To be honest, the whole argument was weak, but that wasn't the point. I just get sick and tired of people assuming the government is out to get them. OK, I won't argue against your motives, even though you chose to explain them. If I understand the intent, thanks. Or, thanks but no thanks, to be exact; you have the right to your own motives, and your choice to pursue them by persuasion is noted, admiringly.
What I'm saying is that you first need to ask those questions before pointing fingers Agreed.
... which the OP didn't do. OP can address that, if it cares to do so. Not my battle.
It may well be true, but we don't know that, and the logical evaluation of the immediate facts suggests otherwise. Well, "assuming the government is out to get them" is your paraphrase of somebody else. Even if it's little or no exaggeration, you are proceeding from a description, rather than a quote, of the argument.
I just intend to utilize the exchange I intercepted to make a [hopefully, more credible] general small-government argument. In short, whether you're "right-" or "left-" wing, whatever abuses of government power you abhor the most: other things being equal, a smaller government is less capable of committing them.
ScrewMaster:
the Federal Government isn't doing this to provide us with more security, they're doing it to provide themselves with more power, power over us. It looks like you and I can agree that this is neither always true, nor always untrue. I await your reply before progressing to further discussion of one or more of these themes.
If justice as persons is not universal, it is a fiction. Sweet, sweet bumper sticker.
Beyond the theological point, in reality, the difference between this theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory.
Who gets to define symbols like 'justice', 'universal', and 'fiction' is one powerful bloke.
Would that one could set an eternal champignon such as yourself up as POTUS, just to get your reaction to the negative feedback of even the simplest acts.;) Wouldn't a smaller & more open government, with less power to demand "openness" willy-nilly from citizens, exhibit those symptoms to a lesser degree?
That is an excellent example...
No prob. I'm actually a realistic optimist! ... of why I now only open new messages between posts. You, an optimist? From what I've seen so far, that is hilarious! I look forward to reading more of your work.
Explains observations under discussion.
Makes [at least implies] falsifiable tests.
Seems fairly scientific so far. Predicts future observations?
It is not surprising that leaders in government and industry would do this because the same psychological motivations that drove them to positions of power are the same motivations that drive them to gain control in other areas. I've recently heard "transparency" in weird context, as part of attempted "proof by repetition" from positions of power. I think you're onto something.
Are you seriously harping on someone because their signature doesn't meet your standards of accuracy? Yes, I am.
You can't even spell "Great Scott". No, I cannot. Do you know if it's possible to prevent e-mail notifications of AC replies? They're all such trash.
Hello again! Hold on, "thread-jack"? I'm still relatively new here, so I'm keeping my flamethrower holstered -- for now.
Hello again! Once again, you thread-jack me, and call me a liar (I assume, since you, again, didn't say it outright). I didn't have to pay, or pass any admissions test to get an account here. Based on that mostly, I consider these publicly-viewable discussions "open." I'm also familiar with the term 'Netiquette, though, and if I fouled, I apologize. I don't mean to "thread-jack" you. I thought one point in your argument was weak -- and the rest of it strong enough that you'd be interested in shoring up that weakness. I do not, by the way, classify everything that I disagree with a "lie." I considered this one an oversight. I'll try to clarify/expand on that now. You suggested, in a reply to a previous suggestion of a general tendency to expand government power, that because there is no direct & legal financial incentive for Senators & Congresscritters to abuse their power in that way, that there is no such incentive whatsoever. What I only implied, and not clearly enough, I guess, is that anybody with a lot of money who does have an interest in renting government power does have an incentive to bribe somebody capable of pulling the necessary strings. Which is to say, only that your response omits something which might contradict your thesis. If I had solid evidence, I wouldn't be posting it here.
the Federal Government isn't doing this to provide us with more security, they're doing it to provide themselves with more power, power over us. Why? What's the point in trying to expand powers subversively, when election terms are of limited length, it doesn't produce a bigger retirement fund, and it's more difficult, costly, and risky than just electioneering, and giving the people what they want? Could it be that the Federal Government is at least trying to maintain an illusion of security, if not the real thing, because that's what people want? Rather than imply that you lied, I would first hypothesize that you're missing something. Depending on the strength or weakness of the arguments you use to support your current opinion and your willingness or unwillingness to revise as necessary, when/if presented with facts that logically require such revision, I might eventually conclude that you're a liar. I have not yet.
For the size and complexity of the applications that Microsoft produces, they have no more idiocy than anything else. Did you illegally de-compile something or did you just make that up? http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/11/1818241
The best feature of the television and the personal computer is the off switch. Debate as little as you like. Correct me if I'm wrong (or even if I'm right), but you seem to disagree with the spirit of my argument. Unfortunately, if I go ahead and guess at the argument behind your cryptic statement, I may be accused of creating strawmen. Therefore, I shall respond in the same cryptic manner: I didn't mean to be cryptic. I was just acknowledging your choice to not debate the topic any more. Now, I wonder if you were persuaded to alter that decision, forgot it, or lured back by what you described as the "cryptic" nature of my reply...
I disagree. The best feature of anything is whatever made you keep it on in the first place. I guarantee you, I would keep neither if they could not be turned off. Oh, well, it's possible my attempted humor was not very funny.
Either way, the Jesus of the bible likely wouldn't approve of the Inquisition. Very likely. But, I also think the Jesus of the Bible would reply to that method of argument of yours, that a tree is known by its fruit, not by who planted it.
I never said they did. You have to admit though, Christianity does encourage that sort of thing. Surely part of the credit belongs to Christianity, if not for shaping people's beliefs, then for organising like-minded people into doing good deeds. Oh, "part of the credit," OK. I had the impression you were giving Christianity all the credit. I can definitely discuss partial credit with you. Heh, I would give personal credit to each individual involved, but from what I hear, some of the individuals would give that credit right back to Christianity. Since I respect their individual right to do that, sure, partial credit. But since you mentioned "shaping people's beliefs" I have to mention that statistically, countries and locales which are less religious tend to be more peaceful, less criminal, more egalitarian, and less diseased. Any concession from me of Christianity's value at "shaping people's beliefs" will be carefully limited.
Smokescreen? Frustration that Barack Obama is doing so well? What I wonder is why so much of it is accompanied by "Ron Paul" slogans. I mean, the attempt at guilt by association is obvious, but is the falsehood of the "racist newsletter" thing really not just as well known as the accusations themselves? And a small, Constitutional government would not have the power to grant favors to lazy, stupid people for being white. I guess racists really are all just stupid trash. Can't even figure out they're the ones who need a bloated nanny state most of all.
I likewise feel obliged to answer the same question whenever this point is played down.
(I feel obliged to ask the same question whenever this point is brought up)
the Federal Government isn't doing this to provide us with more security, they're doing it to provide themselves with more power, power over us. Why? What's the point in trying to expand powers subversively, when election terms are of limited length, it doesn't produce a bigger retirement fund, and it's more difficult, costly, and risky than just electioneering, and giving the people what they want? Could it be that the Federal Government is at least trying to maintain an illusion of security, if not the real thing, because that's what people want? There are other sources of income for corrupt ex-Senators. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/washington/27lott.html
What you say is certainly true, sometimes. It is also equally certain that sometimes, it is not. Generally, especially in scenarios where the essence of the right to privacy is demanded in exchange for a temporary bit of security, I tend strongly to distrust the few, extremely noisy liars that score points with that kind of argument.
He made a perfectly reasonable (if inaccurate) observation An *observation* cannot be inaccurate. If a scientist records the wrong number, it was the measurement or the recording that is inaccurate, not the observation. If a person says something inaccurate, what they have said is not an observation. In this case, the comparison was part of an argument, which amounts to a claim; the equation of Microsoft to Apple (past). Of course, I also thought the anti-Americanism was unwarranted, but somebody else already answered that, very humorously.
But don't randomly assume that just because you disagree with someone they they must be an American. There are plenty of idiots here, but you have your fair share of them, too. (Not that I'm calling you an idiot, Mongoose) Americans misspell "colour" and a lot of other words. Mongoose wouldn't need to "randomly assume" anything to correctly identify Americans, 9 times out of 10, or more.
The OP claimed that religion's purpose is to control the masses by the people in power... That's more true in certain places & times than others. I'll certainly agree with you this far: control of the masses by the people in power is not the only function religions ever perform. So it's difficult for me to agree with claims that the purpose of religions is control, tyranny and the like, in such general terms. I don't believe I could even begin making that case, for example, for Jainism.
As for now, well, I don't think I want to go there, lest there be a big debate about brainwashing vs. free will, and the power of authority, etc, etc. The best feature of the television and the personal computer is the off switch. Debate as little as you like.
Sure, but perhaps that's an example of a person misrepresenting what the religion is about. He was later elected spokesperson. I find the "misrepresenting" angle obtuse here.
You don't see international press coverage of Christians doing good deeds. Not necessary; I've taken part in some good Christian deeds, and I can tell you that they don't turn down atheists, or in any way screen participants for religion. I know I wasn't participating "for the glory of God," and I didn't do a survey of the other participants, but I've never gotten a sense in charity work that people that take part do so other than to simply have a positive effect on somebody who isn't positively affected very often. So, I don't dismiss the good deeds of Christians, I just don't attribute their deeds to their Christianity. I've seen evidence to the contrary of that premise.
No, that is facilitating. Granted, there's a lot of facilitation in leadership, but it's not the be-all, end-all. Sometimes leaders need to take people in a direction they initially don't want to go, and hopefully it's through convincing the people being led that the leader's vision is the best way. Why do so many people think "leadership" is a good thing? Do you need to be led? Why?
It's easier for humans to measure small things on small scales than it is to measure small things on big scales. It's just harder to "see" everything. That's why the published data, like 0.2mm per year, are based on many measurements at different locations over long periods of time -- small things on small scales, repeated many times.
You think people are stalking you?
They need to read the faq then. But you see, "overrated" doesn't get metamoderated, so I get sporadic bursts of un-metamoderable downmods lasting no more than 3 days and never exceeding 5 in a row.
Considering that there are losers pathetic enough to stalk me here for years with their unrequited homosexual advances, it is not surprising that one or some of them would extend their petty obsession beyond the comment system and onto the moderation system. LOL, what a way with words! I'd say it's plausible that you've ticked somebody off so much that they're harassing you! It's such a nuisance.
Anyway, about the moderation system, considering that self-selection based on interest in Slashdot topics is really the only membership criterion, I'm surprised the moderation system works as well as it does. I've seen very few scenarios where the "honor system" has even a ghost of a chance, and the designers of this site have done reasonably well with it.
OK, I can pay closer attention to the message one level up, and to context in general in the future. Honestly, My reply to you was meant in the limited context indicated by the limited excerpt I quoted. And to clarify that, I don't give credit presently, based on a story of a "dissident" 2000 years ago, to a powerful organization whose leader called the imprisonment of Galileo by the Inquisition "rational and just." Basically, I think I'm going to disagree with your thesis, and a great deal of your supporting material, but if I held out no hope that you are more than a lobotomized moron, it would be quite stupid of me to have a conversation with you.
Nice try.
I declare victory to the distracting sideshow - so you can get your pocket picked while figuring out which moving card is the ace. They're all jokers. Get your hand out of my pocket.
Slashdot Mirror
... which the OP didn't do. OP can address that, if it cares to do so. Not my battle. It may well be true, but we don't know that, and the logical evaluation of the immediate facts suggests otherwise. Well, "assuming the government is out to get them" is your paraphrase of somebody else. Even if it's little or no exaggeration, you are proceeding from a description, rather than a quote, of the argument.I just intend to utilize the exchange I intercepted to make a [hopefully, more credible] general small-government argument. In short, whether you're "right-" or "left-" wing, whatever abuses of government power you abhor the most: other things being equal, a smaller government is less capable of committing them.
ScrewMaster: the Federal Government isn't doing this to provide us with more security, they're doing it to provide themselves with more power, power over us. It looks like you and I can agree that this is neither always true, nor always untrue. I await your reply before progressing to further discussion of one or more of these themes.
Makes [at least implies] falsifiable tests.
Seems fairly scientific so far. Predicts future observations? It is not surprising that leaders in government and industry would do this because the same psychological motivations that drove them to positions of power are the same motivations that drive them to gain control in other areas. I've recently heard "transparency" in weird context, as part of attempted "proof by repetition" from positions of power. I think you're onto something.
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/11/1818241
Smokescreen? Frustration that Barack Obama is doing so well? What I wonder is why so much of it is accompanied by "Ron Paul" slogans. I mean, the attempt at guilt by association is obvious, but is the falsehood of the "racist newsletter" thing really not just as well known as the accusations themselves? And a small, Constitutional government would not have the power to grant favors to lazy, stupid people for being white. I guess racists really are all just stupid trash. Can't even figure out they're the ones who need a bloated nanny state most of all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/washington/27lott.html
What you say is certainly true, sometimes. It is also equally certain that sometimes, it is not. Generally, especially in scenarios where the essence of the right to privacy is demanded in exchange for a temporary bit of security, I tend strongly to distrust the few, extremely noisy liars that score points with that kind of argument.
Even so, to be totally accurate your sig should say "Automatic ..." or "Guaranteed ..." not "Instant +5 Insightful ..."
OSSOSS
Open Source Software Openness Scanning Software
:-)
Thanks.
n00b question: "JE'ing"?
Thanks in advance.
Also, that is so far beyond cynical, I wasn't expecting it.
Some guy on the Internet has totally figured out our small government fascism scheme!
Good one.
Anyway, about the moderation system, considering that self-selection based on interest in Slashdot topics is really the only membership criterion, I'm surprised the moderation system works as well as it does. I've seen very few scenarios where the "honor system" has even a ghost of a chance, and the designers of this site have done reasonably well with it.
Huh, I'm pleasantly surprised.
OK, I can pay closer attention to the message one level up, and to context in general in the future. Honestly, My reply to you was meant in the limited context indicated by the limited excerpt I quoted. And to clarify that, I don't give credit presently, based on a story of a "dissident" 2000 years ago, to a powerful organization whose leader called the imprisonment of Galileo by the Inquisition "rational and just." Basically, I think I'm going to disagree with your thesis, and a great deal of your supporting material, but if I held out no hope that you are more than a lobotomized moron, it would be quite stupid of me to have a conversation with you.