Slashdot Mirror

If a law is based on logic and if that law itself is logical and not a caricature of the observed fact, I don't see where it could lead to problems. If you base laws on feelings, you get laws based on "sins". These laws can't be explained except by "It doesn't feel right but I can't explain it".

I agree and this is why I say that they should be grown artificially to make sure there is no emotional link. Some mothers might be able to do it but there is an emotional risk. It has nothing to do with the baby itself though.

Well, that is not really true. If it was, then slaves would have never been used. I don't see any objective basis for your argument. Could you, perhaps, clarify your point?

The earth, the cells and the atoms don't talk either and yet we can still study them. You don't have to talk to your subject to learn something from it.

Anyway, when you observe a subject, you must make sure it doesn't know you are studying it because of the Pygmalion effect. So, I don't think your last point is really relevant.

Same reason we pass laws protecting corpses. What people feel matters. When we try to rationalize it into ideological laws, we make caricatures of ourselves.

I believe this applies to fetuses as well. But you know what? I'd tack up my grandfather's corpse on a tree in the public square and tear flesh from it in public if it would save a friend from the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.

The human connection with babies is a very real one; we're hardwired for it. In fact, if a mother were willing to give up her infant for scientific study, that would be a pretty good sign that she needs urgent psychiatric care. I'm not sure that science is worth overriding that link.

Further, we have a very useful allergy to dehumanization. As lizard-brained humans, we're not very good at separation of concerns. When it comes to dehumanization, things that shouldn't be slippery slopes are, in fact, slippery slopes.

When it comes to neuroscience, the benefit of working on humans as opposed to chimps is that humans can tell you things. You don't have that benefit with infants.

>>They are not trained to kill, and certainly not trained to survive

I have to take exception to this. I am a soldier, and I am close friends with 4 people who have graduated cop school, and they are more qualified to kill than I am. They have extensive training on pistol, shotgun, pepper spray, taser, baton, and hand-to-hand combat. Any of them could easily take me down. They are also trained to take out suspects in high-speed chases via techniques like the PIT maneuver. They have advanced training in firearms control, cover, tactical reloading, emergency medicine, etc.

I think it is disingenuous to portray police as this benign caricature of Barney Fife. Police are killers who don't want to. Soldiers are also killers who don't want to. The difference is that they get their order from their police chief, and I get my orders from congress and the president. You need to stop thinking of soldiers as executioners. Or short of that, examine why it is you think of soldiers as executioners. I've never killed anybody, and if I did kill anyone in the course of my duties, it would be for the same reason I'd kill someone in any other circumstances: self-defense.

Go ahead and rationalize it away by saying that I'm not typical, or that if I volunteered for it then I knew what I was doing, or any other reasonable argument. The fact is, humans fight. We will fight until we're not technically humans anymore. History has borne this out, and fiat histories claiming otherwise are just plain wrong.

I'm sorry to ramble. Don't take it personally. I guess I'm just tired and I probably shouldn't even be posting on slashdot in the first place.

-b

My passport, wallet etc was safe and sound

Your caricature of third world life is laughable.

I have travelled extensively through poor African and Pacific nations. I have dressed in many different ways, although usually in clothing similar to what I wear down the street in the first world nation I live in.

Not only have the people in the ghettos valued human life highly, they are not afraid to show it.

I have epilepsy and after having a seizure at a slum in Nairobi I found that while unconscious I had been collected, taken to a taxi and the fare paid to take me to a hospital. My passport, wallet etc was safe and sound.

If you are too scared to explore some of these countries yourself, I don't think you should paint their people as blood-thirsty tyrants.

I can't be certain you're not telling the truth but the story you tell sounds caricatural and simplistic. Machiavelical Ballmer and foolish Gates? Nah. I don't buy it.

PS: To Gates/Ballmer: You owe me. Send me some money. I'm tired of being poor. If you don't, I will bash you on Slashdot and bring about the year of Linux on the desktop. You don't want that, do you?

The previews for this film really bug me, particularly the way that the cars are constantly fishtailing back and forth. I realize that this is Speed Racer and this is not supposed to be realistic, but I believe that you need some inkling of reality to achieve any sense of excitement and drama.

Its based on a cartoon! What they have created is a caricature of a caricature of reality. Granted that makes the previews a caricature of a caricature of caricature. Still, it gives me the overwhelming impression of trying too hard, probably to cover up for the script.

Then again, I thought the Matrix series was kind of dumb.

You do realize that "the citizenry" has more than one opinion, and that you're part of it?

So -- if you don't agree with what you see as the slashdot groupthink, you're obviously (1) misperceiving that groupthink, and/or (2) offending individuals (like yourself) who don't subscribe. What's more, though, the perception that there is a unified groupthink is mistaken. The Linux geeks and the Apple geeks are still two different camps. The OSS folks want to see copyright laws enforced (with enlightened self interest encouraging adoption of open source terms where appropriate), while the RMS groupies want to see copyright for software fundamentally modified. There are plenty of folks around here who think Ron Paul's a nutjob -- go look at any political article for proof; while the RP contingent is vocal, they're very, very far from alone. Almost everyone will agree that fair use is misunderstood, but some folks will claim that it's really meant to be a get-out-of-jail-free card for noncommercial (but otherwise outright) theft, while others will say that it's misunderstood by those who see it as anything other than a last-ditch legal defense with tightly limited scope. To be sure, there are folks who take any of the positions you caricature as part of the local groupthink -- but individuals taking all of those positions are far more rare.

Now please stop the ad hominem attacks against a strawman "groupthink" that doesn't even exist.

err... no...

He is the same kind of species as the "butthurt patriot". They both make silly, simplistic statements that show they don't really understand the world at large; neither do they really care to. They prefer the caricature version that paints themselves and their own society as superior and anything that goes against this worldview is "propaganda". Remember folks, it is very easy to be critical and cynical of others. It is much harder to do that to yourself.

I'm an American that has lived in Europe for many years and this kind of thing pisses me off all the time. Americans who don't have a clue about Europe beyond FOX and stereotypes make broad brushed, dismissive comments about Europe; failing to understand Europe's history and why they are the way they are. Europeans are equally clueless about America, it's history and why the people are the way they are. Whenever I read about the US in Der Spiegel or The Guardian, the America I read about is not the place I know, but some strange construct seemingly created to make the readers feel smug and self satisfied.

Whenever people outside the monkey sphere come into discussion, all fairness goes out the window.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find the courtroom sketches accompanying the article a bit more cartoonish than is usual for courtroom sketches? They border on caricatures, especially the children playing in the video.

Now we can really show the benefits of online open ended album sales: Not giving asshole "artists" our money directly and honestly. These guys are such incredible douches. They shut down Napster, they have that god awful reality show, and now they are emulating the leading bands who have so wisely championed the online model, and done so successfully by understanding: A) The fans, and B) The market. Leave it to Metallica to FAIL at this and then give the RIAA et al a reason to say, "See?!? The online model doesn't work!!"

What a bunch of pedantic, sold-out, no-talent hack corporate whores.

Rot in hell Metallica.

Oh, and your voice sounds like the shitty caricature of real metal, by the way.

The others - glass eaters, neo-cons, and idiots who want to mix religion and government - those guys are ruining not just the party, but the whole planet.

In the first place, let me just point out that "Darwinism" and "neo-Darwinism" are terms used within the study of philosophy of science, quite often. Specifically, they refer to philosophical underpinnings of "species formation by natural selection". It does not imply, in any way, that Darwinism is a religious belief, and frankly those who are trying to misinterpret me that way are pretty much showing their collective arses.

Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

In the second place ... what term would you have me use? Would you have me spell out "species formation by natural selection" every time I needed to make reference to that concept? Evolution is not a sufficient term, since saying that species evolve is not the same thing as saying that such evolution is sufficient to explain the variety of species we have around us. Most creationists and Intelligent Design types (and, no, they're not the same thing, which you would know if you had ever bothered to study them directly instead of just taking the party line) will acknowledge some sort of evolution. However, to equate evolution within a species to "species formation by natural selection" is a horrible fallacy of composition.

In the third place ... if the shoe fits, wear it. The whole point of my post was that "Darwinism" has been attributed an importance it doesn't really merit, for ideological reasons. In response to that core point, I've gotten many screeds about the importance "evolution", on a micro scale, in understanding modern biology--which just shows how little people understand about the Intelligent Design movement. Intelligent design does not deny evolution--it denies that evolution is a sufficient explanation for the variety of biological diversity we see around us. It makes no appeal to the Bible or anything else to justify this--instead, the critique proceeds on scientific grounds. They might be wrong, but they are not "creationists." Creationism proceeds on entirely different grounds--namely, Genesis 1-3--yet even the most hard core Young Earth Creationist will accept that natural selection and evolution are things that are now occurring.

Last of all, I kind of resent being painted as a fundamentalist. I thought I made it fairly clear in the parent post that I actually accept "species formation by natural selection" as a scientific theory. I think that the poorly thought out, ill-informed way in which people have responded to my original post demonstrates exactly the point I was trying to make. Reading all the responses, it appears to me that much of the defense of "species formation by natural selection" proceeds on rather ignorant ideological grounds, driven by people who've never bothered to understand the real reasons of those they caricature.

I'm fairly certain that you have over-simplified and caricatured the situation a bit. The court system isn't, as a whole, broken. It's part of our checks and balances. What is broken is that federal judges are too hesitant to impose sanctions on those who deserve them.

First, I like Alan Dean Foster. I was actually being charitable to Cory comparing him to Foster. Foster is a talented word smith with a good sense of pacing and dramatic tension. But he writes fairly pedestrian space opera.

Cory writes about some fairly interesting ideas, but they aren't really that original. And he doesn't know how to flesh them out into an interesting plot. It's almost as if they aren't really his ideas, and he didn't listen that carefully when they were being explained to him. His sense of pacing is a bit off, and his characterizations are flat. Especially women, who come off as caricatures.

I haven't had anything published, but I've read over two thousand speculative fiction books and stories. I've discussed the genre quite extensively. I'm objective enough to recognize a good author even if I don't like their style or subject. I think Cory is a halfway decent author, and I can actually finish his books without throwing them across the room in disgust. If there's no new Bear, Benford, Banks, Baxter, Egan, Gaiman, Gibson, Hamilton, Mieville, Pratchett, Robinson, Rucker, Simmons, or Vinge around, I might consider reading something he wrote.

Where you think a station falls in it's bias is more indicative of where you are than where they are. But, they leaned quite a ways to the left the last I checked. Which admittedly was an episode of Bill Clinton chop-pointing at an old woman while telling Monica Lewinsky* that he did not have improper sexual relations with said old lady.

*a story which, you might recall, was broken not by the major news networks, but by a blogger commenting on a story the major networks were sitting on.

You probably think Fox News is extreme-right because of the commentary division, which actually is quite right-wing. (except Bill O'Reilly, who I am convinced is actually a caricature of a talk-show host from the point of view of a left-wing commentator). But the commentary division is not the news division.