But really I don't see the difference between diluted Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hinduists and Scientologists.
Well, the "diluted" ones would probably be the ones that read scripture as a combination of historical, if somewhat fanciful or exaggerated, record keeping (it's not like slave rebellions and conquering cities are impossible events, never mind the parts that are just genealogies or long, boring lists of civil laws) and metaphorical stories used to teach moral and ethical lessons. I'd say they're the exact opposite of most Scientologists.
I think the word you may have been looking for is "deluded".
You're right. English is not my native language. Luckily you're smart enough to understand my point.;-)
But really I don't see the difference between diluted Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hinduists and Scientologists.
Do Scientologists become better people in general? If Scientology would be promoted to state religion, how long would that society last?
Stop bashing the story and start listening to the teachings. If you read the Bible, you'll realize none of it was supposed to be literal anyway.
Do you really think worshipping money (debt, actually) is a better alternative? Look around you: are the people you know, happy? Do they live a truly fulfilling life? Do you?
Why must I subsitute? Why must I worship something? I feel no need to worship neither gods nor assets, and why is it so obvious for you to do so? And please don't give me that nonsense about "if you read the Bible." Although I haven't read the entire book, I'll admit, I have read big proportions of it. I have also read interpretations of the Quran, and translations of the Talmud. I have also studied Zoroastrism and vaguely read the "teachings" of other religions. You say now that the Bible wasn't supposed to be literal, yet you have no idea how egocentric you are. Do you not realise that the common knowledge of your surroundings today differ vastly from those whom lived 1500 years ago? Do you not realise that the way you read the Bible differs significantly not only from your neighbour, but probably even more from your ancestors whom lived thousands of years ago?
And about a fulfulling life. Right here on/. there was recently a link to an article which showed the difference in fear of dying between religious people and non-religious people. The study showed that those who feared death were by far represented in the religous sector. Is this your definition of fulfilling life? Fearing death to such extent that you create your own fairytale in order to accept life? No friend, this is not living a fulfilling life and you simply cannot cheat life in that way. What is wrong with simply ceasing to exist upon death? Why do you feel the need to "live forever"? I accept my existance for what it is and I wouldn't trade it for anything. I love my life and when I die I hope I'm old enough to have grown tired from it. If I'm not, then so be it, there is nothing I can do other than try my best to prepare for tomorrow. I don't know if I live a truly fulfilling life, and I cannot judge that until I have lived it. If you think you can then, my friend, I would say you suffer from severe hubris. You are but a human, nothing more and nothing less, and there is nothing wrong with that. So tell me, who has the most sound view of life?
So it's ok to believe in something harebrained because your neighbor does too? And my imaginary friend is way cooler than yours and can beat him up any time!
Rather the contrary, I was more on the line of that neither is ok, and that if one considers only one or a few as being ok he/she is rather self centered.
It's banned in some European countries, too. In the rest, it's not a religion.
I can't help but feel that it's a matter of time. But really I don't see the difference between diluted Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hinduists and Scientologists. It is truly egocentric to think that Aliens planting life on earth is more absurd than an invisible man in the sky. And by egocentric I mean that the invisble man theory is so permeated into the western culture that people tend to ignore how crazy it actually sounds.
I agree, this hype about speeds has gone too far. Sure I admit I'd prefer a faster browser, but I hardly feel the need to make a thorough investigation in order to gain a few seconds. Something rather predictable is that Chrome is loading slower by the version. I got the feeling that Chrome was rather optimized when released, but optimized naturally means that whatever added content will also add to loading time, in contrast to FF which became rather bloated with a lot of, still useful, content. Thus allowing for such performance increases between version 2 and 3.5. Now that Chrome is actually gaining content I can't help wondering whether it will be such an outperformer or not. Still nothing beats adblock. The single most important extension for FF. Until there are worthy equivalents (and no privoxy doesn't quite cut it for this purpose) I can wait patiently for my browser to load.
Sorry to Godwin the thread, but yes, IBM is evil and should have been shut down decades ago and their war profiteering given to the survivors of their evil deeds. Frankly after they continued to do business with the Germans after Dec 1941 they should have been convicted for treason and the leaders shot or at the very least enjoyed long prison sentences.
But if there is ANY corporation in the world that deserves the tag evil then IBM would be it. You would be hard pressed to get more evil than genocide.
Ah yes the nazi speach, Americans never killed any native Americans, nor any black people, and the English never killed any Aboriginies or Indians, and the Spanish never killed any jews and the Portugese never killed any muslims. How long until history is rendered irrelevant? Is there a single employee left in IBM whom has been working there since 1941? Do you think anybody in IBM relates to these people from the early 40's? Do you relate to the murders of native Americans? Given that you are a US citizen that is. It is very easy to point fingers, isn't it? Before speaking about nazis, please do some research. I'm most certainly not promoting national socialism, but I am demoting your school for teaching you this nonsense about "axis of evil". Do you think they are satanic nazi blood drinking child molesting animal rapists? Or are they humans made from the same elements as you, with families and hopes and problems, much like yours? Think about it.
In contrast, You've managed to write quite a bit more, and with all that, you still not have not expressed your point very well. I wonder if it would serve any purpose to point out that a fanatical belief in any Philosophy, including one that is Anti-Philosophy, like yours is still a fanatical belief, and blinds the fanatic the exact same way as any other system.
Well I can counter claiming that failing to understand me lies in the eye of the beholder, you not understanding doesn't mean I am to blame, but of course it doesn't mean I'm not. We can throw stones all day or we can just leave it at that. You can agree or disagree, it isn't really my concern. Prove me wrong and I'll win the argument, for the one whom convinces the other leaves the argumentation no wiser, only the other does. Unfortunately I feel that I have learned nothing.
Now you are asking me to explain a cultural phenomenon in isolation of its source culture? Are you even trying to make sense?
I'm sorry but there is no point in me writing when you interpret my texts so freely. I never asked you to explain a cultural phenomenon in isolation of its source culture. I asked you why you consider the concept of good and evil as common sense, and I was looking for an answer which you don't seem to have. You can't say that it's such an obvious element of common sense, and then not being able to explain why. If you cannot explain why then it is not proven to be an element of common sense. Impossible or not, you put yourself in that corner, and it is not wrong of me to demand an explanation before accepting your claim. This is my last post to you as I'm getting nothing out of this.
... and dualism is fiction based on nonsensical stories believed by feeble minds. In reality people are simply organisms looking for personal gain, and not only in monetary means. We are egoistic by nature, though we often keep a straight face, and when we think we aren't -- we still are.
I could just as well say that psychological egoism (what you are preaching) is fiction based on nonsense believed by feeble minds. There's plenty of criticism to throw at psychological egoism and examples of people acting in a way that isn't explained by that theory. For instance, taking a bullet for someone when it will obviously kill you.
You make an excellent point! Though I already posted an answer to your question, but I will quote it:
Those we treat well we do simply because we expect them to treat us well in return. When the latter changes -- so does the former. These are your basic human functions and if they fail, you will eventually find yourself in trouble.
I would categorise being dead as "being in trouble", at least the dying part up until the moment of death. Your argument would hold water if humans always rationalize their choices, but we don't.
Are you saying that a psychologist would not use the word "evil" himself or that he would deny that people use the word "evil"? Because that's what you are implying.
Hmm -- that's odd. I seem to recall me implying that no professional psychologist would ever use the word "evil" in a serious sense. This isn't the Bible and my sentences aren't meant to be open for interpretation. I write what I write and that is what I mean. I can't be held accountable for what you think I'm implying.
Of course corporations cannot be objectively a sociopath, what I say is that there is a common sense approach to interpret the statement "Corporation X is evil". But then against I understand why you can't understand this, you lack common sense.
I don't consider using terms such as "evil" nor "good" as common sense. But please, feel free to explain to me why you do. And before you do, please don't say "because everybody else does it." This I'm asking as a favor.
Don't try to paint the world black and white with this nonsensical psychological egoism. It's a theory open to argument, and has seen criticism from multiple fronts for hundreds of years.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is what I was doing.
Also, there's no need to call your opponents lazy or naive--that's just rude.
I'm sorry if you were offended, my intentions were most certainly not to be rude, but I don't think censoring arguments will lead to wisdom. However I stand by my arguments and I do believe that people can be naive and lazy, and I most certainly don't exclude myself from this rule.
This is a joke, right? Someone who hates dualism just said that?
Please, try to understand me. I don't "hate" dualism. Don't simplify it to that extent. I'm saying that dualism relies on the individual, and since individuals are vastly different so will the concept be. Thus the concept itself lack substance. Does this not make sense to you?
Tell me this; what is the difference in meaning between the words "evil" and "good"? Humans use these words for a reason, perhaps it's just our perception instead of reality, nonetheless within the domain of human interaction there IS a distinction or humans would not use these words as antonyms. Regardless of what the true intentions behind certain behaviour is, we humans DO make distinction between different kinds of behaviour. Why would making such a distinction be incorrect if it is made within the domain of human interaction?
Should we judge IBM by biological/evolutionary standards or by the standards of our society? If by the latter then, yes, I think calling IBM "evil" in the context of TFA is not beyond reason.
I'll be patient with you. The difference between good and evil are only found and explained in dualism, a concept which does not reflect reality. The reason why humans use these words are to relate to events in low detail. Humans have always categorised their environments in order to process them. Humans also use the words God and Satan (or other words representing the same essence), which are mere personifications of these two forces. God which was the first of two has not always represented the good, as you probably know, but rather the creator -- nor good nor evil, but simply the creator. Sometime closely prior to 300 BCE there has been findings of the word s'tn. This would later translate to Satan, which litteraly means "to oppose." Around this era the concept of duality was born, the theory that the creator was no longer responsible for all events, but instead only for those considered positive and rewarding. Naturally such silly simple logic lead to the creation of the opposite, the one responsible for everything considered negative and troublesome. Not what one would call a well developed theory, if you may. So you see humans do a lot of thing, and have done throughout the ages, and will do for ages to come, which lack substance. Your argument "Humans use these words for a reason" is true, Humans do everthing for a reason, though we sometimes cannot understand our own complexity, but it is not true that the reason is because the concept is true. You see by that logic anything that was ever said in the news, any gossip that passed, any lie that was ever told -- would also be true. Humans do it, but that doesn't make it the truth.
You are correct in that we do make distinction between different kinds of behaviour, and I would never claim otherwise, however you fail to show why this proves the concept of duality being true. We make these distinctions in order to relate to others, and we make our judgements based on our empirical data. But only the egocentric consideres his empirical data to be de facto. You can judge IBM for what it is, but calling it evil will get you nowhere, but if it makes you process the information easier then so be it. But remember that less you simplify your empirical data -- the more likely you are to reach your desired outcome.
I understand that their goal is to maximize profit. That's the object of a corporation.
Hey, I'm as free-market as they get, but if you look at IBM's business practices, they aren't operating on free-market principals, they're practicing crony-capitalism, which isn't the same thing. Google their habit of accepting government subsidies to retain jobs, and then off-shoring those jobs anyway. You might be interested in knowing they've formed an entire division to capture stimulus (taxpayer) dollars, but the chances those dollars will actually be pumped back into US economy are slim to none. Basically, they're trying to play both ends against the middle. Yes, they are evil, and treacherous bastards as well. I didn't make that comment based on this incident alone. This is just another, and rather minor, example of their duplicity.
Except I never said I was for a free market, actually I never mentioned anything about free market. I'm simply explaining the difference between fiction and reality. Calling something "evil" is lazy and not more useful than pointing fingers. Look you have to realise that your morals are worthless in a global scale. There is no human on earth whom completely shares your morals, and the further you move from your environment and culture the less similarities you'll find. You truly lower yourself when using such expressions, since ultimately the word "evil", just as the word "morals" are individually defined. So you see your "evil" does not equal the next guys "evil", thus there is no solid definition. What is the point of calling someone "evil" when it can virtually mean anything that you don't agree with? How is a listener or a reader supposed to receive this information when it is all filtered through your morals? No my friend, children use words such as "evil", for they don't yet understand the chain of events, but adults should. We all fight for ourselves, and there is nothing strange about an organism doing this. By denying this you deny your very own existance and the chain of events which brought you here, from single cell organism to the child of your parents. Don't be naive, and don't try to paint the world black and white with this nonsensical dualism. There is so much more behind every action than just "good" or "evil", and to simplify them in that sense is merely a method of compressing and processing data into your mind, done only by the lazy. Lossless data is always preferred, for the decisions you make based on this will always have a better outcome than the former.
I think most ethicists, behavioral psychologists and anthropologists would agree that evil means antisocial behavior.
Profit maximization at the expense of international civil rights and freedoms can easily be identified as evil.
Just for contrast, I don't anybody can honestly call the FSF or the EFF evil regardless of their position. Loonies? Innocent losers without a grasp of reality? I'm sure their enemies have many ways to rationalize it, but evil, nah. Corporations know evil intimately.
You couldn't be more wrong. No professional psychologist would ever use the word "evil" in a serious sense. It is a word, along with the nonsensical concept of dualism, which has cognitively been fed to you. Your "contrast" is absolutely worthless since neither FSF nor any corporation can be categorised as such. It is truly egocentric and foolish to think that people or organizations are "evil". Those that could fit closes (still very far) to this description would be e.g. sociopaths, and even they suffer from medical conditions leading to decisions which they cannot always be held accountable for. This is what a psychologist would say, what you're talking about is a 2 cent preacher, and I don't tend to listen to those.
Satan is a pretty nice guy if you happen to be a demon. For anybody else though, satan is evil.
And by similar reasoning, so is IBM.
Except Satan doesn't exist and dualism is fiction based on nonsensical stories believed by feeble minds. In reality people are simply organisms looking for personal gain, and not only in monetary means. We are egoistic by nature, though we often keep a straight face, and when we think we aren't -- we still are. Those we treat well we do simply because we expect them to treat us well in return. When the latter changes -- so does the former. These are your basic human functions and if they fail, you will eventually find yourself in trouble.
Anyone that hasn't figured out that IBM is just plain evil by this time probably never will. This is not a company you want to turn your back on.
Would you stop fucking using the word "evil" already? There's nothing of substance in such claims. No corporation is "evil", and "evil" is just a matter of what side you're on. What IBM just did is called trolling, and there is nothing "evil" about maximizing profit. There is no corporation on earth which wouldn't do the same thing, given the opportunity and given that it would actually be considered as truth, hence generate revenue. Also never turn your back on any corporation, no matter how many patents they have or charities they've handed out, for their end purpose is always one thing: generating maximum profit.
AFAIK a patent is not really valid until tested, having a patent is just a pre-emptive document.
Altavista and other search engines had a similar layout years before google came along and don't even get me started on Xerox PARC.
Fair enough, answer me this though: if it was your business, would you not have done the same? If you answer is no then I advise you to never start a business due to rule #2: always protect your assets, with rule #1 being: never talk about fight club.
There's always some way of casting Google in a good light.
Good thing Google isn't evil! WHEW!
Google is not a person and evil is a[n] [ir]relevant (and rather nonsensical) term. No Google isn't evil, Microsoft isn't evil, AstraZenica isn't evil. These are businesses that will do whatever they can, within the legal frames, to generate revenue. I don't get why it's so hard for people to understand basic business. You don't like them? Well don't use their services, and if you really don't like them explain to people around you why they should avoid doing business them. And if you really hate patents (which many of us here do) vote for a political party which encourages removal of the patent system. And if you don't believe in the political system you can always make a revolution, I don't know, this is getting rather tiresome.
Or it's Googles way to cover their asses in case somebody else wanted to patent it, rendering them forced to change the coined "Google look". This doesn't mean that Google embraces patenting. What it does mean is that Google, regardless of being for or against patents, is smart enough to play along until things change.
There are workarounds, such as privoxy. Still it's a matter of priority, if you consider usage of plugins more important than 100/100 ACID3 score then you should pick such a browser, if you don't then go ahead and use Opera. More often I value the importance of licenses much higher than functions, except some specific cases. To me virtually nothing is more important than to have the entire product, including blueprints (source). There's nothing wrong or right about that, it's just the way I value software and it will benefit me in some areas and cripple me in others, which is why I try to be somewhat flexible. Being somewhat of a perfectionist I hate to make crappy adhoc fixes, which I would consider privoxy to be. There's nothing about privoxy that the browser itself couldn't do, so why not include that in the browser and make the browser better? And if somebody doesn't want to I either do it myself or , if I don't know how, ask for someone else to do it for free or for money, much like anything in life.
Basically I'm one of those whom always prefers open source for these very simple reasons. We who do don't do it "just because", and those who cannot understand why we do usually have very little coding knowledge, hence why they cannot relate to the benefits, which is fine if you ask me. We all make choices based on our own experiences, and if you've never benefited from a source code, or know that you have, it really does make sense.
Kids don't need cell phones? They don't "need" music either. Or, toy cars, or dolls, or a sprinkler to run in. Just because cell phones became popularized after 1980 does not make them some inherent evil that must be carefully controlled to prevent it's diabolical spread. A cell phone is a tool or a toy. They are are less expensive than a video game. Heck, they verge on the price of coloring books, which means that even if they are abused, so what. Of course, at 5, my son is perfectly capable of handling a phone responsibly. He was responsible enough to handle one when he was 3. If you haven't met any 3 to 16 year olds that are responsible enough to handle a telephone, you should be looking at their parents as to why. It isn't because of their age. Seriously, at less than 16, people have built nations. What genetic defect would make them incapable of handling a telephone.
The age that cell phones are appropriate is the age that the kid can understand how not to randomly call strangers.
I didn't get my 5 year old a cell phone because I am over protective. I did it so that whatever my limit's on his freedom were before, I could extend them, knowing that if he got separated from us, he could just call us and read some signs to let us know where he is. This worked out VERY well when we took him to Disneyland at 4. We gave him one of our phones. When he wanted to run free in Tom Sawyer's caves, we were comfortable letting him go. When it turned out that he exited from an exit that we didn't know about, and called us telling us that he couldn't find us, we didn't need to panic. We didn't need to report him as lost. We just needed him to describe what he could see. Less than 2 minutes later, we were all back together again, and a trip that could have been severely traumatic, was just a lot of fun.
I am also going to give my child the tools that make him WANT to write. Why any parent would say "My child want's to write a lot, but I don't think they are responsible enough to do it." is beyond me. I personally love it when my 5 year old sends me little notes over the cell phone telling me that he loves me, tells me what he is doing at that moment, or just tells me about something he thought was neat.
You're completely right, while age makes a difference, the span between the right time for one person will extend up to over tens of years for another person. Age in this case is nothing but a milestone for those whom don't know the person at hand, but can instead have a hunch about what is generally suitable. It's absolutely nothing to go by if you're a parent, for it will either stress your child into learning nothing, or prevent him from learning something when he's ready. As you describe there are 4-year-olds who can handle a cell phone, and in my experience there are 40-year-olds who still can't, and some who just plain shouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Except it's closed source. I forgot to mention that it's a rather important feature for me to have the source available.
But really I don't see the difference between diluted Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hinduists and Scientologists.
Well, the "diluted" ones would probably be the ones that read scripture as a combination of historical, if somewhat fanciful or exaggerated, record keeping (it's not like slave rebellions and conquering cities are impossible events, never mind the parts that are just genealogies or long, boring lists of civil laws) and metaphorical stories used to teach moral and ethical lessons. I'd say they're the exact opposite of most Scientologists. I think the word you may have been looking for is "deluded".
You're right. English is not my native language. Luckily you're smart enough to understand my point. ;-)
But really I don't see the difference between diluted Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hinduists and Scientologists.
Do Scientologists become better people in general? If Scientology would be promoted to state religion, how long would that society last?
Stop bashing the story and start listening to the teachings. If you read the Bible, you'll realize none of it was supposed to be literal anyway.
Do you really think worshipping money (debt, actually) is a better alternative? Look around you: are the people you know, happy? Do they live a truly fulfilling life? Do you?
Why must I subsitute? Why must I worship something? I feel no need to worship neither gods nor assets, and why is it so obvious for you to do so? And please don't give me that nonsense about "if you read the Bible." Although I haven't read the entire book, I'll admit, I have read big proportions of it. I have also read interpretations of the Quran, and translations of the Talmud. I have also studied Zoroastrism and vaguely read the "teachings" of other religions. You say now that the Bible wasn't supposed to be literal, yet you have no idea how egocentric you are. Do you not realise that the common knowledge of your surroundings today differ vastly from those whom lived 1500 years ago? Do you not realise that the way you read the Bible differs significantly not only from your neighbour, but probably even more from your ancestors whom lived thousands of years ago?
/. there was recently a link to an article which showed the difference in fear of dying between religious people and non-religious people. The study showed that those who feared death were by far represented in the religous sector. Is this your definition of fulfilling life? Fearing death to such extent that you create your own fairytale in order to accept life? No friend, this is not living a fulfilling life and you simply cannot cheat life in that way. What is wrong with simply ceasing to exist upon death? Why do you feel the need to "live forever"? I accept my existance for what it is and I wouldn't trade it for anything. I love my life and when I die I hope I'm old enough to have grown tired from it. If I'm not, then so be it, there is nothing I can do other than try my best to prepare for tomorrow. I don't know if I live a truly fulfilling life, and I cannot judge that until I have lived it. If you think you can then, my friend, I would say you suffer from severe hubris. You are but a human, nothing more and nothing less, and there is nothing wrong with that. So tell me, who has the most sound view of life?
And about a fulfulling life. Right here on
So it's ok to believe in something harebrained because your neighbor does too? And my imaginary friend is way cooler than yours and can beat him up any time!
Rather the contrary, I was more on the line of that neither is ok, and that if one considers only one or a few as being ok he/she is rather self centered.
It's banned in some European countries, too. In the rest, it's not a religion.
I can't help but feel that it's a matter of time. But really I don't see the difference between diluted Christians/Jews/Muslims/Buddhists/Hinduists and Scientologists. It is truly egocentric to think that Aliens planting life on earth is more absurd than an invisible man in the sky. And by egocentric I mean that the invisble man theory is so permeated into the western culture that people tend to ignore how crazy it actually sounds.
I agree, this hype about speeds has gone too far. Sure I admit I'd prefer a faster browser, but I hardly feel the need to make a thorough investigation in order to gain a few seconds. Something rather predictable is that Chrome is loading slower by the version. I got the feeling that Chrome was rather optimized when released, but optimized naturally means that whatever added content will also add to loading time, in contrast to FF which became rather bloated with a lot of, still useful, content. Thus allowing for such performance increases between version 2 and 3.5. Now that Chrome is actually gaining content I can't help wondering whether it will be such an outperformer or not. Still nothing beats adblock. The single most important extension for FF. Until there are worthy equivalents (and no privoxy doesn't quite cut it for this purpose) I can wait patiently for my browser to load.
Sorry to Godwin the thread, but yes, IBM is evil and should have been shut down decades ago and their war profiteering given to the survivors of their evil deeds. Frankly after they continued to do business with the Germans after Dec 1941 they should have been convicted for treason and the leaders shot or at the very least enjoyed long prison sentences.
But if there is ANY corporation in the world that deserves the tag evil then IBM would be it. You would be hard pressed to get more evil than genocide.
Ah yes the nazi speach, Americans never killed any native Americans, nor any black people, and the English never killed any Aboriginies or Indians, and the Spanish never killed any jews and the Portugese never killed any muslims. How long until history is rendered irrelevant? Is there a single employee left in IBM whom has been working there since 1941? Do you think anybody in IBM relates to these people from the early 40's? Do you relate to the murders of native Americans? Given that you are a US citizen that is. It is very easy to point fingers, isn't it? Before speaking about nazis, please do some research. I'm most certainly not promoting national socialism, but I am demoting your school for teaching you this nonsense about "axis of evil". Do you think they are satanic nazi blood drinking child molesting animal rapists? Or are they humans made from the same elements as you, with families and hopes and problems, much like yours? Think about it.
In contrast, You've managed to write quite a bit more, and with all that, you still not have not expressed your point very well. I wonder if it would serve any purpose to point out that a fanatical belief in any Philosophy, including one that is Anti-Philosophy, like yours is still a fanatical belief, and blinds the fanatic the exact same way as any other system.
Well I can counter claiming that failing to understand me lies in the eye of the beholder, you not understanding doesn't mean I am to blame, but of course it doesn't mean I'm not. We can throw stones all day or we can just leave it at that. You can agree or disagree, it isn't really my concern. Prove me wrong and I'll win the argument, for the one whom convinces the other leaves the argumentation no wiser, only the other does. Unfortunately I feel that I have learned nothing.
Now you are asking me to explain a cultural phenomenon in isolation of its source culture? Are you even trying to make sense?
I'm sorry but there is no point in me writing when you interpret my texts so freely. I never asked you to explain a cultural phenomenon in isolation of its source culture. I asked you why you consider the concept of good and evil as common sense, and I was looking for an answer which you don't seem to have. You can't say that it's such an obvious element of common sense, and then not being able to explain why. If you cannot explain why then it is not proven to be an element of common sense. Impossible or not, you put yourself in that corner, and it is not wrong of me to demand an explanation before accepting your claim. This is my last post to you as I'm getting nothing out of this.
... and dualism is fiction based on nonsensical stories believed by feeble minds. In reality people are simply organisms looking for personal gain, and not only in monetary means. We are egoistic by nature, though we often keep a straight face, and when we think we aren't -- we still are.
I could just as well say that psychological egoism (what you are preaching) is fiction based on nonsense believed by feeble minds. There's plenty of criticism to throw at psychological egoism and examples of people acting in a way that isn't explained by that theory. For instance, taking a bullet for someone when it will obviously kill you.
You make an excellent point! Though I already posted an answer to your question, but I will quote it:
Those we treat well we do simply because we expect them to treat us well in return. When the latter changes -- so does the former. These are your basic human functions and if they fail, you will eventually find yourself in trouble.
I would categorise being dead as "being in trouble", at least the dying part up until the moment of death. Your argument would hold water if humans always rationalize their choices, but we don't.
Are you saying that a psychologist would not use the word "evil" himself or that he would deny that people use the word "evil"? Because that's what you are implying.
Hmm -- that's odd. I seem to recall me implying that no professional psychologist would ever use the word "evil" in a serious sense. This isn't the Bible and my sentences aren't meant to be open for interpretation. I write what I write and that is what I mean. I can't be held accountable for what you think I'm implying.
Of course corporations cannot be objectively a sociopath, what I say is that there is a common sense approach to interpret the statement "Corporation X is evil". But then against I understand why you can't understand this, you lack common sense.
I don't consider using terms such as "evil" nor "good" as common sense. But please, feel free to explain to me why you do. And before you do, please don't say "because everybody else does it." This I'm asking as a favor.
Don't try to paint the world black and white with this nonsensical psychological egoism. It's a theory open to argument, and has seen criticism from multiple fronts for hundreds of years.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is what I was doing.
Also, there's no need to call your opponents lazy or naive--that's just rude.
I'm sorry if you were offended, my intentions were most certainly not to be rude, but I don't think censoring arguments will lead to wisdom. However I stand by my arguments and I do believe that people can be naive and lazy, and I most certainly don't exclude myself from this rule.
This is a joke, right? Someone who hates dualism just said that?
Please, try to understand me. I don't "hate" dualism. Don't simplify it to that extent. I'm saying that dualism relies on the individual, and since individuals are vastly different so will the concept be. Thus the concept itself lack substance. Does this not make sense to you?
Tell me this; what is the difference in meaning between the words "evil" and "good"? Humans use these words for a reason, perhaps it's just our perception instead of reality, nonetheless within the domain of human interaction there IS a distinction or humans would not use these words as antonyms. Regardless of what the true intentions behind certain behaviour is, we humans DO make distinction between different kinds of behaviour. Why would making such a distinction be incorrect if it is made within the domain of human interaction?
Should we judge IBM by biological/evolutionary standards or by the standards of our society? If by the latter then, yes, I think calling IBM "evil" in the context of TFA is not beyond reason.
I'll be patient with you. The difference between good and evil are only found and explained in dualism, a concept which does not reflect reality. The reason why humans use these words are to relate to events in low detail. Humans have always categorised their environments in order to process them. Humans also use the words God and Satan (or other words representing the same essence), which are mere personifications of these two forces. God which was the first of two has not always represented the good, as you probably know, but rather the creator -- nor good nor evil, but simply the creator. Sometime closely prior to 300 BCE there has been findings of the word s'tn. This would later translate to Satan, which litteraly means "to oppose." Around this era the concept of duality was born, the theory that the creator was no longer responsible for all events, but instead only for those considered positive and rewarding. Naturally such silly simple logic lead to the creation of the opposite, the one responsible for everything considered negative and troublesome. Not what one would call a well developed theory, if you may. So you see humans do a lot of thing, and have done throughout the ages, and will do for ages to come, which lack substance. Your argument "Humans use these words for a reason" is true, Humans do everthing for a reason, though we sometimes cannot understand our own complexity, but it is not true that the reason is because the concept is true. You see by that logic anything that was ever said in the news, any gossip that passed, any lie that was ever told -- would also be true. Humans do it, but that doesn't make it the truth.
You are correct in that we do make distinction between different kinds of behaviour, and I would never claim otherwise, however you fail to show why this proves the concept of duality being true. We make these distinctions in order to relate to others, and we make our judgements based on our empirical data. But only the egocentric consideres his empirical data to be de facto. You can judge IBM for what it is, but calling it evil will get you nowhere, but if it makes you process the information easier then so be it. But remember that less you simplify your empirical data -- the more likely you are to reach your desired outcome.
I understand that their goal is to maximize profit. That's the object of a corporation.
Hey, I'm as free-market as they get, but if you look at IBM's business practices, they aren't operating on free-market principals, they're practicing crony-capitalism, which isn't the same thing. Google their habit of accepting government subsidies to retain jobs, and then off-shoring those jobs anyway. You might be interested in knowing they've formed an entire division to capture stimulus (taxpayer) dollars, but the chances those dollars will actually be pumped back into US economy are slim to none. Basically, they're trying to play both ends against the middle. Yes, they are evil, and treacherous bastards as well. I didn't make that comment based on this incident alone. This is just another, and rather minor, example of their duplicity.
Except I never said I was for a free market, actually I never mentioned anything about free market. I'm simply explaining the difference between fiction and reality. Calling something "evil" is lazy and not more useful than pointing fingers. Look you have to realise that your morals are worthless in a global scale. There is no human on earth whom completely shares your morals, and the further you move from your environment and culture the less similarities you'll find. You truly lower yourself when using such expressions, since ultimately the word "evil", just as the word "morals" are individually defined. So you see your "evil" does not equal the next guys "evil", thus there is no solid definition. What is the point of calling someone "evil" when it can virtually mean anything that you don't agree with? How is a listener or a reader supposed to receive this information when it is all filtered through your morals? No my friend, children use words such as "evil", for they don't yet understand the chain of events, but adults should. We all fight for ourselves, and there is nothing strange about an organism doing this. By denying this you deny your very own existance and the chain of events which brought you here, from single cell organism to the child of your parents. Don't be naive, and don't try to paint the world black and white with this nonsensical dualism. There is so much more behind every action than just "good" or "evil", and to simplify them in that sense is merely a method of compressing and processing data into your mind, done only by the lazy. Lossless data is always preferred, for the decisions you make based on this will always have a better outcome than the former.
I wish there was a mod +1 tin foil hat ...
I wish you would have posted something of substance.
I think most ethicists, behavioral psychologists and anthropologists would agree that evil means antisocial behavior.
Profit maximization at the expense of international civil rights and freedoms can easily be identified as evil.
Just for contrast, I don't anybody can honestly call the FSF or the EFF evil regardless of their position. Loonies? Innocent losers without a grasp of reality? I'm sure their enemies have many ways to rationalize it, but evil, nah. Corporations know evil intimately.
You couldn't be more wrong. No professional psychologist would ever use the word "evil" in a serious sense. It is a word, along with the nonsensical concept of dualism, which has cognitively been fed to you. Your "contrast" is absolutely worthless since neither FSF nor any corporation can be categorised as such. It is truly egocentric and foolish to think that people or organizations are "evil". Those that could fit closes (still very far) to this description would be e.g. sociopaths, and even they suffer from medical conditions leading to decisions which they cannot always be held accountable for. This is what a psychologist would say, what you're talking about is a 2 cent preacher, and I don't tend to listen to those.
Satan is a pretty nice guy if you happen to be a demon. For anybody else though, satan is evil. And by similar reasoning, so is IBM.
Except Satan doesn't exist and dualism is fiction based on nonsensical stories believed by feeble minds. In reality people are simply organisms looking for personal gain, and not only in monetary means. We are egoistic by nature, though we often keep a straight face, and when we think we aren't -- we still are. Those we treat well we do simply because we expect them to treat us well in return. When the latter changes -- so does the former. These are your basic human functions and if they fail, you will eventually find yourself in trouble.
Anyone that hasn't figured out that IBM is just plain evil by this time probably never will. This is not a company you want to turn your back on.
Would you stop fucking using the word "evil" already? There's nothing of substance in such claims. No corporation is "evil", and "evil" is just a matter of what side you're on. What IBM just did is called trolling, and there is nothing "evil" about maximizing profit. There is no corporation on earth which wouldn't do the same thing, given the opportunity and given that it would actually be considered as truth, hence generate revenue. Also never turn your back on any corporation, no matter how many patents they have or charities they've handed out, for their end purpose is always one thing: generating maximum profit.
AFAIK a patent is not really valid until tested, having a patent is just a pre-emptive document.
Altavista and other search engines had a similar layout years before google came along and don't even get me started on Xerox PARC.
Fair enough, answer me this though: if it was your business, would you not have done the same? If you answer is no then I advise you to never start a business due to rule #2: always protect your assets, with rule #1 being: never talk about fight club.
There's always some way of casting Google in a good light.
Good thing Google isn't evil! WHEW!
Google is not a person and evil is a[n] [ir]relevant (and rather nonsensical) term. No Google isn't evil, Microsoft isn't evil, AstraZenica isn't evil. These are businesses that will do whatever they can, within the legal frames, to generate revenue. I don't get why it's so hard for people to understand basic business. You don't like them? Well don't use their services, and if you really don't like them explain to people around you why they should avoid doing business them. And if you really hate patents (which many of us here do) vote for a political party which encourages removal of the patent system. And if you don't believe in the political system you can always make a revolution, I don't know, this is getting rather tiresome.
You know, the Nazi's made Jews wear pieces of flare.
Yeah because comparing genocide to patenting is fair.
Or it's Googles way to cover their asses in case somebody else wanted to patent it, rendering them forced to change the coined "Google look". This doesn't mean that Google embraces patenting. What it does mean is that Google, regardless of being for or against patents, is smart enough to play along until things change.
Oh??? Car cloning. http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/news/item.htm?id=6769 http://www.fbi.gov/page2/march07/carcloning032907.htm
But regardless, it's moot since a thief could just pass the car to a fence who has no record.
Wait what!? Car cloning!? What's next? DMVIAA?
There are workarounds, such as privoxy. Still it's a matter of priority, if you consider usage of plugins more important than 100/100 ACID3 score then you should pick such a browser, if you don't then go ahead and use Opera. More often I value the importance of licenses much higher than functions, except some specific cases. To me virtually nothing is more important than to have the entire product, including blueprints (source). There's nothing wrong or right about that, it's just the way I value software and it will benefit me in some areas and cripple me in others, which is why I try to be somewhat flexible. Being somewhat of a perfectionist I hate to make crappy adhoc fixes, which I would consider privoxy to be. There's nothing about privoxy that the browser itself couldn't do, so why not include that in the browser and make the browser better? And if somebody doesn't want to I either do it myself or , if I don't know how, ask for someone else to do it for free or for money, much like anything in life.
Basically I'm one of those whom always prefers open source for these very simple reasons. We who do don't do it "just because", and those who cannot understand why we do usually have very little coding knowledge, hence why they cannot relate to the benefits, which is fine if you ask me. We all make choices based on our own experiences, and if you've never benefited from a source code, or know that you have, it really does make sense.
Kids don't need cell phones? They don't "need" music either. Or, toy cars, or dolls, or a sprinkler to run in. Just because cell phones became popularized after 1980 does not make them some inherent evil that must be carefully controlled to prevent it's diabolical spread. A cell phone is a tool or a toy. They are are less expensive than a video game. Heck, they verge on the price of coloring books, which means that even if they are abused, so what. Of course, at 5, my son is perfectly capable of handling a phone responsibly. He was responsible enough to handle one when he was 3. If you haven't met any 3 to 16 year olds that are responsible enough to handle a telephone, you should be looking at their parents as to why. It isn't because of their age. Seriously, at less than 16, people have built nations. What genetic defect would make them incapable of handling a telephone. The age that cell phones are appropriate is the age that the kid can understand how not to randomly call strangers. I didn't get my 5 year old a cell phone because I am over protective. I did it so that whatever my limit's on his freedom were before, I could extend them, knowing that if he got separated from us, he could just call us and read some signs to let us know where he is. This worked out VERY well when we took him to Disneyland at 4. We gave him one of our phones. When he wanted to run free in Tom Sawyer's caves, we were comfortable letting him go. When it turned out that he exited from an exit that we didn't know about, and called us telling us that he couldn't find us, we didn't need to panic. We didn't need to report him as lost. We just needed him to describe what he could see. Less than 2 minutes later, we were all back together again, and a trip that could have been severely traumatic, was just a lot of fun. I am also going to give my child the tools that make him WANT to write. Why any parent would say "My child want's to write a lot, but I don't think they are responsible enough to do it." is beyond me. I personally love it when my 5 year old sends me little notes over the cell phone telling me that he loves me, tells me what he is doing at that moment, or just tells me about something he thought was neat.
You're completely right, while age makes a difference, the span between the right time for one person will extend up to over tens of years for another person. Age in this case is nothing but a milestone for those whom don't know the person at hand, but can instead have a hunch about what is generally suitable. It's absolutely nothing to go by if you're a parent, for it will either stress your child into learning nothing, or prevent him from learning something when he's ready. As you describe there are 4-year-olds who can handle a cell phone, and in my experience there are 40-year-olds who still can't, and some who just plain shouldn't.