Slashdot Mirror
The Great Firewall of China - Samples of Filtered Sites
Loligo writes "Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet & Society has released a study listing some of the sites filtered by Chinese internet connections. Sites about Taiwan are maybe understandable, but Red Lobster?" We've mentioned the ongoing Berkman study before; one of their interesting findings is that the list of blocked sites is a moving target, and some sites are blocked only intermittently. Here are summaries from The New York Times and MSNBC, by way of The Censorware Project. Update: 12/04 21:03 GMT by T : Seth Finkelstein points to his report "Searching Through the Great Firewall of China," which "describes a simple technique which can be used
with some search engines to bypass censorware bans on searching for
forbidden words. Particular emphasis is placed on the situation of the
Great Firewall Of China."
dunno why...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
maybe they think it is an attack on their communist government!
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
Filtering of taiwanese sites 'understandable'?
Filtering is bad, PERIOD.
TODO: Something witty here...
The Chinese govt doesn't want to embarass their citizens... so they are blocking sites like RedLobster.com to keep them from trying to say words like Wed Wobstew!
E V E R Y T H I N G I W R I T E I S F A L S E
That's interesting. Let me create, then, an "ancient Chinese secret":
while true; do wget http://site.intermittent.com;sleep 60;done
Kill Trolls Dead. Here's
well is it?
PHP is the solution of choice for relaying mysql errors to web users.
Sourceforge?
MIT?
The Learning Channel?
Why do these sites need to be blocked?
Also, for Red Lobster, it's only the receipe and lobster delivery sections.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
I dunno if any research has been done, but is it possible that they are taking offers from Chinese companies to block competitors' sites? I'm probably wrong on this, but it seems like one of 2 main possible reasons to do so.
I don't think the Mongolians will be able to get through this wall anytime soon....
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
They don't want their children seeing prawn.
Most revolutions start when such activities occur. I wonder if they decided to debate over the issue: 'Free access to all information available', or 'Block what we consider harmful to our socialist government and hope the people aren't smart enough to realize what we are doing'.
Sometimes I forget just how much I love the good old USA.
"This food is problematic."
This is what happened to the Censorware Project (censorware.org), for anyone wondering why the domain name has changed.
Tons of sites get 'filtered' by Slashdot every day.. for instance, thanks to the slashdotting (after 10 whole comments!), the Berkman Center for Internet and Society is also inaccessible to me..
Title: Sites Blocked in China - Highlights
Blocking quotient: inacessible due to slashdot effect
I submitted this earlier (and it was rejected), but it seems two Chinese citizens were executed for experssing their opinions on the internet, while countless others have been detained and tortured, the Chinese wont hear about it though because its on a blocked site.
here is more information on Chinas control
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
here.
From this perspective, I hope you can understand why they might find the idea of plunging a 'red' lobster into a tank of boiling water to be as offensive as any pornography our country has to offer.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
The US passes laws without much trouble that lets the gov't snoop on all citizens and arrest them at will.
Is the US that much better? At least in China I wouldn't be arrested (because I wouldn't be able to find the site).
"Time is long and life is short, so begin to live while you still can." -EV
Well that's about all the BBC had to say on it.
"Maybe Porn For Nerds, Stuff that Splatters." would get through OK.
Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated up.
It could be that they block the word "red" in sitenames to avoid anti-communist sites, but this would be a very generic and/or stupid filter (not that the firewall in general isn't stupid).
I can't hit any sites above (except for redlobster), so - does anyone know how to check if the GFOC blocks a particular site? How about sites like "redpaint.com".
The day I see a red lobster waving its claws is the day I start oiling my chainsaw garlic butter: "Evil Dead IV: Undead Lobster Grooviness!"
China blocks and censors the net? Look, in the USA we have the RIAA tracking people down, raiding colleges, shutting down file sharing networks, and censoring websites, software, music, movies, art, and everything else which they make a profit out of.
So its ok for the USA to censor in the name of Capitalism, but its bad for China to censor in the name of Communism?
I hate looking at such hypocritical stories, stop picking on China's government and fix ours. Lets talk about the fucked up DMCA, lets talk about the RIAA, lets talk about IP and the fact that none of us here have IP yet we all must sacrafice our freedom to protect something only 5% of our population owns.
Its pathetic, leave China alone for a moment and whoever is moderator of Slashdot, please post an article comparing China and the USA's censorship and see that we are just as bad.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
From the report : "He generated this list by collecting all 797 results from Google in response to an October 2001 web search using the search criteria "free adult sex," less two pages removed because they were found not to include sexually explicit images" Wow, poor man had to check 797 sites to make sure they had pr0n. Where do you sign up to help?
Probably the censors think "Red Lobster" is some sort of subtle political metaphor.
The tradition of allegorical criticism in Chinese literature and art makes that a suspicious name. When intellectuals want to confront the government in China, and this isn't just since 1948, they write a metaphorical poem about flowers. (When the leadership wants to prove they're still vital despite the criticism, they fake pictures of themselves swimming in the Yangtze river.)
Or maybe Red Lobster's on the list because of some sort of fluky algorithm -- though I doubt it. The Chinese economy is all about labor-intensive everything. Huge buildings there are coated in tile, because the material's cheap and the labor doesn't cost anything. They'd do this with brute human force. I imagine a beehive of busy IS professionals is steadily clicking through the internet every day, identifying illicit sites and disconnecting people who try to access them. Wow.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
If all of these sites China was censoring were protected by the DMCA, and there was source code or illegal files on them, suddenly its ok to censor it!
Are we complaining about China because they are Chinese or because of their so called censorship?
China isnt the country locking people up for sharing files, in fact up until recently it was perfectly legal to share your files, they had freedom of speech in that area until WE the so called freedom loving Americans forced them to adopt our censorship laws to protect our intellectual propery from the evil warez pirates of China who cant afford to buy our software anyway.
Its funny how we complain about every nation, China, Afganastan, Pakistan, Iraq, everywhere but if anyone dares complain about the USA they are unAmerican.
I expect to get flamed by a bunch of patriots who will tell me that America is not a country of hypocrites but if you look throughout history, this country was founded by hypocrites who said it was all about freedom, freedom to enslave millions of people and rob the natives of all their land?
So should the masses have absolute freedom of speech? No more DMCA? Or should the elite few people who happen to have some kinda intellectual propery, should these people have freedom to protect it?
I think considering 95 percent of us dont own any intellectual propery, why should we try so hard to protect it? It reduces our freedom.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
http://www.pigdog.org/decss/source/decss_mirror.ht ml
http://www.sharereactor.com/
oh lets not forget about all the illegal sites like hacking/security sites which I'm not even allowed to legally LINK to.
And what about that site with the illegal Microsoft Windows 2000 Beta source code?
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
I can understand why Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews and other "undersirables."
I can understand why Britain wanted to keep the American colonies under their control.
I can understand why Bush ended up president.
I can understand why my ex-girlfriend broke up with me.
I can understand why the police officer doesn't cut me any slack when he pulls me over for speeding on an empty highway at 3 in the morning.
In more than one of those cases that understanding involves realizing and accounting for the fact that the people involved were immoral nutcases (you can try to guess which is which if you wish =) but that doesn't prevent me from understanding why they choose to do the things they did, given their view of the world.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Quick perusal of the list showed that www.ski-red.com is also blocked, as is www.redhorserecords.com. Perhaps they are blocking sites that have red as a URL component.
That is the worst pun I've seen on ./ in a long time
Making for a "+5, Funny" moderation probability of almost 100%.
There's a huge difference between censoring out any objection to the government, and restricting the flow of recordings of Britney Spears attempting to sing.
The RIAA is trying to restrict the flow of entertainment, in an effort for them to try to make more money. However, over-the-air TV and radio remain, so as long as you have reception equipment you can still receive some limited choices of entertainment programming.
China is restricting the flow of information and opinions, so that the abuses of the government's power go undectected because nobody is allowed to talk about them. That is what is absolutely unacceptable.
Let's keep RIAA-bashing in its designated threads, because although what the RIAA dpes os bad, what China does is worse.
So with that reasoning all the things that can be seen as offensive to some is to be censored? I personally find religious acts offensive, like eating the flesh of the alleged savior to name a grotesque ritual, does that mean I have a case for banning religious sites? Think not.
Help fight continental drift.
Come on, there is a huge difference between not being allowed to redistribute pictures, music, and text that is not your own... and not being able to create and publish your own pictures, music, and text.
Censoring the ability to publish in the first place represses the people, and makes them unable to complain when the government abuses its authority. At least here in the USA, you're allowed to complain about the DMCA all you want.
BTW, you do own intellectual property. That nonsense post you just made is yours. It's worthless, but that's because of its lack of quality... it's not even worth the Slashdot mod points it has now.
Create content people value
?????
PROFIT!
How is it different? The record companies hold a monopoly, they are no different than government.
The record companies, Microsoft, or any of these big giant companies, they are just like government, they tax you for stuff you dont even need like Microsoft Windows coming with your PC even if you dont want it, or record companies trying to rob you and musicians at the same time with $30 cds.
So because our government is Capitalist somehow we are immune to the problems China has? Hell no, we have the same problems, we are run by big business and China is run by elite government officials, both of us however are not run by the people.
No one in the USA but these big businesses want intellectual property. I dont know ANYONE who thinks napster and file sharing should be illegal, I dont know a single sick person who wants their medicine to cost x10 more money because of patents, and I dont know anyone in general who makes money from patents, even musicians i know make most of their money from concerts.
The only people making money from the patent and intellectual property industry are fakes like britney spears and guys in suits who sit around bossing people but who have no purpose.
We are a democracy right? I'll believe it when file sharing and marijuana are made legal.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
"...whoever is moderator of Slashdot, please post an article comparing China and the USA's censorship ..."
Oh no. He has summoned the moderator John Katz.
RUN!
...the leaders are idiots. No, really, they are. My family moved here from China because they were tired of living in a police state run by idiots with absolute control over everything. They're gradually getting better, but they've got a long way to go.
China has a long history of being run by idiots. A long series of emperors squandered China's treasures and people to build stupid things for themselves, like stone armies, terraced mountains, and The Great Wall. The Great Wall of China was started by a schizophrenic paraniod emperor who was afraid of being attacked from the north. It was continued by his descendants, who didn't have the sense to look at this project and realize it was a Big Waste Of Time.
What usually happens is that an imperial dynasty is started by a strong, good emperor, and then all his descendents are idiots. Eventually, they get overthrown by another group that sets up another imperial dynasty, and the cycle starts over again. Sort of like what caused the French Revolution, except it kept happening every century or so. The Communists are just the last in a long line of dynasties.
Hardline Republican = FUN BAD
Hardline Democrat = FUN BAD
Hardline Muslim = FUN BAD
Almost all humor makes fun on somebody.
If the same person saying you shouldnt do something is doing it themselves whats that say?
Remember being a kid and your parents said "dont drink, dont smoke, dont do drugs" but they did it right in front of you? It kinda makes you just ignore anything they say and rebel.
This is how the USA sounds, like the parents of the world telling the world what they can and cannot do.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
perhaps the submitter thought this was everything2.
Hardline Christian = FUN BAD
>> they must have good hosting =)
one of the nice side effects of running a for-profit business.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Perhaps the advertisements for "All You Can Eat Shrimp" are, in the eyes of the censors, indicative of Western excess... :)
So how is this different than the current administration in power in the USA? :-)
We have successful, capitalist, legal-schooled morons versus soon-to-be-successful, partial-capitalist, state-schooled idiots.
You just can't win.
This space for rent.
Selective reading, my friend? There's plenty of US, DMCA, Congress-bashing all of the time. Look at nearly every Slashback in recent memory...
Actually, the only reason that China gets so much bashing is that, well, inside of China you don't get to bash them. In America (and Europe, and many if not most other places), we get to bash our government in every medium, as often as we're willing to bother. Granted, it gets old eventually, so we tend to concentrate on something more important to us personally. Like which Willow is better
We all know the USA is not perfect so what gives us the right to Bash China as if we are better or something?
Our government doesn't do what China's does. It doesn't censor directly; it doesn't ban religions (even pseudo-religions); it does allow criticism and free political speech.
And when someone criticises the US, our government doesn't throw a hissy fit. You haven't noticed us breaking diplomatic relations or trade ties with Germany, now, have you? And you won't; our goverment disagrees with Germany's government (hell, it disagrees with me too!), but that isn't going to interfere with business as usual. And note, the US criticizes Germany's stance on declaring Scientology a cult rather than a religion, so such disagreements are certainly not new nor interesting...
As citizens and residents in the US, we have the right (check the First Amendment here) to whinge about not only our government, but our neighbors and city councilmen and international conglomerates and the French... and yes, the government of the PRC. Get used to it, bucko, it's a big world out here
Ok I understand us Bashing the taliban, but China?
China does some very nasty things; to wit:
So, my lad, if you can't take the heat, you'd best get out of the kitchen!
> My comment can be quoted whenever, wherever, so long as you bloody well provide attribution! >
(the following is a slightly modified email that I sent to the people who did the study. I did get a response, but I will not post it since I didn't ask for permission.)
...Or perhaps to an increase of users in a particular layer of Chinese society?
******
It occured to me that this is only interesting because of the very large number of potentially affected people. If the same study was done about filtering in the country of, say, Morocco, I probably would not have bothered to read it. As such, I feel that the analysis sort of begs the question. How many people in China actually have Internet access, and what parts of the society are they in?
If only 1% of the country uses the Web on a regular basis, and 90% of those are "well to do", then the filtering has much less significance because the potential impact of Internet access is already minimalized.
(I have made the assumption that "well to do" citizens are less likely to want to modify the status quo, meaning that Web content would have minimal impact on their actions, filtered or not.)
Does an increase in filtering correalate in any way to an increase in Chinese Internet users?
******
(The gist of the response was that the study was not concerned with any implications of the filtering, just the filtering itself.)
In China, you can't have red animals!
It would make comunism look too underdeveloped for the human race.
Punny isn't funny if the viewer isn't punny. However, punny isn't punny unless people don't find it funny.
What happens if a punny person meets another punny person? They go out and have a steak and eggs--instant breakfast. (And, pretty quickly, friends.)
What's this Submit thingy do?
So thats still censorship, you can re-word it any way you like, it doesnt matter if the governments censoring me, or the creator of something is censoring me, i'm censored and i dont like it.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Here are the names of the highlighted blocked sites. I have all the other stats too but the filter system won't let me post them for some reason.
Title: Asian American Baptist Church
Title: ABC.com
Title: ABC Online
Title: About Reuters
Title: Association of Christian Community ComputerCenters
Title: American Cancer Society - Northern California Chinese Unit Air Intelligence Agency
Title: AltaVista - The Search Company
Title: MIT Alumni Association
Title: American Feed Magazine Welcome to America's Party
Title: Amnesty International USA - Defending and PromotingHuman Rights Worldwide
Title: Center for Anti-Communism The Nando Times
Title: The University of Arizona
Title: The United States Army Homepage
Title: Russian Christian Orthodox church in BostoUSA
Title: MIT Computer Architecture Group Home Page
Title: Christian Academy in Japan
Title: The Cancer Information Network US Army War College and Carlisle Barracks, alsoCenter for Strategic Leadership, Military History Institute, ArmyPhysical Fitness Research Institute, Parameters, and Strategic Studies Institute CBS.com
Title: Welcome to ITS
Title: Charlotte.com - Your Guide to Charlotte
Title: Welcome to the US Army Research Institute of ChemicaDefense
Title: Chichester District Online
Title: The China Times
Title: Bilingual Chinese children's books, Chinese movieDVDs, Chinese cultural products! Learn Mandarin Chinese, LearnCantonese, books, traditional chinese music & songs, CD's, CD-ROM,stories, and cassett tapes. Chinese language/mandarin culture/heri christopherlydon.org
Title: Welcome to CKS International Airport
Title: Columbia University
Title: Le Consulat General de France - Hong Kong Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS)Calgary/Banff Chapter
Title: The Stanford Daily Online Edition
Title: Deep Impact Defend AMERICA - US Department of Defense News AboutThe War on Terrorism
Title: DefenseLINK - Official Web Site of the U.S. Department of Defense
Title: DFW.com - Your Dallas/Fort Worth Everything Guide
Title: Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) Home Page
Title: DefenseLINK - Official Web Site of theU.S. Department of Defense
Title: Defense Technical Information Center
Title: Study Tour to JAPAN 97
Title: Economic Services (Macau) MIT EECS - Home Page
Title: Taipei e-campus
Title: Environmental Protection Agency - Taiwan
Title: Falun Dafa Canada Falun Dafa in Ireland
Title: Canada Family Action Coalition - CFAC
Title: Faith Bible Church, Seattle, WA USA
Title: Feng Shui USA Homepage Federal Judicial Center
Title: The Free Methodist Church in Canada - MAINPAGE
Title: Fair Trade Commission - Taiwan Japan Fukuoka Mission
Title: Government Information Office, Republic ofChina
Title: The George Washington University Haneda Japanese Tutorial School
Title: The Happy Hacker -- the web site computer criminalsdon't want you to visit!
Title: Integrity Episcopal Church U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence
Title: INTERHIT RECORDS ONLINE
Title: Irish Chronicle: news from Ireland and around the world Ice Rink Management Asia & Ice Rink Resources
Title: CIC - Canberra Islamic Centre
Title: Islamic Virtual School
Title: The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs Israel Tour Connection - Free Bar/Bat Mitzvah toIsrael
Title: The Judicial Yuan of the Republic of China (Taiwan) Kaohshiung - Taiwan's Maritime Capital
Title: Kinsman Redeemer Ministries
Title: Los Angeles Times
Title: Welcome to the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science
Title: The Learning Channel
Title: The Legislative Assembly of British Columbia
Title: MIT Libraries
Title: Wellesley College Library
Title: Miami.com - Your Miami Everything Guide
Title: The Official State Web Site of Mississippi Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Title: City of Light; The Path to the True Islam
Title: Critical in-depth studies of Christianity, Islam, Ismailism, Evolution and Atheism MotorBikeAssociation
Title: The Nando Times: Front
Title: U.S. Navy's Official Web Site: Welcome Aboard
Title: The National Guard Bureau Notre Dame Academy {Catholic High School inMiddleburg, Virginia}
Title: National Public Radio
Title: oneworld.net homepage Parti federaliste du France - POUR UNE FRANCEFEDERALE - POUR UNE EUROPE FEDERALE
Title: Philly.com - "The Region's Home Page"
Title: FCIC - Home Page Radio Canada International
Title: Red Horse Records-Independent record label, recordingstudio, music publisher, distributor, and online music store. Bobby Carlson, Mustang Mesa, Michael Razz, Melissa Bates, and DebbiGrant.
Title: Red Lobster Seafood Restaurants - Recipes and LiveLobster Delivery
Title: Home Page: American Memory from the Library oCongress
Title: Saudi Times - latest news stories and topheadlines.
Title: æ--...å¥åç"Yèè¼æoefTaiwaStudent Club in Austria
Title: Welcome to the National Food and Agriculture HomePage
Title: Supercomputer Computations Research Institute Yahoo! Singapore News
Title: Singapore Millennium Study Tour
Title: Welcome to Red Mountain
Title: SonyStyle USA SourceForge.net: Welcome
Title: National Statistics of Taiwan, the Republic ofChina
Title: New Mexico State Government Welcome to Streamripper
Title: Sunnyside Jazz Records first page
Title: Scott Wiggerman's Poetry Pages
Title: Tibetan Incense Company : Incense for MeditationHealth and all Spiritual Practices
Title: Welcome to TIME.com
Title: The Truth in America Project
Title: Tucows Downloads - Download freeware and sharewarsoftware.
Title: United Nations Moldova
Title: Welcome to UNICEF Canada
Title: United Nations - daily news and currenevents
Title: The Federal Judiciary
Title: Official Website for the United States Marine Corps Uyghur American Association
Title: Veterans Affairs Commission, Taiwan
Title: Voice of America
Title: washingtonpost.com - News Front Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Title: Space Science Division, NASA
Title: The University of Virginia
News media sites are also often blocked. Among those users had trouble reaching in the test period were National Public Radio, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and Time magazine.
Though China says a main justification for censorship is the proliferation of pornography, its blocking of such sites is less dogged. The study found that China blocked fewer than 15 percent of the most popular sexually explicit sites. Saudi Arabia banned 86 percent of the list.
I can view 85% of the worlds pr0n in china....COOOL..oh wait...no red lobter? Awww nuts!
Live for the present, learn from the past, and dream of the future!
Keep using those PERIODs as a lazy substitution for an otherwise truly poignant and resonating idea, and you'll can make every other idea the rest of us value (Freedom of Expression, Due Process, etc.) seem trite. I'm serious. Every thoughtless regurgitation of an idea wears down the effect of that idea.
...and could you moderators please raise your standards a little?
You might as well scream, "Information wants to be Free!"
If you want to be the next Richard Stallman hardliner, you should note that Richard Stallman always puts the effort into explaining his vision rather than simply asserting it with cheap dramatics.
I'm sorry I had to be tough...
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
We dont even need oil anymore, we have more efficient cheaper almost free energy. The only reason oil is used is because oil companies want us to buy oil, the only reason iraq is so popular lately is because Bush has stock in oil companies,
Businesses run this country, its not about the economy at all, its about big business. Big businesses are actually bad for the economy because small businesses actually are the backbone of any economy.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Even without using sourcecode just describing how it works is illegal, you'll be sued and fined
yes this is not as bad as China but you dont have any more freedom than China the only difference is their punishments are more harsh.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Actually... They both point fingers at each other. Look at http://censorware.org/ or http://stalkedbyseth.com for Michael's side of it.
Personally, I think it this battle is an utterly childish act on both parts and its disgusting to see a perfectly good URL (censorware.org) used for this rediculous Michael vs Seth soap opera.
At this point, no one cares who is at fault, but many slashdotters would be very happy if one or both sides would just fucking grow up and quit furthering this war of egos and blame throwing.
Peronsally, I'd like to see censorware.org turned back into what it was supposed to be. Michael owns it, so he should be able to do what, even without Seth on the project. If he can't then he should turn it over to more capable hands, such as the EFF or Amnesty International or someone who actually wants to create a nice site which educates about censorware instead of pushing a personal grudge against someone else.
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
You don't own math because you commented on a particular sequence of numbers.
You don't own the internet because you commented on a particular sequence of words.
Just like in America, you don't own your country just because you trudged to the polls and voted once.
It just doesn't work that way. Period.
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
your problems with the us and its attitudes are really problems you have with human nature. you are not in conflict with the us and its policies, you are in conflict with human nature itself. what you see as evils the us does are evils done by every government that has ever existed. china has not done these things! ha! that is laughhable.
china is on the rise. in the near future, china will be more powerful than the united states. then it will flex its muscles. there has never been, or ever will be, a country that has not risen to power and "stayed to itself."
but this is tiresomely obvious. you are like a twelve year old. if you were my twelve year old, maybe i would have patience with your naivete. but you shoot your mouth off, and don't think, or have any real experience in the world, so i do not desire to have a conversation with you, as you are tiresome and naive and loud. grow a real conscience, with some real wisdom and understanding of human nature, then post again.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Yes I can believe all the individual state governments combined with federal may pay this much.
However the federal government doesnt pay hardly any of this, most of this number is made up of state government. We arent talking about republicans running for governor of massachussets complaining about high taxes and welfare, I'm talking about guys like President Bush who want to cut FEDERAL taxes down to almost nothing (trillion dollar tax cut) which only forces states to raise taxes so we never actually SEE a tax cut unless we live in the middle of no where like he does on a ranch somewhere or in idaho.
To people living in the city or in highly developed economic centers we have high taxes, its a fact of life, we NEED high taxes because we have more people, we have more poverty, we have more crime and we also make more money so when you give a number like 430 billion its nothing if the state makes hundreds of billions of dollars.
Silicon Valley most likely has hundrreds of billions in its economy, as does Washington,
"Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year. That is over 30 percent more than the Cato Institute's 1997 corporate welfare estimate of $65 billion. If corporate welfare were eliminated tomorrow, the federal government could provide taxpayers with an annual tax cut more than twice as large as the tax rebate checks mailed out in 2001.
President Bush's first proposed budget recommends about $12 billion in total corporate welfare cuts. Most notable are the proposed cuts for the Advanced Technology Program, the Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the Maritime Administration's guaranteed loan program, and the Small Business Administration. However, the Bush budget proposal also increases some of the largest corporate welfare programs, such as federal aid to oil companies through the fossil energy research and development program and research subsidies to aerospace companies as well as increases for the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Foreign Agriculture Service, and the Conservation Reserve Program."
So our government can spend money on keeping corperations alive with welfare but it cant spend this same money to go over to south central LA and give venture capital to some minorities who want to start new businesses for their communities?
Its stupid.
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guide0
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Even if you ignore what happened before, the current situation is that the Censorware project had to start up a new site at censorware.net, and Sims is using the original URL - censorware.org, as a rant page against Finkelstein.
Sims admits at the top of this page that many people visiting it will be hoping to find information pertaining to censorship. However, rather than do what most people who claim to be concerned about censorship would do (allow the visitor to get the information they are looking for), he just rants on about Finkelstein.
Seemingly, for Sims - ego and flaming Finkelstein gets a higher priority than educating people about censorship. Don't take my word for it, visit censorware.org and see for yourself.
Oh, also - be warned. Sims is known to use his Slashdot editor status to remove these discussion threads, claiming they are off-topic (he can't really use that excuse here).
which is why rabbit is a commonly eaten animal in a lot of the Christian world. I know its at my grocery store.
(It's kind of lean and best moist cooked. I smoked it wrapped in bacon, which wasn't bad.)
So why is it that they don't block porn? I know, they don't care about porn, they care about people who promote freedom. They blocked Slashdot too. I'm not sure about the Red Lobster thing, but Limbaugh's show is sponsored by Red Lobster restaurants. might have something to do with it, let's go see! Nope, nothing there. Looks like another corporate suck site, much like China itself.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Email. When border routers in China discard packets destined to or received from certain hosts, we understand that they typically do so without regard for the specified protocol of communications. As a result, email messages are typically filtered when sent to or received from blocked sites.
So the next English email you get from China may have missing words, not just bad English.
Twitter knows no Asian language, not even Sanscrit and that's been around forever. Shame.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Ah, but do you find it grotesque...
...because the practice is inconsistent with the beliefs of the practitioners...
...or because the practice is inconsistent with your own religious beliefs...
...or because you believe that all religious beliefs (and the practices which stem from them) are inconsistent with your own experience and interpretation of reality?
Clever context-shifting can make almost any practice seem grotesque. And if you categorically deny that religion has any value except to dupes and demagogues, you may be significantly less inclined to correctly interpret the meaning of religious ceremonies.
Last time I checked, Xtians engage in the communion ritual as a metaphysical act--it symbolizes the integration of the deity's holy qualities into every aspect of the practioner's life. In the same way that food nourishes the body, so does the deity nourish the soul, is how the analogy goes. It's a powerful image, and one that focuses the mind of the practitioner on the fundamental principles of their faith. Misguided, maybe, but certainly no more "grotesque" than burning Guy Fawkes in effigy.
Given the opportunity, I'd readily consume the divine flesh of a god, freely offered, to gain some portion of their power. But such an opportunity probably wouldn't be literal, anyway. Applying physical rules to metaphysical phenomena is kind of silly. What if eating literal food is the grotesque act, and the intake of the deity's holy power is the true phenomenon our dinnertime caricatures?
I'm not saying they're right, or anything, but it doesn't seem grotesque at all, in context. Out of context, a valid interpretation is difficult to find.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
do they say 'clayfish'? Renmin Gongheguo.
Idiot.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Because, of course, the pagan demographic was sitting there, saying, "well, I'd really like to get into that Xtian thing, but... there's not enough bunnies."
Seriously though, what's your point?
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
*sigh*
/., since this crowd is so *#*@@ clueless about such matters... but, here goes.
I always dread seeing political issues on
It is illegal to possess or distribute certain types of content in China. The penalties for doing these things can be quite severe. It does not matter whether a site is blocked or not. If you get caught viewing porn, that is a crime. It doesn't matter if you got it from an unblocked site or from a blocked site via some circumvention technique. Circumventing the law (any law) is also a crime in China (as it is in the US and many countries), and that is a separate crime over and above the crime of possessing/distributing forbidden material.
China's net control is not limited to blocking of the internet. They also do very extensive monitoring, thanks to their friends at Cisco. Think "FBI in the 50s" - lots of people collecting lots of files on lots of other people. Just because you can view restricted material does not mean you are getting away with anything. In fact, it is much more likely that you are not getting away with squat. They are just sitting on the info should they ever need to use it.
That said, China is primarily concerned with people who are distributing illegal materials. People who are engaging in this activity are doing so with full knowledge of the (possibly severe) punishments. This makes them either heroes or troublemakers, depending on your political view of the stuff they are distributing (i.e., kiddie porn vs. leaked gov't papers).
If you want to stop the censorship, you need to understand why the censorship is there in the first place. The sophomoric attitude of "we should force the US way on the rest of the world" is overly simplistic at best, and is one of the reasons other countries hate us. It is no help to the people actually trying to solve real problems and create change. The social and political situation is very different in China than in US. The attitude of the people towards the government, and the role government plays in the society is quite different. The US was founded on an extreme distrust of government, so it is hard for us to understand cultures who do not share this distrust.
For example, try to imagine this in the US: a senior military commander is arrested and thrown into prison. After many years, he is released. The government (this is the same government, mind you) tells him that after much investigations, it was a mistake, gives him an apology, gives him his back pay, and gives him his old job back, commanding a large part of the military. When asked about it, he says "everyone makes mistakes."
Sidney Rittenberg once said something like "The Chinese government is among the most corrupt, repressive, dysfunctional governments on Earth. It is also one of the best, and is the only one that can save China." This is from a man who lived in China 35 years - 16 of which were spent in Chinese prisons.
Most Americans also have comically extreme anti-communism attitude burned onto their collective subconscious from the 50's. Why otherwise intelligent people don't realize this is just BS government PR is beyond me. In any case, China is hardly communist in the Marx sense anyway - it is really a socialist state with increasing privatization. In some ways, it is even more capitalistic than the West. China describes its system as "socialism with Chinese characteristics", and I think that is pretty accurate.
BTW, China is NOT anti-Internet. China provides free (28.8 dial-up) internet access to their citizens. As of 10/2002, there are about 40 million internet users in China, growing at about 3%/month (from http://www.stats.gov.cn).
At the recent Chinese Communist Party Congress the leadership gave a ringing endorsement of market based systems and capitalism.
Perhaps the sites with the word "red" in them are blocked because they represent the "old" way.
More likely however is there were some anti-communist or anti-China sites with "red" in the URL and they decided to block anything with "red" in the URL.
Then again maybe RedLobster is owned by the Taiwanese.
Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
I find it quite amazing that when talking about US foreign policy people completely forget something called the "cold war".
The deadly antagonism with the Soviet Union dictated completely the foreign policy of the USA from 1945 to 1989 and can even explain a lot of the current policy (e.g. the relationship with Israel).
So why don't people ever think about or discuss it? I guess they have a 5-minute memory after watching too much bad tv.
"Marketing" is a distinctly modern concept. You may be thinking of "syncretism", which has a different set of motivations and desired outcomes.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
We might find pornography offensive, but that's no justification for violating freedom of speech. The only justification for curtailing freedom of speech is to protect other equally important rights, such as privacy, and the right of a crowd to safety (i.e., no "fire!"), and the right to one's life (i.e., "kill him" from a mob boss to a hit-man isn't covered under free speech).
We also might find pornography involving use of religious objects -- i.e., a crucafix as a dildo, or an S&M scene in a church where a woman's tied to the crucafix on top of the statue of jesus -- offensive, but that, again, does not allow the violation of freedom of speech.
Since the official religion of China is none at all (atheist) according to the government, they shouldn't care about this anyways.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
HanzoSan, I suspect this is just flamebait, because the differences obvious. Set down the crack pipe for a moment and listen up:
The RIAA, MPAA are not government entities. they are private organizations. they are composed of citizens.
The people they have problems with (those illegally pirating music and movies) are also citizens.
One of the functions of government is to preserve the rights of its citizens. In this example we have a struggle between the rights of different citizens. On the one had we have Hilary Rosen and crew, who, under our current scheme of fostering content creation, have the sole right to distribute the music and movies they create. On the other hand, we have the fair use rights of consumers, who must be allowed sufficient flexibility to enjoy their purchased content however they see fit.
There's this famous quote by one of the founding fathers of this country (I forget who) "the right for you to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose". Analogously, we need to pass laws that allow both parties sufficient room to swing their fists while still outlawing the hitting of noses.
Now, in this case, I completely agree that the laws (DMCA) are too much in favor of the content creators and do not preserve the rights of consumers enough. I not only hold this view, but I have acted on it on many occasions though letters to politicians and donations to related groups.
This is not "the USA [censoring] in the name of Capitalism" at all. It is the USA passing laws that try to balance the rights of its citizens.
Our leaders are NOT censoring negative information about them. There is no firewall that separates americans from unamerican content on the internet. Criticism of american policy and laws is everywhere and legal. No one goes to prison for such criticism.
Are some powerful citizens in our society weilding that power to further their aims? yes. does that piss me off? yes. Is this somehow the governemnt controlling what we see and hear? no.
I'm in Wuhan,China.www.redlobster.com can be visited now.
We might find pornography offensive, but that's no justification for violating freedom of speech.
The freedom of speech is not, and should not be, absolute. Different degrees of freedom are available in different contexts. This is how things are now, in America, and it is also how they should be.
Community-- and, in this case, national-- standards of decency apply. If 51% of the community believes that pornography should not be available, then it will not be available. And if 51% of the community believes that boiled lobsters are offensive and should not be seen, then they won't be. If you, as a citizen, object to this standard, go convince enough of your friends to change their opinions until you have the support of 51% of the community. Until then, live by the rules.
In a truly free society-- which, of course, China is not-- the majority is free to make rules that govern the behavior of all. The fact that these rules were imposed on the Chinese citizens by their leadership is unjust, but it's hardly a crime against humanity. Worse things have been done by totalitarian regimes than this.
But if these same rules had been imposed by the Chinese people upon themselves, by the majority, they would have been completely justified in doing so. The cry of "You're violating free speech!" is ultimately meaningless.
Since the official religion of China is none at all (atheist) according to the government, they shouldn't care about this anyways.
It's not a religious issue. It's an issue of tradition. In this case, the two are closely related, yet distinct.
I write in my journal
Maybe I'm not Human? But I dont give a damn about Human Nature, using Human Nature is making an excuse for evil or for bad people,
I dont make excuses, if you are a serial killer, a rapist, or a greedy bastard CEO you are a bad person, this has nothing to do with "Human" Nature, this has to do with YOUR Nature as an individual.
When dealing with Good and Evil we cannot act like Evil is normal so we must ignore it, if its wrong we must stand up and fight against it.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
They did have Wars, but these Wars they had no choice but to have, It wasnt like the Japanese just deciding to attack us, or like us just deciding we want to attack Iraq.
China has had conflicts but they have not come all the way to the USA or to Europe and decide to take over.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Freedom of speech, as defined, should be absolute. Freedom of speech does not cover things like saying "murder him" or yelling "fire" in a crowded room or committing perjury under oath or violating other people's right to privacy. Why? B/c all of these things necessarily violate someone elses -- or many other ppl's, in the case of "fire" -- rights. Thus, freedom of speech is absolute until it intrudes on some equally important right.
The community right you speak of is non-sense. Just b/c the majority of the ppl want something does not make it ok, right, just, etc. According to you, b/c "most of the Greeks" voted to execute Socrates, it was OK. The French Revolution, where the masses voted to have people decapitated at their will, is also OK according to you. So were the Salem Witch trials, and lynch mobbings of African Americans. For that matter, slavery too.
The fact is, all of these things violated human rights.
What you are arguing is essentially the fallacies of ad populum and ad baculum: popularity makes right and threat of force makes right. Your ad populum is like saying "Millions of people believe in pyramid power, thus it must be true." Your ad baculum is like saying "I can beat you up, so I must be right and you wrong." Just because the masses happen to want something at the moment doesn't mean its right/just/etc.
I do support Democracy -- in fact, direct Democracy, as a replacement for the House and Senate, which are filled with corrupt individuals stealing our money and habitually giving themselves payraises. But the will of the people has to have limits as to what it can impose (hence the need for a judicial branch).
No, the masses should not have the right to silence speech which offends them. Granted, they have the power to do such if they organized, but that does not mean that they should or have the right to do so. History has shown that every time the unchecked will of the masses to prevail to be a disaster, a bloodbath, an atrocity. Ref. to witch-trials, revolutions, and lynch-mobbings.
Your conception of a truely free society -- where the majority is free to make whatever rules they want that govern the behavior of all -- is not free at all: its the tyranny of the masses. The same form of "government" which executed Socrates. The masses can violate freedoms just as easily as any other entity.
Furthermore, such a system as you propose would inevitably become unfree by even your own standards: i.e., masses say "X should be illegal, and trying to make X legal should also be illegal". Thus, at some later point, when most of society thinks X should be legal, they won't be able to try to make it legal because it's illegal to try to make it legal. Hence, the system which started out allowing the "masses the freedom to make any rules which govern the behavior of all" no-longer allows such.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
I did not mean to post that anonymously.
So... rather than a democracy, then, what system of government would you propose? I know you said you would support the idea of direct democracy, but you also keep harping on the idea that the power of the people must be strictly limited by these things that you call "rights."
Your idea is that we should live in a society where the people make the rules, but where they're not allowed to make rules that abridge what you call "rights." Right? Limited power, that's the key.
How do you limit the power of the citizenry? There are only two ways it can be done: through an external source of power, or through the actions of the citizenry themselves. For example, a king or ruling court or some such could veto laws that the citizens pass that infringe on these "rights" of yours... but at that point it's hardly a direct democracy. On the other hand, the citizenry itself could agree to limit its own power... but that would never work, because the majority clearly disagrees with your idea of what "rights" exist, so the first chance they get, they're going to change the rules and make laws that infringe on one or another of your notional and mythical "rights."
So what are you hoping for, here? To be declared king or something? Because otherwise your whacked-out, insane ideas of "rights" will never make it into law. Too many people disagree with you, and in a democracy, that means you get ignored.
Look at it this way: is Slashdot were a democracy, I'll bet I could get together enough votes to take away your posting privileges. Would that be a violation of your "rights?" Definitely. Would I be able to do it anyway? Definitely. Would anybody be able to stop me? If Slashdot were a direct democracy, there would only be one way: if you got together more supporters than I have and defeated my proposition in an election.
(Oh, by the way, your cries of "logical fallacy" continue to crack me up. Keep 'em coming.)
I write in my journal
Your idea is that we should live in a society where the people make the rules, but where they're not allowed to make rules that abridge what you call "rights." Right? Limited power, that's the key.
/.
Exactly.
through an external source of power, or through the actions of the citizenry themselves. For example, a...ruling court...could veto laws that the citizens pass that infringe on these "rights" of yours...but at that point it's hardly a direct democracy.On the other hand, the citizenry itself could agree to limit its own power...but that would never work, because the majority clearly disagrees with your idea of what "rights" exist, so the first chance they get, they're going to change the rules and make laws that infringe on one or another of your notional and mythical "rights."
Well, the majority of people just want to be left alone. Most people don't want their neighbors or the government prying into their bedrooms. They don't want the government or anyone else telling them what they can and can not read.
In short, every individual does something or has some hobby that the rest of society would want to prevent him or her from doing, but yet that (s)he takes great (and harmless) pleasure/satisfaction from. Thus, no one would agree to let the will of the masses regulate their lives without any check on that power. No one would want their guilt or innocence -- which may mean execution -- to rest on the uninformed and emotional will of the masses. No one would, essentially, want their lives controlled by an unrestrained mob.
if Slashdot were a democracy, I'll bet I could get together enough votes to take away your posting privileges.
Nope, doubtful, for two reasons. (1) My comments often get modded very highly to 4 or 5; (2) I have more fans than freaks, and my fans include more senior members of
I will continue to criticize you for your logical fallacies. You seem to be implying that it is just that the will of the masses be obeyed. By that absurd argument, slavery, the Salem-Witch trials, and the lynch mobbings of African Americans were all OK. You then also seem to imply that might makes right; if that's the case, then the holocaust was right. Now, it may be that you are just being unclear. Perhaps you mean that the will of the people makes reality. But this is not true, not in China, not even in the US. The will of the people can make something a reality, if they organize. If you're arguing that its power that makes reality -- or the efficient excercise of that power -- then I'd say you're right, but power comes in many forms, from physical to persuasive.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Well, the majority of people just want to be left alone.
Would you care to back that up with some kind of fact or statistic? Or even an anecdote? I don't believe that most people just want to be left alone. I believe that most people are very much supportive of laws that you would deem to be unacceptable.
Which is kind of the point, really. The majority gets to make the laws. You did, of course, fail to describe how you would hope to institute limits on the power of the citizens to make their own laws, so that question remains defiantly open.
In short, every individual does something or has some hobby that the rest of society would want to prevent him or her from doing, but yet that (s)he takes great (and harmless) pleasure/satisfaction from.
That's a very broad generalization, too. What facts or statistics do you have to back this one up? I assert just the opposite: most people don't do anything that the majority of society would object to.
I will continue to criticize you for your logical fallacies.
Bring it on. I, on the other hand, will continue to point out your ignorance, your naivete, and your flawed-- even broken-- reasoning. We'll see who wins.
I write in my journal
Don't equate my explaining something with my saying that it is all for the best. I agree with you completely that all citizens of the world should work to eliminate politically motivated executions. However, it is duplicitous in the extreme to focus on China when US is no better, killing thousands in our various bombing campaigns. At least China is actually targeting people who have broken a law, instead of those merely having the bad luck to live in a certain country.
Unsurprisingly, most people in China do not want violent revolution and the economic collapse and mass starvation that comes with it. People want gradual, stable change. This is what the current government is doing. Slow economic reform that ushers in slow social reform. Things are better now than during the Student Movement. Things were better during the Student Movement than during Cultural Revolution. And so forth. The trick is to not let up, to keep pushing ahead slow and steady.
However, there are a small group of people who want radical change. These people want to destroy the government and do not care particularly if that destroys the economy as well. When you talk to these people, most of them haven't considered the economic consequences at all. In that sense, they are quite irresponsible. A lot of them don't even live in China.
It is completely understandable that a government would want to stop people who are plotting its overthrow. Every government in the world is against such action, including US and our crackdown on anti-government militia. The US constitution was originally designed to explicitly give citizens the right to plan violent revolution, but that didn't last long, and for the last 150 years or so we have been just like every other country.
In any case, censorship is a symptom, not a disease itself. If you fix the disease, the symptoms will go away.
In order to bring about continuing reform in China, we have to educate the government on effective non-violent, non-oppressive ways of dealing with people who are clamoring for overthrow. This is a mixture of rural education, prison reform, tough anti-corruption laws, increased openness in government, democratic concessions such as local elections, judicial reform, and so forth. There are people both in the west and in China - including people in the Chinese government - working on just these issues. Anyone who really wants to help should help in these areas.
Also, you are incorrect on several points.
First, there are many people on Slashdot - myself included - who live and work at least part of the year in China. I have no fear of getting arrested. This debate does not require any hyperbole.
Second, even amnesty international will admit that none of these people were tried, found guilty, and executed. The Chinese prison system is all about reforming people, not punishing them or executing them. Death sentences in China are almost always commuted. You are in jail until you know in your heart that what you did was wrong, and then you are released. This could take a very long time. Very different attitude than US, where prison is a punishment. People - far too many people - die in Chinese prisons, mostly from extremely poor living conditions and improper medical care. Of course, the longer you are in there, the more likely something will happen to you. But even with its much larger population, China has far fewer prisoners than the US. If you want to help, you should start by campaigning for better sanitation and medical care in prisons.
Third, contrary to popular US belief, China supports freedom of religion. There are many, many religions in China. There is a huge catholic church not far from the Forbidden City, right in downtown Beijing. What is illegal in China is to claim that the laws of your religion outweigh the laws of the state. This is very similar to US. The ultimate authority rests with the state, not with the religion. My religion cannot say it is OK to have multiple wives (in the case of the Mormons) or to have sex with children (in the case of the Branch Davidians). The "religious persecution" you hear about in China comes from people trying to use their religious beliefs to counter the laws of the land. Often these people are not even religious, and are using religion as an excuse for political agitation. The Tibet issue is a good example of this. In particular, you should do some actual research on sick bastards like the Fu Long Gong instead of believing what the US press spoon feeds you. It is the age of the internet - there is no excuse not to check these things out for yourself.
I believe that most people are very much supportive of laws that you would deem to be unacceptable.
So, according to you, the majority of people want the government to be able to arrest/prosecute them for sodomy in the states where sodomy is illegal, even between adults? Do you have any statistics showing that most Americans find rights-violations acceptable? Most Americans do not deem abridging free speech, just because it may be "offensive", to be acceptable. I.e., most Americans are offended by Mein Kampf, but think it should be allowed to be sold. Even if what you say is true, just becuase "most Americans" think a certain thing doesn't mean it should be put into the law, or that it is true. Most Americans believe in the Christian/Catholic God...that doesn't mean its true, nor that it should be put into the law.
Which is kind of the point, really. The majority gets to make the laws. You did, of course, fail to describe how you would hope to institute limits on the power of the citizens to make their own laws, so that question remains defiantly open.
Under our current system of government, the majority does not get to make the rules. The majority doesn't even get to elect the President (rather, electoral votes). All the majority gets to do is elect Congressmen and Senators, who invariably lie and deceive in regards to what they will do, and are easily influenced by big money from powerful corporate interests. Thus, the majority at the moment has little say or even influence.
What I propose is a simple modification of the current system: let direct democracy-type voting replace the current House and Senate. Why? Because its harder for the RIAA, MPAA, SIAA, MS, drug-companies, and other big-money corporations or corporate interest groups to bribe 300 million Americans than to bribe 500 or so elected officials. Thus, your criticisms of how I'm going to limit the power of the majority are dealt with. The power that the majority has would be limited by the same thing that limits the power of the Congress and Senate -- that is, the other two branches of government, the judicial and executive.
That's a very broad generalization, too. What facts or statistics do you have to back this one up?
Don't need any -- given the numerous number of things we do in our day-to-day lives, and the numberous number of things that offend people, its a certainty. The more pertinent question, however, is not "am I doing somehting that most people are offended by" but "in the future, is it possible most people will be offended by what I do."
I assert just the opposite: most people don't do anything that the majority of society would object to.
So, according to you, most people don't get drunk in public places, be insulting, drive recklessly or far over the speed limit at some point. The point is, that in your private life, there's going to be alot of things you do that many -- if not most -- people will object to. Oral sex, anal sex, S&M, corporal punishment, killing an animal for sport, chopping down a tree in one's back yard, racist joke, abortion, contraception, the after-pill, ethanasia, and being a lawyer and getting a guilty man acquitted. These are all things that the "majority" of people most likely finds offensive...yet, it is likely that most individuals have done at least one of these things, or does one of these things regularly.
The only one who's showing ignorance and naivete here is you. First, just because the majority of people think something does not mean that it's true or just. People used to think the Earth was flat and that slavery was ok. Second, just because the majority of the people want something does not mean it will happen. Almost everywhere on the Earth today -- including the US -- the will of the majority of the people is completely ignored...any influence the "majority of the people" have is at best indirect. Third, a direct democracy with unchecked power -- as you seem to suggest -- is not a good thing: it becomes nothing more than a lynch-mob, slightly any better than anarchy.
The simple truth about the "will of the majority" is that everyone thinks it should be obeyed when they are part of the majority; but when they aren't part of the majority, they think it should be restrained. Thus, a check on the will of the majority -- in the form of the judicial and executive branches -- is necessary.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Perhaps religion has much more than face value. Perhaps one of all these religions is actually true, historically and philosophically. Perhaps your rationalism cannot be taken at face value too. Perhaps rationalism is just a secular religion, and thus even more self-deceptive than most religions, or just as much as any.
Perhaps dogma exists before the rules, and actually fundament them. Perhaps the rules cannot be agreed upon in the absence of dogma.
In other words, perhaps there is really Something Out There, and perhaps there are really such stuff as Good and Evil, Right and Wrong, Beautiful and Ugly, Truth and False..
Perhaps the UN Declaration or the US Constitution are the byproducts of a semi- or post- or even plainly Christian culture. Perhaps the Bible has stood the test of time better than these pretty recent tests, and besides appeals to much more varied cultures that them.
Perhaps Man being autonomous from God is just a rationalistic Myth, and a bad one at that.
Perhaps.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin