If instead of campaigning on her own image, Sarah Palin spent half that time studying world history... er... if she spent that whole time studying instead of, you know, then... well...
Okay, I guess she'd need a lot more time than that to shore up her deficiencies.
I think you missed the GP's point. Plenty of atheists/agnostics are vegetarians/vegans. You don't have to believe in God or the supernatural to believe that unnecessary suffering, to humans or animals, is wrong.
"But animals eat other animals, so it's natural!"
If eating meat is natural because animals do it (and if something that's "natural" is also "good"), then rape, incest, and shitting in the same river that you drink from would be just as tolerable. However, our highly evolved brains allow us to circumvent Nature's cruel impulses with reason and empathy. We can use science to figure out that shitting in the river is a great way to spread disease, and we can use empathy to understand that raping your co-worker after the Christmas party wouldn't be quite as fun for the co-worker as it would be for you.
Nature, "red in tooth and claw", is both cruel and amoral. However, there is no reason why we have to be like Nature.
To paraphrase Richard Dawkins: our genes gave us our brains, but our brains have the power to subvert the will of our genes.
"Why care about chickens and pigs when we don't give a shit about mosquitos, fungi, and cancer cells?"
While I adore George Carlin, I think he's slightly off the mark here. We care about chickens, pigs, cows, dolphins, etc. because they are mammals and birds. They possess complex nervous systems that can sense pain, adapt to their surroundings, and protect their kin. Most can learn, socialize, and even dream. In other words, they're a lot like us.
If I cut the limb off a tree, I know it won't scream. It doesn't feel pain, because it's not equipped with an apparatus to sense pain. Why should it? Pain is a response to external threats, designed by evolution to rescue a creature from something that could destroy it. Pain teaches me not to touch the hot stove again, and the simple idea of pain is powerful enough to make me flee from hungry wolves, even if they haven't nipped me yet. A tree has already prepared its defenses: a thick coat of armor against predators, and waxy, water-resistant leaves for storms. If a tree is in danger, it can't fight or run away. It just sits there. A tree that could sense pain would be the product of cruel and wasteful design, indeed.
Do mosquitos and flesh-eating bacteria sense pain? I don't know, but I'd guess they experience some limited form. Even so, I do know that, as parasites, they are quite a nuisance. The amount of suffering/pain/disease they inflict on more complex life forms far outweighs the amount of suffering I might inflict by killing them.
Keep in mind, death != suffering. The Humane Society puts stray dogs and cats to sleep because letting them run free or starve is more hazardous and painful than allowing them a peaceful release.
--
Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, so I'll be quick with my final point: the GP asked to limit your meat consumption gradually because it is impractical and uneconomical for society to stop all at once. Buy meat from animals that have had their suffering reduced to minimal levels. Only you can create the demand for such products, because you have the choice. Eventually, forgoing all meat would make the vegetarian groups happy, but they are willing to compromise with reduced levels.
One day the technology may exist for us to "grow" our own meat without a brain or nervous system that has to sense pain and suffer. We might design our meat without gristle and bone, concentrating on the most tender and delicious cuts. It might even be cheaper than growing real meat the old-fashioned way. At that point, many will finally consider it unequivocally immoral to kill animals for food (barring famine). Much like how we see slavery today, they will look back at our ancestors and ask how an entire civilization could exist that engaged in the wholesale slaughter of innocent life, pumped through factory farms and made to sleep in its own filth at night.
Okay, Slashdot, let's do what you do best and turn WoW-play with unconventional devices from a mere YouTube fad to a full-on institution of social progress. That's right: WoW-play powered by a treadmill, Mountain Dew cans, and buckets of oily skin run-off.
I agree that this a violation of freedom, but this is a case of religion being subverted for political reasons, not a problem with the religion. Almost every religious group has had its fanatics at one time or another.
Religion is a political subversion.
The Quran, in isolation, is not a religion. Same goes for the Sunnah, or the Bible, or other "primary sources." Human language is not a programming language, where one word corresponds to one action. No text of sufficient complexity can be understood in a uniform, objective, everyone-sees-the-same-thing way. Same goes double if the text is ancient, translated, or literary.
Instead, there are many interpreters--scholars, imams, clerics--who stand in the way and impose their own views, knowingly or unknowingly, on the original texts. Their own views create a new version of the text in their minds and the minds of those who listen to or read them. Simply by citing a certain passage and omitting a less compelling passage, they are creating a new narrative with its own strengths and foibles. Each narrative is built upon previous narratives (it is difficult to read one of these holy books in isolation without somehow being exposed to other believers, teachers, footnotes/annotations, or the media). Despite the differences (minute or extreme) between narratives, each narrative shares a lot in common with one another.
As opposed to an individual's narrative, the religion can be found in the complex web of relationships between books, theories, and people. Just like no one computer comprises the Internet, the entire network of relationships makes up the religion (and the Internet). And that complex web--the religion--is also a web of political relationships. Those politics are replete with broken promises, exaggerated fears, and insipid bullying--human problems from human politics. It's impossible to exonerate one's own narrative from the sticky web of human politics. You can't stand on the sidelines, because you're in it, no matter how badly you distance yourself from the ugly politics of it all.
Those fanatics you mention can't be so easily dismissed when they live in your web. Humanist Christians and liberal Muslims, take note: you need to own up to and speak out against your most destructive members. Especially when those members rule countries, lead political parties, and fund extreme acts of violence.
Since when are FPSs getting "dumbed down"? You couldn't even jump in DOOM. A Quake mod introduced capture the flag. Modern games regularly sport weapons with alternate firing modes, class-based teamplay, and battlefield-wide multiple objective victory conditions.
Except for the fact there is a difference between simply losing and being told you suck repeatedly from people who have no life other than the game.
You are arguing with a straw man. Turn off voice chat and ignore the text chat. Problem solved. Who cares if you do something wrong? That guy you muted? No reason to get bent out of shape over a game.
I don't think you're right about the "majority of people online are assholes" bit. I think it would be better to state that the majority of loud, obnoxious people online are assholes. Sure, there seem to be more of them online, but statistically you're likely to run into a fair share of assholes in a game with 16-64 other players. Most of the others are quiet. Just like any group of people.
To which the mouse sits down gently, safe in the knowledge that he will never be caught by the cat. After all, no matter how close the cat gets, he can only get half the distance closer with each step....
And after taking about 6 steps, the cat came within chomping range of the mouse.
Chomping Range = Distance Traveled + Distance from Foot to Teeth
Possibly not his fault. Before the 90s, public school textbooks have traditionally ignored the topic of the forced removal of Native American peoples. Usually Americans know there were Natives at the First Thanksgiving, and that's about where their education ended.
See? The oil spill is all natural. Nothing to see here, folks. The catastrophe was all in your minds. You can go back to driving SUVs, voting Republican, and burning rubber tires for fun again.
The whole of our modern agricultural system has been built upon relatively stable climate systems observed over the last couple hundred years. If you alter rain patterns or create deserts out of former bread-baskets, then expect big agricultural changes.
The climate change crowd have never been under the belief that they wouldn't be able to survive. Most of us may not be upper class, but we'd probably have enough money to deal with increased food prices. More of our disposable incomes would be diverted to simply paying the bills, like when gas price hikes simply meant cutting back on extraneous consumption.
However, we are worried about those who barely get enough to eat right now. What happens when sustenance farmers in rural Africa and Asia can no longer simply sustain themselves because their local climate patterns are wrecked? What happens if another Dust Bowl repeats itself? Conservatives are already terrified about immigrants--are they willing to handle an emigration exodus on this scale?
But if your me-first attitude toward climate change skepticism is of any indication, then I might just be wasting my time with this reply.
I'm fucking fed up with people... plastic bags that fucking fall apart... Fucking hypocrites!... What a fucking joke... stop fucking the environment? No you don't need to fucking eat Fido. Don't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime... The one reason we're fucking up there environment is that there's about 6.5 BILLION people...
So the only fucking way to save the fucking environment is to stop fucking so much?
Slashdot Mirror
If instead of campaigning on her own image, Sarah Palin spent half that time studying world history... er... if she spent that whole time studying instead of, you know, then... well...
Okay, I guess she'd need a lot more time than that to shore up her deficiencies.
I think you missed the GP's point. Plenty of atheists/agnostics are vegetarians/vegans. You don't have to believe in God or the supernatural to believe that unnecessary suffering, to humans or animals, is wrong.
"But animals eat other animals, so it's natural!"
If eating meat is natural because animals do it (and if something that's "natural" is also "good"), then rape, incest, and shitting in the same river that you drink from would be just as tolerable. However, our highly evolved brains allow us to circumvent Nature's cruel impulses with reason and empathy. We can use science to figure out that shitting in the river is a great way to spread disease, and we can use empathy to understand that raping your co-worker after the Christmas party wouldn't be quite as fun for the co-worker as it would be for you.
Nature, "red in tooth and claw", is both cruel and amoral. However, there is no reason why we have to be like Nature.
To paraphrase Richard Dawkins: our genes gave us our brains, but our brains have the power to subvert the will of our genes.
"Why care about chickens and pigs when we don't give a shit about mosquitos, fungi, and cancer cells?"
While I adore George Carlin, I think he's slightly off the mark here. We care about chickens, pigs, cows, dolphins, etc. because they are mammals and birds. They possess complex nervous systems that can sense pain, adapt to their surroundings, and protect their kin. Most can learn, socialize, and even dream. In other words, they're a lot like us.
If I cut the limb off a tree, I know it won't scream. It doesn't feel pain, because it's not equipped with an apparatus to sense pain. Why should it? Pain is a response to external threats, designed by evolution to rescue a creature from something that could destroy it. Pain teaches me not to touch the hot stove again, and the simple idea of pain is powerful enough to make me flee from hungry wolves, even if they haven't nipped me yet. A tree has already prepared its defenses: a thick coat of armor against predators, and waxy, water-resistant leaves for storms. If a tree is in danger, it can't fight or run away. It just sits there. A tree that could sense pain would be the product of cruel and wasteful design, indeed.
Do mosquitos and flesh-eating bacteria sense pain? I don't know, but I'd guess they experience some limited form. Even so, I do know that, as parasites, they are quite a nuisance. The amount of suffering/pain/disease they inflict on more complex life forms far outweighs the amount of suffering I might inflict by killing them.
Keep in mind, death != suffering. The Humane Society puts stray dogs and cats to sleep because letting them run free or starve is more hazardous and painful than allowing them a peaceful release.
--
Anyway, I'm starting to ramble, so I'll be quick with my final point: the GP asked to limit your meat consumption gradually because it is impractical and uneconomical for society to stop all at once. Buy meat from animals that have had their suffering reduced to minimal levels. Only you can create the demand for such products, because you have the choice. Eventually, forgoing all meat would make the vegetarian groups happy, but they are willing to compromise with reduced levels.
One day the technology may exist for us to "grow" our own meat without a brain or nervous system that has to sense pain and suffer. We might design our meat without gristle and bone, concentrating on the most tender and delicious cuts. It might even be cheaper than growing real meat the old-fashioned way. At that point, many will finally consider it unequivocally immoral to kill animals for food (barring famine). Much like how we see slavery today, they will look back at our ancestors and ask how an entire civilization could exist that engaged in the wholesale slaughter of innocent life, pumped through factory farms and made to sleep in its own filth at night.
Because meat tasted good? What the fuck?
but frankly I'd rather have some damned animal suffer for my pleasure than to hurt my self for their well being.
Hey, at least you're honest about it.
Real men (and frost mages) play with a wheel and pedals.
Okay, Slashdot, let's do what you do best and turn WoW-play with unconventional devices from a mere YouTube fad to a full-on institution of social progress. That's right: WoW-play powered by a treadmill, Mountain Dew cans, and buckets of oily skin run-off.
Let's start a revolution.
Let's change the world.
Let's... hey, why's that guy playing WoW when he could be having sex on his Kinect? Urgh... Goddamnit, Microsoft.
I am not at all convinced that getting the government involved will improve my life.
Are you convinced that letting corporations dictate the terms will improve your life then?
I agree that this a violation of freedom, but this is a case of religion being subverted for political reasons, not a problem with the religion. Almost every religious group has had its fanatics at one time or another.
Religion is a political subversion.
The Quran, in isolation, is not a religion. Same goes for the Sunnah, or the Bible, or other "primary sources." Human language is not a programming language, where one word corresponds to one action. No text of sufficient complexity can be understood in a uniform, objective, everyone-sees-the-same-thing way. Same goes double if the text is ancient, translated, or literary.
Instead, there are many interpreters--scholars, imams, clerics--who stand in the way and impose their own views, knowingly or unknowingly, on the original texts. Their own views create a new version of the text in their minds and the minds of those who listen to or read them. Simply by citing a certain passage and omitting a less compelling passage, they are creating a new narrative with its own strengths and foibles. Each narrative is built upon previous narratives (it is difficult to read one of these holy books in isolation without somehow being exposed to other believers, teachers, footnotes/annotations, or the media). Despite the differences (minute or extreme) between narratives, each narrative shares a lot in common with one another.
As opposed to an individual's narrative, the religion can be found in the complex web of relationships between books, theories, and people. Just like no one computer comprises the Internet, the entire network of relationships makes up the religion (and the Internet). And that complex web--the religion--is also a web of political relationships. Those politics are replete with broken promises, exaggerated fears, and insipid bullying--human problems from human politics. It's impossible to exonerate one's own narrative from the sticky web of human politics. You can't stand on the sidelines, because you're in it, no matter how badly you distance yourself from the ugly politics of it all.
Those fanatics you mention can't be so easily dismissed when they live in your web. Humanist Christians and liberal Muslims, take note: you need to own up to and speak out against your most destructive members. Especially when those members rule countries, lead political parties, and fund extreme acts of violence.
Third post!
Think I'm gonna go take a nap...
Maybe the car should stay in the ditch. I've always wanted a new car, anyway.
Since when are FPSs getting "dumbed down"? You couldn't even jump in DOOM. A Quake mod introduced capture the flag. Modern games regularly sport weapons with alternate firing modes, class-based teamplay, and battlefield-wide multiple objective victory conditions.
Except for the fact there is a difference between simply losing and being told you suck repeatedly from people who have no life other than the game.
You are arguing with a straw man. Turn off voice chat and ignore the text chat. Problem solved. Who cares if you do something wrong? That guy you muted? No reason to get bent out of shape over a game.
I don't think you're right about the "majority of people online are assholes" bit. I think it would be better to state that the majority of loud, obnoxious people online are assholes. Sure, there seem to be more of them online, but statistically you're likely to run into a fair share of assholes in a game with 16-64 other players. Most of the others are quiet. Just like any group of people.
You don't really say, "My grandma turns 86 today" if she died 15 years ago.
To which the mouse sits down gently, safe in the knowledge that he will never be caught by the cat. After all, no matter how close the cat gets, he can only get half the distance closer with each step....
And after taking about 6 steps, the cat came within chomping range of the mouse.
Chomping Range = Distance Traveled + Distance from Foot to Teeth
http://xkcd.com/657/large/
*shrug* Had to try it.
Steam sales.
I guess I agree, then.
What's going on here? This isn't how we do things on the Internet.
You didn't pay attention in school, did you.
Possibly not his fault. Before the 90s, public school textbooks have traditionally ignored the topic of the forced removal of Native American peoples. Usually Americans know there were Natives at the First Thanksgiving, and that's about where their education ended.
Also, Rally to Restore Sanity
Also, Keep Fear Alive
Also, I love you, Jon (with one H).
Kudos to you, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.
You make my world seem slightly less irrational with each and every day.
See? The oil spill is all natural. Nothing to see here, folks. The catastrophe was all in your minds. You can go back to driving SUVs, voting Republican, and burning rubber tires for fun again.
First, quit being obtuse.
The whole of our modern agricultural system has been built upon relatively stable climate systems observed over the last couple hundred years. If you alter rain patterns or create deserts out of former bread-baskets, then expect big agricultural changes.
The climate change crowd have never been under the belief that they wouldn't be able to survive. Most of us may not be upper class, but we'd probably have enough money to deal with increased food prices. More of our disposable incomes would be diverted to simply paying the bills, like when gas price hikes simply meant cutting back on extraneous consumption.
However, we are worried about those who barely get enough to eat right now. What happens when sustenance farmers in rural Africa and Asia can no longer simply sustain themselves because their local climate patterns are wrecked? What happens if another Dust Bowl repeats itself? Conservatives are already terrified about immigrants--are they willing to handle an emigration exodus on this scale?
But if your me-first attitude toward climate change skepticism is of any indication, then I might just be wasting my time with this reply.
That's a pretty good analogy. And, taking it further, IQ has no capability whatsoever of measuring the effectiveness of recursive comedy.
As someone with a bad memory, I would be very interested in understanding how this actually works within the rat's brain.
Don't worry about it. You'll forget all about it tomorrow.
Large hard-on collider?
I smell a movie deal!
11) Increased attention causes Skype PR person to officially deny rumors, and everyone forgets this whole non-event ever happened.
I'm fucking fed up with people... plastic bags that fucking fall apart... Fucking hypocrites! ... What a fucking joke... stop fucking the environment? No you don't need to fucking eat Fido. Don't have more than 2 kids in your lifetime... The one reason we're fucking up there environment is that there's about 6.5 BILLION people...
So the only fucking way to save the fucking environment is to stop fucking so much?
I'm so fucking confused!