It has the potential to make them act even less responsibly. They'll just point to a kid that they think is a problem and have him tested. Who needs to think?
I think this is just a CYA maneuver by the schools. It's a waste of money. School administrators have never cared about the daily violence that goes on in schools. If their asses aren't on the line, they turn a blind eye. I went to 3 different high schools. Two in one city, and one in another. They were all the same as far as violence goes. It happened every day. Nobody cared except the victims, and they had no real recourse. It's no wonder that it escalates sometimes.
I think the point is that many people who have to suffer through the daily stress of constantly having to watch their back for fear of being attacked are likely to have some violent thoughts and emotions. It doesn't mean they'll become murderers, but it would make it alot easier for a computer to brand them with the potential of becoming a violent criminal. Unfortunately the computer, like the administrators, won't do a damn thing about the daily violence that goes on in schools across the country. (Yes, I've been there. No, I'm not a violent criminal... but I've certainly had my share of violent thoughts.)
Nobody can really claim that God does or does not exist. There is simply no way to verify either claim. That's why religion is based on faith while science is based on what we believe to be true after ruling out that which doesn't work.
If it isn't proven by science, it can't exist
Science doesn't prove things. It only disproves them. That's why there are scientific "theories." They stand until they are disproven.
It is impossible to accept religion unless you are brainwashed
It's more like, "Don't believe everything you're told. Especially if it's by a guy on tv asking for money." Ok, that was a cheap shot, but really, taking things on faith with no evidence whatsoever does seem kind of silly. Why would you do that? For some people, it seems to fill some emptiness in them. Others don't seem to have that need. Of course most religious people would pity those people and claim that they are lost.
religion is a corruptive force
Despite the mountain of evidence in favor of this statement, I'll admit that it doesn't corrupt all people. But few things affect everyone the same way.
Unless organized religion is abolished, it will shortly cause WWIII
I think most people would recognize the futility of abolishing religion. It simply can't be done, and I see no reason why it should be abolished. Let people believe what they want. As long as they don't try to punish me for my sexual preference, my sexual habits, my (lack of) religious beliefs, or any other thing that is none of their business, I don't have a problem with it. Religion should be kept in check enough that religious leaders don't get the kind of power that let's them start another inquisition or round of witch hunts, let alone starting the Crusades all over again.
Wrong. The Bible has lots of historical evidence included in it that can be verified. Many names of cities where things happened are given, various political figures are mentioned (like Roman leaders) to give historical references to an event. Geneologies of various people are given that can also be verified.
So? Plenty of fiction includes these kinds of references as well. Think about it. Why would you make up a bunch of places if you wanted people to believe the book was true?
Where I have problems is in "scientific" endeavors such as SETI. Basicly, people who say that there is no scientific evidence for a God who will use vast resources to listen for Extra Terrestrial intelligence, when there is no scientific evidence for it. To me, that takes a great amount of (scientificly) non-rational faith. Just like belief in any diety. (Of course, most religions' gods could be described as extra-terrestrial ultra-intelligence...)
Sure, there's no evidence of intelligent life. But since we've so far only had first-hand (or nearly so) access to our own ball of rock and a couple others that are relatively close by, we certainly can't say that we have truly investigated a significant portion of our universe. Given the number of stars and potential planets out there, it seems, statistically anyway, certain that intelligent life exists somewhere out there. To assume that we are the only intelligent life in the universe seems like it would be the true irrational act.
Then we come to the question of who wrote the Bible, and how do we know it's true or that it hasn't been altered? Because a bunch of people have handed it down for generations? Geez. That seems rather silly to me. We don't believe a lot of other things that they believed back then. We've since found them to be false. But the Bible is something that we can't prove to be false simply because it's based on faith in the first place. So I guess it will be around for a long time to come.
Well, in all fairness, he DID give the guy a link to some Oracle tools for Linux. I don't see how pointing him to a mailing list where there are many people doing what he is trying to do could hurt either. There are plenty of responses and everyone contributes what they can. Relax a bit.
say a company patents the process by which books are ordered by employing a single click.
Has anyone patented two-click or three-click ordering? If not, where do I sign? I think this single-click stuff is just a fad. Pretty soon people will come to their senses and get back to multi-click ordering systems.
This whole thing reminds me of the 8 Minute Abs bit from "There's Something About Mary."
Seems like fighting the enforcement of a law is the wrong way to go about doing things. The police exist to enforce the laws. Making it harder for them to do so just makes their job more dangerous than it already is. Getting the laws changed seems like a better way to fix the problem. Then the perhaps the police funding could be reduced since their will probably be fewer criminals to worry about.
There's also the fact that anti-trust laws don't seem to be any more unjust than the laws that exist to protect Microsoft and other corporations. If they're going to accept the privileges and protections from the government, they should accept the limitations and regulations as well.
If Microsoft could prevent competition, they probably would; unfortunately for Microsoft, they haven't quite been able to accomplish that.
Sure, not yet. So far it appears that the only thing that has kept them from doing so is the DOJ.
Would you like to assert that Microsoft has no competition?
I would assert that Microsoft does not face any significant competition in the desktop market. They only company that could be considered a competitor is Apple. They have what... five percent of the entire market? Microsoft even invested in them at a time when they really needed the cash. They seem to be nothing but a prop that Microsoft can hold up to claim that there is competition. All Microsoft would have to do is stop developing Office (or anything else) for the Mac and we could watch Apple start falling again. Remove the anti-trust laws or even just the enforcement of them and watch as Microsoft stops trying to keep up appearances and just kills off Apple and anyone else that resembles a competitor.
The trial has so far existed on vitriol such as you express here, and it's a sad sign of where our activist-run government is headed.
The trial has turned up a remarkably large amount of evidence that Microsoft has broken the law as it exists today. They may not believe that the anti-trust laws should exist, but as long as they do, Microsoft should have to obey them just as any other company should. I don't agree with some laws, but that doesn't mean I can just break them at will and face no consequences. Nor do I lobby to have the funding cut to the local police department just because I don't like the laws.
But when government gets involved it plays by different rules, and fights with unstoppable weapons.
If I don't pay my taxes, I face the consequences. If Microsoft doesn't obey the anti-trust laws, they face the consequences. How is it fair for the government to come after me for breaking the law, but not fair for the government to go after Microsoft for breaking the law?
The government is hardly unstoppable. If a fair majority of people agreed that anti-trust laws were harmful to the economy, they'd be history. Republicans in the past have even managed to curtail enforcement of the laws. The DOJ has had to fight hard to even touch Microsoft. They had them dead to rights last time and Microsoft beat that rap by changing the wording of the consent decree until they were able to go about business as usual without breaking the letter of the decree.
I wonder how it can be the government's job to see that the market stays free, when it is the government's own power that presents the greatest threat to freedom. Every company that participates lawfully in a free market is subject to the natural forces that govern that realm.
Ok, fine. Let's get rid of corporations. Why should the government be involved by granting them protections. Let's get rid of tax benefits and loopholes that the big companies exploit. Let's get rid of trade restrictions. Let's get the government to stop protecting our companies from foreign competitors. They should stand on their own two feet and deal with it instead of whining to the government for protection.
If you were arrested for selling drugs and sentenced to jail time, would you be lobbying your state or local government to cut the funding for the police department? They are in court because the DOJ believes they broke the law. Given the evidence against them, I believe they are guilty of a lot more than the DOJ is going after them for. Unfortunately, they need to focus on just a few things if they intend to win the case. After they had Microsoft pretty much dead to rights last time, they screwed up and let them off with a consent decree that was worthless due to poor wording. That let Microsoft go right about their business without any real change to their business practices. It's about time they call them on it.
This is interesting. How can you find out whether they are a tax-exempt organization or not? If they are, and they truly are prohibited from political lobbying, then you should find a few congresscritters who are less than supportive of Microsoft and notify them of the situation. They might be in a position to do something about it, or at least use it as a club to beat back Microsoft's supporters.
I don't believe I EVER stated that NT has a standard, infact NT is NOT even mentioned in my post.
The only thing that I tried to convince you of, is that Linux does NOT have a "recognized" standard. RPM may be a defacto standard, but no Linux god has said all packages must be installed by RPM.
Your mistake is in attacking Linux for not having a standard installation method as an example of a lack of standards in general. This would imply that NT does adhere to standards and installation methods are an example of it. If you weren't implying that, then your statement makes very little sense.
I could say that Linux rocks and NT sux because NT can't mow my yard. That statement would only be relevant and make sense if Linux did mow my yard. (come to think of it, that would be pretty cool.:).
It seems kinda like the way it is in Windows. With Windows, you download the package that runs on either NT or Win95/98, whichever one you have. Some programs will install on either one, some won't. With Unix/Linux, you can at least use source and do./configure make make install. If it's a compiler, you do like you would with Windows, download the package that works on your system.
You say something unpopular and you will get a negative reaction from the masses.
I'm not worried about a negative reaction, what I'm against is manipulation and demonization by people with enough power in the media. If people don't like what someone has to say, fine. Either ignore that person or argue against them. The problem I see is that instead of arguing against someone's suggestion, some people choose to attack the person who made the suggestion and attempt to twist his/her words and manipulate public opinion. You can claim that that's just how society is and that it happens in other places too, but it doesn't change the fact that it causes problems and screws with people's right to free speech. Singer wasn't yelling "Fire!" in a theater or saying that we should begin shooting politicians. He made a very specific suggestion and it was taken and twisted into something that didn't even resemble what he said.
Hardly anyone bothered to address his true statements. They just started yelling that this guy was the next Hitler and that he wanted to kill all the handicapped people. Absolutely ridiculous.
Intruding in other peoples lives is not free speech, it's just asshole-ism. And nobody likes an asshole.
He didn't intrude into anyone's life. He simply made an argument in favor of something that he thought was a good idea. The media and various religious and political leaders latched onto it because it made a powerful news story. Of course what he actually said wasn't nearly as newsworthy as what finally made it into the media. They had to blow it all out of proportion and twist his words to make him into a monster. Then the politicians and religious leaders can speak out against him and hopefully get some recognition from the public. Meanwhile, since the press and all these various leaders of our society are declaring this guy to be a monster, the more weak-minded among us are sending him death threats and demanding that he be fired from his job. It's a damn circus that was invented by self-serving assholes, and what good did it do anybody?
Really? I guess I was confused. I know I've heard of gay marriages being performed. Apparently they aren't legally recognized though. Thanks for clearing that up.
I believe that there is a truth and morality that comes from God. That is universal and static.
Basically you believe that there is a "one true way" then. You also claim that it comes from God, a being which many people believe does not exist, or at least they don't believe in the same one you do. That's not really important though. The "one true way" doesn't necessarily need to come from God or any other being anyway. It could just be some sort of natural force like gravity.
I said:
You are convinced that your morality is absolutely correct.
You said:
I did not claim that I had a perfect understanding of truth and morality. I do however believe that I am on the path.
Aside from the word "absolute," we both said basically the same thing. You don't think you have a perfect understanding, but you think that yours is right, if not complete. In practice there's not really any difference.
I said:
Therefore anyone who might suggest something that you think is immoral can easily be labeled a monster or whatever you decide to call them.
You said:
It takes monstrous ideas, advocated to make a monster.
Is there really much difference between advocating something or suggesting something? Either way, you're throwing it out for other people to consider. Then we have the difference between immoral and monstrous. I suppose it's just a matter of scale. You have some arbitrary limit where immoral becomes monstrous. I don't know where that limit is.. I suspect it's different for everyone and probably changes every now and then.
I said:
In this way, you avoid addressing the facts and you avoid a discussion of why you believe what you believe.
You said:
I express my opinions and ideas and they are dismissed as avoiding a discussion.
Now, I never said you couldn't express your ideas and opinions. I merely said that simply stating your opinion of something doesn't really help solve anything. I said that you would be avoiding a discussion of why you believe what you believe. If you plan to convince someone of something, you should probably tell them why you believe it in the first place. Otherwise we just end up with two people disagreeing with no idea of why the other thinks the way they do.
We both said:
Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong.
Unfortunately, I was not presuming that you were wrong, just that you were avoiding a discussion of why you believe what you believe and why you disagree with what I and others have said. Perhaps, once I understand why you believe what you do, I would agree with you. Then again, maybe not. There's only one way to find out though.
You said:
Basically, you're no better than the loudmouth people who get up and tell us and tell us that we are bad for doing something that is against their opinion.
Hopefully you see now that this is not what I was saying.
1)Yes, but the patches aren't monolithic heaps of code. You actually know what they're supposed to change. With SPs, you install it and hope for a miracle.
I do not believe that morality is subjective and in cases involving human life it is what your argument must be based on. You fall into the falsehood that all cultures are equily moral. This is not true.
This seems to be the crux of the problem. You are convinced that your morality is absolutely correct. Thefore anyone who might suggest something that you think is immoral can easily be labeled a monster or whatever you decide to call them. In this way, you avoid addressing the facts and you avoid a discussion of why you believe what you believe. Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong.
Btw, in cases involving human life, everyone has their own opinion based on their own moral values, that much of what you said is true. There comes a point where you can question why you believe what you do. Perhaps your morals could be adjusted somewhat given new information, or you could make a good argument that makes the other person reconsider his/her own morals. Morality IS subjective. There is no way to prove what is morally correct. That's why discussion is needed instead of outright denouncement of someone's ideas or opinions. Sure, you can just stand back and call that person a monster. It is within your rights to do so. I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm just saying that you contribute to the noise without contributing anything that others can use to base their own decisions and opinions upon. Basically, you're no better than the loudmouth political and religious leaders who get up and thump their bibles at us and tell us that we are bad for doing something that is against their religion. I also think that putting pressure on the media or threatening violence is reprehensible and anyone who does such a thing is simply trying to limit someone else's ability or willingness to speak their mind.
Human nature is not a property of US culture. Arguing that the US is not "free" because of the way people and societies work is similar to arguing that the US is not "free" because we are governed by the law of gravity.
Oh come on. People ARE society! Are you really going to say that people have no free will? That they aren't capable of rational thought? That they aren't capable of hearing something they don't like without flying into a blind rage? People have to overcome "human nature" every day. When they fail to overcome it, they are often thrown in jail. If you'd like to argue this further, then please, by all means, make your argument. Otherwise I'll just let this go as an il-considered statement.
In the US you go have the right to say just about anything without fear of government action against you. Yes, the government my stop supporting you, but the government doesn't support a lot of people.
You contradict yourself here. If the government decides to stop supporting me then that's action against me. I, unfortunately, do not have the option to stop supporting the government unless I leave my home, family, and friends behind and move to another country. Otherwise, I have to continue to support the government by paying taxes or the government will take action against me by throwing me in jail.
The main problem with US culture right now is that so many people think that they have the freedom of action without consequences.
No, the main problem is that we can and do expect to have our lives threatened simply for voicing our opinions. Singer didn't kill anyone. Singer was not planning to kill anyone. He was simply putting forth an idea which he thought was good. This should have generated discussion. Instead it generated threats of violence. What's wrong with trying to get people to understand that killing someone because you disagree with them is not the answer? What's wrong with trying to get people to realize that we can accomplish a lot more by having a rational discussion than we can by hurling insults and threats? We may not always be able to come to an agreement in the end, but that's ok. We can still live in peace without agreeing on everything. I bet we'll agree on a lot more with peaceful discussions than we will by listening to the leaders of various groups who try to incite violence and distort the facts by labeling and demonizing someone they don't agree with, without ever really addressing the argument made by that person.
Let's see if I can handle this... America is not free because a lot of people dislike Peter Singer's ideas and say so? That's not censorship.
Nope. That's not censorship. But that's not what happened either, so your statement is pretty irrelevant to the argument.
The issue is that Singer is now forced to teach in secret in a guarded classroom because people don't agree with his ideas and want to hurt or kill him simply for voicing them. Furthermore, rather than simply offering a rebuttal of his ideas, many groups (notably fundamentalist christian groups and other religious organizations) are attempting to demonize him to the point that it becomes dangerous for him to show his face in public and no media organization will want to convey his thoughts or ideas or his own rebuttal of any legitimate responses to his ideas, for fear of a backlash by the groups that are denouncing him.
Is this what should happen to people who voice their ideas or opinions? Should they be silenced by groups who wield enough power to scare the media organizations? Should they have to fear for their lives? These are the things that Katz is worried about.
Slashdot Mirror
It has the potential to make them act even less responsibly. They'll just point to a kid that they think is a problem and have him tested. Who needs to think?
I think this is just a CYA maneuver by the schools. It's a waste of money. School administrators have never cared about the daily violence that goes on in schools. If their asses aren't on the line, they turn a blind eye. I went to 3 different high schools. Two in one city, and one in another. They were all the same as far as violence goes. It happened every day. Nobody cared except the victims, and they had no real recourse. It's no wonder that it escalates sometimes.
I think the point is that many people who have to suffer through the daily stress of constantly having to watch their back for fear of being attacked are likely to have some violent thoughts and emotions. It doesn't mean they'll become murderers, but it would make it alot easier for a computer to brand them with the potential of becoming a violent criminal. Unfortunately the computer, like the administrators, won't do a damn thing about the daily violence that goes on in schools across the country. (Yes, I've been there. No, I'm not a violent criminal... but I've certainly had my share of violent thoughts.)
God does not exist
Nobody can really claim that God does or does not exist. There is simply no way to verify either claim. That's why religion is based on faith while science is based on what we believe to be true after ruling out that which doesn't work.
If it isn't proven by science, it can't exist
Science doesn't prove things. It only disproves them. That's why there are scientific "theories." They stand until they are disproven.
It is impossible to accept religion unless you are brainwashed
It's more like, "Don't believe everything you're told. Especially if it's by a guy on tv asking for money." Ok, that was a cheap shot, but really, taking things on faith with no evidence whatsoever does seem kind of silly. Why would you do that? For some people, it seems to fill some emptiness in them. Others don't seem to have that need. Of course most religious people would pity those people and claim that they are lost.
religion is a corruptive force
Despite the mountain of evidence in favor of this statement, I'll admit that it doesn't corrupt all people. But few things affect everyone the same way.
Unless organized religion is abolished, it will shortly cause WWIII
I think most people would recognize the futility of abolishing religion. It simply can't be done, and I see no reason why it should be abolished. Let people believe what they want. As long as they don't try to punish me for my sexual preference, my sexual habits, my (lack of) religious beliefs, or any other thing that is none of their business, I don't have a problem with it. Religion should be kept in check enough that religious leaders don't get the kind of power that let's them start another inquisition or round of witch hunts, let alone starting the Crusades all over again.
Wrong. The Bible has lots of historical evidence included in it that can be verified. Many names of cities where things happened are given, various political figures are mentioned (like Roman leaders) to give historical references to an event. Geneologies of various people are given that can also be verified.
So? Plenty of fiction includes these kinds of references as well. Think about it. Why would you make up a bunch of places if you wanted people to believe the book was true?
Where I have problems is in "scientific" endeavors such as SETI. Basicly, people who say that there is no scientific evidence for a God who will use vast resources to listen for Extra Terrestrial intelligence, when there is no scientific evidence for it. To me, that takes a great amount of (scientificly) non-rational faith. Just like belief in any diety. (Of course, most religions' gods could be described as extra-terrestrial ultra-intelligence...)
Sure, there's no evidence of intelligent life. But since we've so far only had first-hand (or nearly so) access to our own ball of rock and a couple others that are relatively close by, we certainly can't say that we have truly investigated a significant portion of our universe. Given the number of stars and potential planets out there, it seems, statistically anyway, certain that intelligent life exists somewhere out there. To assume that we are the only intelligent life in the universe seems like it would be the true irrational act.
Then we come to the question of who wrote the Bible, and how do we know it's true or that it hasn't been altered? Because a bunch of people have handed it down for generations? Geez. That seems rather silly to me. We don't believe a lot of other things that they believed back then. We've since found them to be false. But the Bible is something that we can't prove to be false simply because it's based on faith in the first place. So I guess it will be around for a long time to come.
Easy way to do things. It checks out a bunch of sites and gives you the prices in ascending order. It gives you the shipping costs too.
Well, in all fairness, he DID give the guy a link to some Oracle tools for Linux. I don't see how pointing him to a mailing list where there are many people doing what he is trying to do could hurt either. There are plenty of responses and everyone contributes what they can. Relax a bit.
say a company patents the process by which books are ordered by employing a single click.
Has anyone patented two-click or three-click ordering? If not, where do I sign? I think this single-click stuff is just a fad. Pretty soon people will come to their senses and get back to multi-click ordering systems.
This whole thing reminds me of the 8 Minute Abs bit from "There's Something About Mary."
Seems like fighting the enforcement of a law is the wrong way to go about doing things. The police exist to enforce the laws. Making it harder for them to do so just makes their job more dangerous than it already is. Getting the laws changed seems like a better way to fix the problem. Then the perhaps the police funding could be reduced since their will probably be fewer criminals to worry about.
There's also the fact that anti-trust laws don't seem to be any more unjust than the laws that exist to protect Microsoft and other corporations. If they're going to accept the privileges and protections from the government, they should accept the limitations and regulations as well.
I believe Congress makes the laws in this country. I also believe Congress to be part of our government. I don't think there's any confusion.
Hmm.. I should have read your post before I made my last post. You said what I was trying to say, but much more clearly.
If Microsoft could prevent competition, they probably would; unfortunately for Microsoft, they haven't quite been able to accomplish that.
Sure, not yet. So far it appears that the only thing that has kept them from doing so is the DOJ.
Would you like to assert that Microsoft has no competition?
I would assert that Microsoft does not face any significant competition in the desktop market. They only company that could be considered a competitor is Apple. They have what... five percent of the entire market? Microsoft even invested in them at a time when they really needed the cash. They seem to be nothing but a prop that Microsoft can hold up to claim that there is competition. All Microsoft would have to do is stop developing Office (or anything else) for the Mac and we could watch Apple start falling again. Remove the anti-trust laws or even just the enforcement of them and watch as Microsoft stops trying to keep up appearances and just kills off Apple and anyone else that resembles a competitor.
The trial has so far existed on vitriol such as you express here, and it's a sad sign of where our activist-run government is headed.
The trial has turned up a remarkably large amount of evidence that Microsoft has broken the law as it exists today. They may not believe that the anti-trust laws should exist, but as long as they do, Microsoft should have to obey them just as any other company should. I don't agree with some laws, but that doesn't mean I can just break them at will and face no consequences. Nor do I lobby to have the funding cut to the local police department just because I don't like the laws.
But when government gets involved it plays by different rules, and fights with unstoppable weapons.
If I don't pay my taxes, I face the consequences. If Microsoft doesn't obey the anti-trust laws, they face the consequences. How is it fair for the government to come after me for breaking the law, but not fair for the government to go after Microsoft for breaking the law?
The government is hardly unstoppable. If a fair majority of people agreed that anti-trust laws were harmful to the economy, they'd be history. Republicans in the past have even managed to curtail enforcement of the laws. The DOJ has had to fight hard to even touch Microsoft. They had them dead to rights last time and Microsoft beat that rap by changing the wording of the consent decree until they were able to go about business as usual without breaking the letter of the decree.
I wonder how it can be the government's job to see that the market stays free, when it is the government's own power that presents the greatest threat to freedom. Every company that participates lawfully in a free market is subject to the natural forces that govern that realm.
Ok, fine. Let's get rid of corporations. Why should the government be involved by granting them protections. Let's get rid of tax benefits and loopholes that the big companies exploit. Let's get rid of trade restrictions. Let's get the government to stop protecting our companies from foreign competitors. They should stand on their own two feet and deal with it instead of whining to the government for protection.
If you were arrested for selling drugs and sentenced to jail time, would you be lobbying your state or local government to cut the funding for the police department? They are in court because the DOJ believes they broke the law. Given the evidence against them, I believe they are guilty of a lot more than the DOJ is going after them for. Unfortunately, they need to focus on just a few things if they intend to win the case. After they had Microsoft pretty much dead to rights last time, they screwed up and let them off with a consent decree that was worthless due to poor wording. That let Microsoft go right about their business without any real change to their business practices. It's about time they call them on it.
This is interesting. How can you find out whether they are a tax-exempt organization or not? If they are, and they truly are prohibited from political lobbying, then you should find a few congresscritters who are less than supportive of Microsoft and notify them of the situation. They might be in a position to do something about it, or at least use it as a club to beat back Microsoft's supporters.
I don't believe I EVER stated that NT has a standard, infact NT is NOT even mentioned in my post.
The only thing that I tried to convince you of, is that Linux does NOT have a "recognized" standard. RPM may be a defacto standard, but no Linux god has said all packages must be installed by RPM.
Your mistake is in attacking Linux for not having a standard installation method as an example of a lack of standards in general. This would imply that NT does adhere to standards and installation methods are an example of it. If you weren't implying that, then your statement makes very little sense.
I could say that Linux rocks and NT sux because NT can't mow my yard. That statement would only be relevant and make sense if Linux did mow my yard. (come to think of it, that would be pretty cool. :).
It seems kinda like the way it is in Windows. With Windows, you download the package that runs on either NT or Win95/98, whichever one you have. Some programs will install on either one, some won't. With Unix/Linux, you can at least use source and do ./configure make make install. If it's a compiler, you do like you would with Windows, download the package that works on your system.
You say something unpopular and you will get a negative reaction from the masses.
I'm not worried about a negative reaction, what I'm against is manipulation and demonization by people with enough power in the media. If people don't like what someone has to say, fine. Either ignore that person or argue against them. The problem I see is that instead of arguing against someone's suggestion, some people choose to attack the person who made the suggestion and attempt to twist his/her words and manipulate public opinion. You can claim that that's just how society is and that it happens in other places too, but it doesn't change the fact that it causes problems and screws with people's right to free speech. Singer wasn't yelling "Fire!" in a theater or saying that we should begin shooting politicians. He made a very specific suggestion and it was taken and twisted into something that didn't even resemble what he said.
Hardly anyone bothered to address his true statements. They just started yelling that this guy was the next Hitler and that he wanted to kill all the handicapped people. Absolutely ridiculous.
Intruding in other peoples lives is not free speech, it's just asshole-ism. And nobody likes an asshole.
He didn't intrude into anyone's life. He simply made an argument in favor of something that he thought was a good idea. The media and various religious and political leaders latched onto it because it made a powerful news story. Of course what he actually said wasn't nearly as newsworthy as what finally made it into the media. They had to blow it all out of proportion and twist his words to make him into a monster. Then the politicians and religious leaders can speak out against him and hopefully get some recognition from the public. Meanwhile, since the press and all these various leaders of our society are declaring this guy to be a monster, the more weak-minded among us are sending him death threats and demanding that he be fired from his job. It's a damn circus that was invented by self-serving assholes, and what good did it do anybody?
Really? I guess I was confused. I know I've heard of gay marriages being performed. Apparently they aren't legally recognized though. Thanks for clearing that up.
I believe that there is a truth and morality that comes from God. That is universal and static.
Basically you believe that there is a "one true way" then. You also claim that it comes from God, a being which many people believe does not exist, or at least they don't believe in the same one you do. That's not really important though. The "one true way" doesn't necessarily need to come from God or any other being anyway. It could just be some sort of natural force like gravity.
I said:
You are convinced that your morality is absolutely correct.
You said:
I did not claim that I had a perfect understanding of truth and morality. I do however believe that I am on the path.
Aside from the word "absolute," we both said basically the same thing. You don't think you have a perfect understanding, but you think that yours is right, if not complete. In practice there's not really any difference.
I said:
Therefore anyone who might suggest something that you think is immoral can easily be labeled a monster or whatever you decide to call them.
You said:
It takes monstrous ideas, advocated to make a monster.
Is there really much difference between advocating something or suggesting something? Either way, you're throwing it out for other people to consider. Then we have the difference between immoral and monstrous. I suppose it's just a matter of scale. You have some arbitrary limit where immoral becomes monstrous. I don't know where that limit is.. I suspect it's different for everyone and probably changes every now and then.
I said:
In this way, you avoid addressing the facts and you avoid a discussion of why you believe what you believe.
You said:
I express my opinions and ideas and they are dismissed as avoiding a discussion.
Now, I never said you couldn't express your ideas and opinions. I merely said that simply stating your opinion of something doesn't really help solve anything. I said that you would be avoiding a discussion of why you believe what you believe. If you plan to convince someone of something, you should probably tell them why you believe it in the first place. Otherwise we just end up with two people disagreeing with no idea of why the other thinks the way they do.
We both said:
Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong.
Unfortunately, I was not presuming that you were wrong, just that you were avoiding a discussion of why you believe what you believe and why you disagree with what I and others have said. Perhaps, once I understand why you believe what you do, I would agree with you. Then again, maybe not. There's only one way to find out though.
You said:
Basically, you're no better than the loudmouth people who get up and tell us and tell us that we are bad for doing something that is against their opinion.
Hopefully you see now that this is not what I was saying.
1)Yes, but the patches aren't monolithic heaps of code. You actually know what they're supposed to change. With SPs, you install it and hope for a miracle.
I do not believe that morality is subjective and in cases involving human life it is what your argument must be based on. You fall into the falsehood that all cultures are equily moral. This is not true.
This seems to be the crux of the problem. You are convinced that your morality is absolutely correct. Thefore anyone who might suggest something that you think is immoral can easily be labeled a monster or whatever you decide to call them. In this way, you avoid addressing the facts and you avoid a discussion of why you believe what you believe. Simple way to go through life I guess. Just presume that those who disagree with you are wrong.
Btw, in cases involving human life, everyone has their own opinion based on their own moral values, that much of what you said is true. There comes a point where you can question why you believe what you do. Perhaps your morals could be adjusted somewhat given new information, or you could make a good argument that makes the other person reconsider his/her own morals. Morality IS subjective. There is no way to prove what is morally correct. That's why discussion is needed instead of outright denouncement of someone's ideas or opinions. Sure, you can just stand back and call that person a monster. It is within your rights to do so. I'm not saying that it isn't. I'm just saying that you contribute to the noise without contributing anything that others can use to base their own decisions and opinions upon. Basically, you're no better than the loudmouth political and religious leaders who get up and thump their bibles at us and tell us that we are bad for doing something that is against their religion. I also think that putting pressure on the media or threatening violence is reprehensible and anyone who does such a thing is simply trying to limit someone else's ability or willingness to speak their mind.
Human nature is not a property of US culture. Arguing that the US is not "free" because of the way people and societies work is similar to arguing that the US is not "free" because we are governed by the law of gravity.
Oh come on. People ARE society! Are you really going to say that people have no free will? That they aren't capable of rational thought? That they aren't capable of hearing something they don't like without flying into a blind rage? People have to overcome "human nature" every day. When they fail to overcome it, they are often thrown in jail. If you'd like to argue this further, then please, by all means, make your argument. Otherwise I'll just let this go as an il-considered statement.
In the US you go have the right to say just about anything without fear of government action against you. Yes, the government my stop supporting you, but the government doesn't support a lot of people.
You contradict yourself here. If the government decides to stop supporting me then that's action against me. I, unfortunately, do not have the option to stop supporting the government unless I leave my home, family, and friends behind and move to another country. Otherwise, I have to continue to support the government by paying taxes or the government will take action against me by throwing me in jail.
The main problem with US culture right now is that so many people think that they have the freedom of action without consequences.
No, the main problem is that we can and do expect to have our lives threatened simply for voicing our opinions. Singer didn't kill anyone. Singer was not planning to kill anyone. He was simply putting forth an idea which he thought was good. This should have generated discussion. Instead it generated threats of violence. What's wrong with trying to get people to understand that killing someone because you disagree with them is not the answer? What's wrong with trying to get people to realize that we can accomplish a lot more by having a rational discussion than we can by hurling insults and threats? We may not always be able to come to an agreement in the end, but that's ok. We can still live in peace without agreeing on everything. I bet we'll agree on a lot more with peaceful discussions than we will by listening to the leaders of various groups who try to incite violence and distort the facts by labeling and demonizing someone they don't agree with, without ever really addressing the argument made by that person.
Let's see if I can handle this... America is not free because a lot of people dislike Peter Singer's ideas and say so? That's not censorship.
Nope. That's not censorship. But that's not what happened either, so your statement is pretty irrelevant to the argument.
The issue is that Singer is now forced to teach in secret in a guarded classroom because people don't agree with his ideas and want to hurt or kill him simply for voicing them. Furthermore, rather than simply offering a rebuttal of his ideas, many groups (notably fundamentalist christian groups and other religious organizations) are attempting to demonize him to the point that it becomes dangerous for him to show his face in public and no media organization will want to convey his thoughts or ideas or his own rebuttal of any legitimate responses to his ideas, for fear of a backlash by the groups that are denouncing him.
Is this what should happen to people who voice their ideas or opinions? Should they be silenced by groups who wield enough power to scare the media organizations? Should they have to fear for their lives? These are the things that Katz is worried about.