China Closes 1,129 Web Sites

Also blocking sites in Thailand by angkor · 2004-12-22 23:04 · Score: 4, Informative

Something similiar is happening in Thailand: http://2bangkok.com/blocked.shtml

Re:Also blocking sites in Thailand by FRiC · 2004-12-23 16:06 · Score: 1

In Thailand, it just depends on the ISP, I looked at the list of the nearly 20,000 blocked sites and I can go to quite a few of them.

(A lot of the list is redundant, since the list shows individual hosts when in fact the entire domain is blocked.)

Who wrote this? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-22 23:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

You can barely understand this post, is this some undercover Chinese agent working for Slashdot posting propaganda?

Re:Who wrote this? by Lobo93 · 2004-12-23 01:51 · Score: 1

He/She must be; my left temporal cortex burst into fire while trying to comprehend the drivel. Thank Cthulhu for my substitute /. monkey(I R Bafoon). I really don't know what I would have done without him - he's such a cute litte fella!

Can I have a banana now?

Kreegah! Bundolo!

--
"The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll

Re:Whoa by JNighthawk · 2004-12-22 23:08 · Score: 1

Get what?

--
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.

So how long...? by FireFury03 · 2004-12-22 23:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

So how long until I can remove the block on a pair of CNLink's /20 networks from my firewall?

My web server was getting massively log spammed from them (even though I don't publish my web stats). The first time round I actually bothered to report the attacks to their abuse address but naturally got no response at all. So the second time I got attacked I had no choice but to just drop all traffic from both their /20's.

When will these ISPs realise they're shooting themselves in the foot by forcing everyone to just outright block their networks?

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org

Re:So how long...? by FireFury03 · 2004-12-22 23:17 · Score: 1

Uh... why would they stop those kinds of sites? That kind of service those sites provide bring in dollars to china.

Right, because China's internet access is going to be so great when the rest of the world have blocked the whole country...

--
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Re:So how long...? by Kosi · 2004-12-22 23:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

When will these ISPs realise they're shooting themselves in the foot by forcing everyone to just outright block their networks?

As soon as really everyone blocks them.
Re:So how long...? by NeoSkandranon · 2004-12-23 02:35 · Score: 1

It's not going to be THAT great when nearly everything of interest has been firewalled and made illegal to view.

--
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Re:So how long...? by $tefan · 2004-12-23 02:38 · Score: 1

in other news you can soon expect...
In Soviet Russia Web Sites are blocking China

Re:Whoa by The_Hun · 2004-12-22 23:10 · Score: 1

Maybe, that communism in any form is not acceptable. Just a guess.

--
Sig. under reconstruction.

China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by borgheron · 2004-12-22 23:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

So far it seems as though they've cracked down on:

1) Freedom of Religion.
2) Freedom of Expression.

Now, I know that we're not talking about the US here, so the Chinese don't have these rights. It's so blatant that the Chinese are never going to change their stance on human rights.

Gotta love the Chinese.

GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep

Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by tacocat · 2004-12-22 23:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

China Migrating from Socialism to a Capitalistic Republic. America Migrating from a Democracy to a Capitalistic Republic.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by onion2k · 2004-12-22 23:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

The article only states that the websites were 'illegal', not the actual law the sites broke. If these were child porn, for example, they'd have been shut down in any number of other countries. The 114 shut down for promoting gambling etc is a little more sinister, but again, theres lots of places in the UK and USA you're not allowed to promote gambling..

There isn't really enough information in the article to say either way whether or not China has actually done anything particularly bad, or indeed different to the way western governments would have reacted.

--
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by MrNemesis · 2004-12-22 23:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'll see your American capitalistic republic, and raise you a corporate plutocracy.

--
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by WIAKywbfatw · 2004-12-22 23:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's not so blatant to me. Change will come, but it will most likely come slowly rather than quickly, if for no reason other than China is a big country, with a huge population that enjoy a range of disparate lifestyles.

Sometime in our lifetimes China is going to become a consumer culture, consuming many of the goods that it already makes and exports to the rest of the world. My PDA was made in China. My keyboard was made in China. My colour laser printer was made in China. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Sooner or later, China's markets will open up to near Western levels. Chinese people will buy widescreen TVs, computers and designer goods. And when that happens, the gates will open too, albeit in a controlled manner. How strict those controls will be or how they will function is open to speculation but for over a decade now China has been becoming a more relaxed and less restrictive society.

Just because they have limits on internet access now that doesn't mean that they will always have limits on internet access. The US once had limits on the rights of blacks and women, yet it progressed from that point and China will to.

Don't forget, China isn't just a different country it's a different country with a totally different culture to that which we're familiar with in the West. Concepts that seem alien to us are natural to them, and vice versa. And, obviously, it's the negative aspects of Chinese society that always get played up rather than the positive ones.

And when it comes to things as subjective as human rights, please realise that there's an "eye of the beholder" aspect to be considered. You might regard China as being oppressive when it comes to religion or expression but there's not a country in the world that hasn't done the same at some time or another or that has its own human rights abuses going on right now.

So to recap, don't dismiss China as being stuck permanently on hold. China will progress and develop, but at its own pace and in its own time. Who knows when change will come and how suddenly. After all, the day before the Berlin Wall fell, or before Nelson Mandela was released, or any ground-breaking event, who would have predicted that such a radical change would come overnight?

--

"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by IO+ERROR · 2004-12-22 23:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

China Migrating from Socialism to a Capitalistic Republic. America Migrating from a Democracy to a Capitalistic Republic.

I'm afraid one of those is a little backward. Try this instead:
America Migrating from a Republic to a Capitalistic Democracy
If you think America was ever intended to be a democracy, you are sadly mistaken. The founding fathers considered democracy to be the most vile thing they could think of, even worse than the Crown from which they separated. That's why they didn't set one up here.

--
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by CGP314 · 2004-12-22 23:52 · Score: 1

I'll see your corporate plutocracy and raise you a fascist theocracy.

-Colin
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by DJTodd242 · 2004-12-23 00:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

...If this goes on...

Excuse me citizen. Nehemiah Scudder wants to have a word with you.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by borgheron · 2004-12-23 00:17 · Score: 1

I am quite familiar with the Chinese people and their culture. I was engaged to a woman from Hong Kong, who's family original from mainland China, for 6 years (it didn't work out for personal reasons). Also, I've been a student of eastern philosophy for much of my life.

It's these positive things which make me hate the negative things which I hear coming out of China so much. The fact that the government of China has absolutely no regard for the freedoms of it's people is gut wrenching to me. I guess this is why I get so cynical when it comes to stuff like this, because I'm so damn sick of hearing it.

I agree with what you're saying about the Chinese market. Perhaps that will help the human rights situation in China as well. When (not if) China wakes up and joins the modern world, the West is in for a shock of massive proportions. China has an awesome economic engine just waiting to get started.

GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by ratamacue · 2004-12-23 00:18 · Score: 1

Did you just claim that voluntary trade is the source of oppression?

Only government holds the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. You have implied that capitalism is somehow oppressive, which just isn't logical. True capitalism is entirely voluntary. How in the world can an act of voluntary association be oppressive?

You have to realize that what we have in the US isn't capitalism. Not even close. On the contrary, the US government is heavily entangled in the "free" market.

You're just going to have to find a different boogie-man. Capitalism is no more oppressive than any other act of voluntary association.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by rattler14 · 2004-12-23 00:29 · Score: 4, Informative

Please mod parent up. For details, please confer with article 4 section 4 of a little document I like to call "the US constitution"

http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt

we have a constitutional republic, it just turns out we've turned it into a democracy... aka the tyranny of the majority.

--
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by rossdee · 2004-12-23 00:34 · Score: 3, Informative

Mod -1 Obscure Heinlein reference
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by PasteEater · 2004-12-23 00:38 · Score: 1

You must seriously be kidding (as retarded as that sounds). From the Merriam-Webster website found here.

Republic- (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law

I don't mean to be rude, because you're right... we are slowly progressing towards similar governments. But let's not confuse things further.

Respectfully.....

--
There are two kinds of people in the world: those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by theskeptic · 2004-12-23 00:39 · Score: 2, Informative

Euphemisms the chinese govt uses:

superstitious propoganda- church. christianity.
cults- falun gong etc

Religious freedom is very heavily monitored. Read the article from the nytimes below.

THE GREAT DIVIDE | COMPETING FOR SOULS
Violence Taints Religion's Solace for China's Poor
By JOSEPH KAHN

Published: November 25, 2004

UAIDE, China - Kuang Yuexia and her husband, Cai Defu, considered themselves good Christians. They read the Bible every night before bed. When their children misbehaved, they dealt with them calmly. They did not curse or tell lies.

But when Zhang Chengli, a neighbor, began hounding them last year to leave their underground religious sect and join his, it seemed like a test of satanic intensity. He scaled the wall of their garden, ambushed them in the fields and roused them after midnight with frantic calls to convert before Jesus arrived for his Second Coming and sent them to hell.

Advertisement

Ms. Kuang poured dirty water on Mr. Zhang's head. Mr. Cai punched him. Yet Mr. Zhang persisted for months until the couple's sect intervened and stopped his proselytizing for good.

Mr. Zhang's body - eyes, ears and nose ripped from his face - was found by a roadside 300 miles from this rural town in Jilin Province, in northeastern China. The police arrested Mr. Cai and fellow sect members. One of them died in police custody during what fellow inmates described as a torture session.

China's growing material wealth has eluded the countryside, home to two-thirds of its population. But there is a bull market in sects and cults competing for souls. That has alarmed the authorities, who seem uncertain whether the spread of religion or its systematic repression does more to turn peasants against Communist rule.

The demise of Communist ideology has left a void, and it is being filled by religion. The country today has more church-going Protestants than Europe, according to several foreign estimates. Buddhism has become popular among the social elite. Beijing college students wait hours for a pew during Christmas services in the capital's 100 packed churches.

But it is the rural underclass that is most desperate for salvation. The rural economy has grown relatively slowly. Corruption and a collapse in state-sponsored medical care and social services are felt acutely. But government-sanctioned churches operate mainly in cities, where they can be closely monitored, and priests and ministers by law can preach only to those who come to them.

The authorities do not ban religious activity in the countryside. But they have made it so difficult for established churches to operate there that many rural Chinese have turned to underground, often heterodox religious movements.

Charismatic sect leaders denounce state-sanctioned churches. They promise healing in a part of the country where the state has all but abandoned responsibility for public health. They also promise deliverance from the coming apocalypse, and demand money, loyalty and strict secrecy from their members.

Three Grades of Servants, a banned Christian sect that claims several million followers, made inroads in Huaide and other northern towns beginning nearly a decade ago. It lured peasants like Yu Xiaoping, as well as her neighbor, Ms. Kuang, away from state-authorized churches. Its underground network provided spiritual and social services to isolated villages.

But it also attracted competition from Eastern Lightning, its archrival, which sought to convert Ms. Yu, Ms. Kuang and others. The two sects clashed violently. Both became targets of a police crackdown.

Xu Shuangfu, the itinerant founder of Three Grades of Servants, who says he has divine powers, was arrested last summer along with scores of associates. Mr. Xu was suspected of having ordered the execution of religious enemies, police officers said.

Yet such efforts rarely stop the spread of underground churches and sects, which derive legitimacy from govern
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by Krach42 · 2004-12-23 01:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not entirely. The US is a Democratic Republic. We are a democracy, just not as much a democracy as other governments.

Likely, China is a democracy. It just doesn't really mean much because the vote is so controlled. But they still allow *citizens* to vote. (Keyword: Citizen. If you define Citizen to be "white land-owning male" then you have early America, if you defined Citizen to be "member of the communist party" then you have what the USSR was)

This confuses the heck out of people when they're told that East Germany was "Deutsche Democratische Republik" (German Democratic Republic) Anytime I tell an American about this, they say, "But they were a communist state!" It just confuses people to pit Democracy against Communism. Because they're apples and oranges.

--

I am unamerican, and proud of it!
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by the+real+darkskye · 2004-12-23 01:02 · Score: 1

I'll see your fascist theocracy and raise your a technological dictatorship.

All hail friend computer!

Unless you are an evil commie trator!

--
Music is everybody's possession.
It's only publishers who think that people own it.
Fuck Beta
~John Lenno
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by huge+colin · 2004-12-23 01:14 · Score: 1

Why is allowing unchecked ignorant beliefs better for the greater good than cracking down?
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by redhog · 2004-12-23 01:26 · Score: 1, Insightful

You do realize that one needs to eat, drink and have shelter to survive? Thus, living in a capitalistic society, trade to gain those things is not in any way volontary. And if you have little resources, and the one you trade with have huge ones, you _are_ oppressed. Physical force is just one type of force. Economical force is at least as important. For an example of that, look at the EU and the US. The US have a much stronger military force, but they still can not do whatever they pleases, but have to negotiate on more or less equal ground with the EU, as the EU do have as big an economy and an as important market.

--
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by lbmouse · 2004-12-23 01:47 · Score: 1

In the Constitutional Convention of 1787, delegates adopted provisions that were anti-democratic because they were distrustful of the judgment of the common people. Many delegates wanted a democracy but the majority didn't think we could handle the responsibility.

This is similar to the Chinese government deciding what is best for its citizens.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by mab · 2004-12-23 01:57 · Score: 1

Your right but I prefer the Oxford definition here
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by High+Jumbllama · 2004-12-23 02:25 · Score: 1

The U.S has always been a republic no matter what they tried to tell the general public.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by redhog · 2004-12-23 02:37 · Score: 1

If you can not avoid an action of another human being, then that action is an act of force. It need not be physical force. And if you can only avoid it taking huge penalties of some sort (like not eating), then it is still force. There is no sharp border between volontary and by force, there are infinitely many levels in between, and where you end up depends on how free you are to opt out, that is, what you miss by opting out and how dependent you are on that.

--
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by arkanes · 2004-12-23 03:26 · Score: 1

Some people use the word "coercion" rather than force in this context to avoid this sort of pedantic ear-wibbling. You are correct, of course, a "free" market is no such thing for the lower layers of it.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by operagost · 2004-12-23 03:35 · Score: 1

No, it's not. You have your own interpretation of the founders' intent. Mine is that they were afraid of mob rule, which ultimately leads to revolution and bloodshed. Failsafes were put in place, such as the system of checks and balances between the federal branches of government, equal representation by state instead of population in the Senate, and yes, the much maligned Electoral College.
I might also note that Senators were once elected by state legislators and no directly by the people, until it was decided to impose more waste and corruption on the people by allowing the mobs in large cities such as New York and Los Angeles to dominate their states' representation.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by AmberBlackCat · 2004-12-23 03:52 · Score: 1

we have a constitutional republic, it just turns out we've turned it into a democracy... aka the tyranny of the majority

Of course the problem with a democracy is it means "majority rules", so if you have more than one group of people then the "majority" gets its way and every "minority" group has to accept it. My understanding of a republic is the leadership is determined by a group of electorates rather than an absolute count of votes from the population. I think this republic is every bit as oppressive as a democracy because the "majority" is going to get to decide who the electorates are anyway.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by vettemph · 2004-12-23 04:55 · Score: 1

aka the tyranny of the majority.
Just don't lump all the minorities into one pile because they would then become the majority. That's a dirty little secret that they don't want you to find out. For instance, if you add up the number of folks who voted anti-bush with the folks who are so fed up with the system that they didn't bother voting for either of the bastards, you would arive at the number/percentage of the US that hates george bush. Anyone care to do the math?

--
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by BK425 · 2004-12-23 05:55 · Score: 1

Often the light intermingling of arrogance and ignorance on slashdot is so very entertaining. Other times it reminds me of movies about the Hitler Youth.
I know we all knee jerk against any references to that era but really, the parent post here could -easily- be found in a pamphlet for good national order diseminated by that youth group. No, I am not comparing the poster to anyone I'm comparing the words... Do people here read history?
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by AA1 · 2004-12-23 06:14 · Score: 1

A nation *could* theoretically be communist and still a democracy. Communism is just a form of socialism, and if you know anything about socialism you would know that in it the govt. controls all industry in order to make what is good for the people. That is the opposite of capitalism, but NOT democracy.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by AstroDrabb · 2004-12-23 06:39 · Score: 1

we've turned it into a democracy... aka the tyranny of the majority.
I wouldn't call it that either. The majority often doesn't have a say, especially when you consider the big financial influence of a very small minority, that minority being the large corporations in the USA.
Do you think the morjority of the USA wanted the DMCA? Do you think the majority wanted the extreme length of copyright? The majority picked picked Gore for the 2000 Presidential election, but I hope I don't have to tell you who became president. If anything, I would say we are becoming a Corporatism

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by 10101001011 · 2004-12-23 08:17 · Score: 1

No one will read this but anyway

Controlled votes such as Cuba, USSR, *cough*America*cough*, and China are known as a "formal democracy". I believe it was first introduced with Stalin's government (no time to check at the moment).
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by maximilln · 2004-12-23 08:33 · Score: 1

Well, considering that the Constitution sets up a democratically elected Republic, and "capitalism" is not explicitly connected with a governmental type...

I must conclude you're talking out your ass.

--
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by HiThere · 2004-12-23 10:06 · Score: 1

Obscure??

Well I can't remember the name of the story for certain. "Revolt in 2100" comes to mind, but doesn't convince. But it's one of the major stories in Heinlein's "Future History" trilogy. ... You know, the one that Lazarus Long came out of. "Methusela's Children" should have been a part of that series, but being book length didn't fit. (And the guy that Lazarus knew that played the "stomach steinway" was probably Rhysling, the blind poet who wrote "Green Hills of Earth"...which would even tie him back to the first volume of Future History, called, by coincidence, "Green Hills of Earth". I fact Lazarus several times makes references to events in that series during "Time Enough for Love".) So Heinlein's "Future History" series is the root around which most of the stories revolved (either naturally, or, it sometimes seemed, by grafting).

This whole thing, I admit, is made fuzzier by the device introduced in "The Number of the Beast", which allowed plausible interneconnections of disparate visions like "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"...but I'm not considering worlds connected only via a parallel worlds machine to be significantly connected. (Except within the context of a story which specifically includes that device.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by HiThere · 2004-12-23 10:12 · Score: 1

You might consider who owns how much of the US. China is a big holder of US bonds. If they REALLY wanted to hurt us, all they'd need to do is call in their debts.

Saudi Arabia owns more, but China owns enough to put us into a depression we'd take multi-decades to START climbing back out of. But in order to do that, they'd need to be willing to take a large financial loss...of course, it's a loss on future earnings, not on past earnings. We haven't been borrowing from them.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by ratamacue · 2004-12-23 12:05 · Score: 1

There is no sharp border between volontary and by force, there are infinitely many levels in between
Force and voluntary association are mutually exclusive, and the only two possible modes of human interaction. Think about all the interactions you had with other people today. If you accomplished your objectives through theft, fraud, or physical force or threat thereof, then you have engaged in interaction by force, because the other party did not voluntarily agree to it. Otherwise, you have engaged in interaction by voluntary association. There is absolutely no middle ground. What could possibly be more simple than that? This is human nature.
Each interaction must fall into one mode or the other, but never both. You cannot force a person to volunteer, just as you cannot volunteer to be forced! The notion is absurd.
You are probably trying to define as force an interaction between a person and himself. For example, a blue-collar worker is "forced" to get a job at Wal-Mart because nothing better is available, and he must provide for his family. But just who is using force as a means to an end here? Was it the guy's neighbor? His landlord? The manager at Wal-Mart? The president of Wal-Mart? Of course the answer is none of the above. The worker is "forced" only by his own good judgement. If you were about to claim that "society forced him", then you'd better be ready to prove that each and every memeber of society actually interacted with him by force. In other words, this is not an example of force at all, but voluntary association.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by MickLinux · 2004-12-23 15:47 · Score: 1

Sorry, what makes you think that there's democracy in the US? The media? The same media that essentially tells you who you can vote for, and who you can't? The same media that controls what you hear of the news?

During this last election, you had a choice between a pro-war member of an elitist Yale power club called "Skull and Crossbones", and a pro-war member of an elitist Yale power club called "Skull and Crossbones".

During the previous election, you had a choice between a pro-war member of an elitist Yale power club called "Skull and Crossbones", and a pro-war member of an elitist Yale power club called "Skull and Crossbones".

During the election before that, you had a choice between a pro-war member of an elitist Yale power club called "Skull and Crossbones", and a pro-war member of an elitist Yale power club called "Skull and Crossbones".

During the election before that, you had a choice between a pro-war member of an elitist Yale power club called "Skull and Crossbones", and a pro-war member of an elitist Yale power club called "Skull and Crossbones".

During the election before that, you had a choice between a pro-war member of an elitist Yale power club called "Skull and Crossbones", and a pro-war member of an elitist Yale power club called "Skull and Crossbones".

Before that, I'm not really sure if Reagan was such a member or not (I think not), but his VP was.

Point being, I'm not too convinced that we have a tyranny of the majority, unless you refer to Yale power clubs as the population.

--
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by oliverthered · 2004-12-23 18:51 · Score: 1

1) Freedom of Religion.
Good, mau had the right idea all along. Look at all the Christians and Jews and Muslims in power causing no end of mess around the world.
The less religion the better, thank you China.

2) Freedom of Expression.

Well if that freedom of expression is either, Jesus is our saviour, god created the earth in 6 days, or Buy my shiny new capitalist pig, or Come here gamble your life away.

Then fuck'em, should have kept it shut and stopped trying to feed off the weak.

Consider this, the RIAA says that the high cost of CD's is down to........ Advertising, marketing, payola and 'production'

RIAA = what happened if you get freedom of expression.

Also consider that if I say 'the holocost never happened', or 'buy guns, kill George W Bush' I run the risk of having the thought police bust my door down.

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by X86Daddy · 2004-12-23 20:23 · Score: 1

Sometime in our lifetimes China is going to become a consumer culture, consuming many of the goods that it already makes and exports to the rest of the world.

I was in China a couple weeks ago (Guangzhou). This is a true statement, as it has *already* happened. The media in the U.S. just doesn't really show us what China is like these days. Guangzhou is beginning to look like Hong Kong in terms of skyscrapers everywhere, and lots of great shopping. Crazy mad shopping. More beautifully capatalist than what I see in a medium-sized US town.

Would I move there? Maybe. While China has been changing toward some future state involving more prosperity and freedom, the U.S. has been sliding. Oh, and their beer is much better. :-)
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by tacocat · 2004-12-23 23:04 · Score: 1

You were doing OK until you came up with that whiney bitch session about Gore and Bush and chads.

The Democratic party completely fucked that one up. Sure they lost and sure they had a public majority of votes. But after the election they were completely impotent. They demonstrated an amazing level of incompetence since then.

It might have been more useful to the country if they had spent the next four years lobbying for a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college in favor of a popular vote. Today we have the technology (without electronic voting machines) to execute popular votes effectively. That's the only reason that I'm aware of that they even needed an electoral college.

Unfortunately the Democratic party is in a lot more trouble than some box of chads will ever solve. They just don't hit the mark.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by rattler14 · 2004-12-24 09:32 · Score: 1

in democracy, everything can be voted on... so your rights are there only at the desire of the majority.

in a republic, your property can't be even brought up to a vote.

example

democracy. 100 people vote to take the land of 10 wealthy people, to spread it around for the utility of all.

republic. 100 people want to vote to take the land of 10 wealthy people, but can't, because it's not in their juristidiction.

Summary, in democracy, all resources and property are everyones and thus under the juristidiction to vote on. In a republic, it's not.

--
my last sig was too controversial... now, a new and improved useless sig!
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by LWATCDR · 2004-12-24 17:17 · Score: 1

"Now, I know that we're not talking about the US here, so the Chinese don't have these rights. It's so blatant that the Chinese are never going to change their stance on human rights."
No your wrong. They will change. Things in China today are better than 40 years ago or even 30 or even 10. Many people come and go and information is trickling in from the outside. There are leaks in the dike and some day the flood will come.
I just hope that China does not end up as Russia has. I hope they get some of the best of the west instead of all the worst.

"Gotta love the Chinese." Yes you do. And if you pray, pray for them. If you do not pray then hope for them. If you can not hope. Then those of us that can pray and hope will pray and hope for you.
Things do change. They always change. Just try to make it a good change.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by MegaHyster · 2004-12-24 21:24 · Score: 1

Well, I'll see your fascist theocracy, and raise you a small piece of fairy cake.

--
All good things...
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by Pantero+Blanco · 2004-12-25 14:17 · Score: 1

That'd be closer to what it was 200 years ago, and even comparing that to one of the fascist states would be a stretch.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by Pantero+Blanco · 2004-12-25 14:26 · Score: 1

" 1) Freedom of Religion.
Good, mau had the right idea all along. Look at all the Christians and Jews and Muslims in power causing no end of mess around the world.
The less religion the better, thank you China."

Because everyone's so much freer, safer, and happy there! Oh, wait...

Those protesters at Tiananmen weren't out for a breath of fresh air. All the immigrants flooding in from China aren't doing it because of the weather. Why don't you ask the Chinese (and the Tibetan for that matter) people about this before claiming everything's peachy clean just because their government outlawed religion?
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by oliverthered · 2004-12-25 23:30 · Score: 1

Stop talking shit, people run away from Cuba to America. But then I know a hell of a lot of well educated people who'd rater go to Cuba than America. I very much doubt that you can show everyone's so much freer, safer, and happy there! most of the things people purchased this Christmas would have come from sweat shops in China.

Never ask a victim if they feel that someone has done wrong to them, they tend to go crazy at you.

Anyhow...
The Holocaust would never have happened without religion.
People in Tibet wouldn't have been persecuted without religion. (even though I would say that Buddhism is a theology not a religion).

Your saying that a man walking down the street with a Gun shooting people should be allowed to complain when someone stops him.

As for Tienanmen, they really fucked it up didn't they. I have protesters in my country, probably a lot more and a lot more frequently than the students at Tienanmen. Are you saying that my capitalist pig of a country must be more wrong then?

Also, don't forget how much greener the grass looks on the other side, and capitalism is set up with some very lush green grass to get that money out of you pocket and into the bank of a multinational.

If we are getting 'better' then why are working hours longer then they have ever been throughout human history? Shouldn't our aim to be to work as little as possible not as much?

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by oliverthered · 2004-12-25 23:41 · Score: 1

Why not let every person and animal descide if they wan't to be keps as a slave or not.

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by Pantero+Blanco · 2004-12-26 10:36 · Score: 1

"The Holocaust would never have happened without religion."

Someone says this in every damn debate of this sort. The Holocaust happened because a demagogue saw an opportunity to spread fear in his country by pointing out an artificial enemy. The same thing happens in countries that are officially atheist. In fact, Stalin was responsible for almost the same thing in Russia.

"People in Tibet wouldn't have been persecuted without religion. (even though I would say that Buddhism is a theology not a religion)."

Yeaaah...You're saying if the people of Tibet hadn't been Buddhists, the officially atheist Chinese never would have occupied their nation and exterminated whole villages? Buddhism is very much an organized religion, complete with priests, rituals, places of worship, and a system of beliefs.

"Your saying that a man walking down the street with a Gun shooting people should be allowed to complain when someone stops him."

I don't know where the hell you got this.

"As for Tienanmen, they really fucked it up didn't they. I have protesters in my country, probably a lot more and a lot more frequently than the students at Tienanmen. Are you saying that my capitalist pig of a country must be more wrong then?"

How often does your government order the military to violently disperse those protestors?

"If we are getting 'better' then why are working hours longer then they have ever been throughout human history? Shouldn't our aim to be to work as little as possible not as much?"

Bullshit, plain and simple. Up until fairly recently (remember studying the industrial revolution in high school?), the average work hours were sunup to sundown for most people.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by oliverthered · 2004-12-30 12:28 · Score: 1

'Buddhism is very much an organised religion'
Buddhism isn't a religion, a religion must have a God.

'I don't know where the hell you got this'
All religious people wait for death, either heaven, reincarnation, martyrdom or wherever. Selling religion is selling death(or shooting people with a Gun as many religions do), why else worship something if it's all over when you die?

'How often does your government order the military...' well it depends what you call 'military' does armoured vehicles, guns, people mounted on horse back and dogs count?

'remember studying the industrial revolution',

1: that's part of where we are at the moment, try thinking a thousand years ago instead of the current 'history' of a hundred or so, look at how long cultures that have remained uncharged work today, we have charity workers collecting for women who spend 5 hours a day(35 hours a week) collecting water and food when most in the west spend 45 hours+ a week doing exactly the same and don't have a house to their name.

and 2: most people 100 or so years ago got paid in cider or wine and were pissed 24/7, I knew people who used to work the fields a hundred years ago (their all dead now) and it was nowhere near as much pressure as most people are put through now-a-days.

3: A higher percentage of the population work (and I include forced education in this) than they used to, womens-lib and all (I know some kids and women used to work cotton mills etc...)

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by huge+colin · 2005-01-06 02:25 · Score: 1

Arrogance is fine, as long as you're right.

Ignorance is not fine, and our society apparently needs some enforcers to fix things up.
Re:China Cracks Down on Freedoms... by BK425 · 2005-01-06 02:57 · Score: 1

It's good to have a disagreement this clearly defined.

Arrogance is not fine, it's a character flaw; a weakness that demonstrates that someone is not secure with the "right" ness of their arguments. People who are comfortable with what they are saying, people who are comfortable with the rationality of their arguments know that those arguments stand on their own, as a logical and rational answer. If someone is (truly) so closed minded or stupid that someone with a good argument cannot persuade them with reason then "enforcement" is nothing but a detriment to the situation. Smart people leave stupid and/or closed minded people alone rather then sinking time into them, because stupid and/or closed minded people are ineffective (so pose little problem to the majority of people who are open to rational persuasion).

Your attitude is precisely why I tried to bring Historical perspective (a perspective that a lot of technologists mistakenly look down on) into this.

The vast majority of those people "knew" that they were "right"...just like you're claiming in your post. Were they? Did the majority vote for those leaders because of rational arguments about advancing the economy or were they wrapped up in the emotional propaganda and economic fallout of the times? Again, the key is relying on -REASON- not this feeling you have that you are "right". Arrogance isn't just annoying, it is -WRONG-, and it's a natural bedfellow to the kind elitism that lets you believe that you have a right to enforce your idea of "right" on society, and -that- is a very close cousin indeed to the kind of havoc wreaked on the world by leaders like the world got from the Reich(s) (and Laos in the 60s and the Pogrommes... sorry if I seem like I'm picking on 30's Germany. It's the line of thought I'm attacking not the people).

So, I think the parallels are clear and obvious to anyone with an open mind. I hope you'll change your mind about arrogance and the dangerous elitism that it breeds. Boyd Kneeland

no... Re:In Communist China by buswolley · 2004-12-22 23:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

the internet kills you.

These people don't survive long in those prisons.

China oh China when will you give up, and be democratic.. so that you can kick our American financial butts?

--

A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

Re:no... Re:In Communist China by borgheron · 2004-12-22 23:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Seriously, God help the United States when/if they ever realize this.

GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by Mattygfunk1 · 2004-12-23 00:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

The US wont need God, a prosperous (capitalist) China would be a good thing financially for all concerned. As for the military capabilities that wealth may bring - a change in foreign policy wouldn't be such a bad thing for the US at this point in time.
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by krymsin01 · 2004-12-23 00:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, why not? Could rehash the Cold War, maybe give the space industry a kick in the ass to get it's act in shape.

--
stuff
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by meringuoid · 2004-12-23 00:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

The US wont need God, a prosperous (capitalist) China would be a good thing financially for all concerned.
China already is capitalist. They say they're communist, but then North Korea say they're democratic...

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by meringuoid · 2004-12-23 00:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

China oh China when will you give up, and be democratic.. so that you can kick our American financial butts?
When India starts to surpass them. India has the same colossal population as China, but is less well developed; however, it is a democracy. If democracy really is economically advantageous, India should overtake China at some point. As we on /. are all too well aware, the Indian IT industry is really doing well lately... That's when China will start to think about political reform - when their neighbour to the south is suddenly bigger than they are.

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by AlephNot · 2004-12-23 00:58 · Score: 1

As for the military capabilities that wealth may bring - a change in foreign policy wouldn't be such a bad thing for the US at this point in time.

And at the bottom of the page:
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy" until you can find a rock.

--
"Feel a glory in so rolling / on the human heart a stone" --E. A. Poe, "The Bells"
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by Krach42 · 2004-12-23 01:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

Seriously, God help the United States when/if they ever realize this.

Actually, they'd ban this message, because it exhibits "superstition". I'd complain about this more, except it's all left up to definition of the Government.

For instance, China sees Christianity as subversive and superstition. So, they repress it.

In Germany, Scientology is seen as potentially subversive, and Germany taking a very strong stance against radical groups (go figure why... I mean, having been taken over by a radical faction that caused some of the most infamous crimes in the world? They wouldn't be paranoid about that anymore would they?) have repessed Sociology. There are a lot of Scientologists that gripe all the time that Germany is repressing them. Heck, it's for a good point, they repress *all* radical and reactionary groups.

But, back on topic, Christians around the world are upset at China, and gripe about it a lot. Although, I suppose one difference is that Germany doesn't imprision and execute people who preach Scientology, they just don't recognize it as a valid religion. (Thus, no tax benifits for donations, and they recieve none of the tax collected by the government for the Churches)

--

I am unamerican, and proud of it!
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by jfonseca · 2004-12-23 01:39 · Score: 1

Actually, they'd ban this message, because it exhibits "superstition".

You seem to be employing superstition and religion interchangeably. They're very different things.

Although I'm not very religious and I see religion as a sort of superstition, 99% of humanity will not agree with me.

--
Broken Hearts are for Assholes. - Frank Zappa
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by rmccann · 2004-12-23 03:05 · Score: 1

It's sad that here in Europe it's the left wing who are suppressing free speech under the guise of 'hate crimes'.
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by Macrat · 2004-12-23 04:42 · Score: 1

China oh China when will you give up, and be democratic

Probably not before the US becomes democratic.
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by DavidTC · 2004-12-23 05:33 · Score: 1

The difference between a religion and a superstition is that a religion claims to explain everything, or at least defines what's important and explains that, and a superstition does not.

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by theCat · 2004-12-23 06:07 · Score: 1

Their leadership probably does realize it. Moving in that direction is probably not an option.

China is less like a large country and more like a small planet. What they would have to do in order to "move forward" is to come up with the strategic equivalent of a world government in order to unify and manage their enormous territory, cultural diversity and population.

Say what you want to about the EU and the United Nations (or even the United States of America for that matter) humans have not been able to come up with a way to govern an entire planet, large or small. Probably not within reach given our ancestry. Semi-autonomous computers could change that perhaps (re-read your Appleseed) but would we allow it?

Central planning was the Chinese best shot. It failed. Going forward might not even be an option for them now. We'll see.

--
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by Chris+Burke · 2004-12-23 07:38 · Score: 1

China oh China when will you give up, and be democratic.. so that you can kick our American financial butts?

See, there's a huge problem with this thinking: Democracy is a political system and Capitalism is an economic system.

We here in the States have been taught to equate the two, but China is demonstrating that they don't have to be. They are becoming more and more capitalist in economics, while not becoming any more Democratic in politics. They seem to have realized that a strictly managed economy just doesn't allow for the growth and foreign investment that capitalism does, and so they're loosening the reigns on the economy. Granted some of this effects the freedom of their people -- e.g. they have an internet which despite the best intentions of Beijing is not completely censored of "dangerous" thought. But on the other hand you have Google voluntarily disappearing news articles because the alternative is to not do business in China.

I really wish we could use economics to generate political change in China, but that doesn't seem to be what is happening. Our corporations are way to eager to get their hands on that Chinese market, so we're giving them all the benefit while asking for nothing in return. once we're done transfering our entire manufacturing and IT base over to China, what lever are we going to have to spur them towards Democracy? What will stop them from kicking our butts financially while remaining as oppressive as ever?

Remember, just because a Democratic Capitalist country has been winning the economic wars of the last sixty years doesn't mean the winner must always be Democratic Capitalist. Especially if the Democratic Capitalist can't stop their CEOs from gleefully shipping all their money to the Totalitarian Capitalist state.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by WormholeFiend · 2004-12-23 07:44 · Score: 1

That's when China will start to think about political reform - when their neighbour to the south is suddenly bigger than they are.

The US is bigger than Canada, and we know it, yet we have our own political system, which is different than that of the US.

For a more radical comparison, check Cuba vs the USA. By your rationale, Castro would've been overthrown a while ago.

I call BS on your argument.
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by sadomikeyism · 2004-12-23 16:21 · Score: 1

I see more liberal congressmonsters ho-humming about "how bad a draft would be", but "it's only fair", it's "more democratic" than just letting hick kids volunteer for all the glory, and because "failure is not an option", even though "Iraq was a mistake." Now they point out the risks if North Korea or Iran becomes another regional conflict issue, however, the real risks aren't North Korea, or Iran. Those are more mere distractions from the real risk. China has $500 billion in US dollars in its vaults, being used to back their own currency, the Yuan. Over the last year, a number of other countries have detached their shakey currencies from the dollar and changed backing to the Euro, encouraged by the Chinese and other anti-US forces at work on the international stage. This means that many billions of dollars flowed out of the reserve banks of developing nations as Euros flowed in. This devalued the dollar by up to 40%. This is the real reason oil is so expensive. If you adjusted for these exchange rate changes, the price of oil would be no different than it was prior to the Iraq war. I was looking at the price of Iranian crude yesterday: $34.00 weighted average between light and heavy crudes from Iran. Adjusted for the change in exchange rates prior to the Iraq war, that is equal to a pre-war price of less than $20.00/bbl, or $0.50 per gallon. Now China is talking about shifting their own currency backing to a "mixed basket" of currencies, and is planning on dumping $200-$300 billion in US cash on the world currency markets in the next year. This will drop the value of the dollar even more, raising gas prices likely to about $3.50-$4.00 per gallon, unless other nations get creative about taking dollars off the market. These prices are reflective of the inflation adjusted prices we paid for oil during the Iran hostage crisis in 1979. Some of you remember those days, of inflation, mile long gas lines, rationing, and Carter's failed assault in the Iranian desert. It isn't about currency or oil. It is about war. Not war in Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea, it's about war in Taiwan. China is pissed at Taiwan and it's independence minded President. Encouraged by US sales of advanced weapons systems, Taiwan has been talking a tougher line about complete independence from China. Ticked off by US spyplane flights offshore of Chinese military invasion exercises (you remember when our plane got forced down prior to 9-11), the Chinese know that the US is the final arbiter of any conflict between the island and the mainland. They want us out of that picture so they can have a free reign in determining the conflict for themselves. For years China's military establishment has accepted as a given a major war with the US in the next few decades, over Taiwan ostensibly, and global dominance overall in the 21st Century. They see this scenario as their version of the Spanish-American War, where we are now the old and decadent Spanish Empire, ripe to be plucked of its prize fruits, on the road to recognition as a new global super-power. Now, China is not stupid. After all, Sun Tsu, the general who united ancient China, is the author of the greatest war manual, The Art of War. This book is studied for years by Chinese officers. Sun Tsu says to strike where the enemy is not, where the enemy is weakest. He also says to win a battle before an arrow is fired. He was the man who prefected the art of the forking attack, of feints, flanking maneuvers, of taking the high ground and fading into the terrain. China needs to neutralize the US as a threat in its plan to conqer Taiwan. They are now testing nuclear subs with missiles capable of striking any target in the US. Still, they need to neutralize our conventional forces capability. This is why for many years, you have seen significant Chinese support for Islamo-Fascism. China supplied Pakistan with nuclear technology to counter the Indian nuclear threat to China. It also supplied the Pakistanis with weapons supplies for the Taliban and al Qaeda. It supplied Iraq and Iran with ballistic missile

--
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by Krach42 · 2004-12-23 18:04 · Score: 1

*sigh* I'm saying that with the definitions that China employs, they view Christianity as a superstitious group. You have to recall that China is officially athiest. Thus, to them, any belief in a God would be a superstition.

From www.dictionary.com:

A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.

Your view of religion may be totally founded to you, but I assure you that to any athiest your belief in an unseen God, who's existance cannot be observably proven by Science, to be a belief irrationally maintained by ignorance of the Laws of Nature.

Don't get narrow minded about definitions. Christianity has it's absolute point of view, and I agree with it myself. But to an Athiest the constant belief of humans in a more powerful (in fact, INFINITELY powerful) being is irrational, and flies to them in the face of everything they know.

Basicly, in China, Christianity *is* superstition, and you can argue with me all you want, but fact is, that China defines Christianity as superstition.

--

I am unamerican, and proud of it!
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by Whyte · 2004-12-24 08:26 · Score: 1

To reinforce this point, by percentage, France actually has more state owned businesses than China does this year.

And after China's banking industry is privatized later next year, you can expect this trend to continue.

--
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by MegaHyster · 2004-12-24 21:14 · Score: 1

Very insightful, wish I had some mod points to give.

--
All good things...
Re:no... Re:In Communist China by Pantero+Blanco · 2004-12-25 14:14 · Score: 1

It's pretty damn obvious you don't know much about either the United States or China.

The US does have a Communist Party. You don't hear much about it because most Americans have no desire to be Communists. China's Government screws the people of its own nation, and the people of any other, at its convenience.

Seriously, what the hell do you think all the dissidents are protesting there? Do you think the "tank man" in Tiananmen Square wanted to be on Jackass or something?Are you under the impression that Tibet has always been a province of China and that Taiwan is a rogue state?

Sounds like now is the perfect time to use Tor by Agret · 2004-12-22 23:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Sounds like now is the perfect time to use Tor which was previously covered today :) http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/22/20 31229&tid=95&tid=158&tid=153&tid=17

--
Have you metaroderated recently?

Re:Sounds like now is the perfect time to use Tor by tirloni · 2004-12-23 00:00 · Score: 1

I tried it and it works great. My IP changes every minute or so. The only problem that I'm having is random slowness but I think it'll improve over time.. gotta have more people sponsoring onion server

How many sites exactly? by cybertears · 2004-12-22 23:12 · Score: 4, Interesting

China Closes 1,129 Web Sites The related departments have closed 1,278 illegal web sites and 114 sites ... how many sites were closed? Is it 1,129 as the headline reads, or 1,392 as the body states (1,278 + 114)

Re:How many sites exactly? by Daniel+Ellard · 2004-12-22 23:42 · Score: 1

The point is not exactly how many sites. The point is that they're closing lots of sites.
It's not how much is being censored, it's that they're actively censoring.

--
Disclaimer: I work for a company, but I don't speak for them.
Re:How many sites exactly? by skinfitz · 2004-12-22 23:56 · Score: 1

If someone is going to quote an *exact* number in the title, then a different number in the body, then it's perfectly reasonable to question that number.

If the headline had been "China closes >1000 sites" then fair enough, but to mention a specific number in the headline, then to quote a different number in the body, should and does raise questions.
Re:How many sites exactly? by budgenator · 2004-12-23 00:36 · Score: 1

The related departments have closed 1,278 illegal web sites and 114 sites promoting gambling, superstitious activities and cult propaganda according to the information provided by the informers
I'd guess that one of the 114 sites that promoted gambling, superstition and cult activities was legal, but closed any ways.

--
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Re:How many sites exactly? by untaken_name · 2004-12-23 02:20 · Score: 1

My guess is they wrote the headline first, and by the time they got to the body, China had closed 263 more sites. They probably would have changed it, but by then who knows how many sites would have been closed? As an aside, the amount of pro-China sentiment here on slashdot amazes me. It's like making Libya head of the U.N.'s Human Rights Committe...WTF? China is a place where you can be executed by the government at any time for any reason, and no one will help you. Sure, it *probably* won't happen to any random individual, but it certainly could...it just boggles my mind that anyone outside that system would support it. At least we can make fun of our President and every other government official here in the USA without fear of being decapitated for it...in fact, it is almost de rigueur to do so in some circles. Oh well, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by rampant stupidity anymore, as a Libertarian in America I am accosted by it constantly.

--
http://xkcd.com/386/
Re:How many sites exactly? by Snover · 2004-12-24 06:48 · Score: 1

1,278 web sites and 114 physical locations, probably.

--

[insert witty comment here]

1984? by james_bray · 2004-12-22 23:12 · Score: 5, Funny

"...China's Ministry of Public Security..."

Sounds suspiciously like the "Ministry of Truth" from to me....

--
http://www.reeb.freeserve.co.uk

Re:1984? by Peden · 2004-12-22 23:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Exchange that with "Homeland Security" and I think you will get the picture....
Re:1984? by yulle · 2004-12-22 23:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

or "Ministry of Homeland Security"...
Re:1984? by Atrax · 2004-12-23 00:24 · Score: 1

"...China's Ministry of Public Security..."

Sounds suspiciously like the "Ministry of Truth" from to me....

Sounds more like "Department of Homeland Security" to my ears.

--
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Re:1984? by huge+colin · 2004-12-23 01:18 · Score: 1

Because they both use the word "Ministry"? Are you looking for trouble where none really exists?
Re:1984? by LetterJ · 2004-12-23 03:14 · Score: 1

You want to make something of it?

--

The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Re:1984? by Garry+Anderson · 2004-12-23 21:22 · Score: 1

Given the powers of Dept of Homeland Security - how do you know they have not been closing down sites ;-)

I do not think they have been closing down sites that have shown strong dissent - what we would call freedom of expression.

I do believe they have got your name tagged as a dissident.

This will be more useful to Dept of Homeland Security when ID cards are introduced into America.

Your President will make great propaganda - say something like, "ID cards are a great help in UK for the 'War on Terror' - we should adopt them".

That is if he can wait that long.

China needs to watch itself... by MrRTFM · 2004-12-22 23:17 · Score: 1, Troll

... if they aren't careful with their draconian rules then they will end up like Australia.

I can say that because I live here, and I am extremely embarrased when yet another stupid law gets passed, which doesn't do anything at all - except make the lawmakers (and its citizens) look dumb.

--
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you

Re:China needs to watch itself... by kbw · 2004-12-23 00:08 · Score: 1

Don't feel isolate in this. We in the UK have similarly enabling legislation, our RIP bill for starters.
Re:China needs to watch itself... by metricmusic · 2004-12-23 00:52 · Score: 1

We need to be on the big bully's side.

--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
Re:China needs to watch itself... by DNS-and-BIND · 2004-12-23 03:55 · Score: 1

I wouldn't worry about China. There are millions of Indonesians on overcrowded islands just to the north of Australia. They would love to come on down for a visit, maybe stay awhile.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!

Too Little by tacocat · 2004-12-22 23:24 · Score: 1

Until they start lining up spammers I really don't care what they do with their section of the Internet.

I'm still for giving the e-chinese the silent treatment.

Whoa ! by sunsrin · 2004-12-22 23:24 · Score: 1

Downloading/Hosting US movies and music isn't illegal ! Host BT trackers there !

--
>> Techflock-flock onto the best bits of technology

China is freer in some ways by ValourX · 2004-12-22 23:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

Take a look at this. It's probably one of the most spectacular displays of art I have ever seen -- a whole snow/ice village filled with sculptures.

I thought it was the neatest thing I had ever seen, but what struck me later was the sad fact that this treasure could never happen in the United States because no insurance company would cover it. People would sue left and right, and whomever put on that show would go bankrupt. Take a look at the people climbing the wall of ice. I don't know about you, but that looks like a hell of a lot of fun. I'll never know because that kind of "ride" can't ever happen in America because of the litigious assholes that sue people for a living.

I'm currently wrestling with the idea that China may actually be more free than the US. Not because of this single example, but for many reasons... no-knock warrants and other "anti-terrorism" measures that, to date, do not appear to have stopped any terrorists; RIAA/MPAA lawsuits against "john doe" defendants; software patent claims; anti-smoking laws; a whole bunch of shit. What can't you do in China? You can't speak out against the government (the more I hear angry, uninformed EU and US Bush protesters, the more I think I might actually enjoy that), you can't openly practice religion (what?? no Catholic priest child molesters, no Christian wackos and their 10 commandments plaques, no Muslim fundamentalists to kill me?), and you can't have websites that spread superstition. And this is bad... how?

-Jem

Re:China is freer in some ways by Burb · 2004-12-22 23:51 · Score: 1

I sympathise with your comments in some ways, especially the way that the US is increasingly becoming a lawyer's paradise where frivolous lawsuits are increasing. I am not the biggest fan of the US, but I can't go along with the second part of your post.
I would infer from your comments that you are, broadly speaking, a supporter of the current US president, and you don't appear to be sympathetic to organised religion. In any case, you have the right to those beliefs under US law. They just happen in these specific instances to match the beliefs of the Chinese authorities. Just because your current belief system matches the current belief system of another government doesn't make that other government intrinsically "more free". You are confusing "more free" with "more like me".
Your opinions may change with time, and the pendulum of US politics may eventually swing leftwards. But, we trust, the US will maintain its constitutional safeguards to give you freedom of expression when you find yourself against the tide.
I apologise if I have misrepresented your views which I have tried to infer from the posting.

--
Re:China is freer in some ways by DrSkwid · 2004-12-22 23:53 · Score: 1

you can't openly practice religion, .... and you can't have websites that spread superstition. And this is bad... how?

I would be with you on this one but my horoscope said to do otherwise.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:China is freer in some ways by ValourX · 2004-12-23 00:06 · Score: 1

"I would infer from your comments that you are, broadly speaking, a supporter of the current US president, and you don't appear to be sympathetic to organised religion."

The two are mutually exclusive, I think. I neither support nor protest President Bush.

My opinions may change, but what I am allowed to do with them is what I am concerned with. China makes no bones about what it allows and disallows. The US pretends to be free, but is shackled by confusing and sometimes secret laws and loopholes, and a generally fascist attitude toward the non-rich. If this were what I signed up for, then that's one thing. It's frustrating, though, being led to believe that you are free when in actuality you're quite restricted.

In China, prison is where you go if you break the law. In the US, prison is where you go if you break the law and couldn't afford a top-tier lawyer to get you out of it (I am still wondering how Scott Peterson can be sentanced to death in the absence of hard evidence, yet OJ Simpson walks free). I'd rather know my limits than constantly be fooled by the superficial veneer of freedom.

-Jem
Re:China is freer in some ways by borgheron · 2004-12-23 00:32 · Score: 1

You infer a great deal, incorrectly. :)

I am, for the most part, a Libertarian. I am also a member of the ACLU. This makes me a really big believer in human rights above all things.

I despise George W. Bush, because he's destroyed this countries freedoms.

I dislike, deeply, the fact that the US is miring itself in legal bunk. If you check the anti-patent petition at the bottom you'll see the extent of my wish to change the current situation here.

I believe that people should have the right to believe in whatever God they wish.

I'm not against "organized" religion so much as I am against "state imposed" religion, and there is a difference.

I'm not sure if you're from the US or not, but I'm inferring that you aren't given your rather prejudiced view of Americans. :) So far your assessment of me has been entirely wrong.

Later, GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Re:China is freer in some ways by borgheron · 2004-12-23 00:34 · Score: 1

My apologies for the last paragraph in my previous post, I thought you were replying to me. :)

GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Re:China is freer in some ways by Burb · 2004-12-23 00:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Freedom can, it's true, be just a superficial veneer. And it's true that the US can be a dreadful place if you are poor. As a middle-class European, I find it a great place to visit but would not necessarily jump at the chance to live there. Most of us don't question the beliefs instilled into us and childhood. To an outsider, it seems that the "saluting of the flag" business at the start of each school day serves to drum into children a belief that the US is a great place to be without providing much evidence of same. Anyway....
China's record on human rights would means that prison is a place where you go if you break the law OR if you a nuisance to the government. Try discussing the Tiananmen square "incident" Communist and post-communist societies like China have still a poor track record in this area. Look carefully and you will find secret laws and loopholes as bad, or worse, than the USA.

--
Re:China is freer in some ways by PasteEater · 2004-12-23 00:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

You can't speak out against the government (the more I hear angry, uninformed EU and US Bush protesters, the more I think I might actually enjoy that), you can't openly practice religion (what?? no Catholic priest child molesters, no Christian wackos and their 10 commandments plaques, no Muslim fundamentalists to kill me?), and you can't have websites that spread superstition. And this is bad... how?

You have removed choices for me and for everyone else.

Perhaps you would like me to pick out your clothes for tomorrow. Better yet, I'll decide what kind of car you drive (if I decide you get to drive a car at all) and then I'll figure out if you are worthy of...?

We each make choices everyday. Whether they *seem* like small or large decisions, would you like someone else to make those decisions for you?

--
There are two kinds of people in the world: those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
Re:China is freer in some ways by Burb · 2004-12-23 01:01 · Score: 1

That's OK. unwarranted assumptions is what makes slashdot such an exhilarating place.

--
Re:China is freer in some ways by Tomfrh · 2004-12-23 01:34 · Score: 1

Wow, that ice town is great! I love the over-the-top lighting.
Re:China is freer in some ways by untaken_name · 2004-12-23 02:10 · Score: 1

I'm assuming you meant to say 'unwarranted assumptions are what makes slashdot such an exhilarating place'.
At least, I hope you did.

--
http://xkcd.com/386/
Re:China is freer in some ways by LetterJ · 2004-12-23 03:33 · Score: 1

Not that ours is nearly as large, but St. Paul, MN has a winter carnival and many years includes an ice palace, ice sculptures, etc.

--

The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Re:China is freer in some ways by operagost · 2004-12-23 03:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

In China, prison is where you go if you break the law. In the US, prison is where you go if you break the law and couldn't afford a top-tier lawyer to get you out of it (I am still wondering how Scott Peterson can be sentanced to death in the absence of hard evidence, yet OJ Simpson walks free).
In Communist China, law breaks YOU!
You must be joking. Just because China enforces their unjust, inhumane laws consistently does not make them superior. If you believed that, you'd be posting from *.cn right now. Oh yeah, Slashdot is probably blocked.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:China is freer in some ways by Sepper · 2004-12-23 07:13 · Score: 1

Well, I know it doesn't even come close, but there's a annual Ice Hotel around Quebec City...

http://www.icehotel-canada.com/

--
I live in Soviet Canuckistan you insensitive clod!
Re:China is freer in some ways by aminorex · 2004-12-23 08:42 · Score: 1

The U.S. has plenty of political prisoners.
Moreover, the system of law is so complex that
any adult can be prosecuted for multiple felonies
at any time. There is no reasonable hope of
abiding by the law in the U.S. The purpose of
that maze of legal brambles is political repression.
Since the laws are putatively apolitical, but
selectively applied only to the politically
incorrect, the appearance of political liberty
is maintained.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:China is freer in some ways by oliverthered · 2004-12-23 19:02 · Score: 1

I remove the choice of people being able to cram that shit in my face.

I remove the choice of companies to take some of the money I've spent on a product and use it for advertising.

I remove the choice of Bush to invade another country in the name of God.

Sometimes it helps you too see the light of day if some of the choices have been removed.

Personally I hate shopping, I can't be bothered to choose anything. Blue cloths that look a bit like a medic, fine by me, after all blue's everyone's favourite colour.

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Re:China is freer in some ways by oliverthered · 2004-12-25 23:35 · Score: 1

In capitalist America you buy the law.

--
thank God the internet isn't a human right.

Wonder if it works for something useful as well by QuasiRob · 2004-12-22 23:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

The article implies that concerned citizens can report websites that they consider to be illegal somewhere on the www.china.cn website. Might be worth flooding it with reports of all the spam sites operating in China, I just need to find the page to report it on.

--
If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done?

Re:Wonder if it works for something useful as well by Atrax · 2004-12-23 01:26 · Score: 1

You could automate it off an RBL with a few judiciously written lines o'code.

go on, you know you want to....

--
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Re:Wonder if it works for something useful as well by jonwil · 2004-12-23 01:53 · Score: 1

Problem is, the SPAM sites arent illegal in china. SPAM sites dont hurt chinese governments abillity to control chinese people like the sites that were shut down do so there is no reason for the government to make them illegal.
Re:Wonder if it works for something useful as well by myov · 2004-12-24 09:45 · Score: 1

Doesn't mean you have to report them as spam.

Anti-spam activists tried to convince the Chinese government to think that Alan Ralsky was supporting the Falun Gong. IIRC, the servers were shut down while they investigated.

--
I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!

Re:Whoa by JNighthawk · 2004-12-22 23:31 · Score: 1

It was a joke.

However, communism is a decent idea on paper. Equal rights and such for everyone. Everyone working towards the greater good. The problem is, the current incarnations of communism never gave the power back to the people after siezing it.

--
Wheel in the sky keeps on turnin'.

It doesnt matter what China does by Timesprout · 2004-12-22 23:33 · Score: 2, Funny

Monty Python said the Chinese were nice, and I quote

"I like Chinese,
I like Chinese,
They only come up to your knees"

So that made it official. We like Chinese.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe

Re:It doesnt matter what China does by DrSkwid · 2004-12-22 23:41 · Score: 1

sounds liek these guys forgot about the :

"They're always willing and they're ready to please" part

got to love anti-religions and anti-superstition laws

Please can we have them in the West.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · 2004-12-23 00:15 · Score: 1

I love posts like this. I'm an evangelical atheist - I actively engage people and try to drag them around to my point of view [1]. However, let me tell you, trying to ban religion is short sighted at best, and an affront to the kindred beliefs of atheism ( personal liberty, freedom from prejudice, etc etc ) at worst.

If you want to become a religious bigot of an unsual stripe, be my guest, but make no mistake - orthodox religion holds the whip in the west right now, and if you get the legislature involved knee deep in matters of the spirit, I guarantee it will blow up in the face of those of us who just want to be left alone by the government to practice as we choose.
YLFI
[1] Strike them hard, drag them to... the library?

--
One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by DrSkwid · 2004-12-23 00:31 · Score: 1

I know, bans do nothing but opress. Each to their own.

The meddlings of church in the state (and vise versa) are well documented.

But when you have leaders who say they are doing the work of god you've got to wonder about their sanity let alone suitability.

Our Mr. Blair found religion for his trip to the top and is pretty suspect. I'd love to have an evening discussing theology with these guys and see how deep their particular rabbit hole goes.

Do you *really* think there's some guy in the sky watching your every move 24/7 ready to judge your misdemeanours to classify you for eternity in heaven or purgatory ? Really ? Are you sure ?

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by LordLucless · 2004-12-23 00:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Better get your own theology straight before you do - AFAIK, no Christian denomination teaches that. Standard Christian theology teaches that hell is the default destination of every human being (ie: not dependant on your misdemeanours) and protestant Christians at least (not too up on Catholic theology) believe that you are saved from hell by the grace of God (again, not dependant on your actions.)

By the by, do you really believe non-living chemicals learnt to walk and talk all by themselves?

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by ocelotbob · 2004-12-23 00:48 · Score: 1

No, because humans should be able to express their opinions openly, regardless of what they are. Otherwise, you aren't free. How does someone peacefully expressing their beliefs affect you?

--
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by Atrax · 2004-12-23 00:59 · Score: 1, Insightful

Standard Christian theology teaches that hell is the default destination of every human being

what a thoroughly depressing little cult christianity is. "I'm going to burn for all eternity, and my only hope is to plead with some invisible entity and give shedloads of money to a priest with bad hair and bad breath to talk to me once a week? Screw that.

By the by, do you really believe non-living chemicals learnt to walk and talk all by themselves?

got a better explanation? Or do you buy the crap the creationists sell you?

All the prerequisites for a non-religious explanation clearly exist and can be proven to exist, whereas the loony version requires the non-provable.

--
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by Atrax · 2004-12-23 01:02 · Score: 1

hmmm.... guess I just went off-topic. oh well.

--
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by DrSkwid · 2004-12-23 01:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

blah blah theology whatever, who cares, it's all bunkum.

By the by, do you really believe non-living chemicals learnt to walk and talk all by themselves?

Categrorically and without doubt. Belief not necessary. They did, ergo : they did.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by DrSkwid · 2004-12-23 01:53 · Score: 1

How does someone peacefully expressing their beliefs affect you?

It doesn't affect me particularly, except I need to keep a strong will to ignore it.

Sadly, the peaceful part is frequently transgressed by the faithful and it is easy to see what harm such bunkum does to the world. Crazy ideas about devine retribution or reward fuel some of the most astonishing events we witness and too many of the less astonishing ones we don't.

--
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by yuting · 2004-12-23 02:27 · Score: 1

There are valid reasons for banning certain religions in China because a lot of people don't have sufficient 'common sense' to distinguish good from bad. Yeah I know there is no agreed 'standard common sense' but I'll show an example.

In Taiwan people have free choice of religion. A few years ago a man called Song Qi-Li started selling a religious photo of himself standing on clouds -- by using Photoshop. He told his followers he could teleport himself and many believed and paid handsome fees for these photos. Even when he got arrested and his tricks exposed by the police, his followers refused to accept the facts and even told the journalists 'he will teleport himself out of the prison'.
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by untaken_name · 2004-12-23 02:36 · Score: 1

All the prerequisites for a non-religious explanation clearly exist and can be proven to exist, whereas the loony version requires the non-provable.

I see. You require nothing unprovable for your belief system, eh? Please cite me your proof of the origin of the universe. Oops, you can't. Guess that's belief in the unprovable, huh? Look, I'm not trying to preach religion to you, just logic. Whatever your belief system, an initial leap of faith is required: either you believe that the universe sprang from nothing, that it always existed, or that someone or something created it. Whichever your choice, it's not currently provable. Thus I don't see as it matters to which unprovable belief you subscribe. My initial leap of faith is that God is unknown and possible unknowable. (that means I'm not claiming there is a God, just saying that if there is God, no one knows better than anyone else how God acts, and it's quite likely no one ever will) The more I learn, the more I feel that there is some sort of driving force behind the universe, but I don't claim to know what it is. You claim to know there isn't one. Most religious people claim to know there is. I just think you're both wrong. I can't prove it, though, and I'm ok with that. You claim specific knowledge, all I'm asking for is proof. You atheist types seem to like to demand that from others, but can no more produce proof for your beliefs than can religious people. It's kind of funny to me: atheists are trying to prove a negative while religious people's beliefs inherently prohibit them from being able to prove them (faith is required, and it isn't faith if one is confronted with direct proof).

--
http://xkcd.com/386/
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by untaken_name · 2004-12-23 02:41 · Score: 1

By the by, do you really believe non-living chemicals learnt to walk and talk all by themselves?

Categrorically and without doubt. Belief not necessary. They did, ergo : they did.

Oh, you were there, were you? heheheheh. Just like religious people, you're preaching faith. Faith is the belief in something unproven. Seems to me that since you can't prove a negative, it's pretty hard to prove there's no God. I'm not saying there is or isn't, only that no one knows for sure, not even you. You have a strong belief that life came from non-life with no help. However, even rock solid faith is not specific knowledge. As soon as you take some non-living chemicals and make them become alive, you'll have proof. Until then, it's faith either way. Keep the faith, buddy.

--
http://xkcd.com/386/
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by LnxAddct · 2004-12-23 02:42 · Score: 1

Actually yes chemicals did learn to walk and talk all by themselves. And its been reproduced in very simple forms in the lab. All you are is a highly controlled and integrated chemical reaction capable of sustaining yourself by taking in more chemicals. Afterall, your brain is just a bunch of cleverly connected neurons with some elctricity flowing through them. It's been optimized over the past 2 billion years, thats such a long time that we aren't able to comprehend it. Anyway, just keep in mind that every thought you have ever had, or will have is nothing but some electricity flowing around in your head. Perhaps you should look more into the subject, even just looking at the effectiveness of evolutionary algorithms would be a start. I am a practicing roman catholic, but even I know nonsense when I hear it and anyone who still disagrees with evolution needs to wake the hell up.
Regards,
Steve
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by Gildor · 2004-12-23 03:10 · Score: 1

> what a thoroughly depressing little cult christianity is. "I'm going to burn for all eternity, and my only hope is to plead with some >invisible entity and give shedloads of money to a priest with bad hair and bad breath to talk to me once a week? Screw that.

Yes, the concept of hell is depressing. That does not mean that it isn't true. And there is no pleading involved whatsoever where salvation (eternal life) is concerned ("ask, and you shall receive").

And as for giving money...again, not a requirement. The Catholic church has developed a reputation for this, I'll admit. They're filthy rich. However, I have found that this is not the case in most Protestant churches. And I am not aware of any faith (Catholicism included) where donations are a requirement for salvation.

Most non profit organizations ask for donations churches, the ACLU, EFF, etc, etc.

> got a better explanation? Or do you buy the crap the creationists sell you?

Yes. Evolution guided by an intelligent creator (I call it God).
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by Fwonkas · 2004-12-23 03:18 · Score: 1

By the by, do you really believe non-living chemicals learnt to walk and talk all by themselves?

You're right. That's crazy. Everyone needs to accept the cold, rational truth: a big, magic, invisible, all-powerful, timeless dude made us out of mud.

Oh, and he doomed us to eternal pain and suffering unless we do the right dance.

--
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by untaken_name · 2004-12-23 03:19 · Score: 1

Yep. Now if only we could all agree on what is. Wouldn't that be lovely? I love tautologies. They seem so profound, while in fact they're the refuge of the incompetent. Here's a koan for you, since tautology-spouters often like them: What is the sound of one middle finger pointed upward?

--
http://xkcd.com/386/
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by Atrax · 2004-12-23 03:46 · Score: 1

I think you missed it.

science can go way further back in terms of biology than the point religion claims. As for physics/cosmology, yes there is a point neither can explain - i.e. what caused the whole thing to go off in the first place.

Unfortunately for your point, the biological version is subordinate to the physical - we can both agree on an unknown first cause in the realm of physics, but by doing so we shore up the secular argument in the biological realm - by competing on a level playing field with the old "what about the universe" thing, you've acknowledged the very mechanisms I cited in my post as being explainable and provable.

Ask me again in a sober part of the year, and I'll even cite references. It is, after all, the northern hemisphere's midwinter festival about now (commonly known as christmas)

--
Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by arkanes · 2004-12-23 03:46 · Score: 1

Yay, someone who's so insecure in thier own beliefs that they spring into outright ad hominem attacks against people who don't share them.
There's some pretty basic logical fallacies going on in your statement. I'll start with the most obvious one, which is that it's impossible to prove a negative. Your belief in God is an article of faith for you. By definition, it requires no proof. An atheist doesn't make that leap of faith, and, in the absence of proof, assumes lack of existence. This is a basic Occams Razor type thing. If you want be to believe in God, he'd better show himself. And when he does, he better be ready to answer some of my questions, too.
Have you ever taken a step back and really looked at your arguments? You're claiming a belief in something that, by your own argument, can't be known or understood. It's by definition irrational. And you feel, that from this platform, you have some sort of right to demand proof? (by the way, theologians with real faith usually argue way more convincingly for the existence of God than you do. Also, they don't get upset by people who don't believe).
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by arkanes · 2004-12-23 03:52 · Score: 1

I shall refute your argument thus: so what? There's a lot of people who believe in invisible demons that torture you if you're bad. They give a lot of money to magicians who can keep the demons away. I think it's stupid, but who cares?
The US stock market is based almost (but not entirely) on psychology and a shared belief that it means something. Same with the US currency. I think both of those things are stupid too, but we don't get rid of those. That's because I'm smart enough to know that I'm not omniscient, and I'm also smart enough to know that you can't legislate away stupidity. Trying to do it means you're a tyrant.
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by untaken_name · 2004-12-23 03:58 · Score: 1

erm. Going 'farther back' than religion claims would be impossible, as religion claims that God created the universe. Since that hasn't been proved, it's a matter of faith. However, since atheism offers no explanation at all, it is also a matter of faith. I fail to see how that 'proves' any secular argument. Proof is repeatable and definitive. Neither side has it. Therefore, I must conclude that both sides operate under assumptions which I am not willing to accept. I do not claim to know and thus I don't have anything to prove. Both your side and the religious side claim to know, and thus have burden of proof. However, it has been provided by no one. Until it is, please don't preach either side to me. Thanks.

--
http://xkcd.com/386/
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by yuting · 2004-12-23 04:06 · Score: 1

I agree with you that nobody can define what's stupid and what's not. I've heard people burn themselves for religious reasons in the US too.

Somehow the government needs to put some restrictions if too many people are ignorent or this can cause social chaos, right? Even stock markets have strict financial services regulation to protect investors. You wouldn't want a truly free market that allow some smart baddies screwing innocent investors right?
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by untaken_name · 2004-12-23 04:08 · Score: 1

You have totally twisted my argument, on purpose. I specifically said that it's impossible to prove a negative. Thanks for reiterating my argument. I said that the atheists need to provide not proof that there is no God, but proof of the origin of life. That's totally different. If you can't prove the origin of life, then you're taking it on faith. That is what I said. There's no proving a negative there.

I also clearly stated that I am not claiming to know whether or not there is a God. Thus saying that 'my belief in God is an article of faith for me' is stupid. I don't believe or disbelieve in God. I admit to not knowing. Sure, I feel there's some sort of driving force behind the universe, but I freely admit that I could be wrong and that I do not KNOW. Before I take a step back to look at my arguments, perhaps you'd care to look at them. I don't get upset about people who 'don't believe', as you put it. I get upset by people who claim to know for sure that there is or is not a God, since the God side can't produce proof of God's existance and the atheist side can't provide prrof of life's origins. I'm not asking the atheists to prove there is no God, as you can't prove a negative. I'm asking them to prove life can just happen...which they cannot. Like I've said, if one side produces God or the other side turns primordial soup into life, maybe I'll listen to them. Until then, I wish they'd all stop preaching at me.

--
http://xkcd.com/386/
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by macdaddy · 2004-12-23 04:40 · Score: 1

Ok, lets step back and take a look at what you just said.
*insert a "god" here* creates the universe.
*extremely long drawn out silence*
Billions of years later someone writes a book about it.
Billions of people believe the story. No one has any proof.

Hmmm, there's a mysterious absence in the timeline of oh, say, billions of years where no onee mentioned "god." I wonder why that is. It it because the inhabitants of the planet at that point in time were more or less stupid and exercised control over one another with sheer brute strength (think cave men and women)? I doubt there was much in the way of politics in early cave dwellings. Lets rephrase these events to be a little more accurate.
*extremely long drawn out silence*
Someone puts a collection of stories about why things are the way they are into a book. More people add their own stories to this book. Some people read into the stories in the book a little too much and start whorshiping it. The book is changed by politics and greed over the years to maintain control of the people. The people are forced to whorship in a way described by people in control. Others are born into this practice and it continues to this day. The people are suckers, let this happen, and still take the book for gospel even though any reasonable person would not believe King So and So are making these changes on behalf of "god" but instead are doing it for their own purposes. What else. Oh yeah, Profit!

IMHO that would be a much more likely version of the events. Religion convienently saying "god created the universe" is like me saying "I created oxygen; Hand over my royalties!" Gee, I can't prove that and of course science proves otherwise but I still claim it anyway.
I don't think anyone wants to tread on another's right to practice (or not practice) religion as they see fit (except George Jr). Society at large should be mature enough to reasonably discuss the issue when it comes up with fact and to not take another's views personally. Unfortunately we don't yet live in a mature society.
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by genner · 2004-12-23 05:10 · Score: 1

As oppossed to mud making itself into a man over millions through sheet random chance.
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by untaken_name · 2004-12-23 05:11 · Score: 1

Ok, lets step back and take a look at what you just said.

# *insert a "god" here* creates the universe.
# *extremely long drawn out silence*
# Billions of years later someone writes a book about it.
# Billions of people believe the story. No one has any proof.

Um. I never said anything even REMOTELY like the above. Let's take an actual look at what I said:

"rm. Going 'farther back' than religion claims [note: I'm not claiming it. religious people are.] would be impossible, as religion claims that God created the universe. Since that hasn't been proved, it's a matter of faith. However, since atheism offers no explanation at all, it is also a matter of faith. I fail to see how that 'proves' any secular argument. Proof is repeatable and definitive. Neither side has it. Therefore, I must conclude that both sides operate under assumptions which I am not willing to accept. [note: BOTH SIDES...see that?] I do not claim to know and thus I don't have anything to prove. Both your side and the religious side claim to know, and thus have burden of proof. However, it has been provided by no one. Until it is, please don't preach either side to me. Thanks."

Why is it that if I disagree with an atheist, they assume that I am a Bible-thumping fundamentalist? I thought atheists would at least TRY to comprehend what they read. After all, aren't they supposed to be enlightened? It's like when I disagree with a Republican, I am assumed to be a Democrat/liberal/tree-hugger and when I disagree with a Democrat I'm assumed to be a gun-totin' war-lovin' Republican. Can people who are part of an artificial dichotomy not understand that there are viewpoints outside it? I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican, I'm a Libertarian. I'm not an atheist, I'm not a religious person, I'm agnostic. I DO NOT KNOW. I DO NOT CLAIM TO KNOW. Stop putting words in my mouth, both sides.

--
http://xkcd.com/386/
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by Fwonkas · 2004-12-23 05:23 · Score: 1

It ain't random, Sparky. It's pretty systematic.

--
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by DavidTC · 2004-12-23 05:53 · Score: 1

So...if he can teleport...who took the pictures?

--
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by hobbesx · 2004-12-23 06:35 · Score: 1

It ain't random, Sparky. It's pretty systematic.

1. Mud

2. ??????

3. Prof^H^H^H^H Evolution!

--
This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by msuzio · 2004-12-23 06:37 · Score: 1

> By the by, do you really believe non-living chemicals learnt to walk and talk all by themselves?

Yes, I do. Absolutely. Not just based on pure faith, but based on solid theories and quite a few experiments that seem to show this is quite possible (given very long periods of time). It's a good explanation for what we see around us, and it's useful for future expansion and learning. So, for me, that works.

Note that this doesn't say anything about God or !God. I reserve my opinion on that for myself.

--
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by macdaddy · 2004-12-23 06:44 · Score: 1

Note how I never said you were a "Bible-thumping fundamentalist" and only in fact said "you" once in reference to what you said, not your beliefs. I'm contributing to the arguement; not berating you.
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by untaken_name · 2004-12-23 06:52 · Score: 1

I guess I misinterpreted the phrase 'let's step back and take a look at what you just said', followed by a bunch of crap I didn't say. My mistake, or something.

--
http://xkcd.com/386/
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by aminorex · 2004-12-23 08:50 · Score: 1

> This is a basic Occams Razor type thing. If you
> want be to believe in God, he'd better show
> himself. And when he does, he better be ready to
> answer some of my questions, too.

God certainly has shown himself. Occam's razor
requires theism. Occam himself was a theist.
As for your questions, I think you've inverted
the relationship. You seem to have mistaked yourself
for God.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by arkanes · 2004-12-23 09:12 · Score: 1

Occam's Razor requires no theism and it doesn't matter if Occam was a theist or not. Darwin was a theist too. The belief that God has shown himself through some non-obvious means is exactly that, a belief, not a fact, and requires a leap of faith. It's a circular reference.
Any God who wants my worship needs to do something to deserve it. "Worship me or you go to Hell" is insufficent. Why should I put up with any crap for a diety that I wouldn't accept from a human?
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by drinkypoo · 2004-12-23 09:25 · Score: 1

Sorry, but this just isn't true, unless you accept that "accepting j.c. into your heart" is the natural state of man - he who accepts him into his heart shall be saved implies pretty god-damned strongly that he who does not will not be saved. hence your statement would seem to be patently false - or is this just one of those contradictions that's been waved off as insignificant?
Oh and, non-living chemicals had to become living organisms before they learned to do anything. Do you think a rock needs to be intelligent to fall from the sky? Chemicals organizing themselves to form life is the same thing - physics.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by LordLucless · 2004-12-23 09:28 · Score: 1

I assume your talking about the Miller experiment. Firstly, that experiment didn't create life - it created amino acids, which are fundamental componenents of living organisms, but it did not spontaneously generate a living organism. Secondly, the experiment was fudged a bit - the gasses he used in the experiment were not the ones thought to have existed in primordial earth. Miller used ammonia, methane and hydrogen, and passed an electrical current through them. But our current atmosphere is composed of things like nitrogen and carbon dioxide - inert gasses that would not produce such a reaction - and Miller provided no evidence that demonstrated a substantially different atmospheric makeup in primordial earth.

On to your second point. Your amalgamating a whole bunch of different things under the heading of evolution. Evolution deals with gradual changes of existing life, it has nothing at all to do with anything that cannot reproduce. The origin of life could not be due to evolutionary mechanisms - the only reason they are connected is because you need to prove both to come up with a model of the universe without a creator.

As it stands, I don't believe in the spontaneous generation of life, nor the form of evolution that generates new information. I believe that evolution is a mechanism for adaptation, that through natural selection, descendants of an individual have the best subset of that individuals genes for their particular environment. But I don't believe that evolution is responsible for generating new genes, and, as far as I know, that process has never been observed. Science is all about observation - observation and repeatable experiments. We have not observed evolution. We have not managed to reproduce it in an experiment. Evolution remains in the domain of a conjecture made from historical evidence, rather than solid, reproducable scientific proof.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by LordLucless · 2004-12-23 09:30 · Score: 1

You're right. That's crazy. Everyone needs to accept the cold, rational truth: a big, magic, invisible, all-powerful, timeless dude made us out of mud.

The thing is, religion isn't basing itself on rationalistic explanation. Religion is based on faith. Science says it is based on rationalism, but when it comes down to the origin of life issue, "scientific" explanations are just as much based on faith as religion.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by LordLucless · 2004-12-23 09:34 · Score: 1

Do you really believe there is a supreme being who apparently learned to walk and talk all by himself even though you haven't ever seen him? Do you really believe he learned how to create planets and people all by himself too?

The point I was making was not that religion is more rational than science - I was saying that on the issue of the origin of life, both the scientific and religious explanations require belief - there is no proof either way. So if you prefer your explanation well and good, but its just as unproven and irrational as my explanation.

And just a little note - if, as the Bible says, God created man in his own image, then he's not really anthropomorphic, more like we're deiamorphic, or something like that.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by LordLucless · 2004-12-23 09:46 · Score: 1

Why should I put up with any crap for a diety that I wouldn't accept from a human?

Possibly because that deity made you, and therefore has some claim on you?

The belief that God has shown himself through some non-obvious means is exactly that, a belief, not a fact, and requires a leap of faith. It's a circular reference.

One of my favorite passages in the Bible is Matthew 16. In it the Pharisees come to Jesus and say "Your the Son of God then? Show us a sign!". If you like back over the last few chapters, Jesus had just walked on water, and fed 5,000 people from a meagre amount of food. The signs were all over the place, but the Pharisees didn't see them. I think that the existence of a supernatural creative force is obviously seen in the existence of our universe - but other people seem determined to hunt around for a rationalistic explanation that, in the end, requires a leap of faith just as belief in a creator does.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by LordLucless · 2004-12-23 09:55 · Score: 1

Society at large should be mature enough to reasonably discuss the issue when it comes up with fact and to not take another's views personally. Unfortunately we don't yet live in a mature society.

Including you, it seems:

The people are suckers, let this happen, and still take the book for gospel even though any reasonable person would not believe King So and So are making these changes on behalf of "god" but instead are doing it for their own purposes.

Way to not make a personal attack on the beliefs of others.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by LordLucless · 2004-12-23 10:02 · Score: 1

Sorry, but this just isn't true, unless you accept that "accepting j.c. into your heart" is the natural state of man - he who accepts him into his heart shall be saved implies pretty god-damned strongly that he who does not will not be saved. hence your statement would seem to be patently false - or is this just one of those contradictions that's been waved off as insignificant?

The point I was making is that your worthiness to God is not the result of some huge balance scale comparing all your good deeds to all your bad ones. No protestant theology believes that you get to heaven by doing lots of good things - one of the core beliefs of the reformation was that only God's intervention (sending Jesus to pay off our debts for us) can get us to heaven. There is still debate as to whether God predestined those who are saved (Calvinism) or whether an individual chooses to accept God's offer (Arminianism). I'm not really decided on that question, but even if you go with the Arminian argument, salvation is determined by the combination of God's grace and a single decision on your part to accept it - not the innate morality of your own actions.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by ocelotbob · 2004-12-23 10:02 · Score: 1

So should we ban politics too, because persons of strong political opinion sometimes resort to violence? After all, purely political motives killed tens of millions of people in the last hundred years.

--
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by HiThere · 2004-12-23 10:39 · Score: 1

Nah. They required intervention from the holy Darwin.

Occam's razor isn't sharp enough to cut some questions, but I find the presumption that there was a preexisting vertebrate of cosmic dimensions and insubstantial composition that could and would, nevertheless, pay attention to this particular planet to be a more excessive multiplication of basic assumptions. The other one is just extremely complex to figure out. And doesn't require presuming that the current state reached was a design goal.

If you have other evidence, I'd be interesting in hearing it. Arguments I don't need. I've got plenty of those, but evidence is a mite lacking.

The problem is that you can't apply bayes rule here. The assumption is that you are starting from a blank slate, so there isn't any pre-existing knowledge base. But people never evolved (that *word* again!) to deal with such a circumstance.

All of the evidence that I know of is consistent with the evolution of life. It's also all consistent with the universe, and all my knowledge of it, having been created 3 microseconds ago. Consistency doesn't suffice. So one must slice as best as one can with Occam's Razor...and know that it's not infallibly correct.

Just one question though...if some god did create the universe, how does one decide what other characteristics such a god would have? One assertion that I've seen is that he would be inordinately fond of beetles, and there is, if one looks, some evidence that is consistent with that. What other characteristics? In particular, what evidence is there that he knows, or is even interested in, any particular human or earthly species?

I have become a though-going agnostic. NOBODY seems to have any evidence...or at least not any evidence that doesn't lead itself to multiple interpretations. E.g., I have heard that the roman court records don't record the particular execution of a political trouble maker crucified between two thieves on the Friday before Passover in any year that is a reasonable candidate. I don't assert that this is actuality, as I've never gone looking for such records, but it seems to me that if such records existed somebody somewhere would have made a great to-do about it "See, here's proof!" (never mind proof of what). Lacking those records, one must come up with some explanation, and the most probable one to me is "no such event occured", but certainly there are others, e.g. "early christians removed and burned them to remove proof of His disgrace".

The main point being, there IS NO UNEQUIVOCAL EVIDENCE. And there are LOTS OF POSSIBILE CHOICES. Asserting any particular one of them in the absence of more evidence than has been provided strikes me as either silly or stupid (or, sometimes, both). If I assert that PTATH is the creation Diety, I would have as much evidence on my side as anyone who asserts that it was Issis, or "The Big Bang", or Jehovah, or any other particular creator|creatrix|creationEvent.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by arkanes · 2004-12-24 01:13 · Score: 1

Possibly because that deity made you, and therefore has some claim on you?
If he wanted a lapdog he should have made one then. God, as described in the Bible, isn't an diety I want to have anything to do with. He's bitter and cruel and despite regularly being described as loving and forgiving, rarely demonsrates these traits. It's kinda like listening to an abused wife talk about her husband.
As for Matthew, I understand the point. I should point out that nobody is walking on water these days, though. But the whole point is that you have faith - that you choose (or are led, depending on your viewpoint) to believe these things. I don't, and require demonstration. There's no leap of faith involved here. Some people can't believe that the universe exists, or that we exist, or that X exists, and the fact that it does points to a creator. That's fine, but I don't see the correlation there and am perfectly happy with random chance and chaos being the explanation for my existance. I'd be fine with there being an intelligent creator, too, but if he's going to be God as well as a creator, ie he's going to judge us/me and demand worship and certain behavior, etc, etc then I'm not interested unless he's going to communicate a little more effectively.
Re:It doesnt matter what China does by aminorex · 2004-12-24 16:51 · Score: 1

I'm not sure why you think that God wants your worship. It seems to me a minor exercise to conclude that he does not.

The belief that God has not shown himself through some obvious means is exactly that, a belief, not a fact, and requires a leap of faith. It's a circular reference.

The ressurrection of Jesus Christ is the single best-documented event in the pre-electronic history of mankind. It's difficult to evade.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-

Wond'ring aloud... by Black+Parrot · 2004-12-22 23:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

> The related departments have closed 1,278 illegal web sites and 114 sites promoting gambling, superstitious activities and cult propaganda

Was Slashdot listed under "superstitious activities", or "cult propaganda"?

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade

Re:Wond'ring aloud... by Camel+Pilot · 2004-12-23 07:09 · Score: 1

More like a low SNR signal.

Re:Whoa by The_Hun · 2004-12-22 23:42 · Score: 1

"It was a joke."
Sorry I should improve my English :)
Btw: "Communism on paper" actually prescribes an initial period of "dictatorship of the proletariat" over the other classes of society. Well 20th century witnessed that period in many countries - that was "communism on paper", the first stage that is.

--
Sig. under reconstruction.

Perhaps WE are the backward ones by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-22 23:44 · Score: 1, Interesting

China just opened up it's religious freedoms, actually.

As for censorship... even we censor certain things we find unpalatable: child porn, for instance. Perhaps the only difference is that other countries have more foresight to see the harm some publications do to society (after all, we're still recovering from the stupidity of tobacco advertising, images promoting eating disorders, etc.).

Just because it's different, doesn't mean it's wrong. At the very least, when another culture chooses to manage its society differently, we should give the other approach serious consideration, and choose the best, or a compromise between the advantages of both.

Re:Perhaps WE are the backward ones by Cletus+the+yokel · 2004-12-23 03:04 · Score: 1

"Just because it's different, doesn't mean it's wrong. At the very least, when another culture chooses to manage its society differently, we should give the other approach serious consideration, and choose the best, or a compromise between the advantages of both."

I call bullshit.
I'm so tired of apologists for the Chinese gov't saying that things like democracy are 'not part of the Chinese culture' - maybe they're not, but that's completely beside the point. the *real* reason that freedoms of religion, conscience, and expression are repressed in authoritarian regimes like China, is that they cannot tolerate or afford any belief or speech which could pose a threat to their hold on power. The Chinese elite is a thouroghly corrupt, nepotistic plutocracy; the Communist Party merely provides a convenient veneer and mechanism for advancement and control. What these people fear most is genuine religious, moral, and intellectual conviction. They know that those who answer to a higher power or ideal can only be pushed so far before they will bend no farther. The state cannot allow competition for the hearts and minds of its subjects. We saw the same thing in the Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany.

--
Wanted: One witty yet thought provoking .sig - Apply here.

Re:It happens... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-22 23:44 · Score: 1, Interesting

re: Western countries

What's the process and for what reasons are sites closed in the West? Is there a fundamental difference between the two? Is there a significant quantitative difference? Is there recourse in those respective jurisdictions for the losing party?

We are on the path now by nurb432 · 2004-12-22 23:57 · Score: 1, Interesting

Just try to be a true radical online ( or in real life ) now, advocating for the next revolution.. Outlining details techniques and equipment manufacture..

See how long before you are whisked away for 'questioning' under the patriot act.

True, we are not totally screwed, yet.. But its coming. There no 'if'.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:We are on the path now by Rhone · 2004-12-23 00:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just try to be a true radical online ( or in real life ) now, advocating for the next revolution.. Outlining details techniques and equipment manufacture..
I'm always amused by comments like this on Slashdot. Come on--no government, however "free" the country is, is going to look kindly upon people who advocate overthrowing it. Just because a government was put in place by a revolution doesn't mean it would be perfectly happy with being overthrown by another one.
Re:We are on the path now by Kjella · 2004-12-23 02:06 · Score: 1

Take this argument with a grain of salt (it is not mine), but here goes:

Revolutions happen because the people disagree with the government. In a democracy, the people is the government. Hence, there should be no need to revolt in a democracy.

In fact, revolution in a democracy is often seen as an attempt to introduce a non-democratic regime, such as a military junta, dictatorship or theocracy.

Of course, this ignores problems on so many levels reigning from suppressing minorities to beurocratic distancing to corruption which can all lead to a "valid" revolution.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:We are on the path now by asliarun · 2004-12-23 02:21 · Score: 1

Agreed. However, try extrapolating your argument for once.

Step 1: The government censors any public communication that is deemed to be "against national interest". This would include communication detailing say, coup details, anarchists' plans etc.

Step 2: The government arrests the people at the two (or more) ends of the communication.

Step 3: Replace public with private above.

Step 4: Replace "against national interest" with "promoting illegal acts". This would include any material pertaining to say, system cracking, bomb making, lock picking (remember the MIT guides?) and so on. Again, feel free to interchange public with private.

Step 5: Replace "promoting illegal acts" with "against moral values".

Step 6: The govt. rewards people to report these offenses. In other words, it begins enlisting local people to help in information gathering.

Step 7: The govt. begins changing the legal, bureaucratic, and political system in its favour to enable it to perform the above steps more efficiently. This is done by replacing people at the high level with more "suitable" people, and have this percolate downwards.

Step 8: The govt. decides to impose an emergency because of a perceived external threat. This acts as an exercise to demostrate if it can succesfully curtail people's rights if needed.

Step 9: The govt. decides to modify the democratic system permanently and gives itself more control to tackle the above-mentioned emergency more effectively.

Thus is the slippery slope defined (or one version of it). People get concerned with these kind of issues only because they recognize that these things are a natural progression.

Having said this, i'm not an alarmist or anything. Just making an observation, that's all.
Re:We are on the path now by Rhone · 2004-12-23 10:31 · Score: 1

Well sure, almost anything is worse when you take it to an extreme.
The line, ultimately, is between free speech and threats. Disagreeing with the government, spreading knowledge/information, advocating voting out incumbent politicians, etc. is all free speech and should be protected. When you start talking about violently opposing the government--you know, like blowing up federal buildings and maybe killing some children as "collateral damage"--you should expect the government to take some interest in your activities. And if you make specific plans to carry out an attack somewhere... well, wouldn't there be quite a public outrage if we all found out the government could have stopped it, but didn't?

Drop in reports. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 00:09 · Score: 1, Informative

"With the closures, the on-line reports on the illegal web sites have declined to 17.4 percent from 67 percent when the crackdown began." ... 17.4 percent of what? Most of the reports are now on non-illegal sites?

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2004-12-23 00:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:It happens... by The_Hun · 2004-12-23 00:28 · Score: 1

Is others' sin/amorality/infringing-of-rights an excuse for anyone to do the same?

--
Sig. under reconstruction.

Re:Yes that right by n0rr1s · 2004-12-23 00:28 · Score: 1

Yes and in Constitution Repubic USA.

The USA relives its teenage years?

Re:Whoa by Jedi+Alec · 2004-12-23 00:34 · Score: 1

Everyone working towards the greater good.

That's the problem with communism in practice. It is based on a mistaken view of human nature. Human's aren't naturally good/caring/giving people, they're mostly selfish bastards that couldn't care less what happens outside their white picket fence so long as it doesn't affect them or their family/friends. The whole concept of a "greater good" quickly goes down the drain when there's mortgages/car payments/diapers that need getting paid for one way or another.

--

People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.

Re:Yes that right by TummyX · 2004-12-23 00:40 · Score: 1

The difference between Americans and Chinese is they realise they are being screwed, where as Americans dont seem to have a fucking clue...

Funny how you linked to Slashdot, an American site full of Americans who actually agree with you as proof that Americans are stupid.

All that self congratulatory American hating fueled wanking must really bruise your penis.

Give me access to a Chinese Proxy by jellomizer · 2004-12-23 00:43 · Score: 1

This would be the perfect job. Searching for porn on the internet and when I went threw all the free stuff I report it to the Chinese officials get $240 for it and continue on. The trick is use an American internet connection and when you find a site check to see if it runs in china then report it. Sure I may be a sell out but that is the American Way right?

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.

Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by reallocate · 2004-12-23 00:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Chinese people have the same rights as Americans or anyone else. We all have the same rights. The Chinese government simply represses the rights of its citizens.

It is both wrong an very dangerous to think our rights come to us as gifts from our governments.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"

Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by meringuoid · 2004-12-23 00:55 · Score: 1

It is both wrong an very dangerous to think our rights come to us as gifts from our governments.
True, but it is also wrong and very dangerous to think that everyone has rights as a matter of course. Such thinking leads to us taking our rights for granted.
Our rights are what we have won for ourselves, by confronting our governments and the governments of other nations, in 1215 and in 1776 and in 1789 and in 1945... We'll keep them as long as we still think they're important. Of course, nowadays the argument seems to be that we must give up some rights because otherwise we might get killed by Terrorists; so, it seems that we no longer consider liberty worth dying for. What rights we will still have at the end of this, I can't help but wonder...

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by reallocate · 2004-12-23 01:13 · Score: 2, Informative

Our rights are ours by virtue of our existence. They cannot be "won" from governments because governments do not possess any rights. What we win from governments is the ability to exercise our rights.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Fwonkas · 2004-12-23 03:08 · Score: 1

The possession of rights, in practice, is indistinguishable from the ability to exercise those rights. That is to say, you can claim that you have this or that right all you want, and you may even give an excellent argument for it, but if the state effectively prohibits you from exercising that right, then "This is my right" is more of a political statement or desire than an actual statement of fact.

I guess it comes down to whatever is the more persuasive definition of "right". I'm pretty confused, and have been for a while. I know what I'd like to believe, but there's good arguments for and against it.

--
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by reallocate · 2004-12-23 03:36 · Score: 1

Don't be confused. Your rights don't come from any government. Governments can use force or the threat of force to keep you from exercising your rights, but they are not the source of your rights.

A government that protects your rights is legitimate. A government that thwarts your rights is illegitimate.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Fwonkas · 2004-12-23 03:54 · Score: 1

Heh. You misunderstand. I'm totally with you on this. I just haven't heard a good argument to completely convince me that we actually have these things called "rights" which are independent of outside control or whim. Do I believe it? Yeah. Can I prove it, or at least disprove the opposite? No. But if someone can, it'll make my day.

It gets even more confusing when people start saying that intellectual property is a right, or bearing arms, or whatever. You can claim these things all you want, but can anyone show that we all have the inherent right to bear arms? Can anyone show that we have the inherent right to a speedy trial? And if any of these rights are inherent, and can't be granted or revoked by a government, does that mean we have to abandon all forms of penal systems?

Maybe those are too specific (you could argue that these are derived from basic rights), but it does demonstrate the problem.

--
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by anvilmark · 2004-12-23 04:59 · Score: 1

It is both wrong an very dangerous to think our rights come to us as gifts from our governments.

This is only if you believe in the principle of limited government (which the US's Founders did).
If you are "progressive" (of which socialism/communism is a type) you believe that rights are granted by the state.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Nopal · 2004-12-23 05:00 · Score: 1

In the US, those rights have divine origins:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --From the US Declaration of Independence.
The US's government roots are not purely secular. They seem contain just the right amount of religious belief. That is a balance that in my experience, is unique to this country.
If you have a country whose government believes that religion is merely "superstition," how can any rights be unalienable? Everything seems to become relative, even the basic essence of humanity.
I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm merely curious to identify if it's possible to ground into solid bedrock the belief in human rights the way the US has done, without having at the same time any belief on an immutable, all powerful source to act as that bedrock (namely, God). It appears to me that such a feat could be a philosophical inability for a government that is purely secular. Am I wrong in that conclusion?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Fwonkas · 2004-12-23 05:21 · Score: 1

In the US, those rights have divine origins:
Maybe. But it's also Lockean. They may have just wanted to say, "Look, this is a good idea" and not argue about what they already agreed with.
I agree, it is really hard to make a case for inalienable rights without deferring to God or whatever. That's not to say it can't be done. Utilitarianism goes a long way towards doing that.

I don't think you need a religious bedrock to avoid moral relativism. But in any of these ethical theories, there are certain things that have to just kind of be accepted. In Utilitarianism, for example, you have to accept that the general well-being of the populace and of individuals is a desirable thing. That may sound silly to deny, but that doesn't mean you can prove it. It's an easier stretch than saying, for example, X is wrong because God says it's wrong.

Which brings me to the point where a lot of these conversations can end (or go haywire) - if ethics and morality are dependent on God, does God create these rules for us? Or merely communicate them? If he's merely communicating them, then those rules would seem to be independent of him. If he's creating them... well, would anyone argue that if God said that it was ok to strangle your neighbor's infant, then it's ok?

One could counter that God doesn't create them, but he's the one and only way to know these rules. That is, we can't discover these truths independently. But I'm not sure how anyone would begin to offer a good argument for that.

--
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by reallocate · 2004-12-23 05:57 · Score: 1

Seems to me that this is the type of question that doesn't require external proof, or, at least, is beyond our abiity to prove.

I'd rather focus on the other side of the question: Why should I acquiesce in the denial of my liberties?

The exercise of rights is not a recipe for anarchy. Rights are balanced with responsibilities. Hence, the existence of prisons, where we put people who have infringed the rights of others or evaded their social responsibilities.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by reallocate · 2004-12-23 06:17 · Score: 1

People used to believe in the divine right of kings, too. They were wrong. So are people who believe that the state doles out rights. Anyone who believes that is no more "progressive" than Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao or any of their thuggish counterparts throughout history.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Nopal · 2004-12-23 06:18 · Score: 1

Great response. I know of utilitarianism, and I agree that it does go far to solving the origin problem for basic human rights. Unfortunately, utilitarianism is still based on a relative view. Remember that Germany was trying to rid of its internal problems by exterminating its Jewish minority. From their point of view, it would be the most useful course of action for improving their society. This is an extreme example, but it shows how utilitarianism can still slide off the ethical scale because it still not grounded on unchanging principles. Similarly, communism was also grounded on utilitarian philosophies.
Similarly, if we believe that God merely communicates these unalienable principles, then we are back to square one, because God becomes an interloper and not a source. Since we still lack a source, God merely becomes subject to the same philosophical difficulty that we are trying to solve. Typically, omnipotence and omniscience are ascribed to God and that avoids the problem.
Ultimately, there is still an element of faith to any God argument that your analysis seems to have missed: Faith means being sure that God exists, and if God exists, he can talk to a person. It also does not exclude the possiblity that people imagine hearing from God. So both situations must exist concurrently: God can really speak, and some people can merely imagine that God speaks to them. This is similar to how the president of the US can actually speak to you, or you can have a mental illness and believe that your dog can speak and your dog is the president, and both possiblities exist. This is the way that your argument about strangling your neighbor's infant can be be overcome while retaining the idea that God is the ultimate source of everything.
This is an important differentiation, but nonetheless one that cannot be made if we leave the faith that God exists out of the equation. Things begin to get too sticky at this point, but it still gets us no farther than utilitarianism as the best secular approach to unalienable rights. And unfortunately, ulititarianism still falls short of explaining a way to justify their unalienability.
Particularly as it pertains to the declaration of independence, I agree that the mention of God is both utilitarian and religious. But it is that religious aspect that gives the usefulness of the statement its strength.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Fwonkas · 2004-12-23 07:00 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, utilitarianism is still based on a relative view. Remember that Germany was trying to rid of its internal problems by exterminating its Jewish minority. From their point of view, it would be the most useful course of action for improving their society.

I would argue that they were mistaken. Any tool or ethical system can be misused or misunderstood. People misunderstand religion all the time, and do horrible things which they believe their religion justifies (or demands). So I agree, utilitarianism can lead to horrible things, but this probably isn't due to relativity, since religion has done the same.

I'd also argue that utilitarianism is not strictly relative (and also that there could be good utilitarian arguments against communism), but now I'm going waaaay off-topic. :)

Since we still lack a source, God merely becomes subject to the same philosophical difficulty that we are trying to solve. Typically, omnipotence and omniscience are ascribed to God and that avoids the problem.

But is this really avoiding the problem? As a tool for authority, it works. But if the goal is to know what is right and wrong, how does this help? Whether God has told us what's right or wrong or not, aren't you going to have to coerce an awful lot of people to believe in one set of rules which you can't ultimately prove to be correct, since you can't call up God for clarification? I know some might counter by saying that you can read the Bible or something, but I'd have to already buy into this way of seeing the world to agree with that.

And if someone really can speak to God, how can I know that? Isn't there the tremendous chance of abuse, if none of this can be verified?

I don't see what rational benefits religion offers over secular ethical systems. As you say, faith is a part of this, though I don't think that's exclusive to religion. Secular ethical systems require a bit of a leap of faith too, but I think they require less than religion. I also think that secular systems have an important advantage, in that people of different religions may be able to agree with the same secular system. It'd still be tough, but easier than without one.

I may not have stated myself clearly on the "neighbor's infant" thing. My point was not that someone might wrongly think that God is telling them to do this and that - my point was that if these rules truly are decrees by God, and not just communicated, then they are arbitrary. That is, X is right because God says so. So if we could somehow directly access God, and he said that strangling your neighbor's baby is ok, then is it? That's what that sort of system implies - that things aren't inherently wrong, they're wrong because God says so. Does that make more sense?

It also makes it difficult to make decisions, since if these rules are arbitrary, they may not be cohesive. And if they're cohesive, I'd argue that they may not, in fact, be arbitrary. :)

I agree with your overall point, though. Religion can play a useful role in the recognition of inherent, inalienable rights. I just like to quibble. :)

--
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by DunbarTheInept · 2004-12-23 08:20 · Score: 1

It appears to me that such a feat could be a philosophical inability for a government that is purely secular. Am I wrong in that conclusion?

Yes you are wrong in that conclusion, because your premise that our government was not based on entirely secular principles is false. It was 100% secular. Secular government does not mean the government is anti-religious. It means the government is an entirely separete entity from religion, and that there are codified rules in place to keep them from mixing together. (And those rules are still there, even though the current administration is trying to violate those rules.) Our government is becoming less than 100% secular today, but it did not start out that way.

Everything seems to become relative, even the basic essence of humanity.
Ethics is subjectively based on opinion. It always has been.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by aminorex · 2004-12-23 08:35 · Score: 1

If I have the right to liberty, the right to a speedy trial follows.

I see no value or legitimacy in USAmerican practice
of justice, but I greatly admire its foundational
principles, now mooted by contradictory practice.
Among the rights held to be self-evidently endowed
upon man are the rights of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness, according to those foundational
precepts. One can readily derive the vast preponderance
of all useful and valid law from that basis.

Any discourse must begin with some common ground,
or there is no possibility of dialog. For example,
to attempt to reason with someone who denies the
law of the excluded middle is patently futile.
Those who deny your right to life cannot be
reasoned with, they can only be restrained.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Nopal · 2004-12-23 09:44 · Score: 1

I agree that secular government does not mean the government is anti-religion, but unfortunately that distinction is not made often enough.
However, I fail to see how you can state that our government was based on entirely secular principles, when such a statement appears to be in direct contradiction of the declaration of independence.
I think that the crux of our disagreement appears to be that acknowledging the existance of God is not quite "religious" since for example, agnostics acknowledge the existence of God. However, by the same token, our government isn't based in purely secular values, since a belief in the existance of God necessitates some faith. By definition, secular values can stand on their own by pure logic, without any requirements of faith.
So I guess I must further clarify my point. Intead of saying religion, I must say that the government's most basic princiciple appears to rest on a small but significant cornerstone of faith (faith in a religious, but broad sense). However, I must disagree with the notion that our nation's root principles are purely secular, unless you can prove to me that the words that the founding fathers wrote are "typos."
About your claim that ethics are subjective and have always been, I must say that you should be aware of the immense burden of proof behind that statement. Your average rationalist philosopher would take issue with such a claim (Plato, Descartes, Pascal, etc.). But then, If we keep in mind that ethics have always been about practicality first, I would have agreed with you if you had said that ethics as we now practice them are relative because we are imperfect ourselves. However, that says nothing about the principles behind ethics, which could very well be fixed and unchanging (the rationalist approach), or maleable and fleeting (the empiricist approach). Better men that ourselves have spend lifetimes exploring these possibilites. Going down that tangent can turn this discussion into a never-ending monster.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Nopal · 2004-12-23 11:14 · Score: 1

God is telling them to do this and that - my point was that if these rules truly are decrees by God, and not just communicated, then they are arbitrary.
A basic tenant of most religions is that God's rules are not arbitrary and that there is a point to everything. Another basic tenant of many religions is that God has given us a brain. These two rules are not exclusive of each other, but complementary. That's why, for example, in Catholicism we have ethical guidelines that are based in classical philosophy, a bit of skepticistm, as well as on the word of God.
My point is that religious guidelines are rarely arbitrary in the sense that they are not contradictory of the utalitarian nature of ethics. God's tennents can be sort of illustrated by Plato's theory of the forms: i.e.- That there is a perfect form of the good, of the bad, and of everything else. Of these forms, mathematics are the simplest to comprehend, but some are many which are much more complex. Since, according to Plato, these forms exist independent of humans, humans can gain insight into them. That's why we all seem to agree on some very basic principles, because those principles exist on their own, but being imperfect, we cannot grasp the "full" form of them. God, in this context, would be the supreme creator that embodies all of these "forms", and as such, God's principles cannot be arbitrary and incompatible with our own logical conclusions.
And now we are digressing too much into theology and epistemology. But like you, I like to quibble as well.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by DunbarTheInept · 2004-12-23 11:44 · Score: 1

Point #1: I am assuming that by "Our Government" you are referring to the constitutional republic we live under today (as opposed to the short-lived Articles of Confederation). Therefore, while our nation may have begun in 1776, our government began in 1788. The Declaration of Independance is not a foundation of our government. It was a document attempting to justify to the public (and to Parliament) why it was okay to split from the crown, and why the delegates believed an armed revolt was the only means left to make it happen. It had nothing to do with what the government of this new nation would eventually end up being later on once things settled down.

If you look at the actual document that *does* found our government, The Constitution, it never mentions "God" or "Creator", and it only mentions "religion" in two places - The first amendment where it mandates freedom of religion, and in Article 6 where it specifies that the government is not allowed to administer any religous test to see who is eligable for a public office.

Point #2: You keep using "nation" and "government" interchangably. That is a problem because of the reason stated above in point #1. I might be persuaded that there was some small degree of faith in the founding of the Nation, but not of the Government. Since you're talking in the context of basis of law and morality, the government is what matters, not the nation. Consider a nation like France, which has had completely different types of government over the years, but is still the same Nation.

Point #3: Objective things are things that exist outside of the human mind, like trees, rocks, gravity, etc. Subjective things are things that exist ONLY inside the human mind, like value judgements on what is ethically correct. I think that things that are ethically wrong are wrong merely because we desire to live in a world where people don't do that sort of thing. For example, why is being deceptive wrong? It's simply because people don't like being in a world where they are being decieved. And I don't think it needs to be more complex than that. The reason for the arguments between people on what is and is not ethical, then, comes merely from the fact that different people can't agree on what kind of world they'd like to live in.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by bar-agent · 2004-12-23 11:57 · Score: 1

Our rights are ours by virtue of our existence.

I disagree. I believe that the rights you have are those that society thinks you have. Not government, but society. You have a right to free speech because (I assume) you live in the U.S. and Americans think that Americans have the right to free speech.

But if you lived in ancient Egypt, would you have the right to free speech? You say "yes," but no one around you would agree, even in principle.

--
i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by reallocate · 2004-12-23 12:29 · Score: 1

>> if you lived in ancient Egypt, would you have the right to free speech?

Of course.

If our rights do not come to us by virtue of our birth, how does "society" (really just a lot of individuals) or government give them to us? Where do they get them?

Governments and other people ("society") can try to keep you from exercising your rights, but they are not the source of your rights.

No one is born a slave. We are all born free, and always have been.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Fwonkas · 2004-12-23 15:42 · Score: 1

I think that the crux of our disagreement appears to be that acknowledging the existance of God is not quite "religious" since for example, agnostics acknowledge the existence of God.

[emphasis mine]

This is a common mistake. An agnostic doesn't acknowledge the existence of God. An agnostic is neutral on the question, since (from an agnostic point of view) there's no substantial evidence either way. See this link.

For brevity (and because I think my opinion on the matter is boring), I usually tell people that I'm an atheist, when in fact I'm agnostic. :)

About your claim that ethics are subjective and have always been, I must say that you should be aware of the immense burden of proof behind that statement. Your average rationalist philosopher would take issue with such a claim (Plato, Descartes, Pascal, etc.).

An excellent point which is often glossed over these days. I'm saying this as a liberal who is not a relativist. That's bound to make some people mad. Or confused. A friend of mine wrote on this.

--
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Fwonkas · 2004-12-23 16:00 · Score: 1

Subjective things are things that exist ONLY inside the human mind, like value judgements on what is ethically correct. I think that things that are ethically wrong are wrong merely because we desire to live in a world where people don't do that sort of thing.

I'm just delving into OT conversation now, but I'm loving it, so I don't care. If you're worried about mod points, my email is obfuscated, but available.

Your last sentence there implies a lot. Is killing infants for pleasure wrong merely because we desire to live in a world where people don't kill infants for pleasure? I'm being simplistic, but I just want to get an idea of how serious you are. :)

There are several good arguments for cognitive relativism. That is, that trees, rocks, gravity, etc. are merely constructs of the human mind. What makes you think that trees exist objectively but "the good" does not?

--
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Fwonkas · 2004-12-23 16:31 · Score: 1

A basic tenant of most religions is that God's rules are not arbitrary and that there is a point to everything.

That's it right there - if it's not arbitrary, then it must adhere to some system. And if it adheres to a system, then the existence of God is not strictly necessary.

Is Kant's Categorical Imperative compatible with God's will? And if it is, why is God necessary?

Admittedly, I'm watering all this down. But you get the idea.

--
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by yangsta · 2004-12-23 22:00 · Score: 1

Only if you believe that we had rights to begin with.

Where do we receive these magical "rights" come from? Jefferson says God. Some think we've always had them.

It's all a matter of sociocultural context.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by borgheron · 2004-12-24 03:23 · Score: 1

I fail to see where I said, or even implied that they were granted by Governments. The idea of human rights, by definition, means that we as humans are entitled to these rights no matter what.

GJC

--
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by reallocate · 2004-12-24 06:17 · Score: 1

You didn't. I was responding to another post.

--
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Homburg · 2004-12-26 11:06 · Score: 1

It appears to me that such a feat could be a philosophical inability for a government that is purely secular. Am I wrong in that conclusion?

The short answer is, yes, you are. People have been developing secular bases for ethics for at least as long as the US has been in existence. Apart from David Hume, who was more a a consequentialist (i.e., he thought morality was about what had good consequences, without being terribly concerned about wether that violated people's rights), modern theories of human rights are usually based on the work of Kant, whose morality was definitely secular (Kant himself was a Christian, but his arguments don't depend on an appeal to god). Wikipedia have a short introduction to Kantianism, and the Internet Encyclopedia's article on human rights is good on secular justifications for rights.

It's also worth pointing out that you can believe in an objective ethics without believing in God _or_ human rights. The ancient Greeks did (some of them believed in gods, but rarely appealed to them when doing philosophy), and so do contemporary marxist philosophers; for example, see Alain Badiou and Raymond Geuss.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Nopal · 2004-12-27 05:37 · Score: 1

Go OT all of you want. I like what you have to say.
There are several good arguments for cognitive relativism. That is, that trees, rocks, gravity, etc. are merely constructs of the human mind. What makes you think that trees exist objectively but "the good" does not?
Just to add to your question: What about the other side of the spectrum, the now-famous
cogito, ergo sum line (I think, therefore I am)? It can be argue that concepts and thoughts are what define us, perhaps with even more reality than so-called phisical "objects." Our entire universe internalized is made of concepts, so the concepts must be real at some level, Just not necessarily physical. The concept of 1 is not real by itself, but it can be used to describe the phisical world. Can't an a concept like "the good" serve the same function?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Nopal · 2004-12-27 06:03 · Score: 1

So is our current government not based on our declaration of independence at all? Why can't it? Are you saying that our government was built with no basis or with no belief on unalienable rights at all?
But your point is well taken. You seem to have differentiated well between a nation with religious roots and a government with a secular design within that same nation.
So now my basic question still remains, but thanks to you I may be able to express it better so perhaps it will be fully understood now: If our government is based on the principles of the declaration of independence (unalienable rights..life..liberty..pursuit of happiness), how can these rights themselves be unalienable without a measure of faith? If on the other hand, our government wasn't based on that founding document (a big "If" that you'd have to explain away), how can the government be pledged to protect rights that don't have to be permanent?
You're right in that a government and nation are two different things. I've been always under the impression though, that a government should serve its nation and uphold that nation's principles. If these principles justify why it was OK to split from the crown, then they also are the raison d'etre of our country. They are they "why" of having a country named The United States of America. The government is the "how". Can we have a "how" without any basis on the "why"?
As far as point #3, relativism, I have a host of issues and questions for you, but I'll let Fwonkas lead the way. He seems to truly enjoy the epistemological portion of this discussion.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Nopal · 2004-12-27 06:56 · Score: 1

That's it right there - if it's not arbitrary, then it must adhere to some system. And if it adheres to a system, then the existence of God is not strictly necessary.
Except of course, if God is the system (and its origin).
Yes, Kant's Categorical Imperative is fully compatible with God's will (AFAIK it's also part of the Catholic canon). For practical purposes however, you're right in that we can do quite well by the imperative regardless of our belief in God (provided we are honest about following it). But, the problem with Kant's Categorical Imperative is one of limits: Limited knowledge which can be applied to a particular situation, as well as of origin. If morality is an a-priori concept, which we can arrive it through our intellect alone, the concepts and rules that guide them must still exist independent of us. We must also be as perfect on our analysis as we can, even in the face of incomplete information. In other words, for many situations in which we must apply the imperative we may not be in the best position to do so.
Other than those reservations, you've got a great point, but one that still requires a grounding on unchanging principles in order to function well.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by DunbarTheInept · 2004-12-27 11:27 · Score: 1

There are several good arguments for cognitive relativism. That is, that trees, rocks, gravity, etc. are merely constructs of the human mind. What makes you think that trees exist objectively but "the good" does not?

I consider myself a sane person. That's all the explanation I need for why I believe objective reality exists. "Good", on the other hand, is a value judgment. It is nothing more than a mark of approval. If you erase all thinking beings from existence, rocks still exist. If you remove all thinking beings from existence, good and evil no longer exist.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by DunbarTheInept · 2004-12-27 11:32 · Score: 1

Thoughts don't automatically refer to things that actually exist just because somebody thinks them. I could think of the space aliens that allegedly abucted me this morning, just as easily as I could think of the orange juice I had for breakfast. Therefore the burden of proof is *always* on the one proposing something exists. Thinking it is insufficient. (If you don't agree, then I'd have to ask why you're an agnostic, since most poeple thinking God exists should then put the burden of proof on the minory who don't, right?) Therefore, to show that ethics are a real existant thing is where the burden of proof lays - just like it does for God. Until then, it's just a thought in someone's head.

Ethics "exist" only in the same way that "happiness" "exists" - as thoughts.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by DunbarTheInept · 2004-12-27 11:50 · Score: 1

a nation with religious roots

I still don't really think that's a very honest description. God is mentioned exactly ONCE, and it is only with the generic moniker "Our Creator", and only in the same sense that someone might say "act of God" to refer to something in the natural world. Yes, those people beileved in a God, which is why they tended to speak that way, but it was not the fact that they were saying "Our Creator" that they were trying to draw attention to in that statement. The argument they were getting at was that they feel those rights exist by default, as opposed to the common view that they are granted by government. The argument was NOT that they exist by creator as opposed to existing without a creator. If religion was a major principle of the Declaration of Independance, it would have had more mention than that one very weak reference.

If our government is based on the principles of the declaration of independence

I don't accept this premise either. (For reasons already stated in my previous post) As far as this being a big "if" that you say I'd have to explain away - I already did just that, in my previous post. Do keep in mind that when the Declaration was written, it was still a distinct possibility that we could have picked a new monarchy with Washington as the first king. Thankfully that faction didn't get what they wanted.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Fwonkas · 2004-12-28 03:46 · Score: 1

I consider myself a sane person. That's all the explanation I need for why I believe objective reality exists.

Heh. There are some good arguments for cognitive relativism. While I don't necessarily buy into it, I hesitate to talk about sanity when discussing metaphysics. It smacks of ad hominem. Or it's at least irrelevant. Quantum mechanics, for example, seems outright insane to me, but I pretty much buy into it. But I digress.

The problem of the external world is very tricky - not as straightforward as many would like. I'm not going to go on and on about this - I'll just make the argument that sensory experience can't really make that leap into confirmation of external reality. It is convenient and necessary to assume that our perceptions really do correspond to the external world, but many convenient things aren't strictly true.

There's a joke about metaphysics: The difference between an insane person and a philosopher is that while both realize that the floor may not actually exist in the room they're about to enter, the philosopher nevertheless enters.

I didn't say it was a good joke.

--
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Fwonkas · 2004-12-28 04:29 · Score: 1

Thinking it is insufficient. (If you don't agree, then I'd have to ask why you're an agnostic, since most poeple thinking God exists should then put the burden of proof on the minory who don't, right?)

I do agree that thinking something doesn't make it so.

And while I used to agree with the burden argument, I'm not so sure anymore, since people often make the mistake of confusing a lack of confirmation with negation. For example, some creationists often argue that since evolution (being a scientific theory) can't be proven, it must be false. Or that's at least their implication. They completely ignore the fact that falsifiability is a strength of scientific theory. The fact is that it is impossible to prove anything to be objectively true. That shouldn't keep us from reasonably assuming that X or Y exists.

That said, I'm not arguing that we should believe any old wild claim that people make. I'm saying we should give consideration to falsifiable claims. And the idea of objective ethics may be falsifiable (I'm not entirely sure - I haven't thought about that in particular too much yet).

If someone claims that they were abducted by aliens, you may counter that the neighbors saw nothing. They may come back with a claim about technology or something. That's a lousy argument.

However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that thinks that the murder of children for pleasure is in any way justifiable. I don't think that this is a matter of point of view. Granted, the act is ethically neutral as far as a rock is concerned. But that need not violate an objective ethics system. A rock is neutral to the existence of other rocks as well.

A lot of objective reality, as we see it, is really just us all agreeing about certain things. It is a biological chance that we perceive things as we do. Our brains or eyes could very well have seen red as green, etc. We don't see UV light or radio waves. So we can make claims all we want that our experience does correspond with reality. But in terms of metaphysics, it's just as hard to establish an objectively existing external world as it is to establish an objective "good". I happen to believe in both, though I think that the way I see ethics could also be argued to be a complex form of relativism. Maybe something along the lines of: "X is objectively good or bad insofar as rational beings are concerned." That may avoid the problems of simple relativism (which leads to no basis for judgement) and simple objectivity (which can seem pretty incoherent and irrational).

I don't, however, agree with the emotive theory of ethics - that normative claims amount to nothing more than expressing approval for something we like or find pleasant and booing at that with which we disagree (Hitler was a bad person = Boo Hitler; Martin Luther King was a good person = Yay MLK).

--
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Nopal · 2004-12-28 05:02 · Score: 1

Good response. Now we're getting somewhere.
"Our Creator", and only in the same sense that someone might say "act of God" to refer to something in the natural world.
But that is exactly the point: My argument is that there is nothing natural about unalienable rights. Where in nature can you point out to a creature having any natural rights that are unalienable? Nature, my friend, is at best ethics-neutral and rights are things borne out of ethics. In nature, nothing is unalienable because things are all relative.
The argument they were getting at was that they feel those rights exist by default, as opposed to the common view that they are granted by government.
We both agree on that point. But you see, the people that wrote those words weren't intellectual lightweights. They understood philosophy, ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics. Jefferson for example, is considered an important contributor to western philosophy in his own right. The word "unalienable" and "God" are inseparable in that context, and they understood that. That's why the words appear as they are and not as "Are endowed by unalienable rights from nature" or "are endowed with natural unalienable rights," when both of those phrases do not make sense. Natural rights, if they exist, are at best relative, so that building a government structure (be it monarchy, republic or whatever) on rights that are relative is a dangerous thing because it can easily lead to despotism.
I thank you for correcting me again when it comes to using the word "religion". I have this bad habit of just throwing the word around without thinking about it. Yes, it is not a very honest description when we talk strictly about the founding documents. In that light, "assumed faith" fits better (in the sense that the assumption that a creator exists is neceesary). Other than that, all of our other documents avoid mention of God because secularism is important to a healthy government. But when it comes to the unalienable rights, they couldn't skirt the issue.
But in the larger sense, the United States has deeply religious roots that go as deep as the reason why many people emmigrated here in the first place. When it comes to governments roots, though, you are right.
But I call attention to the reason why I started this whole thread to begin with: The necessary belief in God in order for rights to be considered unalienable and innate. Can you provide some proof that such is not the case, and that you can base unalienable rights on a purely faithless (in the sense of being ethics-relative) basis?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by DunbarTheInept · 2004-12-28 09:41 · Score: 1

I'll just make the argument that sensory experience can't really make that leap into confirmation of external reality.

Not by itself, no - but in conjunction with Occam's Razor it can. I observe a world that appears to exist outside myself and behave independantly of my observations. While I technically cannot observe what is happening when I'm not observing, I can notice how if I leave the room and come back that things behave as if they occurred without my observation being necessary. If I meet a newborn baby when visiting relatives, and then return five years later to visit again, the newborn is now a five-year old child, seeming to indicate that things occurred without my observance being necessary. If I leave out a bowl of ice cream and forget about it, then several hours later when I notice it again is now melted - giving the appearance that things occur when I'm not observing them. By Occam's Razor, the hypothesis I go with is the one that assumes an objective reality does in fact exist and does in fact act independantly of myself - because while that might seems like adding an unnecessary extra entity, which Occam's Razor says is a no-no, the alternative is to make my subconsious unnecessarily infinitely more complex and able to keep track of the entirety of the universe I have experienced so far, and update it appropriately when I look at it again. This is also a no-no by Occam's Razor, and it's a bigger no-no.

The assumption that the universe outside myself exists is the assumption that fits all the facts with the least complication.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Nopal · 2004-12-28 09:50 · Score: 1

Thank you for that response. However, I am not looking for a secular justification for rights. I am looking for a secular justification for unalienable rights. Even Kant's theories cannot be called that. Kant's theories are a system, still dependent on an a priori existance of things, which still sound awfully like unchanging, perfect principles. However, that's another discussion, because that's not what I'm asking.
It has already been stated that a good case can be made for human rights based on utility alone. I agreed and I still agree.
The point of my question is that of permanence, of unalienability. It seems to me that no right can be called unalienable without implying a higher authority. We can agree that giving rights to people are the best thing to do. However, since the origin of those rights is human, they can be alienable. If the origin of those rights is not human, then it is not up to us whether we should or should not have them, thus they are unalienable.
In that sense, one system is created by man (even if we follow Kant's "recipe"), and as thus can be taken away by man (such as governments). The other system is dependent on something greater, and thus humans have a very limited say on it. I don't want a secular explanation for rights, because that's easy enough to come up with. If you believe that rights are unalienable then I'd like to know why. It's a secular explanation for unalienable rights that I would like to see. Again, emphasis on unalienable.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by DunbarTheInept · 2004-12-28 09:53 · Score: 1

The word "unalienable" and "God" are inseparable in that context, and they understood that.

Keep in mind that these were the same people who would have called a lightning strike an "act of God", until Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod and proved that lightning could be redirected away from a building, which pretty much killed the idea that god was directing it. They lived in a day and age in which saying something is granted by God was synonymous with saying it is part of nature. The only reason they didn't say "granted by nature" is because at the time it would have meant the exact same thing to them.

The necessary belief in God in order for rights to be considered unalienable and innate. Can you provide some proof that such is not the case, and that you can base unalienable rights on a purely faithless (in the sense of being ethics-relative) basis?

No, I cannot. But I believe that the only difference between me and you in that regard is that I am willing to admit it to myself. The closest I can get to saying those rights are "innate" is in the fact that it's the kind of world most people would want to live in. It's "innate" in the same way that wanting to eat food is "innate". Desire to have those rights is an emotional drive we all seem to share.

(By the way, your statement contains the parenthetical implication that faithless equals ethics-relative. That's not necessarily true. I happen to be both, but there exist others who are not.)

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by DunbarTheInept · 2004-12-28 10:41 · Score: 1

They completely ignore the fact that falsifiability is a strength of scientific theory.

True - the difference between scientific unproven theories (which all of them are, technically) and religious unproven theories (which all all of them are, technically) is that the scientific ones have falsifiability - there is at least one known way that could have proven then wrong if they were, and it hasn't been able to do it so far. There is a wide gulf of difference between "failed to prove it wrong because there's no way to even theoretically try to prove it wrong" (religious theories) versus "failed to prove it wrong despite many tries that theoretically might have worked." (scientific theories) Neither amounts to proof - but the second one is a close approximation to proof (as the number of attempts and methods to disprove it approaches infinity, the theory approaches being proven true.) Whereas the first type isn't even a slight tiny step toward proof, and as the number of trials approaches infinity, the theory doesn't move one iota closer to being proven true because it was never falsifiable in the first place.

Our brains or eyes could very well have seen red as green, etc.

Not really. The words "red" and "green" got invented after our brains started getting perceptions of them. Therefore they are an arbitrary mapping in the first place. In other words, I really don't even know if what I experience as "red" matches what you do NOW. All I know is that since birth both of us were taught to match a sensation to a word "red", and that this sensation is triggered by the same exact stimuli. What we don't know is what is going on in each other's heads when our eyes are subjected to these similar stimuli. We might be labelling different sensations with the same word, but in a totally consistent fashion so we can't tell. All I really know is "When your eyes are subjected to light that has a strongest amplitude within this general frequency range, whatever mental reaction you get to that is something you have learned to call 'red', and when my eyes are subjected to the same type of light, I have also learned to call my mental reaction 'red'. But I don't know if yours and mine are the same mental reaction, and there's no way I could ever tell."

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Nopal · 2004-12-28 10:42 · Score: 1

No, I cannot. But I believe that the only difference between me and you in that regard is that I am willing to admit it to myself. The closest I can get to saying those rights are "innate" is in the fact that it's the kind of world most people would want to live in. It's "innate" in the same way that wanting to eat food is "innate". Desire to have those rights is an emotional drive we all seem to share.

Don't confuse rights with desires. However, I can see that it appears that rights cannot really be unalienable to you. If that's the case, I think that represents an impasse. I guess that we just have to agree to disagree. Thanks for explaining your arguments so eloquently.
On another note, our founding fathers lived during what we now referred to as "the age of reason." Thomas Jefferson himself is considered to be one of the lead philosophers of that era. I myself don't share on the typical Slashdot mass-elitism and I don't consider myself particularly bright, yet I know how to use words more or less effectively. Rather than second-guessing them, I would think that our founding fathers could at least do that, too.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Nopal · 2004-12-28 10:51 · Score: 1

Just a quick note: Our senses are made the same way, so they register colors in pretty much the same way. Our brain reponds to colors in pretty much the same way (blue is more soothing than red, etc.). Except for people that are color-blind, why would our idea of color be different from each other? (I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I'm just looking for a plausible reason either way).
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Fwonkas · 2004-12-29 03:14 · Score: 1

Oh, I'm not addressing the idea that there is some inherent connection between the word "red" and the range of wavelengths that we typically assign the word to, or whether what I call "red" may look more like purple to you. My point was simply about the problems of perception and observation.

And how do you handle the problem of qualia? You seem to be taking a physicalist line.

--
COMPUTER! Whatever happened to Blueberry Muffin?
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by DunbarTheInept · 2004-12-29 11:17 · Score: 1

And how do you handle the problem of qualia?

I don't remember ever seeing the word "qualia" before. You'll have to elaborate.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by DunbarTheInept · 2004-12-29 11:19 · Score: 1

I suspect that they are the same - but that's not because of wny proof on the matter - its because it's the simplest explanation given that the things we *can* prove keep showing up with the same properties and behaviors between people. This is much like the way I suspect God (at least all the ones I've heard described so far) are probably made-up human inventions. I don't have proof, but given what I can see, it's the simplest explanation.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by DunbarTheInept · 2004-12-29 11:32 · Score: 1

Yes, I have been speaking in a way that confuses rights with desires. But that's not because I can't comprehend the difference between them. I'm "confusing" them becase I think one is the cause of the other. As a relativist, I say that rights are derived from desire. (See my previous posts on the matter.)

My take on the attitudes of the founding fathers comes from respecting them, too. I respect them for being less religious than their contemporaries, even though they only went as far as deism and not all the way into atheism, that was still a major step away from the prevailing attitude of the time. Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, and the rest had some very negative things to say about religion.

--
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Re:Gov't Represses Rights of Chinese People by Nopal · 2004-12-30 04:50 · Score: 1

I have bad things to say about religion, too, but I am also a devout catholic. Religion, just like anything else that humans become involved in, is bound to yield problems as well as solutions.
I've also been atheist. I quit my religion when I was about 12 and lived as an atheist until my early twenties. After my own decade-long analysis, however, I came to the conclusion that God must exist. I understand the "must need proof" mindset because I lived it. To each his own and I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, but I'd just like to suggest to you not to seek proof so hard that you miss it when it finds you.
Thank you for adding so much to this discussion.

can we get them to shut down the spammers? by m2bord · 2004-12-23 00:46 · Score: 2, Funny

many spamming websites are hosted in china.
while they are turning off the spigot to squelch dissent, can we please get them to turn off the spam too?

--
Is it 5:30 yet?

Re:can we get them to shut down the spammers? by flokemon · 2004-12-23 00:55 · Score: 1

That would be down to the large number of open SMTP servers there. I haven't checked lately, but a couple of years ago, most universities/schools in China seemed to have an open SMTP server...
Re:can we get them to shut down the spammers? by GWTPict · 2004-12-23 02:03 · Score: 1

I'm unemployed, you insensitive clod.

So that's why so many come to Mohegan... by jpellino · 2004-12-23 00:47 · Score: 1

I had to chuckle when the article mentioned cracking down on gambling and superstitious activities - at least at Mohegan Sun Casino (gambling = gambling, superstition = believing you're going to win at gambling) they have special staff and services and casino floor areas just for Asian gamblers, several dedicated bus lines that run from BOS and NYC Chinatowns whose scheduled stops are a series of Chinese groceries, restaurants and temples in Boston and NYC...

Also, you can get non-.cn sites if you're surfing inside China, right?

--
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."

Re:So that's why so many come to Mohegan... by liangzai · 2004-12-23 02:14 · Score: 1

Also, you can get non-.cn sites if you're surfing inside China, right?

Yes. There are virtually no restrictions at all, and the censorship is purely symbolic, at least when surfing over private DSL from Shanghai. I can't get to BBC and Asian 4 You without proxies, but I can get to every other western news and porn sites. P2P works like a charm, especially for downloading Asian files of all kinds (especially from Japan, if you know what I mean - hm, perhaps you don't; ignorance is bliss).
The Western cry over Chinese censorship is ridiculous and only has an academic value, IMHO.

Hegemon by kir · 2004-12-23 00:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

I learned a great deal from this book. (Note: By saying this, I'm not pronouncing this book as the bible on China. Don't box me in. Slashdot is good for that.)

Hegemon: China's Plan to Dominate Asia and the World

An excellent review can be found here.

--
3cx.org - A truly bad website.

Re:Hegemon by kir · 2004-12-24 04:18 · Score: 1

Chomsky is windbag.

--
3cx.org - A truly bad website.

Re:Whoa by LordLucless · 2004-12-23 00:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Communism works in some smaller systems - like communes, for example. Or most families. I know my family never practiced a democracy. They key to communism working, it seems, is that those that give up their personal possessions for the greater good do so voluntarily - parents, people working together in a commune, etc. Trying to enforce communism on a group of people that don't want to live communally is what leads to trouble.

--
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face

Re:Yes that right by metricmusic · 2004-12-23 00:54 · Score: 1

A large portion of slashdot users use firefox too but most internet users don't. What the americans on slashdot agree with what americans in general do.

--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic

Mod parent UP! by Quizo69 · 2004-12-23 01:02 · Score: 1

You are quite correct and I wish more people today would realise it, especially those living in Western style cultures who can't seem to grasp this basic insight.

--

Visceral Psyche Films

Censorship by ubernoob22 · 2004-12-23 01:10 · Score: 1

Good Job China! Only 7.9 billion more URLs to block and whatever you don't want to confront, whether it's about sex or racism or anything else, you show that internet who's boss.

Re:check your facts by theskeptic · 2004-12-23 01:22 · Score: 2, Informative

Why did the FBI agents raid that Dallas host?

Agents of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigations have raided the offices of internet service provider Infocom in Dallas, Texas. The raid came as a result of information that the company was cooperating with the Holy Land Fund for Relief and Development, suspected of being a Hamas fundraising front. The FBI agents confiscated servers, computers and financial records of Infocom. Several websites came down as a result of the raid, including that of the Holy Land Fund.

Foreign Terrorist Organizations

Maybe this was why that Dallas web host was raided?

Stalinism Score by lheal · 2004-12-23 01:22 · Score: 1

China: 1,129
USA : 2

--
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.

Re:Yes that right by huge+colin · 2004-12-23 01:24 · Score: 1

Americans are being screwed? Are you living in some region of the country where you're not allowed to practice what religion you choose?

Re:Yes that right by adeydas · 2004-12-23 01:27 · Score: 1

well said...

But..... by buddhaunderthetree · 2004-12-23 01:33 · Score: 1

They leave open the 40,000 spam purveyors with servers in China.

--
"Technology.....the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it." Max Firsch

effort in futility by ZeroReality · 2004-12-23 01:39 · Score: 1

if the local highschool can't block indecent website. what makes China think it can? filtering tec. isn't perfect you get good website ban for trival thing and the indecent ones still slip through. for example you ban the word bikini. you also ban several site on nuke bomb just becasue the island name bikini. The indecent site still get through because they didn't you the word bikini like swimwear. what basicly happen is it break down to a group of people looking a websites which is next to impossible for over 40 millions websites.

Re:effort in futility by Elshar · 2004-12-23 09:13 · Score: 1

What's REALLY an effort if futility is reading your post. I can't understand your incoherent writing style.

I know I'm supposed to be appalled. by AndyChrist · 2004-12-23 01:43 · Score: 1

I know I'm supposed to be lighting my torch and grabbing my pitchfork over the curtailing of basic freedoms. But honestly, while it certainly doesn't make me happy, my outrage is tempered by the fact that they're cracking down on annoying bullshit, and assholes who are probably spamming.

I mean, it's not good that these sites are getting shut down the way they're getting shut down, but they won't be missed.

Even if I could read chinese (well, enough to be able to rightfully claim I can), they wouldn't be missed.

Re:I know I'm supposed to be appalled. by Geekonomical · 2004-12-23 01:53 · Score: 1

Even if you are not appalled, nobody can condone what China is doing. Remember what is annoying to you is damn free speech for others (I don't count spam in this)

Democracy by jfonseca · 2004-12-23 01:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

Democracy is a system where the will of the majority should prevail.

The population of China is 10 times that of the USA. Does America really want a democracy in China? Imagine 2 billion people voting on the future of the USA(and the rest of us)...

Should the world stop pretending we like the idea of China guiding us? Or do most of us really want China a democracy?

--
Broken Hearts are for Assholes. - Frank Zappa

Re:Democracy by rufferto · 2004-12-23 05:47 · Score: 1

That's disengenuous. Democracy in China doesn't imply Chinese world domination just because China has so many people. It would be merely a political change within China itself. The Chinese electorate (if such a thing existed) could only make laws for China, not the rest of the world.
Re:Democracy by orfanotna · 2004-12-23 09:26 · Score: 1

US population is just under 300 million. Population of China is 1.2 billion. That's 4 times larger not 10.

Re:Whoa by jfonseca · 2004-12-23 02:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Hey I run a site about tourism in Cuba. I'm not politically driven. Just wanted to make that clear before I say what I have to say.

I've been to Cuba, the dictatorship sucks. But what sucks the most is the US trade embargo.

You know why the US can't open the embargo? Because communism worked in Cuba. They're 100% literate, full college level education for 100% of the adult population, people speak 5 languages in most places, no crime, no drug or organized crime.

The worst part is not being able to use USA plastic money, no american products, nothing american on the streets except 1950's cars.

If the US opened the embargo they'd have a communist paradise right under Florida. But the US doesn't seem to be greateous enough to admit that communism works in small communities.

In small numbers of people it is possible to share and live in community without social darwinism.

If you hate communism as it was in Soviet Union please know that I do too. But that's not the kind of communism I'm talking about because that's not communisn at all.

--
Broken Hearts are for Assholes. - Frank Zappa

Re:Yes that right by OhHellWithIt · 2004-12-23 02:13 · Score: 1

I'll concede that the U.S. government's behavior toward Muslim groups since 2001 has been irrational and unfair, and I am extremely uncomfortable with some of the stuff I see going down in Iraq, but U.S. citizens enjoy certain basic rights that the Chinese seem to lack, such as the right to appeal in court and get a fair hearing. Even the people imprisoned in Guantanamo are finally getting a right to fight their imprisonment, despite the best efforts of the Bush administration. From what I hear of Chinese courts, they must get their judges from the Australian outback.

Besides, in the U.S. we allow pornographic and superstitious websites to operate. Broadcasting is also permitted, although the porn ones are restricted to subscriber-only satellite and cable access.

You may argue that the superstitious website I referred to above backs the policies of the current administration, but remember also that it rabidly, vocally, and openly opposed the preceding administration, with no interference from the government whatever. Try that in China. Or, for that matter, in Iran, Malaysia, or Korea.

--
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell

Real reasons.. by t_allardyce · 2004-12-23 02:14 · Score: 1

closed 1,278 illegal 'blog' web sites and 114 sites promoting 'gambling about free speech', 'superstitious political activities' and 'democratic propaganda'.

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.

Looking 'kindly' by nurb432 · 2004-12-23 02:14 · Score: 1

Doesn't matter what the government likes or dislikes, in this country in particular, we have the RIGHT to speak out like that. No, we have the obligation to do so when its appropriate.

Not only that, its 'speech' like this that helped made us who we are, independent of the empire.. Even under severe oppression, the flow of information helped us win the war.

Be amused all you wish, but be glad some of us still wish to protect and exercise this right you seem to take with a caviler attitude. The right our forefathers fought and died for.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Looking 'kindly' by Rhone · 2004-12-23 10:20 · Score: 1

Hey, I agree with you completely on the subject of free speech, and our obligations toward speaking out.

And I even agree on the right to spread around certain information that could be seeen as dangerous (i.e. how to make weapons).

But if you include with that information an obvious intent to violently overthrow the government, it's a bit silly to expect the government to turn a blind eye to it.

Besides, what exactly would a revolution fix? This country is already run by leaders voted in democratically. A "revolution" would require a small minority to assert its dominance over everyone else and create a dictatorship.

Yeah, I agree that our government is screwed up. And I completely despise our two-party system. But the important thing to understand is that our government is screwed up because a majority of people are VOTING for it to be screwed up.

If you want to fix our government, you have to enlighten the people voting for it. You won't solve anything by teaching people how to blow shit up.
Re:Looking 'kindly' by penix1 · 2004-12-23 17:50 · Score: 1

"Yeah, I agree that our government is screwed up. And I completely despise our two-party system. But the important thing to understand is that our government is screwed up because a majority of people are VOTING for it to be screwed up."

Not when thousands of votes are thrown out, not counted for one reason or another, or invalidated by a court. Just ask Washington State about it.

"If you want to fix our government, you have to enlighten the people voting for it. You won't solve anything by teaching people how to blow shit up."

A very difficult proposition when corporations own both the politicians as well as the media that put them in. Add to that the media concentration (over 90% of US media is owned by 7 companies) and it leads to disasters like Iraq.

As to violent revolution, I think you are correct in that it serves no purpose to "blow shit up". To quote Isaac Asimov's character Salvor Hardin in Foundation, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent!"

B.

--
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Re:Looking 'kindly' by Rhone · 2004-12-24 03:06 · Score: 1

While there are certainly problems with our voting that need to be fixed, that doesn't change the fact that a majority of people voted to stick with the current presidential administration. It doesn't change the fact that organized religion is having a growing influence on the people of the U.S.--and thus, by extension, the government. It doesn't change the fact that a majority of people really are perfectly happy voting in favor of restricting other people's rights (e.g. gay marriage, DMCA, etc.).

And I realize that enlightening the masses is an enormously difficult goal that one is unlikely to ever achieve. But if you feel passionately that something is wrong and you want to put a lot of effort into doing something about it, trying to enlighten the people is still more likely to work than trying to violently overthrow our government, and you don't risk killing innocent people as "collateral damage" in the process.

8.058.044.651 by Gievers · 2004-12-23 02:15 · Score: 1

Well, 8.058.044.651 Websites (source: Google) to go...

And IndyMedia sites across the world by Homburg · 2004-12-23 02:33 · Score: 2, Informative

I guess this would also be a good time to remind people that the US also managed to shut down 22 IndyMedia sites, administered by groups around the world and physically located in the UK. More from the EFF here.

Re:And IndyMedia sites across the world by NeoSkandranon · 2004-12-23 02:39 · Score: 1

Yeah except a completely different country actually asked that they be shut down. The US was helping as a matter of cooperation.

--
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Re:And IndyMedia sites across the world by HiThere · 2004-12-23 09:25 · Score: 1

Yah. Great excuse, no?

"I didn't really want to beat you up, I'm merely doing it as a favor to my friend, the Capo." But you still did it. And it still happened. So you are breaking the laws.

(Laws? What laws? Oh, those...just a second while I change them.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:And IndyMedia sites across the world by Homburg · 2004-12-26 07:28 · Score: 1

Could you inform us all what treaty that would be? Given that no-one has been told why, at whose request, or under what laws, the siezure took place, I'm sure Indymedia would be interested to know about this.

The US has MLAT treaties with a number of countries, incuding the likely suspects to have requested the seizures, Switzerland and Italy; but so far, the US government has promised that the seizures were legal, but they won't tell anyone under which treaty this is.

Re:But how does it... by stupidfoo · 2004-12-23 02:44 · Score: 1

maybe it'll help them control bad math:

China Closes 1,129 Web Sites
"The related departments have closed 1,278 illegal web sites and 114 sites

I may be a little rusty, but 1278 + 114 != 1129.

Choogle Attack by Evil+W1zard · 2004-12-23 02:50 · Score: 1

They must be using Chinese Google which I dub Choogle and search on keywords like democracy and "freedom of expression" to find these evil web site perpetrators.

--
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!

Your post make you look dumb enough. by glrotate · 2004-12-23 02:51 · Score: 1

I wouldn't worry about China if I were you.

Re:Whoa by untaken_name · 2004-12-23 02:52 · Score: 1

HAHAHAahaha. Yeah. I'm sure 100% of the population is literate and has a full college-level education, in exactly the same way as 100% of the vote in Iraq was for Saddam. Fidel isn't really a dictator, he's a benevolent leader. Keep repeating it, maybe it'll make itself true. However, I agree with you that the US embargo on Cuba is wrong. I'd love to be able to smoke Cuban cigars without resorting to cloak-and-dagger crap that most often nets me Dominican cigars anyhow. Sigh.

--
http://xkcd.com/386/

wooo by Exter-C · 2004-12-23 03:07 · Score: 1

This would be interesting. A large percentage of the sites running from china that would have promoted things like gambling etc are or would have been spam sites. It will be good to see if there is a drop over the next few weeks in spam on the internet.

"and cult propaganda" by freality · 2004-12-23 03:29 · Score: 1

hmm.. wonder what you can catch with that net. Chinese government certainly has some domestic enemies.

There's no shortage of porn sites around.. so, if you want to take down a political site, simply close down a 2k porn sites at the same time.. smart move by the Chinese Government.

I'm waiting... by BigChigger · 2004-12-23 03:49 · Score: 1

for the zealots here at /. to figure out a way to blame this on Bush, Christians, and the religious right in America. After all, they're the only ones capable of infringing on civil rights aren't they?

"Fight the real power"

BC

China And Freedom by defrabelizer · 2004-12-23 03:50 · Score: 1

It seems that china has been wanting to restrict the entire way people think. At first, there was the great china firewall. This firewall blocked sites such as google, blogs, and forums. In China, it is illegal to do any bloging. Now, china is closing of access to "illegal" sites. People in china have no access to any valuable information. However, some people are using WINSOCKS to use a proxy outside of china. For the rest of them, no information

Opiate of the People Wars by Doc+Ruby · 2004-12-23 03:53 · Score: 1

I'm glad godless China is finally being influenced by our faithful leader, pResident AC Bush. All that sinful gambling, superstition and paganism, no longer preying on the people. When will we in the US finally recognize their moral superiority and give up our liberal, worldly "democratic" ways, and bow our heads in submission to the mystery of the Chinese priests of government?

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Opiate of the People Wars by chawly · 2004-12-24 05:33 · Score: 1

Somebody should mod this up to at least 9 1/2 - then we'd really be motivated to sit 'round and try to work out what it means. Such a "mod up" would mean that at least 2 people understood what was being said. "If 2 can do it, I should be able to, too"

--
How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
Re:Opiate of the People Wars by Doc+Ruby · 2005-01-03 05:54 · Score: 1

Here's a clue: it's sarcastic, much like your own feeble effort. If you can't figure out what idea I'm parodying, you need to watch more TV.

--
--
make install -not war

Re:Yes that right by arkanes · 2004-12-23 03:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

There are a lot of people who confuse "No, just because you call it religion doesn't mean you can do anything you want" with religious oppression. I suppose from a certain point of view it's valid.

Re:Whoa by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 04:05 · Score: 1, Insightful

You may wish to read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis.

What's the point of being 100% literate if what you read is censored?

A nice quote on Cuba: David Carr: "Who, in their right minds, would want to risk being eaten by sharks in order to get away from first-class health-care and education?"

Great healthcare? A myth really.

Re:Yes that right by The+Creator · 2004-12-23 04:15 · Score: 1

Do us all a favor and list all the states where polygami is legal...

Any state not on that list is guilty of religous oppression.

--

FRA: STFU GTFO

Another example of double standards by Spy+der+Mann · 2004-12-23 04:30 · Score: 1

While chinese religious sites are classified as illegal along with porn sites... commercial spammers using chinese computers enjoy all the commodities.

The whole chinese internet is upside down. :-/ what can anybody do about it?

From the Chinese POV by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-23 05:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

There are over 1.2 Billion people in China. They have to do these things not to oppress the people (maybe in some aspects) but they need to control their population. The US has almost 300 million people, only a 4th of China's population. If China were to give their citizens complete freedom or the many freedoms we have in this great country, do you understand how much more corruption there will be? not only corrupt government officials, but widespread corruption and crime among its citizens. Being from a chinese background, I have visited China a few times and there is already great western influence happening over there. Slowly and slowly, China will give their citizens more freedoms, but if they were to give them too many freedoms, they wouldn't know what to do with them. Shutting down websites IMO is not fair, but not neccesarily wrong. So what if they shut down religious websites, why can't shiites, sunnis, jews, christians get along with each other. What if someone in Israel put up a website promoting islamic thought? would it get shut down? or flamed? I'm not sure, maybe this isn't a good analogy, but what i am trying to say is that, its happening everywhere, not just china.

China is a different land with a different culture, you must understand how people over there look out from inside the bottle while we are looking at it from outside the bottle.

remove the word illegal by thomasa · 2004-12-23 05:48 · Score: 1

"The related departments have closed 1,278 web sites and 114 sites promoting gambling, superstitious activities and cult propaganda according to the information provided by the informers. ... China's Ministry of Public Security rewarded a number of informers since China launched a nationwide campaign to crack downon the on-line operations."

If you remove the word "illegal" the article becomes more
accurate. Note the East German like "rewarded a number of informers".
It is time for their Berlin^h^h^h^h^h^h Firewall to come down!

wha? are you experiencing the US stock market? by dougnaka · 2004-12-23 05:57 · Score: 1

You wouldn't want a truly free market that allow some smart baddies screwing innocent investors right?

wtf? This is exactly what happens on mass scale in the US. Everyone is screwing the innocent investors and making buckets of money off it...

--
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD

Easter Bunny by dougnaka · 2004-12-23 06:15 · Score: 1

I don't claim to know for sure that there is, in fact, no Easter Bunny, however, based on experience, facts and things I've gathered about the matter, I would make a best guess that there is, NO real Easter Bunny. Similar lines of thought lead me to make a best guess that there is NO real Santa, and NO real god, and NO real aliens, although all are possible.

I would never claim to know this outright, although in a logical discussion with other logical adults I would assume others to have come to the same conclusion.

Experience, once again, has led me to believe that when people believe in any of these things they are limiting the scope of their consideration for best guessing, such as ignoring simple things like lack of evidence FOR the existence of any of these things. If I had to go on evidence alone, ranking these things in order from most evidence in favor of, I think they would go Santa, Easter Bunny, Aliens, and then god.

--
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD

Re:Easter Bunny by untaken_name · 2004-12-23 06:43 · Score: 1

I agree with you. I'm just getting sick and tired of atheists preaching like fundamentalists. Those preachy ones all claim to KNOW. Just like the preachy religious people. *That* is what bugs me. At one time, people 'knew' that the Earth was flat. You were an idiot if you didn't agree. Again, I'm not saying that there is or is not God. I'm saying that I don't know and don't claim to, and that people who claim to know are lying. It's as simple as the difference between 'I believe' (which requires faith) and 'I know' (which requires proof). I don't know how the universe came to be, and so I will not claim to. No matter what my theory is, until it's proven I won't claim it as fact. Plus, it seems rather weird to me that people would put so much time and effort into trying to convince others of the nonexistence of God. I don't believe in ghosts (although I don't claim to KNOW that they don't exist), but I don't go around starting clubs about not believing in ghosts and preaching to ghost-believers about how they don't exist. Same goes for ESP and astrology and a whole heck of a lot of other stuff. I just think it's rather sad that so many people identify themselves so strongly with what they DON'T believe. I'm not saying you're like that, but that's the kind of atheist I was responding to originally. On a side note, I wonder why you ranked aliens so far down on the list. Assuming that life originated here on Earth, why would you assume it couldn't originate elsewhere as well? The universe is an awfully big place. I'm not slamming you, I'm genuinely curious. I don't have any specific knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of aliens, but I'd rank their possibility of existence higher than Santa and the Easter Bunny. That's just me, though.

--
http://xkcd.com/386/

Family values by rufferto · 2004-12-23 06:21 · Score: 1

Maybe China is at odds with the "faith" aspect of Christianity and other Western religions. But their culture does have certain similarities with conservative, evangelical Christianity; namely, the emphasis on "family values." They're really big on the "respect your elders" thing, to the point where ancestor worship is a tradition.

I don't think the pornography ban has a bit to do with Communism or anti-Christianity or what have you. It has everything to do with the sort of traditionalist, patriarchal value system shared by Christians and Chinese.

Re:Family values by Krach42 · 2004-12-23 18:11 · Score: 1

Oh, I entirely agree with you, but if you'd RTA, you'd notice that they've closed sites due to "superstition". Which in China, what Christianity would fall under.

But you're very right. They do uphold many values, but not because of any faith-like morality, but rather a terrestrial morality.

It was explained to us in my East Asian history class, that Confusionism (upon which just about the entire Chinese culture is based on, and most of the East Asian cultures have been influenced by) is entirely non-religious. It just teaches things that are just plain a good idea when looking at it from a culture standpoint. Fidelity is the driving factor for them, not "family values" or "respect your elders" It's obedience to those superior than you.

So, to break it all down in terms that are easy, Confusionism is primarily about "do what is best for the community", and "respect all authority". While Christianity boils down to two rules, "Love thy God with all thy Heart", and "Love thy Neighbor as thou would love thyself." Everything else is just details.

--

I am unamerican, and proud of it!

aliens by dougnaka · 2004-12-23 06:58 · Score: 1

I think it's very likely there are aliens or other life in the universe, in fact I think it's so likely we could go with the belief that there is other life and other advanced life. I was not referring to life on other planets, I was referring to "aliens" that visit the earth, the aliens people get abducted by, and the ones that control the government ala x-files.

So, yes, I think there is most likely life all over the galaxy and universe, and likely more advanced life, but very unlikely we have been secretly visited or are visited by them.

Also, it doesn't bother me if people think they were abducted, and I generally listen with interested to their stories about it. Same goes for people who believe in god. If I get the sense a person has faith and doesn't want to hear about why I think it's unlikely there is a god, I won't tell them.

I think it's called respect for the opinions of others. Too many people don't respect other peoples opinions. Atheists are often as guilty as religious missionaries at this.

--
My Linux Command of the Day site : LCOD

Re:aliens by untaken_name · 2004-12-23 07:24 · Score: 1

Thank you for your response. I agree with you. I respect the opinions of others, and I ask for that respect back. It sounds like we agree on quite a bit, but that isn't why I'm glad you responded as you did. I wish people who disagreed with me were as kind. As for aliens visiting Earth, I find it very unlikely that visitors would feel the necessity of hiding their visits. If they did desire to hide them, I doubt they'd be caught by average people. I also doubt they'd bother to return anyone they abducted. That's just my opinion, though, so while I don't believe aliens have visited us, I also don't believe we'd know it if they did. I've always been hesitant to accept anecdotal evidence, but that's just the way I am. I suppose if either aliens or God ever visited me personally, I'd give anecdotal evidence as well, I just wouldn't expect others to buy it. However, I seriously doubt I'll ever need to worry about that.

--
http://xkcd.com/386/

Re:Yes that right by superpulpsicle · 2004-12-23 07:00 · Score: 1

Damn, this might have been the best post I have ever read on slashdot. No sarcasim here.

We Americans are swimming in so much corporate and government abuse that we don't even know it.

"Democracy" isn't by douglips · 2004-12-23 07:25 · Score: 1

There are two rules about ignoring the names of things:
1. Any academic subject with the word "science" in it, isn't. Examples: Social Science, Political Science, Computer Science...

2. Any country with the words "Democracy" or "Democratic" in their names isn't. Examples: German Demcratic Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea),

--
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M

Re:"Democracy" isn't by Krach42 · 2004-12-23 17:56 · Score: 1

1) http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Science

I don't know what classes you took in College, but my CS classes fit at least one definition of this.

There's a difference between a science, and a *lab* science, or a *physical* science.

2) But the point is, that they *are* Democratic. They just have very different modes of operation in their government than the freer and closer-to-true-democracy governments that are out there.

Honestly, as far as true democracy only a few local governments actually have a true democracy (in America, it goes no larger than towns. There are no counties, nor states, and of course the federal government isn't)

Basicly, both of your comments show a restricted (although humourous) view of both "Science" and "Democracy". But just remember, just because something doesn't fit into your narrow defition and conotations of a word, doesn't mean that they do not fit in the strictest of definitions.

--

I am unamerican, and proud of it!

Cult propoganda by katharsis83 · 2004-12-23 07:35 · Score: 1

Linux worship?

Mac zealots?

GPL fanatics?

I think the choice is obviously "cult propaganda."

Re:Yes that right by rayvd · 2004-12-23 07:54 · Score: 1

The difference is that in China, leaders who do not represent the people make these sort of decisions. In the USA, it is our elected leaders who represent us who do so.

I'm more than happy to see useless sites such as the ones you mentioned be shut down. If you disagree, vote for someone else.

Don't know that they have that option in China.

Re:Yes that right by aminorex · 2004-12-23 08:46 · Score: 1

> polygami

Is that like origami, but with two hands?
Or like folding your wife in to the form of
a crane?

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-

Re:yo jesus bitch! by Gildor · 2004-12-23 09:18 · Score: 1

You know, its irrational to express so much hatred toward God and/or Jesus if you truly believe that they don't exist.

Re:Yes that right by HiThere · 2004-12-23 09:33 · Score: 1

I think you need to examine the "informal" control mechanisms a bit more closely. The last estimate that I saw was that 5 companies own over 90% of the mass media (including newspapers). This was made possible by certain changes of FCC regulations which were made with the deliberate intention that the control of the media be consolidates.

Now companies are really more in the business of making money than in control, so they will naturally allow more freedom if it causes people to buy more of their products. But the degree of freedom of political information is closely related to the divergence of interests among those five companies. (Not completely because 1: they don't own all the mass media, and 2: they don't bother to control things at a fine level of detail, so things sometimes slip.) Unfortunately, five is a small enough number that the amount of divergence is occasionally quite small. At which point the mass media speaks with a united skewed voice.

Has anyone NOT seen that happening?

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Re:Whoa by Whyte · 2004-12-24 08:53 · Score: 1

You know why the US can't open the embargo? Because communism worked in Cuba. They're 100% literate, full college level education for 100% of the adult population, people speak 5 languages in most places, no crime, no drug or organized crime.

That's the great thing about having total authority over a country as a dictator. YOU CAN MAKE IT AN ILLEGAL AND JAILABLE OFFENSE TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU SAID IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH. Dissenters can and do get jailed for doing just that. And contact with people from outside Cube is especially watched with care.

What you described is actually impossible in any society. To have 100% education (they have no mentally handicapped, or is college in Cuba the equivilant of a primary school?), no crime (their government does not forbid them to do or possess anything because the government provide their members with EVERYTHING they could ever want, and thus their is no need for a blackmarket or a desire to take by force that which you don't have access too?) and no drugs (their is no access to drugs at all?) is patently impossible.

I'm amused you were willing to buy this line from your Cuban governmental minders so readily.

--
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.

Re:Yes that right by TummyX · 2004-12-24 12:55 · Score: 1

Oh sure, I'll just use Slashdot members as an example of how stupid Americans won't use FireFox then. We're just so cool an anti-American d00d.

Re:Does a country exist that allows free speech? by Pantero+Blanco · 2004-12-25 14:50 · Score: 1

Does that include running up to someone, yelling "I'm going to kill you!", then laughing when they freak out? What about calling in bomb threats? There are some pretty good reasons to not allow free speech in its purest form.

Re:Yes that right by huge+colin · 2005-01-06 02:30 · Score: 1

One more reason we'd be better off without religion entirely.

304 of 396 comments (clear)