can't help feeling that you're revealing how this is less about surrogacy and more about homosexuals.
You mean like criminalising surrogacy just because they "renounce" homosexuality?
Of course, homosexuals (or infertile couples) aren't "throwing a tantrum" or "renouncing" anything. They're...
Of course they could. The question is why the state needs to force them (along with all same-sex and infertile couples) to under threat of criminal prosecution.
I don't think you have a conscious agenda, but I do feel your broader beliefs subconsciously influence the way you ask and respond to the answers to your "scientific" questions. You seem to ask for opinions rather than evidenced fact (or even coherent hypotheses), and resent anything presented...
I'm not sure that's relevant to the moral issue of what should be expected of infertile couples. Otherwise, you'd be making the argument that even fertile couples should be expected to go for adoption in the first instance.
Me neither as it happens, but I don't think we want to get in to the...
I don't see how that would be any different in relation to the moral principles you identified in the OP though. If childless couples are meant to just "accept Gods will", wouldn't that be an argument against surrogacy, any fertility treatment and adoption equally?
Commodification certainly can...
Do you also believe adoption should be criminalised on the same basis? What about all the other medical procedures that can be used to help a couple struggling to have children naturally? Where do you draw the line of "Gods will"? After all, if God didn't want surrogacy to happen, why would it...
Pretty much all professional politicians (American and beyond) typically avoid giving straight answers. It's mainly to avoid generating soundbites that can be used to take their answers out of context (something many questions are specifically designed to do) and to allow them to present the...
It was a lot of surrealism, which can make it very much a "love it or hate it" thing. All the creators were relatively young at the time and were looking to be as radical and anarchic as they could get away with as a contrast to the largely formulaic British sitcoms of the time.
Both "real life" and "the internet" are abstract concepts (both of which can be commonly used to refer to subtly different things) so neither are directly physical. Both involve physical things though, in the forces and processes of the universe and the computers and cabling around the world...
You're simply wrong. None of those concepts are entirely mutually exclusive and have often been used together to identify specific groupings throughout history. The idea that libertarianism is simply some middle ground between socialism and anarchy is certainly wrong. It would be perfectly...
In general, I think informed consent is the only definitive line, though there could certainly be extreme exceptions such as doing permanent harm to someone, even if they consent.
For fantasies inside your own head or entirely fictional material, I'm not sure there need be any specific limits...
Only because that's how your definitions set it up. You presented two extremes and one balanced middle ground between them. Some kind of balanced middle ground is pretty much always the right route in reality (the difficulties come from deciding where to strike the balance). That doesn't mean...