Slashdot Mirror

Philip K. Dick has an interesting note on drug use at the end of A Scanner Darkly. Basically he says that he and all his friends did drugs left and right because it was fun. He then goes on to explain the consequences of their actions. While he may have writtena number of brillient and insightful books, his life was not one I would want to have.

Phillip K. Dick's actuall thoughts on drug use

Carreon says, in the interview, he's "very fortunate to be at the forefront of a lot of technical development"; I guess that means perhaps he no longer wants to go back to the days of dialup. (Sadly, The Grauniad removed his wife's rant-tastic comment on an article about the case, but some replies quote some of the better bits.)

At least accordingly to this blog post [1], the same person who thinks that a cartoon having no real persons in it [2] is offensive, has published pictures of former president having sex [3] on his own website [4], which Charles and Tara Carreon maintains.

So I would see Charles Carreon as a definition of hypocrite in this context, by publishing pictures of sexual nature with real people in them and judging others because they use freedom of speech and create art.

[1] http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/17/the-oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-part-iv-charles-carreon-sues-everybody/
[2] http://www.indiegogo.com/bearlovegood
[3] http://www.american-buddha.com/mondo.sceptre.htm
[4] http://www.american-buddha.com/what_is_buddhism.htm

At least accordingly to this blog post [1], the same person who thinks that a cartoon having no real persons in it [2] is offensive, has published pictures of former president having sex [3] on his own website [4], which Charles and Tara Carreon maintains.

So I would see Charles Carreon as a definition of hypocrite in this context, by publishing pictures of sexual nature with real people in them and judging others because they use freedom of speech and create art.

[1] http://www.popehat.com/2012/06/17/the-oatmeal-v-funnyjunk-part-iv-charles-carreon-sues-everybody/
[2] http://www.indiegogo.com/bearlovegood
[3] http://www.american-buddha.com/mondo.sceptre.htm
[4] http://www.american-buddha.com/what_is_buddhism.htm

The moral considerations should come from the reader, not the author. PKD (A visionary among charlatans, as Lem puts it) is a good example of that. As he writes in A Scanner Darkly:

There is no moral in this novel; it is not bourgeois; it does not say they were wrong to play when they should have toiled; it just tells what the consequences were. In Greek drama they were beginning, as a society, to discover science, which means causal law. Here in this novel there is Nemesis: not fate, because anyone of us could have chosen to stop playing in the street, but, as I narrate from the deepest part of my life and heart, a dreadful Nemesis for those who kept on playing. I myself, I am not a character in this novel; I am the novel. So, though, was our entire nation at this time. This novel is about more people than I knew personally. Some we all read about in the newspapers. It was, this sitting around with our buddies and bullshitting while making tape recordings, the bad decision of the decade, the sixties, both in and out of the establishment. And nature cracked down on us. We were forced to stop by things dreadful.

If there was any "sin," it was that these people wanted to keep on having a good time forever, and were punished for that, but, as I say, I feel that, if so, the punishment was far too great, and I prefer to think of it only in a Greek or morally neutral way, as mere science, as deterministic impartial cause-and-effect. I loved them all.

http://www.american-buddha.com/scandark.authornote.htm

Maybe you should read how Mr Edelstein dealt with this situation.

I take the point about the identity of certain characters in the Abarahamic faiths. Likewise it seems the Islamic prophet Isa who was intended (by Mohammed) to represent Jesus, was misreported in the Koran owing, presumes, to a faulty knowledge of Christian and Jewish scripture on Mohammed's part.

Your reply prompted me to do some further reading - not least the thread that you linked to. This conversation spun off a whole series of searches which turned up (mixed in with a certain amount of hopeless drivel) a lot of serious theological analysis on both sides of the issue.

I was astounded in particular by historical accounts of the practice of dhimmitude, as documented by BAt Ye'or. It seems that Islamic scripture, - including even parts of the Koran - sets a precedent for the subjugation of non-Islamic populations, deprivation of their human rights, and ultimately genocide.

There are also parts of the Jewish Talmud which encourage the same kinds of treatment of gentiles, and even paedophilia (in ancient Jewish law, a girl of three years old can be wed).

Lets not forget also the atrocities that have been perpetuated in the name of Christianity, most notably during the Crusades and also the treatment of supposed heretics and apostates during the centuries of the Inquisition.

Frankly the message I take from these readings is that all organized religion is something to be reviled by all civilized people.

It's often been said that because the Muslim faith is some 600 years younger than Christianity that it is unfair to compare contemporary Islam with contemporary Christianity, that Islam now more closely resembles what Christendom was up to during the late middle ages - not long out of the crusades, with the whole of Europe under the dictat of the Papacy and the terror of the Inquisition. No doubt these institutions managed to find scriptural justification for their actions too.

However I think this argument is a dangerous diversion. Even if Islam does reform successfully at some point in the future, any of the three Abrahamic faiths has sufficient precedent in its scripture to justify the mistreatment of fellow human beings. And as social circumstances change, any of these three religions could just as easily undergo a fundamentalist revival at any time. Today for example Islam has its Hamas (and those scary guys who whack themselves on the head until they bleed - I forget what they call themselves); Judaism already has its Zionists; Christianity has its right wing fundamentalists.

If we ever allow one of these faiths to take control of a state even in its seemingly most benign form, we are therefore risking future inhumanity on a massive scale: torture, murder, war and genocide.

You can't even trust Buddhism, peaceful though those folks may seem; they are just as guilty - q.v. the feudal system in pre-Chinese-invasion Tibet.

Look.. Tibet has nice photogenic monks that come off as worm-protecting good guys in disney movies. but the fact of the matter is that tibet was not some idyllic neverland - it was an autocratic theocracy of monks that ruled an impoverished peasant class and had infighting and murder galore.

Read http://www.american-buddha.com/friend.feud.1.htm (the Tibet Myth - sorry about the font - it is not my doing!).

get over your myths.

that said, even if the above web page were all BS (and it is NOT), the fact of the matter is that the chinese have ruled tibet for nearly 50 years now. tibet is effectively part of china. you may fight for independence for tibet just like you can fight for indepence of hawaii now (a state for roughly the same amount of time). more power to you if that's your thing (but i do suggest that you read the Tibet Myth web page first). but don't try to pretend like it's not one country now.

Holy fuck, how'd this guy avoid ending up dead in a ditch somewhere?!!!

Why does that not surprise me.

This crap has got to stop.

Do you think the US would do the same thing today

Danny Casolaro

Michael Riconsciouto

Ron van Meter

The list goes on.

I've read a lot of comments like this on Slashdot, so this one isn't necessarily directed at you, flacco.

Recently, I received the Cosmos series on DVD (aside: Region 0, "fully international"!) as a birthday gift. In one of the early episodes (2 or 3) , Sagan discussed the differences between astrology (think: Zodiac) and astronomy (think: real). Back in the early days of such things, before they were two separate concepts, people used to try to predict things based on what the constellations were. So, if something bad happened the last time such-and-such constellations were aligned, maybe the same thing would happen again. Kings would personally pick out their astrologers, so they would get nice ones. If things didn't go as the astrologer planned, they'd fudge records.

Anyway, the quote that stuck with me which Sagan said with a smile was: "A good way to overthrow a regime was to predict its downfall."

Things never change, eh? (Bush v. Saddam, Slashdot v. Microsoft, etc.)

I had to look up the exact quote. You may wish to read more about the part of Cosmos about which I wrote here.