As a "religious nutter" myself - well said. Human nature, or in religious terms - sin - has been the cause of conflict. Not the ideas presented in each religion or belief set. Some ideologies are more prone to shaping violent tendencies, but ultimately violence is a part of human nature, and large scale violence is a part of that condition.
Just to clarify, "be not yoked with unbelievers" is in reference to marriage and marrying someone who is not a believer. Which is probably good advice for anyone of any religion (or lack thereof). Marrying someone who holds different fundamental beliefs to you is going to cause difficulties.
Since this is slashdot, I feel obliged to include a definition of marriage as for most readers it will be a foreign term, and for those to whom it isn't - hi mum.
Re:Seems like a good excuse as any
on
Sleep Mailing
·
· Score: 1
Actually yes, if they were sleepwalking and it could be proven then they would escape prosecution.
Re:I swear I was asleep Your Honor!
on
Sleep Mailing
·
· Score: 1
Yeah generally they're fine except when someone startles them. Sleepwalking is a very dangerous thing because an adult body is being completely driven by a subconscious intellect.
You are a fool if you believe that people cannot be swayed by good argument. In this case that means convincing the public that a) this will hurt their civil liberties and b) this will not protect the kiddies.
I attended the Brisbane rally. It was a total failure, and NOT due to the lack of people. It was a total failure for many other reasons.
1) The people who showed up were the people who mostly knew how to bypass the filter anyway. They were young people who were all probably heavy internet users. There was not the "ordinary" Jo and Jane who are in their middle ages with two teenage kids. Noone cares about youth protests, except when they turn violent.
2) There were far too many wierdos and oddballs there. People dressed in fancy dress is completely inappropriate for a protest about infringements on civil liberties.
3) Certain Left political groups hijacked the rally for their own ends. It really killed any credibility that the protest had, because noone listens to or likes the "Green Socialist Party" or any of the other extreme left wing groups. Australia is a conservative country, political messages should be tailored to the conservative majority.
4) There was no clear explanation in the signage of why it was such a bad idea. No mention of the internet filter being a way for government to control religious material (if the Christian movement is so damn powerful, explain to them the downsides of the filter from their point of view). The only media reports I heard about it explained not why it was a bad idea, but only that smart people could get around it.
5) The pamphlets were poorly printed. The information on them was great but they weren't well copied. I had one side upside down on mine. Not the best look.
I went, attended and was not surprised that the turnout was so small. It was the busy Christmas season and noone knew about the protest. I imagine that some were scared of being associated with people who could be seen as supporting child porn (from an uninformed person's perspective) as well.
Overall if the internet filter is to be stopped, it needs to be explained to the people who voted in Rudd, the swinging voters. The vast majority of the swing to Rudd was in suburbia, in the seats with the highest concentration of Christians. It is these people you must convince of the folly of the filter. Explaining technical limitations will not do that.
Quite funny really when everyone was saying that Rudd's policies were practically "me too"s to all of Howard's policies. Rudd got elected cause he was in the publics mind a fresh, young Howard.
The above post was nothing more than flamebait. The whole point of a liberal democracy is that it is the citizens who choose who runs the government. If the citizens happen to be religious then they should have the right to choose religious people to lead their country.
Like it or not, much of western society was born out of the religious ideologies of our forefathers in both Great Brittan and the US. Much of the law that protects our liberties now was born out of passages from the Bible (look up the "snail in ginger beer" court case for a prominent example).
Provided that the leaders of a country make good, pragmatic decisions then who cares? The problem for Australia at the moment is that the opposition are lame ducks and Kevin Rudd is essentially running the show (though others such as Gillard have a very strong voice - and she most definitely is not a religious person).
This internet filter is a horrid idea but let's not forget who to blame. It's not the Christian groups, it's not the Liberal party, it's the Labor party. Running into the last election both sides promised an OPTIONAL filter, not a mandatory one. The ALP have pulled a fast one on the citizens of Australia by attempting to make it mandatory (and including far more than just illegal material).
The funny thing about your post is that it very much proves exactly my point. If the new Center is actually Right, then what meaning does "Center" even have other than "what the public perceive as the least offensive government available to it at the moment"?
It seems to me that the Left/Right divide is most closely related to the way in which the individuals who form the party think. The Left seems to be more idealistic, full of big ideas while the Right seem to be more pragmatic attempting more to fix the problems of society than focus on the new big thing. This is why global-warming appeals as a concept so much to some of the Left - it gives them a big grand vision of what the future may be like unless their big grand ideas get implemented. Those on the Right tend to dislike the concept because it cannot be solved by any amount of pragmatism.
Ultimately though even this analysis is flawed as both sides of politics are made up of individuals. The right ideologies mean jack all if the individuals who are championing those ideologies are not intelligent or skilled enough to implement them well. Ideologies though are as fluid as the Left/Right divide. What was acceptable fifty years ago is not acceptable today, while something else that was not acceptable then today is.
The purpose of this post is to make people realise that good ideas and bad ideas are not solely the domain of any particular political or social philosophy. Trying to shovel one set of ideas from a political organisation you like into one you don't like is as foolish as it is ignorant.
I love the viscious attack on the Right because of something that the Left are doing.
This is exactly where the Left/Right methodology breaks down. Many on the Right are actually anti-censorship and are libertarian in their viewpoints. Many on the Left are authoritarian and pro-censorship.
In this country we have more than two major parties anyway. We have Labor (center-left/union focus), Liberal (center-right/business focus), National (center-right/rural focus), Green (far-left/environment focus), Democrat (center-left), Family First (far-right/"family" focus) and One Nation (far-right/rural focus). Even now, the arbitrary divides I have given these parties are merely labels and are not good at describing their policies.
For instance Labor, as one of their first acts of government cut funding to the CSIRO. The Liberal party, as on of their first acts of parliament impelemented tight gun control laws.
Right =/= censorship. Left =/= intelligence. Elements of both sides want to censor and elements of both sides are intelligent (though Conroy is not one of those elements). In Australia it more boils down to the focus and emphasis on the community groups that the politicians listen to. Those on the right listen more to the businesses and church groups while those on the left listen more to the unions and gay groups.
So in short, please do not slander people with your doublethink in future. I know it's cool on slashdot to pay out those on the Right, but pigeonholing them is a very limiting way to look at any group of people.
LOTE = Languages Other Than English (i.e. a shorthand for learning any other language).
The problem that aboriginal communities face is that there are very few academically trained Aboriginal teachers. Most teachers that teach at these schools are white English speakers anyway. The intention is to train the children from an early age to be able to speak and operate in the language that is both the official language of the country and the language that is used by anyone who is in any position of authority (i.e. bosses). Without the English training there is really no hope for the children to escape the poverty that exists in most (I could be wrong - it could be all) Aboriginal communities. This is not a problem with a simple answer and blanket attacks on attempted solutions because they violate some vague notion of "human rights" can do more harm than good.
There is a place for these languages, but to help Aborigines escape the poverty cycle they need to know English.
The taking away of aboriginal "rights" was more done so that real issues in aboriginal society could be addressed - drunkenness and abuse. The other two things you mentioned are ridiculous though.
As a paladin tank I'd have to say that it annoys me that there is so much parry on the tanking gear. You see it is itemised at a higher cost than dodge or defence, meaning that I get less avoidance from it. Every second piece seems to have parry on it too.
The real problem for death knights comes from getting to 540 defence.
Glaring is the graphical glitches in the casting animations in WAR. They are so bad that it kills your sense of immersion. These are minor oversights at best.
The dungeons are easy from a gear point of view, but they are challenging from a coordination point of view.
Loken and the second boss in the Oculus have destroyed many PUGs, because even when 4 people know how to do it generally it is the 1 who wipes the group. I'm quite happy with the level of content in the end game. It certainly beats the old difficulty curve of BC where you wouldn't get accepted into PUG heroics if you didn't already have raid level gear.
Remember those protesting are porn *users* not porn producers. I doubt that the penises on display will be too huge, especially without any porn around.:P
I live in QLD and it is certainly legal. There are ads for them in the local paper. Beattie introduced the legislation a few years back. It is also legal in NSW (where do you think Kings Cross got its reputation from?).
Interesting that you bring up a policy which has achieved what it set out to achieve - a reduction in gun crimes. It is only really the rural areas that cared at the time (or still care) about gun restrictions. And it is not exactly that guns are outlawed, only restricted to limit the harm that individually they can inflict in a short space of time.
Slashdot Mirror
As a "religious nutter" myself - well said. Human nature, or in religious terms - sin - has been the cause of conflict. Not the ideas presented in each religion or belief set. Some ideologies are more prone to shaping violent tendencies, but ultimately violence is a part of human nature, and large scale violence is a part of that condition.
Just to clarify, "be not yoked with unbelievers" is in reference to marriage and marrying someone who is not a believer. Which is probably good advice for anyone of any religion (or lack thereof). Marrying someone who holds different fundamental beliefs to you is going to cause difficulties.
Since this is slashdot, I feel obliged to include a definition of marriage as for most readers it will be a foreign term, and for those to whom it isn't - hi mum.
Actually yes, if they were sleepwalking and it could be proven then they would escape prosecution.
Yeah generally they're fine except when someone startles them. Sleepwalking is a very dangerous thing because an adult body is being completely driven by a subconscious intellect.
You are a fool if you believe that people cannot be swayed by good argument. In this case that means convincing the public that a) this will hurt their civil liberties and b) this will not protect the kiddies.
They ratified Kyoto. Howard signed it in 1996.
I attended the Brisbane rally. It was a total failure, and NOT due to the lack of people. It was a total failure for many other reasons.
1) The people who showed up were the people who mostly knew how to bypass the filter anyway. They were young people who were all probably heavy internet users. There was not the "ordinary" Jo and Jane who are in their middle ages with two teenage kids. Noone cares about youth protests, except when they turn violent.
2) There were far too many wierdos and oddballs there. People dressed in fancy dress is completely inappropriate for a protest about infringements on civil liberties.
3) Certain Left political groups hijacked the rally for their own ends. It really killed any credibility that the protest had, because noone listens to or likes the "Green Socialist Party" or any of the other extreme left wing groups. Australia is a conservative country, political messages should be tailored to the conservative majority.
4) There was no clear explanation in the signage of why it was such a bad idea. No mention of the internet filter being a way for government to control religious material (if the Christian movement is so damn powerful, explain to them the downsides of the filter from their point of view). The only media reports I heard about it explained not why it was a bad idea, but only that smart people could get around it.
5) The pamphlets were poorly printed. The information on them was great but they weren't well copied. I had one side upside down on mine. Not the best look.
I went, attended and was not surprised that the turnout was so small. It was the busy Christmas season and noone knew about the protest. I imagine that some were scared of being associated with people who could be seen as supporting child porn (from an uninformed person's perspective) as well.
Overall if the internet filter is to be stopped, it needs to be explained to the people who voted in Rudd, the swinging voters. The vast majority of the swing to Rudd was in suburbia, in the seats with the highest concentration of Christians. It is these people you must convince of the folly of the filter. Explaining technical limitations will not do that.
Quite funny really when everyone was saying that Rudd's policies were practically "me too"s to all of Howard's policies. Rudd got elected cause he was in the publics mind a fresh, young Howard.
The above post was nothing more than flamebait. The whole point of a liberal democracy is that it is the citizens who choose who runs the government. If the citizens happen to be religious then they should have the right to choose religious people to lead their country.
Like it or not, much of western society was born out of the religious ideologies of our forefathers in both Great Brittan and the US. Much of the law that protects our liberties now was born out of passages from the Bible (look up the "snail in ginger beer" court case for a prominent example).
Provided that the leaders of a country make good, pragmatic decisions then who cares? The problem for Australia at the moment is that the opposition are lame ducks and Kevin Rudd is essentially running the show (though others such as Gillard have a very strong voice - and she most definitely is not a religious person).
This internet filter is a horrid idea but let's not forget who to blame. It's not the Christian groups, it's not the Liberal party, it's the Labor party. Running into the last election both sides promised an OPTIONAL filter, not a mandatory one. The ALP have pulled a fast one on the citizens of Australia by attempting to make it mandatory (and including far more than just illegal material).
whoosh
Hey that could be their new slogan. "Stick to POSIX - it works everywhere except in 95% of computers!"
The funny thing about your post is that it very much proves exactly my point. If the new Center is actually Right, then what meaning does "Center" even have other than "what the public perceive as the least offensive government available to it at the moment"?
It seems to me that the Left/Right divide is most closely related to the way in which the individuals who form the party think. The Left seems to be more idealistic, full of big ideas while the Right seem to be more pragmatic attempting more to fix the problems of society than focus on the new big thing. This is why global-warming appeals as a concept so much to some of the Left - it gives them a big grand vision of what the future may be like unless their big grand ideas get implemented. Those on the Right tend to dislike the concept because it cannot be solved by any amount of pragmatism.
Ultimately though even this analysis is flawed as both sides of politics are made up of individuals. The right ideologies mean jack all if the individuals who are championing those ideologies are not intelligent or skilled enough to implement them well. Ideologies though are as fluid as the Left/Right divide. What was acceptable fifty years ago is not acceptable today, while something else that was not acceptable then today is.
The purpose of this post is to make people realise that good ideas and bad ideas are not solely the domain of any particular political or social philosophy. Trying to shovel one set of ideas from a political organisation you like into one you don't like is as foolish as it is ignorant.
Unfortunately it's because it generally is the minority who are swinging voters...
I love the viscious attack on the Right because of something that the Left are doing.
This is exactly where the Left/Right methodology breaks down. Many on the Right are actually anti-censorship and are libertarian in their viewpoints. Many on the Left are authoritarian and pro-censorship.
In this country we have more than two major parties anyway. We have Labor (center-left/union focus), Liberal (center-right/business focus), National (center-right/rural focus), Green (far-left/environment focus), Democrat (center-left), Family First (far-right/"family" focus) and One Nation (far-right/rural focus). Even now, the arbitrary divides I have given these parties are merely labels and are not good at describing their policies.
For instance Labor, as one of their first acts of government cut funding to the CSIRO. The Liberal party, as on of their first acts of parliament impelemented tight gun control laws.
Right =/= censorship. Left =/= intelligence. Elements of both sides want to censor and elements of both sides are intelligent (though Conroy is not one of those elements). In Australia it more boils down to the focus and emphasis on the community groups that the politicians listen to. Those on the right listen more to the businesses and church groups while those on the left listen more to the unions and gay groups.
So in short, please do not slander people with your doublethink in future. I know it's cool on slashdot to pay out those on the Right, but pigeonholing them is a very limiting way to look at any group of people.
LOTE = Languages Other Than English (i.e. a shorthand for learning any other language).
The problem that aboriginal communities face is that there are very few academically trained Aboriginal teachers. Most teachers that teach at these schools are white English speakers anyway. The intention is to train the children from an early age to be able to speak and operate in the language that is both the official language of the country and the language that is used by anyone who is in any position of authority (i.e. bosses). Without the English training there is really no hope for the children to escape the poverty that exists in most (I could be wrong - it could be all) Aboriginal communities. This is not a problem with a simple answer and blanket attacks on attempted solutions because they violate some vague notion of "human rights" can do more harm than good.
There is a place for these languages, but to help Aborigines escape the poverty cycle they need to know English.
I thought that you were specifically refering to the intervention that started last year.
Can you answer me this though - what future does an aboriginal child have if they cannot speak the dominant language of the country and the world?
When a child is brought up with an Aboriginal language as their first language what harm is there in teaching them a second language?
Have you ever had any LOTE training at school? How does this differ from what you see as "pure bigotry" and "harm"?
The taking away of aboriginal "rights" was more done so that real issues in aboriginal society could be addressed - drunkenness and abuse. The other two things you mentioned are ridiculous though.
As a paladin tank I'd have to say that it annoys me that there is so much parry on the tanking gear. You see it is itemised at a higher cost than dodge or defence, meaning that I get less avoidance from it. Every second piece seems to have parry on it too.
The real problem for death knights comes from getting to 540 defence.
Glaring is the graphical glitches in the casting animations in WAR. They are so bad that it kills your sense of immersion. These are minor oversights at best.
The dungeons are easy from a gear point of view, but they are challenging from a coordination point of view.
Loken and the second boss in the Oculus have destroyed many PUGs, because even when 4 people know how to do it generally it is the 1 who wipes the group. I'm quite happy with the level of content in the end game. It certainly beats the old difficulty curve of BC where you wouldn't get accepted into PUG heroics if you didn't already have raid level gear.
I always loved Kill All Humans, the anal probe being my weapon of choice.
Computer games are great for letting you be the evil opposite of yourself.
Remember those protesting are porn *users* not porn producers. I doubt that the penises on display will be too huge, especially without any porn around. :P
Nope, bone fide brothels. They advertise themselves as such too - well they're "adult services" or something equally as politically correct.
I live in QLD and it is certainly legal. There are ads for them in the local paper. Beattie introduced the legislation a few years back. It is also legal in NSW (where do you think Kings Cross got its reputation from?).
Interesting that you bring up a policy which has achieved what it set out to achieve - a reduction in gun crimes. It is only really the rural areas that cared at the time (or still care) about gun restrictions. And it is not exactly that guns are outlawed, only restricted to limit the harm that individually they can inflict in a short space of time.