Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Article: News outlets slanted against guns.

Chacham (981) writes | more than 10 years ago

User Journal 18

Fox News is carrying a View entitled Why People Fear Guns.Yeah, there's a typo. :)

Saturday, January 03, 2004
By John R. Lott Jr.

People fear guns. Yet, while guns make it easier for bad things to happen, they also make it easier for people to protect themselves.

Fox News is carrying a View entitled Why People Fear Guns.Yeah, there's a typo. :)

Saturday, January 03, 2004
By John R. Lott Jr.

People fear guns. Yet, while guns make it easier for bad things to happen, they also make it easier for people to protect themselves.

With the avalanche of horrific news stories about guns over the years, it's no wonder people find it hard to believe that, according to surveys (one I conducted for 2002 for my book, "The Bias Against Guns," and three earlier academic surveys by different researchers published in such journals as the Journal of Criminal Justice) there are about two million defensive gun uses (search) each year; guns are used defensively four times more frequently than they are to commit crimes.

The rebuttal to this claim always is: If these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? Many people tell me that they have never heard of an incident of defensive gun use. There is a good reason for their confusion. In 2001, the three major television networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- ran 190,000 words' worth of gun-crime stories on their morning and evening national news broadcasts. But they ran not a single story mentioning a private citizen using a gun to stop a crime.

The print media was almost as biased: The New York Times ran 50,745 words on contemporaneous gun crimes, but only one short, 163-word story on a retired police officer who used his gun to stop a robbery. For USA Today, the tally was 5,660 words on gun crimes versus zero on defensive uses.

Just take some of the 18 defensive gun uses that I found covered by newspapers around the country during the first 10 days of December:

-- Little Rock, Ark: After the assailant attacked him and his son-in-law with a poker, a 64-year-old minister shot a man dead on church grounds. The attacker had engaged in a string of assaults in an apparent drug-induced frenzy.

-- Corpus Christi, Texas: A woman shot to death her ex-husband, who had broken into her house. The woman had a restraining order against the ex-husband.

-- Tampa Bay, Fla.: A 71-year-old man, Melvin Spaulding, shot 20-year-old James Moore in the arm as Moore and two friends were beating up his neighbor, 63-year-old George Lowe. Spaulding had a concealed weapons permit.

--Bellevue, Wash.: A man shot a pit bull that lunged to within a foot of him and his family. Police said the man's family had been repeatedly menaced in the past by the dog.

-- Jonesboro, Ga.: A father out walking with his 11-year-old daughter was attacked by an armed robber. The police say the father shot the attacker in self-defense and will not face charges.

-- Houston, Texas: Andrea McNabb shot two of the three men who tried to rob her plumbing business on the afternoon of Dec. 1.

-- Philadelphia, Pa: A pharmacy manager fatally shot one robber and wounded another after the robbers threatened to kill workers at the store. The wounded robber escaped.

Part of the reason defensive gun use isn't covered in the media may be simple news judgment. If a news editor faces two stories, one with a dead body on the ground and another where a woman brandished a gun and the attacker ran away, no shots fired, almost anyone would pick the first story as more newsworthy. In 2002, some 90 percent of the time when people used guns defensively, they stopped the criminals simply by brandishing the gun.

But that doesn't explain all the disparity in coverage. It doesn't, for example, explain why, in some heavily covered public middle and high school shootings, the media mentioned in only 1 percent or fewer of their stories that the attacks were stopped when citizens used guns to stop the attacks.

The unbalanced reporting is probably greatest in cases where children die from accidental gunshots fired by another child. Most people have seen the public-service ads showing the voices or pictures of children between the ages of four and eight, never over the age of eight, and the impression is that there is an epidemic of accidental deaths involving small children. The exaggerated media attention given these particularly tragic deaths makes these claims believable.

The debate over laws requiring that people lock up their guns in their home usually concentrates on the deaths of these younger children. The trigger and barrel locks mandated by these laws are often only considered reliable for preventing the access to guns by children under age 7.

The truth is that in 1999, for children whose ages correspond with the public service ads, 31 children under the age of 10 died from an accidental gunshot and only six of these cases appear to have involved another child under 10 as the culprit. Nor was this year unusual. Between 1995 and 1999, only five to nine cases a year involved a child wounding or killing another child with a gun. For children under 15, there were a total of 81 accidental gun deaths of all types in 1999. Any death is tragic, but it should be noted that more children under five drowned in bathtubs or plastic water buckets than from guns.

The gun deaths are covered extensively as well as prominently, with individual cases getting up to 88 separate news stories. In contrast, when children use guns to save lives, the event might at most get one brief mention in a small local paper. Yet these events do occur.

--In February, 2002, the South Bend, Indiana Tribune reported the story of an 11-year-old boy who shot and killed a man holding a box cutter to his grandmother's neck. Trained to use a firearm, the boy killed the assailant in one shot, even though the man was using his grandmother as a shield.

--In May, 2001 in Louisianna, a 12-year-old girl shot and killed her mother's abusive ex-boyfriend after he broke into their home and began choking her mother. The story appeared in the New Orleans Advocate.

--In January, 2001, in Angie, Louisianna, a 13 year-old boy stopped for burglars from entering his home by firing the family's shotgun, wounding one robber and scaring off the other three. The four men were planning on attacking the boy's mother--an 85-pound terminal cancer patient--in order to steal her pain medication.

As a couple of reporters told me, journalists are uncomfortable printing such positive gun stories because they worry that it will encourage children to get access to guns. The whole process snowballs, however, because the exaggeration of the risks--along with lack of coverage of the benefits--cements the perceived risks more and more firmly in newspaper editors and reporters minds. This makes them ever more reluctant to publish such stories.

While all this coverage affects the overall gun-control debate, it also directly shapes perceptions of proposed legislation. Take the upcoming debate over renewing the so-called assault-weapons ban. This past summer CNN repeatedly showed a news segment that starts off with a machine gun firing and claims that the guns covered by the ban do much more damage than other guns. CNN later attempted to clarify the segment by saying that the real problem was with the ammunition used in these guns. But neither of these points is true. The law does not deal at all with machine guns (though the pictures of machine guns sure are compelling)--and the "assault weapons" fire the same bullets at the same rate, and accomplish the exact same thing, as other semi-automatic guns not covered by the ban.

The unbalanced presentation dominates not just the media but also government reports and polling. Studies by the Justice and Treasury Departments have long evaluated just the cost guns impose on society. Every year, Treasury puts out a report on the top 10 guns used in crime, and each report serves as the basis for dozens of news stories. But why not also provide a report--at least once--on the top 10 guns used defensively? Similarly, numerous government reports estimate the cost of injuries from guns, but none measures the number of injuries prevented when guns are used defensively.

National polls further reinforce these biased perceptions. Not one of the national polls (as far as I was able to find) gave respondents an option to mention that gun control might actually be harmful. Probably the least biased polls still give respondents just two choices: supporting "tougher gun-control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime" or "better enforcement of current laws." Yet, both options ultimately imply that gun control is good.

But if we really want to save lives, we need to address the whole truth about guns--including the costs of not owning guns. We never, for example, hear about the families who couldn't defend themselves and were harmed because they didn't have guns.

Discussing only the costs of guns and not their benefits poses the real threat to public safety as people make mistakes on how best to defend themselves and their families.

Reminds of Samuel Clemens. He was robbed, and somebody caught the burglar (not him). Nonetheless, the news carried a picture of him holding a gun. He loved publicity, and the press loved giving it to him.

I'm not sure i agree with the point that stories should report how a gun could have helped. That just seems similarly biased. But the absence of reports where attacks were thwarted by brandishing a gun, make it seem that the reporters have an agenda, or just don't care to give the full picture.

cancel ×

18 comments

The media is biased, get over it. (1)

Kris_J (10111) | more than 10 years ago | (#7875833)

Guns are a tool. I'd rather see less of them than more -- less as in fewer in number and less as in smaller -- but if the point of your story is that the media is biased, welcome to the real world. Even on a slow news day they would rather show a cat up a tree story than something that directly opposes the lead story from last night, or the night before.

I know this to be true from the coverage of violent video games and video gamers. I beleive this to be true of the US portrayal of African Americans and crime. Guns? Well, Mr Heston certainly isn't helping their public profile, but I can't imagine why guns would have been singled out for fair treatment in the media.

Bias in media (1)

Coventry (3779) | more than 10 years ago | (#7875836)

(contains typos, you've been warned)

I had never really believed that media was blatently biased in reporting until I read 'Dude, where's my country?' by Michael Moore - There is a chapter in it that examines the bias in media and attacks it using actual studies and statistics that are counter to how the media present the country. Mind you, I don't agree with everything MM says - in fact, theres a lot I call into question about his conclusions and his sources - but this was one of those cases where if the studies and polls he referenced were even half right, then the country is much much more liberal then the mainstream media leads you to believe.

What I took away from it was an expansion upon an idea I'd already cvonsidered - that the media reports things in such a way as to make them sensational. An example from recent history, note that it's my example, MM doesn't even touch on this:
Take the ten commandments thing with that courthouse - the one where the judge had the stone monument with the ten commandments installed, and then refused to have it removed - and it make national headlines, and there were protests, etc...

It is fairly straightforward in the constitution that there is to be a seperation between church and state, and most americans, as it turns out, understand this, and agree that the monument should have been removed... Yet that is not how the media portrayed it - the media drew the story out and made it seem like a large percentage of americans were For Keeping the monument. They did this by airing interviews with protesters and other people who were for keeping the monument in a disproportional ratio to the number of people who were against it. They did it because it sold newspapers and kept people watching (and thus in front of the tube for comercials). The story should have been fairly simple - the monument was there in appropriately, and some people were protesting its removal, including the judge who put it there, and now onto the news...

But, instead, it was portrayed as a Big Deal, and as something controversal - because people against keeping the monument would become irked at the apparrent pro-monument protests and rhetoric, and would watch to see what happened. From the opposite side, those for keeping the monument (now proven to be a small minority via scientific polls) watched because they saw their beliefs under attack. It got both sides watching. I mean, really, the media turned it into a really big deal and tried to get people worked up - meanwhile, people were dying in Iraq, and evidence was being found that the white house knew pre-war that Iraq did not have a nuke program... So many other stories that were, to most people (Especially now in hindsight) more important - yet were delegated to the sidelines because of a media circus.

In other words, I think the media shows stories that are sensational, that get people rilled up, in order to make money - it is not a conservative or liberal bias per say (though some would say the capitalistic bias would be a form of conservative bias). Look at fear reporting - like Shark Summer a few years ago - where the media takes a topic and makes it seem big and scary to the avergae person - all in the name of keeping the audience hooked...
Which gets more viewers:

Guns as Bad Things used to kill Inocent people like You!
Or
Kid uses gun to protect grandmother.

Just some food for thought.

It would be nice to imagine that the web introduces some non corporate, non biased (or at least less) news sources... but is that even true? Where do most users get their news online? Why, from CNN, or MSNBC, or foxnews... Even 'new media' news services like yahoo news pull their stories from other sources in the industry; thus if the industry isn't reporting about subject X, yahoo doesn't have a story about it. Sure, sites like slashdot allow for some stories niche groups care about to get aired before the 'big media' picks it up (if ever) - but how many reporters does slashdot have out there pounding the pavement?

I'm pretty sure that many reporters try to be unbiased - and that there are some who are. But the industry they work in promotes stardom - and becoming a famous reporting means breaking a big story... and a big story is about how many people read it and talk about it - not how true or unbiased it is.

I'll shutup now...

Re:Bias in media (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7876218)

Thanx for the comment.

I disagree with much, because but that's just going to be political, so, we'll skip that.

But, there are probably *many* reasons. The article points out a few.

Heh (1)

mskfisher (22425) | more than 10 years ago | (#7876004)

... a 13 year-old boy stopped for burglars from entering his home...
But anyway, the statistics on lines of gun defense stories vs. lines of gun crime stories is impressive.

That's one of the benefits of being a member of the NRA. As part of my membership, I get American Rifleman magazine, which has an "Armed Citizen" section. It's a short, monthly collection of about 6 incidents where people have thwarted crime by using their legally-owned firearm.
Of course, that doesn't really help the average citizen. :P

But yeah, that CNN example is particularly egregious. "Assault rifles," legislatively speaking, are not fully-automatic, and never were. Exactly as the article states, my AR-15 "assault rifle" fires the same exact round as my Savage (11 [savagearms.com] , I believe), which fires virtually the same round as an M-16 - they're all .223, or 5.56 mm (apparently there are some subtle differences between the 5.56 NATO and the .223, mainly the chamber pressure ratings).

Fear sells.

Re:Heh (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7876394)

6 stories? Interesting. Would you care to scan in one or two (or otherwise point to them online)?

Re:Heh (2, Informative)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#7876966)

"Armed Citizen"

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx

Copy and paste that, it goes to a NRA site where you can search the archives, if you wish to see all the results for one state, just select a state and leave the rest empty.

Re:Heh (1)

mskfisher (22425) | more than 10 years ago | (#7877598)

Thanks, I probably would've typed them in verbatim. :)

I didn't even think of looking for them on the web... cool.

I got two things out of this article (1)

Trolling4Dollars (627073) | more than 10 years ago | (#7882436)

1. Even if only one kid dies from an accidental shooting. In my opinion, that's an epidemic.
2. The use of the word "newsworthy" illustrates the problem of what passes for news in today's society. Unless it's something you can look at and shake your head and say "Poor soul. Glad it's not me." then it isn't newsworthy.

What ever happened to the day when news really was about everything and anything that happened no matter how boring? To be honest, I don't think there ever was a day like that. If there was, the newspapers would be thousand page tomes and the TV news would be a miniseries just to cover one day.

The problem is the filter. Currently the filter is driven by profit motive and therefore is likely to be swayed by what is going to make it money. But... this is elementary. All of us present know about how media bias works. (Or at least you SHOULD)

As far as guns go... their prevalence is the result of FUD. People are going to be made to think that they need guns to survive. I will admit that I've got my own concerns about safety. And I'm sure if I was in a predicament, I'd probably wish I had a gun. But, I don't think that a gun is a necessity to live if you have some balls. Guns are for people who are afraid of every bogeyman that the people in charge care to throw at you. Right now, that bogeyman is the "terrorist" (of which I have yet to see any). Trust me folks, unless Bush and company have something planned to gain props from the citezenry (probably in July or August), you aren't going to see any terrorists swarming in anywhere.

Face it. Guns are not a necessity and we'd be far better off without them. Besides who nees a gun when you've got a myriad of other more colorful and horrible ways to defend yourself?

Re:I got two things out of this article (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7888192)

It was probably not a time when *everything* was written. However, that is not what peple want, neccesarily. The request here is for balance.

As for needing a gun or not, that's up to the individual.

Re:I got two things out of this article (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 10 years ago | (#7888379)

What other ways are their to protect my wife and kids?

Please let me know.

Re:I got two things out of this article (1)

Excarnate (453613) | more than 10 years ago | (#7910139)

As far as your 1., if you misuse words they cease to have meaning. One kid dying from any cause is not an epidemic.

As far as "People are going to be made to think that they need guns to survive." perhaps you misspoke. I don't see people being made (or led) to feel that way. I believe people may have FUD and view a firearm as a way to provide assurance, but I don't see people being led there. Perhaps you can demonstrate why you feel that way?

Your statement about having balls is peculiarly apropos, for it is females who would generally do better armed. It is a rare woman who can overcome a male attacker in a 'fair' fight. And of course if you are elderly or live in a 'bad' area...but perhaps you get my point? Not right for you doesn't mean not right.

As far as your comments on terrorism, just throw them into every post you make, as they belong there [slashdot.org] as much as here.

Re:I got two things out of this article (1)

Trolling4Dollars (627073) | more than 10 years ago | (#7911060)

As far as your 1., if you misuse words they cease to have meaning. One kid dying from any cause is not an epidemic.

Have you ever heard of something called hyperbole? My point being, that guns cause greater harm than good. Not in quantity, but in quality. A child dying of an accidental gun shot is far more negative (in impact) than the number of supposed instances when a gun may prevent some other negative thing from happening.

As far as your 1., if you misuse words they cease to have meaning. One kid dying from any cause is not an epidemic.

Yes. You have bought into the FUD. Nice illustration. :)

As far as your comments on terrorism, just throw them into every post you make...

I'm only here for one reason sometimes... and that is to annoy. But when I say things like this, it's because I believe them, and I want others to open their eyes and see the truth. That's what sharing viewpoints is all about. The context doesn't matter. However, in this case I was talking about "bogeymen". Everyone's got them. For the right, it's the "commies" and the "socialists" and the "terrorists". For the lefties, it's the "sexists" and "big business" and the "christian right". Each side has some valid points about their bogeymen, but it's not as bad as either side paints at times... The real problem is when things swing too far in one direction or the other. But there ARE some things that are just plain truth:

1. The Bush administration wants you scared. Specifically scared of terrorism on US soil.
2. A world without guns would be a much better place. Then we would only have knive, sticks, stones and fists to harm each other with. Just a little harder to kill each other in a fight. As it should be.

and finally:

3. No one deserves to die at the hand of another person for any reason. Ever. There is no rational justification.

Re:I got two things out of this article (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7915133)

No one deserves to die at the hand of another person for any reason. Ever. There is no rational justification.

Bzzt.

If A is trying to kill B, and the only way for B to survive is to kill A.

Also, why shouldn't we kill? Unless one believes in some form of deity that forbids killing, what is wrong with killing? I mean that seriously.

I have come to the conclusion that it is a deal for the survival of society. An unwritten law. Or rather, a deal. You don't kill me, i don't kill you. It is not the value of life. It is a natural agreement for preservation.

If a person, however, intentionally tries to kill somebody else, he has broken this agreement. At that point, he is free game. Not that we should kill him, but, if killing him will serve a purpose (removal from society, food, free house) there is no longer a reason not to kill him.

Re:I got two things out of this article (1)

Trolling4Dollars (627073) | more than 10 years ago | (#7916236)

That sounds pretty amoral. I don't subscribe to any particular religion, but it is certain that my moral compass is extracted from such beginnings. I do value each and every individual on this Earth that is capable of conscious thought and has an identity. (ie. I have no problems with abortion or euthenasia) And I believe that it is my responsibility to all of them to guarantee a postive life experience. I also believe it's everyone else's responsibility to provide me with the same.

If A is trying to kill B, then B should try to escape to safety. There are provisions in our society for such things that do not require taking another's life. The best option is to render the other person unconscious and then call the authorities.

In general I still see no justification for killing someone. The motivations for most of the intentional deaths in this world had less to do with noble actions and more to do with the negative side of being a human animal. (Greed, Fear, Anger) It is best to work against your own nature and suppress these things. If we all did it, the world would be a much better place. I practice what I preach in my own life and therefore and very well liked and respected in my circles.

Re:I got two things out of this article (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7918076)

Amazing, it sounds as if you are actually responding to the points i raised, and yet you skirt them. :)

I don't subscribe to any particular religion, but it is certain that my moral compass is extracted from such beginnings.

So you agree that it is good to be religious, yet you refuse to subscribe to one?

I do value each and every individual on this Earth that is capable of conscious thought and has an identity.

How are concious thought and identity different?

Why Earth? What about aliens?

How about ghosts (or any non-corporeal form that has thought and identity)? If such would be found to exist, and to have concious thought, is there existence worth protecting?

(ie. I have no problems with abortion or euthenasia)

But babies have concious thought after approximateltly the third month.

And I believe that it is my responsibility

If you don't subscribe to any religion, how can you believe that it is your responsibility. Responsibility is usually given. Who gave it to you? If it is taken (because you believe that you should) how does this allow you to make others take it as their responsibility?

to all of them to guarantee a postive life experience.

Why positive? Why not just top let them exist.

What is positive? Does the positive of today (that may be negative tomorrow) outweigh to the positive of tomorrow?

I also believe it's everyone else's responsibility to provide me with the same.

As said before, why?

If A is trying to kill B, then B should try to escape to safety.

And if he can't? Let's say A is shooting bullets at B and will not stop. B has no place to run or hide, but he has a sawed-off shotgun and stopping A will also kill him.

There are provisions in our society for such things that do not require taking another's life.

True. But they do not always apply. Many times, such as during a war or a pogrom, the only way to stop it is to kill.

The best option is to render the other person unconscious

Agreed. If possible, that is obviously best.

and then call the authorities.

Unless the authorities don't care, or can't help, which is the unfortunate case in many political entities.

Re:I got two things out of this article (1)

Trolling4Dollars (627073) | more than 10 years ago | (#7922309)

I'm not interested in debating my views. :)

What I will say is that I like the opportunity that I have to share them with others and try to spread the memes a little. It's up to others to decide whether they agree or not. It is my hope that my words may alter some other people's thinking.

I'll respond to a few of the above quips, but I really don't want to draw this out...

So you agree that it is good to be religious, yet you refuse to subscribe to one?

I think religion, like politics is just a control mechanism used by more intelligent people to control less intelligent people. However, I also believe that there SHOULD be some kind of control forced on those that would otherwise fall back on their animal nature. I've personally homed in on selfishness and fear as being the most detrimental of human qualities. If you analyze every wrong thing that's happened throughout all time, you can trace the roots of those events to selfishness and fear. I tend more toward authoritarian leanings in my views as I believe that most people don't think about things enough. Hence my belief in some basic morals. But those morals can exist without the need for religion, if the individual is intelligent enough. The flipside is that some people who are very intelligent can be completely amoral and regard the next human they see as having no more value than the dirt under their foot. If I didn't have any morals, that is probably where I would be. (Please note that I am not claiming a great intellect on my part. I've met people far more intelligent than myself.)

How are concious thought and identity different?

Some people would twist the concept of conscious thought into being eqivalent to the spurious impulses in a fetus that cause a limb to move or a heart to beat. Therefore I had to make the distinction that conscious thought and identity are intertwined. Perhaps that wasn't clear in what I wrote before.

But babies have concious thought after approximateltly the third month.

That is obviously a different view compared to mine. Conscious thought requires mental/physical interaction with other beings beyond the womb. A fetus does not interact in that way.

If it is taken (because you believe that you should) how does this allow you to make others take it as their responsibility?

I do take this as my responsibility because it is a civilized and kind act. I would hope that others would be similarly motivated. I don't force it upon anyone. I only suggest and attempt to open minds to see outside of their own limited view. Again... I don't claim to have a greater or more open mind. I am just a man with my own failings. But I recognize them and work hard against them. That is, in my view, the ultimate purpose in life. Not some ridiculous quest to amass material goods at the cost of making life bad for others. The acts that guarantee immortality are those that will bear fruit for all mankind. No race, no creed, no sex, no sexual preference... in fact no one for any reason should be excluded. It's an ideal that a lot of people can't live up to. But it's a challenge to try and it makes life that much more rewarding on a personal level.

Re:I got two things out of this article (1)

Chacham (981) | more than 10 years ago | (#7924157)

I'm not interested in debating my views. :)

That's fine. But you called something i said amoral. That'd be a fight'n word. :)

I'll respond to a few of the above quips, but I really don't want to draw this out...

OK, i'll respond, you do what you want, reply or not.

I think religion, like politics is just a control mechanism used by more intelligent people to control less intelligent people.

Why? Either the religion is true, or it isn't. If it isn't, this may the allowance to have it anyway. However, without saying anything about them being correct or not, this comment is out of place.

However, I also believe that there SHOULD be some kind of control forced on those that would otherwise fall back on their animal nature.

Why? Isn't that they're right?

But those morals can exist without the need for religion, if the individual is intelligent enough.

But those morals change with time.

Remember the one doctor who proposed changing the name of "life" to after a few days after the baby left the womb? With that, people could kill their babies after a day, and not be considered muder.

Or, homosexuality was once considered amoral, now, to many, it is amoral to object.

In the US (and just about any democracy) morals change with the times. Thus, the word "moral", conveys no meaning more than "fashionable belief".

Some people would twist the concept of conscious thought into being eqivalent to the spurious impulses in a fetus that cause a limb to move or a heart to beat.

OK. So then, isn't "identity" good enough. Or can someone have "identity" but not concious thought?

Conscious thought requires mental/physical interaction with other beings beyond the womb.

Why?

If a pregnant woman got shipwrecked alone on an uninhabited island, and the mother died with the baby's birth, could we than bomb the island, since the baby has had no interaction?

--

It sounds like you value intelligence. And i am not saying this as flaimbait, but i think you are looking for an excuse to value yourself, without having to subscribe to a religion, which has all those nasty rules you don't weant to tie yourself down with.

I do not value intellegence. I value life. I value life because G-d commanded me too.

Hello (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7893878)

You're a butthead. This guy said so. [slashdot.org]
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...