A better comparison would be to a TV station. I am pretty sure that if this video had been submitted to a local TV station (or a national network) in the U.S., they would have legally been allowed to broadcast it.
You really have lost track of what is going on in SL. Linden Labs has restricted anything that is even close to "tenticle sex monsters and flying cocks" to its own little ghetto and requires members to jump through hoops in order to be able to enter those areas. Disclaimer: I do not use SL, but I have several friends who do. One of my friends is a "content creator" and the stuff he scripts skirts the edge of thier new restrictions, so he chose to go into the ghetto, but it has caused problems for some of his friends who are interested in his stuff that isn't over the line to get to his "store".
What I don't want is the profit motive killing local populations and, since the planet is a closed system, eventually me and mine. What I don't want is the world's resources - to include energy - used up rapidly and wastefully, to the later detriment of billions of future humans.
Your solution to the elites that control the government having too much power is to give them more power? If that is not your solution, how do you propose reducing CO2 emissions without increasing government power and decreasing individual rights?
BTW, only countries whose average per capita income exceeds a certain base amount (I believe it is $5,000 a year, but I'm not going to take the time right now to look it up) reduce their destruction of the environment.
Yet people still insist on their individual right to maximize their individual wealth in the here and now, even if there is significant evidence that their pursuit of wealth and their insistence that they are entitled to take a "least cost" approach to wealth accumulation will cause the redefinition of both "ideal conditions" and "carrying capacity"?
And you propose a solution whereby only the government elites get to maximize their individual wealth, at the expense of the productive members of society. Or at least that is the one being proposed by all of the legislation and treaties being proposed.
It is not the taxes it is the percentage of healthcare paid for by the government. As for the prognosis point, google it, pick whatever 5 or 6 major illnesses you like and look at the 5, 10, and 20 year survival rates for U.S. vs U.K.
What does traditional medicine have to do with a discussion of homeopathy (other than that many practioners of traditional medicine, in Western countries, are also believers in homeopathy).
According to medicinenet.com: "As practiced today, naturopathic medicine integrates traditional natural therapeutics -- including botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, homeopathy, acupuncture, traditional oriental medicine, hydrotherapy, and naturopathic manipulative therapy -- with modern scientific medical diagnostic science and standards of care>>
Of course the fact that the idea of working with and training locals is something that was first introduced by religious organizations is completely irrelevant. Every religious relief organization that I know of that does long term work with the impoverished hires and trains locals to move their work forward.
And the even larger amount of money that has been poured into convincing everybody that we need to let governments take over ervery aspect of life to prevent "Global Warming/Climate Change". When one looks at the numbers one discovers that Exxon has given more money to people promoting AGW than to people debunking it.
Anyone with any idea about climate science has known for years that Lomborg's work is an exercise in propoganda. The literary term for the style of writing in his book is called false document [wikipedia.org], it's the same style used in other fictional works such as "State of Fear" and "The DaVinci Code".
Don't forget that wonderful set of fictional works known as the IPCC reports.
I find it ironic that self proclaimed skeptics consistently fail to spot obvious propoganda even when it is repeatedly pointed out to them.
I find it ironic that AGW believers consistently fail to spot propoganda even when it is repeatedly pointed out to them.
On your first two points, the Catholic Church has acknowledged that they were wrong to do those things. So, those do not represent Christian teaching (the Catholic Church says that they were violating Christian teaching when they did those things).
On your third and fourth points, those are the acts of God and not models for human behavior. As for your final point, the people that those things happened to certainly appeared to believe that it did. The example of the martyrs is of people willing to suffer in order to alleviate the sufferings of others (whether you believe that those others were suffering or not, the martyrs believed that they were).
Sorry, case not made.
Like this, "Our product does wonderful things by taking this and that common object, then it does something mysterious, and then we get this wonderful result. And if you will just give us $X (some very large number), we will be able to perfect it and change the world."
As someone who was raised in the modern Christian tradition, I can tell you that your knowledge of such is theoretical and not practical. Since our types of experience are not reconcilable until you have more exposure to the day-to-day beliefs of modern protestants and evangelicals (in particular) we will not come to agreement.
As for your claim that mine is a strawman, I point out that the belief system is a framework that endorses "means to the end" thinking. That, in itself, is problematic enough.
Sorry, but not only was I raised in a modern Christian tradition, I have over my life made friends with people from various modern Christian traditions and have spent many an hour discussing and debating the differences between their understanding of Christianity and mine.
The belief system does not endorse "means to the end". In order to support your claim, you need to point to some bad action that is acceptable because it is done in the service of obtaining a good end result.
You don't get the point I made, because I (and my employer) pay my health insurance provider, not the government, the WHO ranks the U.S. lower than the U.K. even if everything else is equal. Actually, it is worse than that. My prognosis is better in the U.S. than in the U.K. if I am diagnosed with most (maybe all) cancers, or diabetes and a good many other illnesses.
Yes, but if it is a methane fuel cell, why doesn't he say that? Why doesn't he say, "This is a fuel cell that we have figured out how to make without using precous metals"?
Of course, the other thing is that they have yet to make these without the high costs of previous fuel cell designs.
Apparently they did notice it. When they reported it to the school to ask about it they were told that it was just a glitch that some of that model laptop have (the webcam light flashing even when the webcam is not active).
First, your example is not one of ends justifies the means. Your example would be that one's actions don't matter. However, it is a bigger strawman than the one you accuse me of presenting. I know of no Christian organization that teaches that once one is saved one can do whatever one pleases. Those who hold to the teaching that once one is saved, one is always saved (not a position I personally hold) say that people who claim to have been saved and then behave with no morals have not actually been saved (basically, by thier beliefs you can't know who has been saved until after they die).
The statement that "ends justifies the means" indicates a position that whatever one does is justified as long as it is done for the purpose of accomplishing good ends. Christianity, as I understand it, teaches that good ends can never be arrived at by evil means. I do not know of any Christian organization that teaches that using evil means is justified if they are used for noble ends.
Would you like to try another example of a Christian teaching that says the ends justifies the means?
They give no explanation of how it works. "The inks somehow transform a stream of methane (or other hydrocarbons) and oxygen into power, when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius." Where have I heard claims like this before? Oh yeah from the proponents of various perpetual motion machines. Of course, people have been turning hydrocarbons and oxygen into power at well below 1,000 degrees Celsius for a long time now. It's called a combustion engine.
Slashdot Mirror
That wouldn't help much in the case being discussed in the article, since it is a state law.
A better comparison would be to a TV station. I am pretty sure that if this video had been submitted to a local TV station (or a national network) in the U.S., they would have legally been allowed to broadcast it.
You really have lost track of what is going on in SL. Linden Labs has restricted anything that is even close to "tenticle sex monsters and flying cocks" to its own little ghetto and requires members to jump through hoops in order to be able to enter those areas. Disclaimer: I do not use SL, but I have several friends who do. One of my friends is a "content creator" and the stuff he scripts skirts the edge of thier new restrictions, so he chose to go into the ghetto, but it has caused problems for some of his friends who are interested in his stuff that isn't over the line to get to his "store".
What I don't want is the profit motive killing local populations and, since the planet is a closed system, eventually me and mine. What I don't want is the world's resources - to include energy - used up rapidly and wastefully, to the later detriment of billions of future humans.
And how do you propose enforcing this?
Your solution to the elites that control the government having too much power is to give them more power? If that is not your solution, how do you propose reducing CO2 emissions without increasing government power and decreasing individual rights?
BTW, only countries whose average per capita income exceeds a certain base amount (I believe it is $5,000 a year, but I'm not going to take the time right now to look it up) reduce their destruction of the environment.
I am willing to sacrifice my life to better yours.
Yet people still insist on their individual right to maximize their individual wealth in the here and now, even if there is significant evidence that their pursuit of wealth and their insistence that they are entitled to take a "least cost" approach to wealth accumulation will cause the redefinition of both "ideal conditions" and "carrying capacity"?
And you propose a solution whereby only the government elites get to maximize their individual wealth, at the expense of the productive members of society. Or at least that is the one being proposed by all of the legislation and treaties being proposed.
It is not the taxes it is the percentage of healthcare paid for by the government. As for the prognosis point, google it, pick whatever 5 or 6 major illnesses you like and look at the 5, 10, and 20 year survival rates for U.S. vs U.K.
What does traditional medicine have to do with a discussion of homeopathy (other than that many practioners of traditional medicine, in Western countries, are also believers in homeopathy).
According to medicinenet.com: "As practiced today, naturopathic medicine integrates traditional natural therapeutics -- including botanical medicine, clinical nutrition, homeopathy, acupuncture, traditional oriental medicine, hydrotherapy, and naturopathic manipulative therapy -- with modern scientific medical diagnostic science and standards of care>>
Of course the fact that the idea of working with and training locals is something that was first introduced by religious organizations is completely irrelevant. Every religious relief organization that I know of that does long term work with the impoverished hires and trains locals to move their work forward.
Except that third worlders are, on average, better fed today than at any point since the concept of "third-world" was first developed.
And the even larger amount of money that has been poured into convincing everybody that we need to let governments take over ervery aspect of life to prevent "Global Warming/Climate Change". When one looks at the numbers one discovers that Exxon has given more money to people promoting AGW than to people debunking it.
Anyone with any idea about climate science has known for years that Lomborg's work is an exercise in propoganda. The literary term for the style of writing in his book is called false document [wikipedia.org], it's the same style used in other fictional works such as "State of Fear" and "The DaVinci Code".
Don't forget that wonderful set of fictional works known as the IPCC reports.
I find it ironic that self proclaimed skeptics consistently fail to spot obvious propoganda even when it is repeatedly pointed out to them.
I find it ironic that AGW believers consistently fail to spot propoganda even when it is repeatedly pointed out to them.
I thought we were talking about religion, not AGW believers.
On your first two points, the Catholic Church has acknowledged that they were wrong to do those things. So, those do not represent Christian teaching (the Catholic Church says that they were violating Christian teaching when they did those things).
On your third and fourth points, those are the acts of God and not models for human behavior. As for your final point, the people that those things happened to certainly appeared to believe that it did. The example of the martyrs is of people willing to suffer in order to alleviate the sufferings of others (whether you believe that those others were suffering or not, the martyrs believed that they were).
Sorry, case not made.
How so?
Like this, "Our product does wonderful things by taking this and that common object, then it does something mysterious, and then we get this wonderful result. And if you will just give us $X (some very large number), we will be able to perfect it and change the world."
As someone who was raised in the modern Christian tradition, I can tell you that your knowledge of such is theoretical and not practical. Since our types of experience are not reconcilable until you have more exposure to the day-to-day beliefs of modern protestants and evangelicals (in particular) we will not come to agreement.
As for your claim that mine is a strawman, I point out that the belief system is a framework that endorses "means to the end" thinking. That, in itself, is problematic enough.
Sorry, but not only was I raised in a modern Christian tradition, I have over my life made friends with people from various modern Christian traditions and have spent many an hour discussing and debating the differences between their understanding of Christianity and mine.
The belief system does not endorse "means to the end". In order to support your claim, you need to point to some bad action that is acceptable because it is done in the service of obtaining a good end result.
You don't get the point I made, because I (and my employer) pay my health insurance provider, not the government, the WHO ranks the U.S. lower than the U.K. even if everything else is equal. Actually, it is worse than that. My prognosis is better in the U.S. than in the U.K. if I am diagnosed with most (maybe all) cancers, or diabetes and a good many other illnesses.
I didn't say it was a perpetual motion machine. I said that their marketing is the same as that of perpetual motion machine salesmen.
Yes, but if it is a methane fuel cell, why doesn't he say that? Why doesn't he say, "This is a fuel cell that we have figured out how to make without using precous metals"?
Of course, the other thing is that they have yet to make these without the high costs of previous fuel cell designs.
Apparently they did notice it. When they reported it to the school to ask about it they were told that it was just a glitch that some of that model laptop have (the webcam light flashing even when the webcam is not active).
First, your example is not one of ends justifies the means. Your example would be that one's actions don't matter. However, it is a bigger strawman than the one you accuse me of presenting. I know of no Christian organization that teaches that once one is saved one can do whatever one pleases. Those who hold to the teaching that once one is saved, one is always saved (not a position I personally hold) say that people who claim to have been saved and then behave with no morals have not actually been saved (basically, by thier beliefs you can't know who has been saved until after they die).
The statement that "ends justifies the means" indicates a position that whatever one does is justified as long as it is done for the purpose of accomplishing good ends. Christianity, as I understand it, teaches that good ends can never be arrived at by evil means. I do not know of any Christian organization that teaches that using evil means is justified if they are used for noble ends.
Would you like to try another example of a Christian teaching that says the ends justifies the means?
They give no explanation of how it works. "The inks somehow transform a stream of methane (or other hydrocarbons) and oxygen into power, when the box heats up to its operating temperature of 1,000 degrees Celsius." Where have I heard claims like this before? Oh yeah from the proponents of various perpetual motion machines.
Of course, people have been turning hydrocarbons and oxygen into power at well below 1,000 degrees Celsius for a long time now. It's called a combustion engine.
Schools are overpopulated with kids from poor/undereducated families
Not Lower Merion School District. Lower Merion School District has one of the highest per captia income of the school districts in Pennsylvania.