> Evidence doesn't point to people being that dumb That your newspaper's front page does not report a new shooting accident each day in no way proves that people are not "dumb" enough to have shooting accidents, much less laser-pointer accidents.
> This is one of the most retrograde ways of thinking > available to the third world
I totally agree. If I were in the "third world", I'd be trying to elevate my standard of living by either using national resources within the country, or trading them for something of worth. I would not be whining about being a victim.
But I'm not in the third world, and I'm telling what I presume is a fellow American that he is more involved with the third world than he'd like to believe.
> I benefit from the Third World consuming fewer > resources, Our consumption of their resources is *why* they consume less. You are the cause of their resource scarcity.
> [I] approve when its denizens kill each other. America has been dependent on the rest of the world for its wealth. When the rest of the world tires of trading us their wealth for our Monopoly money, you'll see that America might not be first world forever. And I'm sure you'll have a blast if *your* neighbors start to kill each other.
> the slow zebra should get eaten. Every zebra will slow down one day. Even you.
It works the other way too - Besides having friends and family in military and law enforcement, most civilians just have a general respect for those who'd sacrifice their own safety for the public's.
But all this could change as soon as somebody fires the first shot. Cops/soldiers just might shoot back.
If not, I take it you are no supporter of Mohandas Gandhi.
"Crime is not OK" is a terribly naive statement. Often it is the law itself that "is not OK."
When voting doesn't work, those who "want to change society" have three choices:
1) submission to tyrants;
2) civil disobedience;
3) armed insurrection.
Which of those you find more "OK" is up to you. But breaking a law may often be more honorable than submitting to tyranny.
> resorts to force only to enforce its ethical vision. I don't remember TOS Federation using force for anything but self-defense. I can't speak to the spin-offs.
> an impossibility: The peaceful yet militarised, Switzerland doesn't think that's impossible.
> Star Trek is the wet dream for the New World Order. Just out of curiosity, what's the future you hope for?
> it sounds great, but never happened. That's probably the definition of an "ideal."
But America has done those things, from time to time. Not as consistently as we'd like, and not without doing evil too, but there's no law of the cosmos that says a generally benign culture can't exist and flourish. They did it in Star Trek...
But I prefer to think of "America" as an ideal, a people who historically have seen themselves as a beacon of freedom, a generous benefactor of those in need, an enlightened trailblazer.
To that vision I am an ally, even if many of the people I see around me personify the opposite.
> Nobody is even allowed to offer a calm, > opposing opinion supported by evidence.
Everybody is allowed to offer whatever opinion they want. But convincing scientists will probably require more "evidence" than "I read a book which convinced me" .
> I get services I want from my taxes Good point. But I also get services I don't want. Like warrantless surveillance, elective wars, debt, and wall street bailouts. And if one looks at the distribution of taxes, one can see that the things I don't want are where the bulk of the taxes go.
> it's actually still an amazing bargain. Where do you live?
> you might want to live in some free for all > capitalist utopia Then again, I might not. I'd settle for a place where the gov't obeys the law and the people can change the law. You know of a place like that, do let me know.
> I despise TicketMaster Monopolies rarely engender good will. But unlike, say, taxes, at least you get a service you really want and nobody puts a gun to your head.
I think taxpayers should be upset that their education system produces nerds that have no sense of perspective, that can't do math, that favor wild-ass exaggeration over a modicum of fact-checking, and worst of all, don't like the Monkees.
"It's fairly plainly written in the bible" Not very much is written plainly enough that there is only one clear interpretation. I just re-read chapters 1 and 2, and they don't seem to mesh that well.
Chapter 1 has God creating plants on day 3, animals from the sea on day 5, more animals and mankind "male and female created he them" on day 6.
Chapter 2 has God rest on the 7th day, then create Adam, then the plants of the Garden of Eden, then the beasts and fowl, then woman.
So maybe God created the earth not in 6 days but multiple passes. Or maybe the Bible is a hodge-podge of myths and writings from different authors and different times. Or maybe God gets a kick out of confusing us. Or maybe the Bible is whatever we want it to be.
"By being born to wherever you were born you accepted the eula."
Could be sarcasm, but it sounds like you mean it, in which case, you are clearly mistaken.
Being forcefully ejected out a birth canal is not considered an "agreement" North of the Bible Belt.
South of the Bible Belt there remain few "built-in democratic channels," since southerners have largely gone republican following the political pole shift of the late 20th century.
Also, freedom to migrate has been severely restricted ever since driver's license age requirements were raised to exclude newborn infants.
Slashdot Mirror
> Evidence doesn't point to people being that dumb
That your newspaper's front page does not report a new shooting accident each day in no way proves that people are not "dumb" enough to have shooting accidents, much less laser-pointer accidents.
> This is one of the most retrograde ways of thinking
> available to the third world
I totally agree. If I were in the "third world", I'd be trying to elevate my standard of living by either using national resources within the country, or trading them for something of worth. I would not be whining about being a victim.
But I'm not in the third world, and I'm telling what I presume is a fellow American that he is more involved with the third world than he'd like to believe.
> I benefit from the Third World consuming fewer
> resources,
Our consumption of their resources is *why* they consume less. You are the cause of their resource scarcity.
> [I] approve when its denizens kill each other.
America has been dependent on the rest of the world for its wealth. When the rest of the world tires of trading us their wealth for our Monopoly money, you'll see that America might not be first world forever. And I'm sure you'll have a blast if *your* neighbors start to kill each other.
> the slow zebra should get eaten.
Every zebra will slow down one day. Even you.
> I did not know I was being graded
Now you do. Everybody who reads your post evaluates it, and in this case that evaluation doesn't take long.
> fuck off and die
If he does that, you'll still have to deal with his offspring.
Contrary to what your cereal box would have you believe, there are forces of nature stronger than government policies.
The supply of oil is what it is, and governments who subsidize the costs will eventually run out of either money or will.
This.
It works the other way too - Besides having friends and family in military and law enforcement, most civilians just have a general respect for those who'd sacrifice their own safety for the public's.
But all this could change as soon as somebody fires the first shot. Cops/soldiers just might shoot back.
Not sure if this is intended to be funny.
If not, I take it you are no supporter of Mohandas Gandhi.
"Crime is not OK" is a terribly naive statement. Often it is the law itself that "is not OK."
When voting doesn't work, those who "want to change society" have three choices:
1) submission to tyrants;
2) civil disobedience;
3) armed insurrection.
Which of those you find more "OK" is up to you. But breaking a law may often be more honorable than submitting to tyranny.
If none of the characters exist, then where do all the historical documents come from? I sense a clever deception...
> resorts to force only to enforce its ethical vision.
I don't remember TOS Federation using force for anything but self-defense. I can't speak to the spin-offs.
> an impossibility: The peaceful yet militarised,
Switzerland doesn't think that's impossible.
> Star Trek is the wet dream for the New World Order.
Just out of curiosity, what's the future you hope for?
> Revolution would lose us the Constitution
The Constitution was lost long ago. It has become glaringly obvious since 9/11, to anybody who reads it.
> shoot you in the back
You will gain no friends with that type of talk
> bank on it
An ironic recommendation, given that our fractional reserve banks are hardly a dependable bastion of security
> it sounds great, but never happened.
That's probably the definition of an "ideal."
But America has done those things, from time to time. Not as consistently as we'd like, and not without doing evil too, but there's no law of the cosmos that says a generally benign culture can't exist and flourish. They did it in Star Trek...
That depends how you define "America".
If it's the federal gov't, I agree with you.
But I prefer to think of "America" as an ideal, a people who historically have seen themselves as a beacon of freedom, a generous benefactor of those in need, an enlightened trailblazer.
To that vision I am an ally, even if many of the people I see around me personify the opposite.
Non-transparent suspects I mean travellers can get a waiver if they have TSA-approved life-recorder implants.
Think of the panda as a bamboo chipper that's powered by chipped bamboo. I challenge anybody to make a machine that can do that.
> Nobody is even allowed to offer a calm,
> opposing opinion supported by evidence.
Everybody is allowed to offer whatever opinion they want. But convincing scientists will probably require more "evidence" than "I read a book which convinced me" .
> I get services I want from my taxes
Good point. But I also get services I don't want. Like warrantless surveillance, elective wars, debt, and wall street bailouts. And if one looks at the distribution of taxes, one can see that the things I don't want are where the bulk of the taxes go.
> it's actually still an amazing bargain.
Where do you live?
> you might want to live in some free for all
> capitalist utopia
Then again, I might not. I'd settle for a place where the gov't obeys the law and the people can change the law. You know of a place like that, do let me know.
> I despise TicketMaster
Monopolies rarely engender good will. But unlike, say, taxes, at least you get a service you really want and nobody puts a gun to your head.
Trillions to NASA?
I think taxpayers should be upset that their education system produces nerds that have no sense of perspective, that can't do math, that favor wild-ass exaggeration over a modicum of fact-checking, and worst of all, don't like the Monkees.
Chapter 2 starts out wrapping up day 7, and its story goes on from there. Not sure how after day 7 you got back to day 3. Am I missing a verse?
First you said
"the Eden story says that Eden was created on day three"
Then you said
"There are no days cited in the Eden story"
I'm not sure how to decipher that, but you get full marks for emulating the bible.
"It's fairly plainly written in the bible"
Not very much is written plainly enough that there is only one clear interpretation. I just re-read chapters 1 and 2, and they don't seem to mesh that well.
Chapter 1 has God creating plants on day 3, animals from the sea on day 5, more animals and mankind "male and female created he them" on day 6.
Chapter 2 has God rest on the 7th day, then create Adam, then the plants of the Garden of Eden, then the beasts and fowl, then woman.
So maybe God created the earth not in 6 days but multiple passes. Or maybe the Bible is a hodge-podge of myths and writings from different authors and different times. Or maybe God gets a kick out of confusing us. Or maybe the Bible is whatever we want it to be.
But "plainly written" it is not.
"Probably someone with an opinion that many others have. That's why there is moderation on ./ in the first place."
The reason for "./" moderation is Quality Control, not cheerleading.
It's ok to like street tripe, but whoever rated it as five-star filet mignon needs to eat out more often.
"By being born to wherever you were born you accepted the eula."
Could be sarcasm, but it sounds like you mean it, in which case, you are clearly mistaken.
Being forcefully ejected out a birth canal is not considered an "agreement" North of the Bible Belt.
South of the Bible Belt there remain few "built-in democratic channels," since southerners have largely gone republican following the political pole shift of the late 20th century.
Also, freedom to migrate has been severely restricted ever since driver's license age requirements were raised to exclude newborn infants.
Who modded this insightful? It's completely unsupported parrotted tripe.
Let's save our mod points for comments that we don't already get from low-budget 15 second tv commercials.
> currency that was legally backed by a commodity
I think we'll start seeing commodities displace paper as currency, even if such transactions break legal tender laws.
When laws become incompatible with the market's real supply and demand, black markets emerge.