The multinational corporation Microsoft has complied with the law, and this is reported as "Microsoft Gives In To the EU". I wonder whether the headline would have read "Microsoft Gives In To the US" if the laws in question has been American.
There are, for instance, studies that show "fidgeters" are generally skinnier, and fidgeting is not an easy habit to form, I'm sure.
You are indeed right.
Here is some anecdotal evidence. I used to be very thin, but in my early twenties I put on 20 kilos. This corresponds with the age at which I realised I needed to stop pacing, twitching and fidgeting. You see, there is a huge social stigma attached to fidgeting. It is accepted amongst children, but considered inappropriate (infantile and also un-masculine) for adults. People used to say I appeared "nervous"; now, they say I appear "confident".
Of course, on the inside I am — if anything — less confident due to being less attractive. People's judgement sucks!
This makes perfect sense though. Business want a paper trail that they can go back on if problems arise later. You may now say "no license is required...it's public domain". But what if 5 years from now, you decide to sue them for copyright infringement? How do they defend themselves without the paper trail?
You're confusing the desire for a paper trail with the purchase of a specific licence. If a company is worried that it will in the future be unable to prove that a given program is public domain, then it can just ask the author of the code to provide a document releasing the product into the public domain.
When you have this sort of thing for free, it is foolish to buy a separate, specific licence for your company.
IBM is VERY strict with open source now. Nobody is allowed to use open source or public domain code in their projects unless it's gone through a very rigorous screening method to make sure there isn't any copyrighted code in there. And they provide a 'whitelist' of software that has been prescreened and is allowed to be used by developers. This list is rather small though. It requires alot of effort to remain safe from a legal perspective, and I doubt that few companies outside of IBM have the resources or expertise to do it. So, the problem is that the licence information you have may be incorrect. Why does this only apply to FLOSS? If I (a) create a program and release it to you under an expensive, exclusive licence, or (b) create a program and release it to you under a free, gratis licence, why do you need to check that I'm not lying about where I got my code from in case a but not case b? It seems to me that it would be sensible to check out my claim either way.
That's a pretty good use of faulty logic. The flaw is instantly seen: Bert may have committed a crime, but Bert is not the one who is making the claim of moral relativism. Neither I nor you have committed these crimes (hopefully), yet for some reason, I am the only one who is equally outraged at both parties that have committed crimes.
[sigh]
As you know well, even though my analogy used names of individual people, in real life we are talking about entire nations. If the US attacks Iran, then "Bert" is not just Dubya himself, but all Americans (and wannabe Americans) that agree with the aggression. All of those people are guilty of hypocrisy if they condemn those arguing against the crime.
You, on the other hand, condemn the United States for committing a crime while simultaneously condoning the same crime when it is committed by Iran, with the justification that the United States has also committed the crime, and it is therefore okay.
That would indeed be an example of hypocrisy on my part if you hadn't just invented it. In fact, I don't actually know what statement of mine got you so riled up in the first place;
you never actually said what you were yapping on about. Rather than ask you, I decided to make a general point about the term "moral relativism".
Looking back at the post that you replied to, I can only presume that you were vexed by the part where I insist that Hal Porter apply his "don't talk trash when you've got nukes" principle even to the US.
You can either criticize the actions of both nations or you can condone the actions of both nations
Yes! You're finally almost getting it! Carry on thinking like that and you'll end up on my side.
what you are doing [...] is criticizing the actions of one while condoning the actions of another.
Again, you'll have to actually come up with something specific, because I've haven't been able to read your mind yet. In fact, I don't see any Iranian crime even coming up in this discussion.
Your mindless anti-American sentiment is outweighing your morality.
Yeah, I was going to add to my analogy the idea of accusing Cathy of anti-Bertism, but the thing was getting a bit long, so I left it out.
Actually I was referring to your general attitude of "The U.S. does it, so it's okay and everybody gets a free pass to do it too."
Thanks, I'll add that to the list of dishonest arguments:
Each time, there is a Bert who tries to deflect attention from his hypocritical crime by accusing Cathy of "moral relativism", and making trivial arguments about how kittens and puppies are totally different, or about how he only tortured a couple of puppies whilst Alice did it to hundreds of kittens.
An alternative deflection technique is to return to attacking Alice, saying that his crime doesn't excuse Alice's crime, and implying that Cathy is a supporter of Alice, or that Cathy wants everyone but Bert to be able to torture small animals.
For those wondering why DJCacophony just complimented me, here's some background.
"Moral relativism" is a term used to describe opponents of hypocrisy. For example, Alice tortures kittens. Bert and Cathy observe and condemn this. Cathy then observes Bert torturing puppies, and condemns him for it, saying that it is on a par with Alice's kitten-torturing. Bert then condemns Cathy as a "moral relativist".
The same scenario is played out a million times with countless crimes. Each time, there is a Bert who tries to deflect attention from his hypocritical crime by accusing Cathy of "moral relativism", and making trivial arguments about how kittens and puppies are totally different, or about how he only tortured a couple of puppies whilst Alice did it to hundreds of kittens.
Well rape isn't wrong if you're an Islamic fundamentalist, look at the rules on slave girls
That is utterly nonsensical as a line of argument. You are just going off into an anti-Muslim rant here. Remember that I am an atheist, and only defend Muslims in the sense that I am against them being mass-murdered.
You have also completely missed my irony; I deliberately picked the comments of an Islamic cleric when seeking an example of callousness to compare with yours. In doing so I explicitly criticised Islam, thus pre-empting any attempt on your part to paint me as an apologist for fundamentalist religion.
That just whooshed over your head and you tried to "contradict" me by criticising Islam.
Apart from the moral situation, the rapist and rape victim are both embedded in a legal system in which the rapist is in the wrong no matter what the victim is wearing. The police will catch him and lock him up.
But between countries there isn't really any legal system and certainly no police. Each country thus operates in a odd amoral environment, similar to the prisoner's dilemma. So not only is aggression not punished, it's not in itself wrong.
No, the only amoral environment around here is in your head. There is such a thing as international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the UN. And even in the absence of all national and international law, murder and aggression would still be morally wrong. Your ethical sensibilities are on a par with those of Genghis Khan.
So to sum up making it rational for your opponent to attack you now by making him think you will attack him when you get nuclear weapons later (the Iran case) is completely different from wearing a short skirt and giving some pervert a bogus justification for molesting you (the rape victim one).
You have put forward no argument whatsoever to make the case that it would be rational for the US or its Israeli client to attack a peaceful, non-nuclear Iran. There is no argument that would not also apply to virtually any other nation.
So, the parallel between deciding of one's own free will to rape a girl or (metaphorically) rape Iran stands. In both cases, it is an unjustifiable crime for which the aggressor runs a certain risk of being punished.
Well for an oil rich country, they sure seem keen on refining nuclear material. I'll reply with a quotation (Failed States, Noam Chomsky, Chapter 2, p73):
Today, the standard claim is that Iran has no need for nuclear power, so it must be pursuing a secret weapons program[me]: "For an oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of resources," Henry Kissinger explains. When the [US-backed] shah was in charge, Kissinger, as secretary of state, held that "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals." Washington acted to assist these efforts, with Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld also playing significant roles.
Forgive me if I don't take American declarations about oil seriously.
And you realize that he doesn't have to tell the truth, don't you? Muslims can lie all they want to unbelievers. Even if we accept this as 100% true, it is utterly irrelevant. I made sure that I did not refer to a political declaration that could be seen as aimed at the West. I chose to refer to a solemn religious edict (a fatwa) aimed squarely at Muslims, in which nuclear weapons were declared to be against Islam.
Your comments about Iranian politicians needing to make sure they watch what they say rather reminds me of the recent comments of a Muslim cleric here in Australia who said that women in revealing clothing were like meat left outside with cats prowling. He tried to explain it away by saying he was just referring to the risk, but virtually everyone took his comments as callously blaming rape victims for their attacker's crime.
Yes, all politicians should think about what they say, but when it comes to the question of possible US-Israeli aggression against Iran, it would be wrong to suggest in any way that the victim (or even the leaders of the victims) are to blame in a significant sense. I remind you again that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and the Supreme Leader has issued a solemn fatwa condemning such weapons.
A rapist is not a poor creature forced into his crime by his victim's irresponsibly flapping skirt; he is a predator who wants pussy and decides to take it. Similarly, if any country decides to attack the peaceful nation of Iran, we must understand that it will be because that country wants to take Iran, and is not a poor creature forced into the crime by the victim's irresponsibly flapping mouth.
It's not that Ahmadinejad doesn't speak for Iran;
he is the democratically elected president after all. It's just that he tends to articulate more criticism of Israel, whilst the Ayatollah tends to articulate more support for peace. The two positions are not really contradictory. I, for example, am highly critical of Israel and yet I want Muslims and Jews to live in harmony.
You have to remember that you do not hear the whole story. None of us do. In the West, we get snippets and soundbites that the media think are good journalism, but are actually just sensationalism. Your view that the Iranian establishment should muzzle the president is not reasonable. He is perfectly entitled to express his perfectly legitimate views on the Zionist state. He is even entitled to express his stupid view that the Holocaust may or may not have happened. If the people of Iran don't like it, they can vote him out next election time (and they may do so). It is none of anyone else's concern.
You mention the idea that having nukes confers a special duty not to use language that could appear threatening. Interestingly, I can see no recognition (neither from you nor anyone else) that such an idea might apply to the sole world superpower; the only country to have nuked cities; the country with military spending equal to the rest of the power combined; the country that recently devastated a country neighbouring Iran, killing over half a million of its citizens; the country which is currently amassing forces around Iran; the country whose military is known to have drawn up detailed air-strike plans again Iran; and the country which is currently openly threatening Iran with attack, and specifically not ruling out the use of weapons of mass destruction. (Hint: all of that refers to the USA.)
Not to mention the fact that your statement implies (inadvertently, no doubt) that Iran has nuclear weapons. Not even the craziest neo-cons are suggesting that. Even the nuttiest of the nutty are only suggesting that Iran is intending to develop such weapons in several years' time , after it has completed it's current research into nuclear power stations. And even that is paranoid, unproven speculation.
But he did say something clearer. He said that the occupation regime should cease. How is this different from US calls for regime change in Iraq, except that the US calls were dishonest?
Ahmadinejad has made his views on Israel crystal-clear
Indeed Iran's position is clear, but Americans and Israelis have done their best to muddy the waters. Ahmadinejad has stated quite correctly that the Zionist regime should end, and this is reported in the West as saying that Israel and all Jews should be exterminated with nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly confirmed Iran's support for the Arab League's position on Israel-Palestine, that calls for peace and normalisation of relations with Israel. This is not generally reported.
You're assuming I live in the US. I've never even been there.
I simplified the whole thing about not being satisfied with any party so as not to write at length about my politics.
I understand that there is an argument that people should vote strategically. Noam Chomsky, for example, says that in America you should vote Democrat in swing states in order to weaken the craziest faction (the Republicans), and vote Green otherwise, because they are the biggest alternative party. If people want to do that, then that's fine. But I don't feel it gets us anywhere. In fact, I have in the past witnessed socialist friends wasting vast amounts of time strategically campaigning for their local Labour party (I even helped them a bit) when they should have been campaigning on real issues.
One reason for disagreeing with strategic voting is that it can backfire. Why assume that having an infinitesimally more rational bunch in power will be beneficial in the long run? Perhaps having the more obviously rabid ones at the helm will help more people to understand that the system doesn't work.
Finding a party with what you think is the perfect programme isn't very good either. The experience in Russia, Cuba, China, etc. shows that wherever progressives have brought a party from obscurity to power, and trusted it to pave the way to a new society, that party has always betrayed them by installing a dictatorship that hoards power for its own sake.
So, I don't seek out and vote for some tiny, green, socialist party. For all their pretty rhetoric today, I believe they will be just as bad as a Bush, Blair or Pol Pot tomorrow.
This is why I despair of voting, and seek other means of effecting change.
Then organize your own party. Run for an election. Prove that you have something worthwhile to offer.
But forgive me for suspecting that you are altogether too prissy to survive in the down-and-dirty world of politics and compromise.
Nice ad hominem. I argue for democracy, etc. and I get called "prissy". That's the sort of attitude that leads to a lack of democracy.
Organise my own party. That's fucking hilarious. How many parties is there room for in the current system? Three in the UK, and even fewer in the US or Australia. Fewer still in China! I'm sure your suggestion is quite serious and sincere, especially given the vast financial resources at my disposal.
The ever-elusive "silent majority" claimed by both the left and the right. When it comes to protests, it is definitely the left that acts, and the right that sits on their hands as a silent majority (e.g. on climate change, Iraq protests...). When it comes to voting, it is definitely the right that acts, and the left that sits on their hands as a silent majority (or sizeable minority that could be electorally decisive). Surveys confirm this.
But to be progressive implies at least some slight willingness to take the initiative, and not just sit on your hands.
Taking the initiative is great, but there is no logical connection between it and having progressive ideas. You're just making a superficial attempt to make me sound hypocritical. However, you don't know anything about me. I have been on committees that have organised demonstrations and actions. I write widely on the internet on political matters under various pseudonyms. I comment here frequently and virtually always get modded insightful.
No, you might as well move to China or any non-democracy, because you treat voting as a meaningless obligatory ritual instead of an actual process whereby people can express their will.
Incidentally, I am going to live in China next year, to learn about things first hand, instead of firing off ignorant opinions from behind a computer in a safe country, as you do.
Youe wrong. Many people care passionately about representation, but have no party to vote for. Many people choose to go in and "spoil" their ballot.
For example, when I turned 18 I sort of voted. I took the time to go to the polling station and write "none of the above". I was more idealistic then. Since that time, I have not bothered going in, because I believe they will not bother to count my democratic choice.
You have a good point there, but it is overstated. Many issues are still local, and it is very important to have local representation. You are, however, right that more referenda should be held in order to restrain rogue governments somewhat.
No. When people don't vote, it is not usually because they know so little about politics that they don't know who to vote for, but rather because they know so much about politics that they know there is nobody to vote for.
I have never voted. No party respects the values of equality, freedom and democracy that I have.
If all the non-voters came out, they would boost the slightly-progressive vote considerably, and perhaps prevent the worst excesses of the craziest parties.
It is plausible that skin cancer rates are up because people spend more time in the outdoors. On the other hand, there is evidence that the extra vitmain D produced in the skin by sunlight prevents more cancer deaths of all types than is caused by sun exposure. Over-exposure is known to cause cancer. The only debate is over the effects of moderate exposure. It is also known that UV levels have increased due to ozone depletion, making accidental over-exposure more likely than in the past. It is also known that ozone depletion is due to human activity.
Sounds like you don't know what post hoc, ergo propter hoc means. Noli dubitare quin hanc locutionem multasque alias facile intellegam. De factis disputes, neue me indoctum esse concludas.
There will be billions more people starving if the anti-capitalist pot-bangers get their way, and impose failed collectivist economics on the world under the guise of preventing global warming.
Well, yeah, if drug addicts and suchlike decide policy, things may go badly. But that's not actually what you are getting at, is it? You're trying to imply that there is something wrong with progressive policies such as looking after the poor or taking care of our environment. Your whole argument about cancer would have been more convincing if you hadn't started to foam at the mouth there.
For other examples of recent hysteria, look up:
Global Cooling
Ozone depletion/Skin cancer
SARS
Bird Flue
Smog
Acid Rain
Mad Cow disease
Overpopulation/Mass starvation
and the list goes on.
What a callous idiot. Let's have a look at some of those.
Ozone depletion/Skin cancer:
Here in Australia this is a massive problem! Cancer rates are up and people have to wear sunscreen frequently.
SARS:
SARS killed quite a few people. Doctors and scientists were right to be concern about it and make an effort to manage it. There was some sensationalist reporting in the media, but that is beside the point.
Overpopulation/Mass starvation:
There actually are millions of hungry people in the world! And the world population is way too high for everyone to enjoy a high standard of living and not do too much environmental damage.
Your "end of the world" stuff is a straw man. None of the problems you listed have been suggested to be something that would be the end. But they are serious problems, some of them catastrophically so, particularly for the poor.
Well, chum, you don't mind taking their money, do you? Well, actually, I do mind. I am self-employed because I don't want to deal with that kind of crap from a boss. However, see below.
Don't like the rules at my company, find another job. It's not like you're being prohibited from leaving such a restrictive environ.
I personally (and perhaps you too) am privileged in being able to leave such a "restrictive environ". However, most people are not so lucky. Your remark is rather like saying that it doesn't matter whether the populace is allowed to vote in whatever country you live in, because they can always apply for citizenship elsewhere.
Furthermore, remember that we are not talking about the behaviour of one boss, but rather we are discussing what is acceptable for all bosses. If you are in favour of all bosses doing such things, then it is particularly disingenuous to tell people to just change job.
Why, because you, someone with no company vestiture says so? Because the burden of proof is on those who say otherwise (that employers should have such dictatorial power over workers). Similarly, if we disagree over a group (women, blacks...) having the vote, the burden of proof is on the person arguing for special privileges/discrimination.
No, because there are laws against discriminating against people on those bases. That is no argument at all. It's as though I said people shouldn't skin creatures alive in China and you said it was OK because it's not illegal over there.
If the computer use policy says "no porn" but doesn't say "no personal emails" (and I'd be amazed if it doesn't say something about it, possibly allowing "reasonable use" or similar) then personal email are fine and porn isn't and that's that.
[Makes stiff-arm salute] Yes, sir! We must obey all company rules, sir!
As already explained, that line of reasoning also justifies firing people on ideological grounds. Furthermore, it permits the sort of abuse that I described as happening at Coca-Cola.
-------
If a worker was wasting my time and money by spending paid company time stirring shit about his politic instead of actually doing his job, I'd fire him for that too. [Whoosh!] the entire discussion went over your head there, didn't it? Just for you, I'll repeat that it is fine to demand that a worker work. It is also fine to punish the misuse of a computer as a tool to sexually harass colleagues. But if you are going to allow a little freedom to surf the net, read e-mails and suchlike, you have no moral right to fire them for discreetly looking at something you disagree with, be it political, religious, personal, sexual, or anything else.
By your logic, the company could also legitimately discriminate on the basis of politics, colour or religion. After all, it's their computer, right?
Hmm, our logs say you visited a Hindu website last month. Sorry, this is a Lutheran workplace; you're fired for abuse of work resources.
If an employer wants to make a rule that work computers can only be used for work, then fine. If an employer wants to make a rule that you can't stop work to read a newspaper at work, then fine. But if they start applying these unevenly, allowing employees to waste time all day on personal e-mails, irrelevant websites and tabloid newspapers, and then only jump on the employee visiting a site or reading a paper they don't like, then that's illegitimate control.
There is another aspect too: I used to work for Coca-Cola Italy. There a top-ranking manager told me that logs indicating visits to porn sites were something they specifically trawled for and then kept on file. Then, later in that person's career, if the company wanted to give him the boot without the usual legal and financial hassles, they could simply declare they had just discovered the logs, and according to the employment contract the guy's job was immediately terminated.
There's nothing more rabidly anti-social than a group of cadre discussing 'the masses.'
(Cadre=leader)
Well, it depends on what the leaders are discussing. Although as a libertarian I am suspicious of all leaders, I don't find it anti-social if a bunch of them discuss how to extend a successful literacy programme, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
The multinational corporation Microsoft has complied with the law, and this is reported as "Microsoft Gives In To the EU". I wonder whether the headline would have read "Microsoft Gives In To the US" if the laws in question has been American.
You are indeed right.
Here is some anecdotal evidence. I used to be very thin, but in my early twenties I put on 20 kilos. This corresponds with the age at which I realised I needed to stop pacing, twitching and fidgeting. You see, there is a huge social stigma attached to fidgeting. It is accepted amongst children, but considered inappropriate (infantile and also un-masculine) for adults. People used to say I appeared "nervous"; now, they say I appear "confident".
Of course, on the inside I am — if anything — less confident due to being less attractive. People's judgement sucks!
You're confusing the desire for a paper trail with the purchase of a specific licence. If a company is worried that it will in the future be unable to prove that a given program is public domain, then it can just ask the author of the code to provide a document releasing the product into the public domain.
Look at Wikipedia. It contains thousands of PD illustrations. Each one has a note stating the following: "I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide. In case this is not legally possible, I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law."
When you have this sort of thing for free, it is foolish to buy a separate, specific licence for your company.
IBM is VERY strict with open source now. Nobody is allowed to use open source or public domain code in their projects unless it's gone through a very rigorous screening method to make sure there isn't any copyrighted code in there. And they provide a 'whitelist' of software that has been prescreened and is allowed to be used by developers. This list is rather small though. It requires alot of effort to remain safe from a legal perspective, and I doubt that few companies outside of IBM have the resources or expertise to do it. So, the problem is that the licence information you have may be incorrect. Why does this only apply to FLOSS? If I (a) create a program and release it to you under an expensive, exclusive licence, or (b) create a program and release it to you under a free, gratis licence, why do you need to check that I'm not lying about where I got my code from in case a but not case b? It seems to me that it would be sensible to check out my claim either way.OK, I wasn't expecting to win the argument so early. Better luck next time.
[sigh] As you know well, even though my analogy used names of individual people, in real life we are talking about entire nations. If the US attacks Iran, then "Bert" is not just Dubya himself, but all Americans (and wannabe Americans) that agree with the aggression. All of those people are guilty of hypocrisy if they condemn those arguing against the crime.
You, on the other hand, condemn the United States for committing a crime while simultaneously condoning the same crime when it is committed by Iran, with the justification that the United States has also committed the crime, and it is therefore okay.That would indeed be an example of hypocrisy on my part if you hadn't just invented it. In fact, I don't actually know what statement of mine got you so riled up in the first place; you never actually said what you were yapping on about. Rather than ask you, I decided to make a general point about the term "moral relativism".
Looking back at the post that you replied to, I can only presume that you were vexed by the part where I insist that Hal Porter apply his "don't talk trash when you've got nukes" principle even to the US.
You can either criticize the actions of both nations or you can condone the actions of both nationsYes! You're finally almost getting it! Carry on thinking like that and you'll end up on my side.
what you are doing [...] is criticizing the actions of one while condoning the actions of another.Again, you'll have to actually come up with something specific, because I've haven't been able to read your mind yet. In fact, I don't see any Iranian crime even coming up in this discussion.
Your mindless anti-American sentiment is outweighing your morality.Yeah, I was going to add to my analogy the idea of accusing Cathy of anti-Bertism, but the thing was getting a bit long, so I left it out.
Thanks, I'll add that to the list of dishonest arguments:
Each time, there is a Bert who tries to deflect attention from his hypocritical crime by accusing Cathy of "moral relativism", and making trivial arguments about how kittens and puppies are totally different, or about how he only tortured a couple of puppies whilst Alice did it to hundreds of kittens. An alternative deflection technique is to return to attacking Alice, saying that his crime doesn't excuse Alice's crime, and implying that Cathy is a supporter of Alice, or that Cathy wants everyone but Bert to be able to torture small animals.
Thanks.
For those wondering why DJCacophony just complimented me, here's some background.
"Moral relativism" is a term used to describe opponents of hypocrisy. For example, Alice tortures kittens. Bert and Cathy observe and condemn this. Cathy then observes Bert torturing puppies, and condemns him for it, saying that it is on a par with Alice's kitten-torturing. Bert then condemns Cathy as a "moral relativist".
The same scenario is played out a million times with countless crimes. Each time, there is a Bert who tries to deflect attention from his hypocritical crime by accusing Cathy of "moral relativism", and making trivial arguments about how kittens and puppies are totally different, or about how he only tortured a couple of puppies whilst Alice did it to hundreds of kittens.
So, thanks.
That is utterly nonsensical as a line of argument. You are just going off into an anti-Muslim rant here. Remember that I am an atheist, and only defend Muslims in the sense that I am against them being mass-murdered.
You have also completely missed my irony; I deliberately picked the comments of an Islamic cleric when seeking an example of callousness to compare with yours. In doing so I explicitly criticised Islam, thus pre-empting any attempt on your part to paint me as an apologist for fundamentalist religion.
That just whooshed over your head and you tried to "contradict" me by criticising Islam.
Apart from the moral situation, the rapist and rape victim are both embedded in a legal system in which the rapist is in the wrong no matter what the victim is wearing. The police will catch him and lock him up.But between countries there isn't really any legal system and certainly no police. Each country thus operates in a odd amoral environment, similar to the prisoner's dilemma. So not only is aggression not punished, it's not in itself wrong.
No, the only amoral environment around here is in your head. There is such a thing as international law, the Geneva Conventions, and the UN. And even in the absence of all national and international law, murder and aggression would still be morally wrong. Your ethical sensibilities are on a par with those of Genghis Khan.
So to sum up making it rational for your opponent to attack you now by making him think you will attack him when you get nuclear weapons later (the Iran case) is completely different from wearing a short skirt and giving some pervert a bogus justification for molesting you (the rape victim one).You have put forward no argument whatsoever to make the case that it would be rational for the US or its Israeli client to attack a peaceful, non-nuclear Iran. There is no argument that would not also apply to virtually any other nation.
So, the parallel between deciding of one's own free will to rape a girl or (metaphorically) rape Iran stands. In both cases, it is an unjustifiable crime for which the aggressor runs a certain risk of being punished.
Well for an oil rich country, they sure seem keen on refining nuclear material. I'll reply with a quotation (Failed States, Noam Chomsky, Chapter 2, p73): Today, the standard claim is that Iran has no need for nuclear power, so it must be pursuing a secret weapons program[me]: "For an oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of resources," Henry Kissinger explains. When the [US-backed] shah was in charge, Kissinger, as secretary of state, held that "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals." Washington acted to assist these efforts, with Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld also playing significant roles.Forgive me if I don't take American declarations about oil seriously.
And you realize that he doesn't have to tell the truth, don't you? Muslims can lie all they want to unbelievers. Even if we accept this as 100% true, it is utterly irrelevant. I made sure that I did not refer to a political declaration that could be seen as aimed at the West. I chose to refer to a solemn religious edict (a fatwa) aimed squarely at Muslims, in which nuclear weapons were declared to be against Islam.Your comments about Iranian politicians needing to make sure they watch what they say rather reminds me of the recent comments of a Muslim cleric here in Australia who said that women in revealing clothing were like meat left outside with cats prowling. He tried to explain it away by saying he was just referring to the risk, but virtually everyone took his comments as callously blaming rape victims for their attacker's crime.
Yes, all politicians should think about what they say, but when it comes to the question of possible US-Israeli aggression against Iran, it would be wrong to suggest in any way that the victim (or even the leaders of the victims) are to blame in a significant sense. I remind you again that Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and the Supreme Leader has issued a solemn fatwa condemning such weapons.
A rapist is not a poor creature forced into his crime by his victim's irresponsibly flapping skirt; he is a predator who wants pussy and decides to take it. Similarly, if any country decides to attack the peaceful nation of Iran, we must understand that it will be because that country wants to take Iran, and is not a poor creature forced into the crime by the victim's irresponsibly flapping mouth.
It's not that Ahmadinejad doesn't speak for Iran; he is the democratically elected president after all. It's just that he tends to articulate more criticism of Israel, whilst the Ayatollah tends to articulate more support for peace. The two positions are not really contradictory. I, for example, am highly critical of Israel and yet I want Muslims and Jews to live in harmony.
You have to remember that you do not hear the whole story. None of us do. In the West, we get snippets and soundbites that the media think are good journalism, but are actually just sensationalism. Your view that the Iranian establishment should muzzle the president is not reasonable. He is perfectly entitled to express his perfectly legitimate views on the Zionist state. He is even entitled to express his stupid view that the Holocaust may or may not have happened. If the people of Iran don't like it, they can vote him out next election time (and they may do so). It is none of anyone else's concern.
You mention the idea that having nukes confers a special duty not to use language that could appear threatening. Interestingly, I can see no recognition (neither from you nor anyone else) that such an idea might apply to the sole world superpower; the only country to have nuked cities; the country with military spending equal to the rest of the power combined; the country that recently devastated a country neighbouring Iran, killing over half a million of its citizens; the country which is currently amassing forces around Iran; the country whose military is known to have drawn up detailed air-strike plans again Iran; and the country which is currently openly threatening Iran with attack, and specifically not ruling out the use of weapons of mass destruction. (Hint: all of that refers to the USA.)
Not to mention the fact that your statement implies (inadvertently, no doubt) that Iran has nuclear weapons. Not even the craziest neo-cons are suggesting that. Even the nuttiest of the nutty are only suggesting that Iran is intending to develop such weapons in several years' time , after it has completed it's current research into nuclear power stations. And even that is paranoid, unproven speculation.
But he did say something clearer. He said that the occupation regime should cease. How is this different from US calls for regime change in Iraq, except that the US calls were dishonest?
Indeed Iran's position is clear, but Americans and Israelis have done their best to muddy the waters. Ahmadinejad has stated quite correctly that the Zionist regime should end, and this is reported in the West as saying that Israel and all Jews should be exterminated with nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly confirmed Iran's support for the Arab League's position on Israel-Palestine, that calls for peace and normalisation of relations with Israel. This is not generally reported.
You're assuming I live in the US. I've never even been there.
I simplified the whole thing about not being satisfied with any party so as not to write at length about my politics.
I understand that there is an argument that people should vote strategically. Noam Chomsky, for example, says that in America you should vote Democrat in swing states in order to weaken the craziest faction (the Republicans), and vote Green otherwise, because they are the biggest alternative party. If people want to do that, then that's fine. But I don't feel it gets us anywhere. In fact, I have in the past witnessed socialist friends wasting vast amounts of time strategically campaigning for their local Labour party (I even helped them a bit) when they should have been campaigning on real issues.
One reason for disagreeing with strategic voting is that it can backfire. Why assume that having an infinitesimally more rational bunch in power will be beneficial in the long run? Perhaps having the more obviously rabid ones at the helm will help more people to understand that the system doesn't work.
Finding a party with what you think is the perfect programme isn't very good either. The experience in Russia, Cuba, China, etc. shows that wherever progressives have brought a party from obscurity to power, and trusted it to pave the way to a new society, that party has always betrayed them by installing a dictatorship that hoards power for its own sake.
So, I don't seek out and vote for some tiny, green, socialist party. For all their pretty rhetoric today, I believe they will be just as bad as a Bush, Blair or Pol Pot tomorrow.
This is why I despair of voting, and seek other means of effecting change.
Nice ad hominem. I argue for democracy, etc. and I get called "prissy". That's the sort of attitude that leads to a lack of democracy.
Organise my own party. That's fucking hilarious. How many parties is there room for in the current system? Three in the UK, and even fewer in the US or Australia. Fewer still in China! I'm sure your suggestion is quite serious and sincere, especially given the vast financial resources at my disposal.
The ever-elusive "silent majority" claimed by both the left and the right. When it comes to protests, it is definitely the left that acts, and the right that sits on their hands as a silent majority (e.g. on climate change, Iraq protests...). When it comes to voting, it is definitely the right that acts, and the left that sits on their hands as a silent majority (or sizeable minority that could be electorally decisive). Surveys confirm this. But to be progressive implies at least some slight willingness to take the initiative, and not just sit on your hands.Taking the initiative is great, but there is no logical connection between it and having progressive ideas. You're just making a superficial attempt to make me sound hypocritical. However, you don't know anything about me. I have been on committees that have organised demonstrations and actions. I write widely on the internet on political matters under various pseudonyms. I comment here frequently and virtually always get modded insightful.
No, you might as well move to China or any non-democracy, because you treat voting as a meaningless obligatory ritual instead of an actual process whereby people can express their will.
Incidentally, I am going to live in China next year, to learn about things first hand, instead of firing off ignorant opinions from behind a computer in a safe country, as you do.
Youe wrong. Many people care passionately about representation, but have no party to vote for. Many people choose to go in and "spoil" their ballot.
For example, when I turned 18 I sort of voted. I took the time to go to the polling station and write "none of the above". I was more idealistic then. Since that time, I have not bothered going in, because I believe they will not bother to count my democratic choice.
You have a good point there, but it is overstated. Many issues are still local, and it is very important to have local representation. You are, however, right that more referenda should be held in order to restrain rogue governments somewhat.
No. When people don't vote, it is not usually because they know so little about politics that they don't know who to vote for, but rather because they know so much about politics that they know there is nobody to vote for.
I have never voted. No party respects the values of equality, freedom and democracy that I have.
If all the non-voters came out, they would boost the slightly-progressive vote considerably, and perhaps prevent the worst excesses of the craziest parties.
Well, yeah, if drug addicts and suchlike decide policy, things may go badly. But that's not actually what you are getting at, is it? You're trying to imply that there is something wrong with progressive policies such as looking after the poor or taking care of our environment. Your whole argument about cancer would have been more convincing if you hadn't started to foam at the mouth there.
Global Cooling
Ozone depletion/Skin cancer
SARS
Bird Flue
Smog
Acid Rain
Mad Cow disease
Overpopulation/Mass starvation
and the list goes on.
What a callous idiot. Let's have a look at some of those.
Ozone depletion/Skin cancer: Here in Australia this is a massive problem! Cancer rates are up and people have to wear sunscreen frequently.
SARS: SARS killed quite a few people. Doctors and scientists were right to be concern about it and make an effort to manage it. There was some sensationalist reporting in the media, but that is beside the point.
Overpopulation/Mass starvation: There actually are millions of hungry people in the world! And the world population is way too high for everyone to enjoy a high standard of living and not do too much environmental damage.
Your "end of the world" stuff is a straw man. None of the problems you listed have been suggested to be something that would be the end. But they are serious problems, some of them catastrophically so, particularly for the poor.
I personally (and perhaps you too) am privileged in being able to leave such a "restrictive environ". However, most people are not so lucky. Your remark is rather like saying that it doesn't matter whether the populace is allowed to vote in whatever country you live in, because they can always apply for citizenship elsewhere.
Furthermore, remember that we are not talking about the behaviour of one boss, but rather we are discussing what is acceptable for all bosses. If you are in favour of all bosses doing such things, then it is particularly disingenuous to tell people to just change job.
Why, because you, someone with no company vestiture says so? Because the burden of proof is on those who say otherwise (that employers should have such dictatorial power over workers). Similarly, if we disagree over a group (women, blacks...) having the vote, the burden of proof is on the person arguing for special privileges/discrimination.[Makes stiff-arm salute] Yes, sir! We must obey all company rules, sir!
As already explained, that line of reasoning also justifies firing people on ideological grounds. Furthermore, it permits the sort of abuse that I described as happening at Coca-Cola.
-------
If a worker was wasting my time and money by spending paid company time stirring shit about his politic instead of actually doing his job, I'd fire him for that too. [Whoosh!] the entire discussion went over your head there, didn't it? Just for you, I'll repeat that it is fine to demand that a worker work. It is also fine to punish the misuse of a computer as a tool to sexually harass colleagues. But if you are going to allow a little freedom to surf the net, read e-mails and suchlike, you have no moral right to fire them for discreetly looking at something you disagree with, be it political, religious, personal, sexual, or anything else.So the boss is the boss, right?
By your logic, the company could also legitimately discriminate on the basis of politics, colour or religion. After all, it's their computer, right?
Hmm, our logs say you visited a Hindu website last month. Sorry, this is a Lutheran workplace; you're fired for abuse of work resources.
If an employer wants to make a rule that work computers can only be used for work, then fine. If an employer wants to make a rule that you can't stop work to read a newspaper at work, then fine. But if they start applying these unevenly, allowing employees to waste time all day on personal e-mails, irrelevant websites and tabloid newspapers, and then only jump on the employee visiting a site or reading a paper they don't like, then that's illegitimate control.
There is another aspect too: I used to work for Coca-Cola Italy. There a top-ranking manager told me that logs indicating visits to porn sites were something they specifically trawled for and then kept on file. Then, later in that person's career, if the company wanted to give him the boot without the usual legal and financial hassles, they could simply declare they had just discovered the logs, and according to the employment contract the guy's job was immediately terminated.
(Cadre=leader)
Well, it depends on what the leaders are discussing. Although as a libertarian I am suspicious of all leaders, I don't find it anti-social if a bunch of them discuss how to extend a successful literacy programme, for example.
Certain toys are positive, but others just distract from more important things such as getting outside and playing sport with friends.