I agree with you, and yet your viewpoint will be forever ignored or relegated to the sidelines because the philosophy you espouse embraces ambiguity, whereas most believers (theist and atheist alike) crave certainty. For these, doubt and ambiguity are intolerable to the point of purposely obfuscating logical process in order to support irrational position, just so they don't have to say "I'm not certain."
According to Colorado and NY police, the guy had red hair and was comporting himself as the Joker. And I think all of us geeks can agree that this is something the Joker would do: set off a shooting massacre and then watch society tear itself apart rather than focus on him. Ideas can become real, and I believe the Joker killed Heath Ledger, and I think the Joker probably did kill those people in Aurora. If the reports are true and this guy wanted to become the Joker, then he succeeded.
To be prepared for unexpected, unpredictable negative events is the very definition of responsibility. How have we lost that as a society? Now, if your example was "lost his job, unable to find work during the downturn, and then got cancer on top of that" I'd be sympathetic. But everyone should be ready for one horrible event, and living paycheck-to-paycheck with no savings is simply not responsible adult behavior. Those who are in the bottom 1%, luck-wise? Sure, society can carry them - after all, thats a very small group to provide charity for. But if you try to assert that the average person needs charity? If your over 25 and need help after one-standard-deviation of bad luck, you're doing life wrong.
How often does just "one-standard-deviation" happen? And how long before those with more than one standard deviation of bad luck greatly outnumber those that are lucky enough to have none, or a whole lotta good luck?
Libertarianism as a movement had nothing to do with that. Libertarian principles did: deregulation, purposeful dismantling of government oversight to promote individual gain, arguments that the industry can regulate itself in a partnership with its customer base just as well if not more efficiently than the government can. Your purposes and beliefs were easily perverted because you do not make accommodation for the reality that libertarianism requires enlightenment of _all_ its followers to work. The system works great on paper, but like Communism, too easily falls victim to the predations of its own adherents when practiced in reality. If a substantial majority of libertarians were indeed like you or element-o.p., and had the necessary moral rectitude and courage to ward against corruption, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Libertarianism is better off as an ideal that filters political discourse, than as an actual governing philosophy.
I understand libertarian philosophy just fine. I agree with your interpretation of it. Unfortunately, your philosophy is co-opted by other people calling themselves "Libertarians" who find that your preferred philosophical platform nicely encompasses their desire for social stratification, and/or exploitation and subjugation of all those they deem 'inferior', usually by reason of intellect. I have met dozens of people with high IQs who believe that their superior intelligence grants them moral superiority over all those who are dumber than they are, and they espouse libertarian philosophy as a means to their end (namely, enshrining their superiority into law). They have no problem with co-opting and perverting the system in the name of gaming it to benefit themselves, as they believe in their own superiority and think that laws set up by lesser individuals should be ignored, twisted, or disregarded (just look at Wall Street). And as people like these individuals I speak of outnumber people like you in the Libertarian circles, sadly it is THEIR definition of Libertarianism that is dominant. Not yours. That is the fatal flaw of Libertarianism, and it's one that can easily lead to disaster for us all. That's why I attack Libertarianism.
I do appreciate your forthright and civil response, and thank you for it. Well written, sir.
How is THIS a troll? Please up-mod. This is an intelligent and insightful response to my snarky posting. While I don't agree with his conclusions, this is a good response.
The "good old days" of banking panics, raw industrial runoff in your drinking water, monopolies, child labor,
unsafe working conditions, starvation wages, etc etc etc are thankfully gone. Anyone who wants that back is an idiot.
Or a hardcore libertarian with delusions of grandeur, overblown faith in social darwinism, and a complete disregard for entire classes/races of people he or she feels are "inferior" and/or "stupid" and deserve whatever they get.
That's the problem: I don't want the government to leave me totally alone, I'd like it to protect me from some of my fellow citizens who bear superiority complexes of such intensity that they represent a danger to me and everyone else on the face of the earth.
No, it's a limitation of people. Government serves to correct and act as the will of the people, and forces us all to get along even when we'd really rather not (some of us like killing those who are different).
That's fine. These people get arrested. Then what? They stay put? Until what, their goals are met? They defecate in their pants? No, at some point force will be used. The protesters are deciding when that force gets used in the hopes of garnering sympathy with the public. It's a gamble.
I don't think it's that they're trying to get anywhere necessarily quicker by shaving time off the clock, I think it's because whomever's behind the wheel in your scenario enjoys driving aggressively.
Taxpayers. You want the reason, there you go. Taxpayers are notoriously brutal about seeing their tax dollars being spent in a multi-billion dollar "mistake".
There IS no scientific debate, true. But a lot of people tend towards worshiping the concept of righteousness. It doesn't matter whether the label of "God", "Jesus", "Allah", or "scientific method" gets applied, it's still a label smeared across the idea that there is only ONE right way to act/think, and that all other alternatives are blasphemous. Most people have a psychological need for that kind of certainty.
I'd say for most/.r's that it's all too easy for us to get along with those who believe in the scientific method with an intensity bordering on the religious because they adhere to logical rigor for the most part. However, we share a common enemy in those who choose to live their lives according to religious dogma with the same degree of intensity, and we tend to ignore the syndrome when it's in our allies.
Regardless, it's that fanatical adherence to a sense of righteous certainty applied to the dogma of conservative fundamentalist Christianity by a large segment of the American populace, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that keeps bringing this debate up. The more proof we shove at that segment of the population, the more they will cling to their beliefs because they can justify their defense as "faith" and gain satisfaction from their "martyrdom".
what I find amusing is that very few people want or choose to explore the possibility that true faith can only be found through the pathways of doubt. No one wants to seriously question their fundamental beliefs, for fear of discovering they could be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Brilliant gawddamn post. Mod this UP!!!
I agree with you, and yet your viewpoint will be forever ignored or relegated to the sidelines because the philosophy you espouse embraces ambiguity, whereas most believers (theist and atheist alike) crave certainty. For these, doubt and ambiguity are intolerable to the point of purposely obfuscating logical process in order to support irrational position, just so they don't have to say "I'm not certain."
Elder spawn.
You're blaming Woodrow Wilson and the isolationist Congress/Senate of 1912 for everything that's happened in our country since?
Dude was a saint, NOT an Apostle. Big (pedantic) difference there.
The frightening thing would be seeing how many people WOULD rent out their children to sweatshops.
"Lord of Light" is perhaps the best Sci-Fi/Fantasy book of the 20th Century (or maybe late 20th Century).
The guy claims he's the Joker.
According to Colorado and NY police, the guy had red hair and was comporting himself as the Joker. And I think all of us geeks can agree that this is something the Joker would do: set off a shooting massacre and then watch society tear itself apart rather than focus on him. Ideas can become real, and I believe the Joker killed Heath Ledger, and I think the Joker probably did kill those people in Aurora. If the reports are true and this guy wanted to become the Joker, then he succeeded.
Being a scientist does not automatically imply or infer a sense of morality. Or ethics.
To be prepared for unexpected, unpredictable negative events is the very definition of responsibility. How have we lost that as a society? Now, if your example was "lost his job, unable to find work during the downturn, and then got cancer on top of that" I'd be sympathetic. But everyone should be ready for one horrible event, and living paycheck-to-paycheck with no savings is simply not responsible adult behavior. Those who are in the bottom 1%, luck-wise? Sure, society can carry them - after all, thats a very small group to provide charity for. But if you try to assert that the average person needs charity? If your over 25 and need help after one-standard-deviation of bad luck, you're doing life wrong.
How often does just "one-standard-deviation" happen? And how long before those with more than one standard deviation of bad luck greatly outnumber those that are lucky enough to have none, or a whole lotta good luck?
Libertarianism as a movement had nothing to do with that. Libertarian principles did: deregulation, purposeful dismantling of government oversight to promote individual gain, arguments that the industry can regulate itself in a partnership with its customer base just as well if not more efficiently than the government can. Your purposes and beliefs were easily perverted because you do not make accommodation for the reality that libertarianism requires enlightenment of _all_ its followers to work. The system works great on paper, but like Communism, too easily falls victim to the predations of its own adherents when practiced in reality. If a substantial majority of libertarians were indeed like you or element-o.p., and had the necessary moral rectitude and courage to ward against corruption, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Libertarianism is better off as an ideal that filters political discourse, than as an actual governing philosophy.
I understand libertarian philosophy just fine. I agree with your interpretation of it. Unfortunately, your philosophy is co-opted by other people calling themselves "Libertarians" who find that your preferred philosophical platform nicely encompasses their desire for social stratification, and/or exploitation and subjugation of all those they deem 'inferior', usually by reason of intellect. I have met dozens of people with high IQs who believe that their superior intelligence grants them moral superiority over all those who are dumber than they are, and they espouse libertarian philosophy as a means to their end (namely, enshrining their superiority into law). They have no problem with co-opting and perverting the system in the name of gaming it to benefit themselves, as they believe in their own superiority and think that laws set up by lesser individuals should be ignored, twisted, or disregarded (just look at Wall Street). And as people like these individuals I speak of outnumber people like you in the Libertarian circles, sadly it is THEIR definition of Libertarianism that is dominant. Not yours. That is the fatal flaw of Libertarianism, and it's one that can easily lead to disaster for us all. That's why I attack Libertarianism.
I do appreciate your forthright and civil response, and thank you for it. Well written, sir.
How is THIS a troll? Please up-mod. This is an intelligent and insightful response to my snarky posting. While I don't agree with his conclusions, this is a good response.
Adapt to what?
"Me and mine first, and fuck everyone else", that's what. Basic animal survival instincts, sans-humanity.
Nah, that's just basic libertarian philosophy.
The "good old days" of banking panics, raw industrial runoff in your drinking water, monopolies, child labor, unsafe working conditions, starvation wages, etc etc etc are thankfully gone. Anyone who wants that back is an idiot.
Or a hardcore libertarian with delusions of grandeur, overblown faith in social darwinism, and a complete disregard for entire classes/races of people he or she feels are "inferior" and/or "stupid" and deserve whatever they get.
It's surprising how often women tie love to a stable paycheck for men.
That's the problem: I don't want the government to leave me totally alone, I'd like it to protect me from some of my fellow citizens who bear superiority complexes of such intensity that they represent a danger to me and everyone else on the face of the earth.
No, it's a limitation of people. Government serves to correct and act as the will of the people, and forces us all to get along even when we'd really rather not (some of us like killing those who are different).
That's fine. These people get arrested. Then what? They stay put? Until what, their goals are met? They defecate in their pants? No, at some point force will be used. The protesters are deciding when that force gets used in the hopes of garnering sympathy with the public. It's a gamble.
I don't think it's that they're trying to get anywhere necessarily quicker by shaving time off the clock, I think it's because whomever's behind the wheel in your scenario enjoys driving aggressively.
Taxpayers. You want the reason, there you go. Taxpayers are notoriously brutal about seeing their tax dollars being spent in a multi-billion dollar "mistake".
Not only that, they also pay taxes, and they have firm opinions on how those tax dollars should be paid. And they're not very tolerant of mistakes.
Thank you for sharing this. I appreciate the insights--especially where you described the lack of feeling and emptiness. That made sense to me.
There IS no scientific debate, true. But a lot of people tend towards worshiping the concept of righteousness. It doesn't matter whether the label of "God", "Jesus", "Allah", or "scientific method" gets applied, it's still a label smeared across the idea that there is only ONE right way to act/think, and that all other alternatives are blasphemous. Most people have a psychological need for that kind of certainty.
I'd say for most /.r's that it's all too easy for us to get along with those who believe in the scientific method with an intensity bordering on the religious because they adhere to logical rigor for the most part. However, we share a common enemy in those who choose to live their lives according to religious dogma with the same degree of intensity, and we tend to ignore the syndrome when it's in our allies.
Regardless, it's that fanatical adherence to a sense of righteous certainty applied to the dogma of conservative fundamentalist Christianity by a large segment of the American populace, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary that keeps bringing this debate up. The more proof we shove at that segment of the population, the more they will cling to their beliefs because they can justify their defense as "faith" and gain satisfaction from their "martyrdom".
what I find amusing is that very few people want or choose to explore the possibility that true faith can only be found through the pathways of doubt. No one wants to seriously question their fundamental beliefs, for fear of discovering they could be wrong.