Slashdot Mirror

some people believe if we allow gays to marry, we also have to accept pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, polygamy...

or howabout: if we try to control assault weapons in the usa, the government is inevitably going to take away all guns in the usa

or: if we teach evolution in schools, soon everyone will be a godless atheist

no: all of this is retarded hysteria. but some people actually believe this. because they are letting their irrational fears overpower their logical thought

as you are:

you believe if we accept child tracking by gps, we're on an unstoppable slippery slope into a black hole of everyone being tracked by gps

uh... how about no? how about you are irrational and fear addled?

there is no such thing as slippery slope. your fears are unfounded. why? because people understand the concepts and can think about the differences between children and others. you don't hold a monopoly on that ability

really

please lose your irrational fears and develop the ability for coherent logical thought. the idea of the slippery slope is a tool for propaganda, nothing more

Secondly, he didn't just walk up to them, open his trench coat and say "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" They were looking for stuff, so the FBI put forward a supplier.

Actually, the informant, Shahed Hussain, did go around saying things like that, in this case and another one, and federal agents have set up other people like that.

Hussain was a Pakistani immigrant who went undercover for the feds seven years ago to avoid deportation after being convicted of fraud. He was going around to mosques offering people money. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/23/nyregion/23informant.html And by being a government informant, (1) Hussain was getting paid a lot of money (hundreds of thousands of dollars, as I recall) (2) He got out of prosecution and possibly prison for his own crimes (3) Instead of being deported, he was allowed to stay in the country, which for a lot of immigrants is most important of all.

Hussain was responsible for a conviction in another case http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/11/nyregion/11plot.html in which he entrapped two men who never had anything to do with terrorism before, and who never could have gotten such weapons before, by loaning them $50,000.

One of the plotters in the current case needed money because his brother was sick. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/05/25/2009-05-25_terror_plotter_did_it_for_me_brother.html

Finally, if an FBI agent *had* walked up and said "Pssst, wanna buy some C4 and a Stinger?" and they said yes, then got busted, that'd stand up in court. Offering an illegal item for sale is not legal entrapment.

Well, depending on the circumstances it can be entrapment. If the person had no predisposition to commit a crime, and the FBI agent entices him by using an unreasonable amount of pressure, such as offering a huge amount of money, it can be entrapment. It's a jury question.

Cf. John Delorean's coke bust.

DeLorean was acquitted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_De_Lorean That's a good example of entrapment, because DeLorean was offered an unreasonable amount of money, in desperate circumstances, to do something he would not otherwise do.

Or anybody who gets busted for soliciting prostitution when the prostitute turns out to be a police officer.

If someone solicits a prostitute, that would show predisposition to commit a crime.

In contrast, a person who has never committed an act of terrorism, and has nothing to do with terrorists, who is enticed to take a large amount of money and then informed that it is for terrorist purposes, is entrapped, under the law.

Unfortunately, it's easy to manipulate juries with prejudicial issues, such as the defendant's race and religion. Right now, many jurors will be prejudiced against Muslim Arabs, and it's relatively easy for a prosecutor to get a conviction against them by using scare tactics.

A good example was Hemant Lakhani, whose case was the subject of a good program on This American LIfe. http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1088 One of the jurors agreed that he was entrapped, but she felt pressured by the other jurors to go along. Most people who listen to that broadcast would come to the same conclusion. But Lakhani is in jail for the rest of his life.

Next time around, the time will come for them to be prejudiced against another ethnic group or religion.

What was your race and religion again?

Enough with your "facts", you godless commie bastard! Anyone can prove anything they want when supported by the "facts".

Every time a new way to beat eavesdropping come out, the only thing mentioned is how we can now beat the censors of totalitarian regimes.

What about its other fun uses? Terrorists sending messages to detonate a bomb (defeating the godless atheist liberal censors trying to read their messages), drug gangs sending messages about who to murder (defeating the overbearing fascist police trying to read their messages), spies sending messages with national or corporate secrets (defeating the evil counter-intel agents), etc.

Are we really so naive that new techniques like this are only going to be used by oppressed do-gooders? Or that we'll agree that they shouldn't be oppressed and suppressed?

Hitler and company had some really wacky religious beliefs based on Christianity with all kinds of other things like Arthurian Legend, Norse, Indian and various other mythologies along with some stuff they just made up. He made heavy use of the Christian beliefs of the typical German to persecute the Jews (a religious and cultural group), Gypsies (a religious and cultural group, communists (godless commie bastards) and homosexuals (traditional religious punching bag). Is it really that hard to forget that Hitler rose to power on a religion-based ethnic cleansing platform and that his power in his own party was based in part on prophecies by Christian mystics?

Which media is "mainstream"? Is Rush Limbaugh, on more than 800 stations nationwide "mainstream"? Is Sean Hannity who's the biggest name on the biggest cable network "mainstream"?

I'm sorry, the fragmentation of the media has made descriptors like "mainstream" meaningless.

For the right-wing, "mainstream media" means anybody who doesn't agree with them. Just the way everyone who doesn't agree with them is a "socialist" or "godless".

If there is such a thing as the "mainstream media" it's the media that's owned by huge corporations, and their coverage is mainly protective of corporate power and nothing more.

Look at the way the debate over torture and other war crimes suddenly became a hollering match over whether "Pelosi Lied", and the "mainstream media" went along like the obedient puppies they are.

Look at the way every Sunday morning political talkshow on the "mainstream media" has a panel consisting of 2 republicans for every democrat. Look at the way conservative pundits like George Will or David Broder, who have been wrong about almost everything are considered worthy of attention by the corporate media but an economist who wins the Nobel Prize is considered a radical.

Sorry, the big corporate media in the US pushes the right-wing conventional wisdom and nothing more.

Bears, are Godless killing machines and not natural at all!

They have been inciting the other creatures of the world against us, and we must work to push back their influence.

Therefore, I believe no attempt should be done at reproducing it in a video game until several years after it has ended, and authenticity of events can be verified in a honest manner.

And for an example of your logic applied to movies, Rambo III. The one where Stallone helps a bunch of poor religious Afghani tribesmen fight off the Godless Russian Communists.

Hey, the Cold War was over, right?

The problem with your approach is that some wars never end. You wanna know who's responsible for 9/11? John Rambo.

Well, then to get back to that original point: what makes you think that playing as a Wehrmacht soldier in a WW2 game would be any different?

Virtually nobody wants to think of themselves as evil fucks, even _if_ they happened to be the ones who had a hint of what's happening. We've had millenia of inventing and perverting concepts like "honour" to rationalize killing someone else as "good". The humans natural instincts to not kill each other (see, mirror neurons) have been twisted against them jiu-jitsu style to rationalize doing just that. The human social urge to be liked by his tribe/group/community has been perverted into making him kill his neighbour, daughter (see, the atrocity known as honour killings), mother (see, the behaviour of some relatives in witch hunts), etc, and still think of himself as "good" or as doing something right and expected by said community.

So the individual German soldiers wouldn't think of themselves as doing evil either. If they had to rationalize it any deeper than "because they'll execute me if I desert", it would more likely be "because we're the world's last hope against godless Bolshevism. We must stop them or all civilized world will fall to it." That was the justification that the higher ups repeated left and right, including in the (in)famous Sportpalast speech.

Would it be morally wrong to play as a German soldier fighting to stop Bolshevism?

Well, that's funny, because that was exactly the justification given by the USA in Korea, Vietnam, or to bomb the allied Laos. We've had some 60 years of movies, novels, comics, and later computer games too, glorifying just that: fighting against the godless Bolshevism.

If someobody published a game where a good ol' American hero mows the russkies like Rambo to stop them from spreading Bolshevism, not many would have a problem with that. How many protested against Rambo II or the games based on Rambo II? So why would you or the OP have a problem with it if it's a German soldier doing just that?

And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rationalize WW2 or present it as "good." I'm actually finding it just as wrong when cold-war era aggression is glorified too. Just saying that at the bottom of it, things would be less different than some seem to think. For whatever that's worth.

Well, the main difference between Blade Runner and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is the theme: one is mainly about man (or android) revolting against God (or death) in a godless universe, the other is about the authenticity of emotions and empathy in a modern society of drugs & media. The story is basically the same, though (apart from the film's more spectacular ending, of course).

> Oh, but it is logical (when arguing these things, you must realise that there is an answer for everything...:) ).
> To repeat summarized from the link you haven't yet read

You know, it would be nice if you would re-insert the link you're talking about, rather than making me trudge backwards up the thread trying to guess which one you mean.

> Love requires free will or it is not love.

I disagree. I think love is not a choice. Acceptance, submission, obedience - those things are choices. Interestingly enough, those are the things the Old Testament God demands.

> Free will without consequences is not free.

Leaving aside whether we actually have free will or are just fated to believe we do, I don't think the God described in the bible wants us to have free will. He demands worship, and "surrender or die" is not truly giving someone a choice.

> If God desires his creation to love him, he must give them the ability to not love him(i.e. sin).

Disagree. It seems unfair to me to create a world in which some people won't love him, and then punish them for it. "You have a choice between A and B, but you're supposed to choose A." Is love without choice impossible? Is it a "square circle," a logical impossibility? Perhaps, but then the consequences of creating such a world must be acceptable to God or he would not have created it. It's hardly humanity's fault if he did.

Personally, I believe if there is a God, he is completely indifferent to what we do or want. At least a universe with such a God is completely consistent with a godless universe, which looks a lot like the one we see.

On the off chance you were not going for the funny mod.

Just because it was order dependent does not mean that order could not have occurred after a number of iterations.

First you all laughed at me. But Now everyone will remember that I was the lone voice warning against the Italian menace using ants to attack our wives, children, churches, base-ball parks and hot dogs. OUR HOT DOGS! Did we defeat the Godless soviet menace only to be bamboozled by a bunch of Italian ant-men? Now I'm not one to be spiteful. I love America and the American people. And I want to say that I love the Italian people, too. Most Italians are a good-hearted God-fearing people who are grateful for the freedoms We have given them. Italy has a rich cultural and historic tradition and a beautiful and expressive language, Mexican. But some militant Italians, poisoned by blind hatred for America and Americans and everything that is GOOD, are now trying to attack, subvert, and sap our Nation with their zombie ants. It is not too late America. We must unite as a nation and pray for the sprit of greatness that allowed us to defeat the Blacks and the Mexicans, and defend our freedoms, even if it means that we have to sacrifice some freedom to defend our freedom to be free from the Italian ant terror. GOD BLESS AMERICA and good NIGHT!

Hmm, -1 Troll. Must be a lot of religious nuts with Mod points this evening. (o:

"Those Frenchmen don't even have a word for entrepreneur"

a) A soufflé isn't an omelette....
b) Most hilarious comment I ever read....

"Sutherland says [...] 'The key turned out to be the order that the ingredients are added and the way you put them together -- like making a soufflé.'"

How much clearer does it need to be made to you amoral materialists that cooking dinner needs *a Chef*?

The only thing I regret is that Sutherland compared God's Work to making a "soufflé". Couldn't he have used a good Christian American recipe?

Like omelette!

Clearly they're finally through into the nougat layer.

Ah pity. I hope you come back to read this, I have been unable to respond until now.

Interestingly, I find that American liberals are very much about "rights" that the government owes them.

The right to free healthcare, the right to a place to live, the right to free food.
There is no responsibility for your actions, you will be taken care of no matter what. The lesson of failure is not a consideration.

Much of what you say comes from reading the papers. Fine, they are accurate to a degree, but they also don't tell the whole deal.

You don't hear about the abject poverty of people who rely on the government to supply everything. You don't hear about well intentioned "green" initiatives that end up doing more harm than good.

You also don't hear about the success of American Conservatives. You don't here the struggles of a California Representative that is trying to get funding to both save the Delta Smelt AND save the agriculture that depends on the water from the Delta.

The idea of tying conservatism and religion (not by you, specifically) is a smear job to be honest. It instantly vilifies and polarizes the issues.

The real question is, what does liberalism offer to the religious that they would want? I will give you a hint: it is not the "Anti-theists" that exist in the left wing of the political spectrum. (and that is the "conservative" smear, to claim liberals are nothing but godless heathens.)

The whole Republican == Conservative and Democrat = Liberal needle has swung a few times in American history. Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican, and yet he did more than anyone to make America 'green' and Progressive. Southern Democrats bitterly opposed the desegregation of America. It is just the current label.

Disclaimer: I am a California Democrat that votes Republican in most cases. Will vote for a yellow dog before I vote for an Idiot. That means you, Arnold.

Second, you are free to practice the faith of your choice or not, period.

"One nation, under God".

Really? Seems someone didn't get the memo then.

The pledge of allegiance was written by a minister in 1892. He didn't put the words "under God" in it. They didn't get added until 1954, during the height of the battle against the godless Commies. And since then, the pledge has been under criticism for those words.

So we did in fact get the memo.

Thank you for offering yourself up as a perfect example of an American who has bought into US propaganda hook line and sinker.

It's been proven that Korea is an information controlling dictatorship, and one of the symptoms of this is major propaganda. IIRC, more than one nation has commented on the amount of control the Korean government exerts, so therefore it's reasonable to expect massive amounts of propaganda.Just because a reasonable assumption is part of some propaganda somewhere does not mean that the assumption is propaganda itself. (IE: Dirty Godless Commies- Church was suppressed and heavily persecuted, so no one claimed a faith and were therefore "Godless")