Slashdot Mirror

I never knew cancer was funny. LAF

Uh, sorry to double up, but BTW: LIVESTRONG is Lance Armstrong's Cancer Survivor non-profit. That yellow armband that you see on John Kerry's wrist--it's related to this. If you are a MAC (couldn't resist) fanboi, please give a few bucks in Steve's name.

The original intent of my first post was that you do not take away someone's freedoms by calling them a monster. (You will Please notice that I did not say threatening to kill them shooting them etc.) This was based on Katz's statement:

The wanton use of terms like "murder" and "genocide" make that impossible, and that means we aren't free either.

The use of the terms "murder" and "genocide" can be applied to those that in someone's opinion that advocate "murder" and "genocide" . Just because someone else believes that there is no "murder" and "genocide" enveloped does not mean that the person is not debating the issue.

I also think that putting pressure on the media ... is reprehensible and anyone who does such a thing is simply trying to limit someone else's ability or willingness to speak their mind.

Side A: Aborting a baby is a woman's right and it's ok that thousands of fetuses are aborted each year.
Side B: Aborting a baby is murder and they are practicing genocide!
Side A: Your using emotional blackmail to even eliminate discussion of the idea of abortion.

Just for contrast let's replace abortion with Murder, woman with Nazi, baby with subhuman and fetus with them.

Side A: Murdering a subhuman is a Nazi's right and it's ok that thousands of them are murdered each year.
Side B: Murdering someone you thing is subhuman is murder and they are practicing genocide!
Side A: Your using emotional blackmail to even eliminate discussion of the idea of murder of sub humans.

Noel expresses some opionions on Singer and morality:

Personally on the issue of what singer has advocated. That animals have the same rights as people and that babies do are not people or animals and have even less rights. I find this monstrous and that a person that is expressing these opinions publicly with the intent to convince others of the morality of these opinions is working to destroy the basic building blocks of society. That his ideas remind me of the ideas the Nazi criminals advocated. It is so unbelievable and horrifying that I find it very difficult to understand how anyone can support it.

It seems to me that our definition of the value of human life is slipping steadily away. They are delivering babies today and if the mother wants the baby they put it in an incubator if she does not they set the baby on a counter to die. People shoot each other over who goes first or who cut who off on a highway

I believe that there are basic laws of conduct and morality. I believe that the come from God. You may believe that they come from something else. But as a society we will violate these laws with peril. I could say what comes around goes around or I could say that we will be judged by God. Either way you look at it you reap what you sow. The less we value human life the less value our own life has. The more exceptions we make in who is human and deserves life the less value all of our lives have. We become colder and less caring. We suddenly wonder why we do not like the world we are living in. I value human life. I do not believe that some people are not really people and thus can be killed out of hand.

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

You are convinced that your morality is absolutely correct. Therefore anyone who might suggest something that you think is immoral can easily be labeled a monster or whatever you decide to call them. In this way, you avoid addressing the facts and you avoid a discussion of why you believe what you believe. Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong.

Let me take this one point at a time:

• You are convinced that your morality is absolutely correct.

  What I said is that I did not believe that morality is subjective. This could have been more accurately stated. So let me try.
  I believe that there is a truth and morality that comes from God. That is universal and static. We to the best of our ability and the light that we have in our lives try to follow that truth and morality. For the record many of us disagree. But regardless of our beliefs and interpretations there is but one truth and light. I did not claim that I had a perfect understanding of truth and morality. I do however believe that I am on the path.

• Therefore anyone who might suggest something that you think is immoral can easily be labeled a monster or whatever you decide to call them.

  I do not think and have not said that anyone that does anything immoral is a monster. I and every other man have done immoral things. I also would object to your saying that I would easily call someone a monster. That is not true. It takes monstrous ideas, advocated to make a monster. Hitler sitting in his house thinking that the jews were not really people did not make him a monster. His convincing of others that this was so made him the monster.

• In this way, you avoid addressing the facts and you avoid a discussion of why you believe what you believe.

  This is the smokescreen that I have discussed earlier. I express my opinions and ideas and they are dismissed as avoiding a discussion. Is this not the same thing that you accuse me of? Instead of actually talking about the subject you turn the debate into the validity of my arguments. If you were truly interested in debate would you not say something like "I think that Singer is not a monster because..."?

• Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong.

  Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong. (BTW this is not a typo it just seemed just to be a fine response to your point.)

Basically, you're no better than the loudmouth political and religious leaders who get up and thump their bibles at us and tell us that we are bad for doing something that is against their religion.

May I say again:

Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong.

If I may paraphrase your statement:

Basically, you're no better than the loudmouth people who get up and tell us and tell us that we are bad for doing something that is against their opinion.

Noel

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

People often use emotionally-charged words such as "genocide" in order to prevent any sort of intelligent debate

You miss the point of why genocide and other words such as monster have such an emotional charge it is because of other genocides and monsters.

such behavior does reduce the value of our freedoms.

Give me a break "the value of our freedoms".

You mean that you don't like what they are saying.

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

Your argument seems to be that I have the right to free speech as long as I say certain things and do not say others or to put it a different way as long as I construct my arguments according to your preferences.

Danse Said:

believe he was referring to this statement from your first post:

So Jon you argue that my using of my free speech to call Singer a monster is hysterical and reduces your liberties while your opinion that he is not a monster is worthy and makes us more free?

In that statement, you seem to imply that you should have the right to call Singer a monster.

Exactly, I have the right to call him a monster. To compare his ideas to the nazi holocaust. To compare Singer to a war criminal of my choice.

Let me say again a little louder. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH

The argument that certain arguments are incorrect or not really an argument as others have said in this thread:

No, his point is that large groups of people are themselves using emotional blackmail to even eliminate discussion of his idea. Instead of trying to refute it, all they're doing is labeling him a monster, murdered, advocate of genocide. And trying to make anyone else not even consider discussing his idea for fear of being labeled the same way.

----------

By calling someone a monster, and basically de-humanizing him

----------

and you attack HIM because of his arguments -- instead of his arguments -- then you are quenching free speech.

Do you have a right to shout something down just because you don't like it?

----------

If we did not have this right then you would hear one side of it. you would only hear the "Let's kill our children" side or you would hear the "They are monsters side" according to who had the power over the censors.

If you do not like this right spend more time at home staring at the wall. But telling me that calling people that advocate monstrous things monsters is somehow restricting their freedom of speech is a smokescreen brought out by how much you disagree with me and not based on some higher understanding of the freedom of speech.

Noel

P.S on the subject of morality

Danse Said:

Morality is highly subjective. It is never a good argument.

I do not believe that morality is subjective and in cases involving human life it is what your argument must be based on. You fall into the falsehood that all cultures are equily moral. This is not true.

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

This is the point, see. You may disagree with Singer, but you disagree with his idea, and expression of an idea should not make you label him as immoral. If you do this, you are ensuring that no one will dare to express ideas contrary to that which you believe, and therefore asserting your moral superiority through brute force intellectual terrorism. I don't object to your lambasting Singer's opinion - I object to your lambasting Singer for holding this opinion.

If I might point out several things.

• I never have said that singer is a monster. Go read what I actually said. I do feel that the idea of killing children is evil and monstrous. I do not know singer. Do you? How do you know that he is not a monster? The evidence presented does not lend itself to him being an angel.
• Accusing me of brute force intellectual terrorism is amusing. Do you really support my right to speak my opinions or do you begrudge me this only because you lack the power to shut me up?
• Your argument seems to be that I have the right to free speech as long as I say certain things and do not say others or to put it a different way as long as I construct my arguments according to your preferences.
• You use the phrase "label him as immoral" After all we all recognize that labeling is not politically correct. But a horse is a horse is a horse. A person that advocates immoral behavior is not acting morally.

  • Noel
    

    Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

After all, if you find Singer offensive, so what? Is the expression of his offensive idea going to somehow sour the world? Hardly. Why do you find it so galling that someone might have a thought contrary to yours? After all, if your idea is the truth, then how can it suffer when held up against a false idea?

After all, if you find me offensive, so what? Is the expression of my offensive idea going to somehow sour the world?

Not that I find my ideas offensive.

Why does someone have the right to express the idea that it is ok to kill children and yet if I present the opposite opinion it is attacked as somehow being wrong to express? Is it possible that as AngryMob said:

You are unwilling to change, even though you are not necessarily right. This is flat out wrong. This is dogmatism at its worst.

That there is dogmatism at work from a standpoint of:

• Anything to do with morality is an opinion
• There is no right or wrong
• people have no inherent value
• Parental rights are more important than child rights until some magical age when they suddenly are granted rights.

and that anything that disagrees with this dogma is attacked as being a assault on the rights of those that present this dogma?

that is what it looks like from my seat.

Noel

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

see, this is something that bugs me about those religious people who are always trying to get people to do what their god likes. they always say "I have a right to express my views too", and they do, under the first amendment. what they don't have the right to do is hold me hostage with their god's laws; disagreeing with abortion or euthanasia is one thing, actually trying to make it impossible for me to kill my baby is another thing entirely

So to paraphrase this statement:
disagreeing with (thing you hate) is one thing, actually trying to make it impossible for you to kill (person doing the thing you hate) is another thing entirely.

Gosh is that what you really meant?

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

The wanton use of terms like "murder" and "genocide" make that impossible, and that means we aren't free either.

Singer is no monster, and the notion that he's an advocate of mass murder seems outrageously simple-minded and hysterical, a club to shut him up rather than a way to support or refute his ideas.

This is an example of using a double standard to try and win an debate. You overlook the possibility that to some of us the idea of killing children is monstrous and evil and anyone that advocates this is an evil monster.

I believe that the entire argument you make about freedoms is a smokescreen to try and reduce my freedom to speak by twisted emotional blackmail.

Noel

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

But then they would not have a soap opera.

I predict they select "survivors" based on:

• Girls
  • Hair
  • Breasts
  • Legs
• Boys
  • Hair
  • Chin
  • Muscles

The good news is that for the girls heroin sheik is in....

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER COMPLIANCE FUND For payments authorized by section 109 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1008), $15,000,000, to remain available until expended.

15 million directly spent to protect our governments ability to tap phones.
It seems like a lot of effort being spent on a task that in the long run is going to fail.

In the long run I don't think that the government can keep everything under wraps, it is as doomed to failure as the efforts in past centuries to keep the reading of the bible the exclusive domain of clergy.

The only argument I have ever read by a non gov official for this sort of thing is in one of the Tom Clancy novels, were he has the terrorists using encryption to prevent their detection. However these same terrorists have the resources of an oil producing nation to back them up, So would pgp being exported really have been needed for them to be protected or would they have just been able to buy what they needed? After all in the book they are able to produce biological weapons to attack the US with, so how hard would it have been for them to operate without coming to the notice of the CIA without public domain strong encyption?

So give me a break. Read my mail if you want to, but have fun I even have trouble keeping up with it.

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

• William H. Gates Foundation
• Gates Learning Foundation
• Gates Center for Technology Access

From the site:

William H. Gates Foundation

At the end of 1998, the Foundation had committed $133 million to organizations working in global health; $122 million to educational concerns; more than $42 million to community projects in the Pacific Northwest; and over $60 million to special projects and annual giving campaigns.

Gates Learning Foundation

The Gates Learning Foundation began life as the Gates Library Foundation in June 1997 with the mission of helping to bridge the "digital divide" between those who have access to computers and the Internet and those who lack such access. By the end of 1998, the Foundation had awarded grants of over $22 million to 1300 libraries in 28 states to bring Internet access to their patrons, as well as provide staff technical assistance and training.

Gates Center for Technology Access

The Gates Center for Technology Access (GCTA) is dedicated to ensuring that no one becomes "information disenfranchised." GCTA works to establish access to information technology resources in communities throughout the United States through partnerships with libraries, schools, and community organizations.

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

The Administration generally, and law enforcement particularly, are not trying to ban encryption. Law enforcement supports the responsible spread of strong encryption. Use of strong encryption will help deter crime and promote a safe national information infrastructure.

But in the letter she says:

Much work remains to be done. In particular, I believe we must soon address the risks posed by electronic distribution of encryption software.

Very different.

I would bet that the latter more accuratly shows the policy of the DOJ.

Is not strong and trusted encryption software built by the open and free flow of ideas. How strong would the encryption be that is available to everyone but the governments if there was no electronic distribution?

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

This Article on BBC news points out that the Internet generated over 300 billion in revenue and over 1.2 million jobs.

Also from the article:

For the past three years, revenue generated on the Internet has been doubling every year, and there is no slowdown in sight.

If they do not understand where we are going and do not line up the people (hackers) that are in a good position to understand what is going to work and what will not and purhaps make lots of money along the way. Then they are going to be that online trading house that failed in the 90's that no one can quite remember the name of.

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

From the Yahoo page:

Dr. David P. Anderson, Project Director and Dr. Dan Werthimer, Chief Scientist, of the SETI@Home project discuss their perspectives regarding this exciting new approach to computing.

Looks like anyone interested can find out the real scoop from the horses mouth.

The article seemed to be flame bait to me. They never said that Seti@home said anything other detailing the performance critical routine in the seti@home software. Then the way I read it seti@home did not want to give up their source. The article said:

SETI is not interested in receiving a faster client software

Is this what they said or more likely an interpertation of what they said?

Lets check the facts before slamming Seti@Home.

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

Koskinen said the command center was meant to keep tabs on critical private-sector activities as well as local, state and federal computer systems

"should serve as a framework for future cooperation between critical infrastructure industries ... and the federal government"

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation

Check out the Lance Armstrong Foundation