Self evidently the answer was to give him his books.
How do you get that? the quote is poking fun at the infantile punishment metered out for punishments sake onto Lector. It was not aimed at providing closure to some victim, it was not to discourage future crimes by either him or others. It existed simply to hurt Lector because they they wanted to hurt him. He was providing the only two ethical solutions. I think Dr. Lector himself would argue that given the option between making him as comfortable as possible while attempting to prevent further crimes vs simply ending the threat to society for once and for all, the latter was the wiser of the two ethical solutions. And all this is forgetting that there is no real human being who could be locked in solitary confinement, with books or no, in perpetuity and have any kind of life. Euthanasia will always be kinder.
your and you're would be synonyms by now.
That is problem with such an absolute. Yes languages change natural with use because much of what makes up a language is arbitrary. But much also is not arbitrary, it is a certain way because otherwise it would be impossible to communicate effectively. It does not matter how many millions of people regularly confuse your for you're it will never become correct because it is necessary for the language to have those words remain distinct.
And it depends a whole lot of how much the people trust the legal system. A lot of countries have a populous that trusts its legal system, and at least some of that is from the executions it used to do. When some young girl get murdered or raped, the natural thing that happens in any culture is people will go out and kill people they suspect of doing it. Even in modern times in first world countries sometimes whole villages get massacred because some resident is suspected to be the rapist of some sweet young girl. Unless restrained by their government. In many countries their is enough respect of the law that that is all it takes. But that is not so in America. There is continual civil unrest and for some reason the government is not willing to address it. There are some crimes it does not matter if you catch the criminal, just that you publicly punish someone. There are just some crimes that free people will not get over. The rape of murder of a woman. Or, in America, the death of a black person. Arguably, not that this falls within those bounds, if America has executed some banker for he financial crisis. If they had executed Zimmerman. Etc. There would be more trust of the system and then the system would be given more leeway to dispense actual justice. But there has to be trust in the ruling of courts before that can happen.
Cloning would completely destroy the sport. The whole fcking point is the slow and laborious process of breeding the prefect horse. Every one unique. It is not about stealing a clipping of the winner horses hair and creating a copy, or generically engineering an even better race horse. Considering that both the sports and the breeding would be destroyed by the ability to just create whatever you want in the lab, how else are they to respond?
It completely destroys their monopoly. They basically just discovered how to factory produce diamonds, they have to make sure they are never worth as much or their entire organisation is doomed.
Ya, but that is a completely different situation. That is Europe, they don't allow their citizens to have guns, or speak their mind nearly as much as America. And I imagine that their press does not incite quite as much violence.
It should not be about that. If someone cannot be rehabilitated. If they must forever be confined for our societies safety, they should be killed on compassionate grounds. Requiring someone to be punished in perpetuity like some sort of hell on earth is barbaric.
“We live in a primitive time—don’t we, Will?—neither savage nor wise. Half measures are the curse of it. Any rational society would either kill me or give me my books.”
Killing is not for punishment. No one who says that legal system is about punishment knows what they are talking about. Legals systems are about civil obedience. When the victims, the populous, cry out for blood you need to give it to them or face civil unrest. It is about making an example out of people to discourage other lawbreaking.
This is grossly inaccurate. Placebos have been proven to not only have extreme psychological effects like curing pain, but also sometimes extreme physiological effects. For example, placebos have proven to be a good alternative to steroids for strength enhancement. Curing infections. There are any number of stories of people walking again or regaining their eyesight when given a placebo. There is pretty much absolutely nothing that is not positively influenced by placebos.
How does this fall considering his longstanding support of euthanasia? Did he fail to achieve his wish of assisted suicide when the disease got too debilitating? Did he change his mind? Did he die naturally before it became an issue? Did existing laws prevent him?
OK, but most expensiveness watches are not bought by watch guys, just rich guys who want something pretty on their wrists and the more expensive the better.
Considering Tesla actually is marketed more as a high end car than some save the whales green peace car I don't agree with your analogy. Tesla either is, or is in a great position to quickly become a direct competitor to those all levels of rich "car" guy cars. Yes they cannot win over the retro-revamed 1964 chevy muscle car guys, but the guy the goes out to buy a NEW Porsche is looking at Teslas. Apple is not and never could become a direct competitor to either those $30 cheap give give me the correct time watches, or those 1-2 hundred cheap look at this gold thing strapped to my wrist watches, or those multiple thousand dollar mechanical pieces of art.
What? Shouldn't we get competent people within their area of expertise do that? Isn't the BBS owned by the British government? Don't they have to explain their expenses and stay within their charter? AKA We give you X million a year to produce good British programming, not run amusement parts or build condominiums.
These are just politicians. They probably just forward porn and memes to eachother all day long, and occasionally mail some billionaire to ask for a donation..
Probably because they could of estimated the answer of 7*10^152 by hand in an afternoon. They spends months to get the exact count, so they better show it.
This is incredibly exciting news. I am physicists are already rethinking their theories of the universe based on this breakthrough at Goodyear marketing.
I never really understood either side, far above my head. But I have used Ubuntu a few times and followed their major changes over the last decade. If there is one thing I do understand is that if Ubuntu is switching to it it must be a trendy piece of crap, far from ready for prime time.
I guess the crux of teh matter of psychological wellness and companionship. The state destroyed much of marriage through providing PART of the service marriage used to provide. The state can easily provide the physically necessities of life that tribes and then families used to ensure their members. But it is a lot harder to imagine the state being your friend or companion the same way a person or small group could be. But the family is already destroyed, and along with that the necessarily aspect of community. Can the state compensate and provide that as well? I don't know. Maybe drugs of some kind could do that. Alternatively, could some community exist without the physical needs of the past to drive it to? Could we have tribal/family units of random individuals who choose to interact simply for social reasons? I have doubts about this sustainable working for the entire population.
I would predict either collapse or drastic change. The most probable in my opinion the traditional monogamous religious families will outbreed the rest of us and take society over and back to a traditional state. It could fall apart into anarchy and tribalism before this happens, or this takeover could be quicker and happen before drastic degradation has happened.
Alternatively, I think it is theoretically plausible we could see a progression into different societal stability mechanisms. The state could take over the traditional role of the tribe/family unit; They are of course already well on the way into this. They could care for individuals, raise children, and most likely also need to be heavily invested in procreation either forcing/incentivising people to create babies or some lab stuff. I could see it working if we had a revolution in sex toys to placate the masses of lonely and dispossessed people.
Why would the alpha males want to run around banging every homely chick who asks? So those women will be forced to start looking at alternatives unless they want to be celibate.
Except that does not seem to ever happen. Through some genetic science we know with absolute certainty that only about 20% (it varied around this number quite a bit) of men historically got to procreate throughout all of prehistory before monogamist civilization sprang up compared to 85%+ percent of women which is generally considered to be just about every woman who survived the viruses/dangers of life back then. People tend to not look at animals to understand themselves enough, but really they are not only compatible they are identicle. Men looking for attractiveness in women is just an attribute of a monogamous society, they will have any woman who asks. No monkey, no rhino, no mammal in the history of mammals have ever turned down a woman; excluding the last few thousand years of monogamous society. It does not matter what mammalian society you are studying, the top 5-30% of the studs service all the females; Women are not traditionally graded and measured against eachother in that way; As each and every one already has the most important attribute of being able to produce babies.
It's not unrelated, but it is debatable how it affects things. My contention is that divorce rates were 0% (or very low, after that) because women in previous centuries and generations were second-class citizens and couldn't leave bad marriages (and the same also went for men, but to a lesser degree; society frowned so much on divorce that it just wasn't done). The rates are much higher now because women have equal rights, and are able to have their own careers, so they don't need men to be meal tickets any more, so people don't stay in unhappy marriages like they used to. All this points to the idea that monogamy and life-long marriages are simply a bad and unworkable idea for most people. In fact, in centuries past, love wasn't even a factor in marriages, only convenience and politics.
I would agree with at least most of that. As I stated from the very beginning Marriage is obviously the repression of woman's natural inclination to procreate with as many alpha males as possible.
I disagree. Some people are luckier than others and have better or bigger families. I know lots of people whose families don't give a shit about them. Tribes don't have this problem so much.
I think you are picking and choosing your examples here. Not only is a modern example not useful as marriage has already mostly fallen apart, but not all tribes are the oculist paradise you are implying. Like I already said, some outright killed their elders when they got too old to be useful. And I doubt the 40 year old woman (isn't that suppose to be like the height of their sexual lives) got much action when competing with 20 year olds for the tiny fraction of alpha males.
And marriage is not just a good way to encourage growth and procreation. It is also an excellent way to enforce the equality that is so important to large ant like societies. To sustain a large ant like society we need ways to turn individuals into cogs, I would hazard that marriage does this. Left to their own devices, women with fight over the 25% of alpha men, and leave a huge number of dispossess. But unlike tribal living large ant like societies do not have a mechanism to handle this. Ants developed sexual reproductive methods that just allowed 100% of the society to be comprised of females, we are stuck with around 50/50 and so large societies need institutions like marriage.
And perhaps more to the point It is not what is better. That is a meaningless question. The question is "why"? Agricultural civilization developed because the places where it did not were invaded and conquered by the tribes who did develop it. There is always a huge force driving lifeforms to cooperate, build societies more powerful than individuals, and in such a way propagate. whether it is single celled life ordering themselves into groups and eventually creating the first advanced life, or that concept expanding until we have animals and plants filed with millions and billions of different types of lifeforms all working together in a complex confusing network. Or higher, how ecosystems built themselves to work together or humans eventually banded together into bigger and bigger societies to outperform the individualists and tribalists.
I am not trying to argue that monogamy is good, but why it came about and for what reasons. I am more of a primal traditional conservative. If it were up to me I would probably have everyone just stick with the proven method of living like animals in small tribal units. Also, historically divorce rates were at 0%. Does this prove that monogamy is good? No, it is just a single unrelated fact.
I am saying no such thing. And that is also besides the point. I described a transition from one societal type to another. Not only is neither better, but both can have solutions to looking after post-fertile females and perhaps more to the point incentivising them to be productive. That is the problem with broad societal concept, it is hard to say exactly what caused what and often in what can seem like a paradox two things can cause each other. As groups got bigger the traditional tribal sharing society broke down. It could not work any more, and necessitated the family taking over much of the previous duties of the tribe. But beyond that, I would argue that the family unit incentives and protects the post-fertile woman more than the tribal sharing society of old did. Furthermore, it sort of does it for both. They allow the elders to draw power from their still young and physically capable offspring more effectively than in a free form village format. But both cultural type often revered the elderly. But it is important to not get overly sentimental, many of the former cultures (hunter gatherers and the like) were not overly attached to their elderly and in some cases killed or neglected until death their old and infirm (when their lifestyle necessitated that type of cultural brutality).
On gender roles and actions I really did not think I disagreed with anything you said. I thought we were pretty much in agreement there.
You seem to be rather refuting your own arguments here. Was agriculture capable of providing more food or was it less food? You don't seem to be clear. I would argue that agriculture was the worst thing to ever happened to humans and the entire planet but that is mostly a personal preference not a fact. And I think you are messing up cause and effect. Agriculture caused huge societies; Villages just did not happen to become overpopulated for the first time in millions of years and decide to invent agriculture. And population has always threatened to overcome advances in food production. Mass starvation is not a sign that agriculture was worse at providing food than hunter gathering but of the continual cycle of overpopulation and the resultant reduction in population.
Slashdot Mirror
Self evidently the answer was to give him his books.
How do you get that? the quote is poking fun at the infantile punishment metered out for punishments sake onto Lector. It was not aimed at providing closure to some victim, it was not to discourage future crimes by either him or others. It existed simply to hurt Lector because they they wanted to hurt him. He was providing the only two ethical solutions. I think Dr. Lector himself would argue that given the option between making him as comfortable as possible while attempting to prevent further crimes vs simply ending the threat to society for once and for all, the latter was the wiser of the two ethical solutions. And all this is forgetting that there is no real human being who could be locked in solitary confinement, with books or no, in perpetuity and have any kind of life. Euthanasia will always be kinder.
your and you're would be synonyms by now. That is problem with such an absolute. Yes languages change natural with use because much of what makes up a language is arbitrary. But much also is not arbitrary, it is a certain way because otherwise it would be impossible to communicate effectively. It does not matter how many millions of people regularly confuse your for you're it will never become correct because it is necessary for the language to have those words remain distinct.
Half these people probably cannot even add or divide, and 10% are probably illiterate. But for all means give then a 4 month coding course.
And it depends a whole lot of how much the people trust the legal system. A lot of countries have a populous that trusts its legal system, and at least some of that is from the executions it used to do. When some young girl get murdered or raped, the natural thing that happens in any culture is people will go out and kill people they suspect of doing it. Even in modern times in first world countries sometimes whole villages get massacred because some resident is suspected to be the rapist of some sweet young girl. Unless restrained by their government. In many countries their is enough respect of the law that that is all it takes. But that is not so in America. There is continual civil unrest and for some reason the government is not willing to address it. There are some crimes it does not matter if you catch the criminal, just that you publicly punish someone. There are just some crimes that free people will not get over. The rape of murder of a woman. Or, in America, the death of a black person. Arguably, not that this falls within those bounds, if America has executed some banker for he financial crisis. If they had executed Zimmerman. Etc. There would be more trust of the system and then the system would be given more leeway to dispense actual justice. But there has to be trust in the ruling of courts before that can happen.
Cloning would completely destroy the sport. The whole fcking point is the slow and laborious process of breeding the prefect horse. Every one unique. It is not about stealing a clipping of the winner horses hair and creating a copy, or generically engineering an even better race horse. Considering that both the sports and the breeding would be destroyed by the ability to just create whatever you want in the lab, how else are they to respond?
It completely destroys their monopoly. They basically just discovered how to factory produce diamonds, they have to make sure they are never worth as much or their entire organisation is doomed.
Ya, but that is a completely different situation. That is Europe, they don't allow their citizens to have guns, or speak their mind nearly as much as America. And I imagine that their press does not incite quite as much violence.
It should not be about that. If someone cannot be rehabilitated. If they must forever be confined for our societies safety, they should be killed on compassionate grounds. Requiring someone to be punished in perpetuity like some sort of hell on earth is barbaric.
“We live in a primitive time—don’t we, Will?—neither savage nor wise. Half measures are the curse of it. Any rational society would either kill me or give me my books.”
Killing is not for punishment. No one who says that legal system is about punishment knows what they are talking about. Legals systems are about civil obedience. When the victims, the populous, cry out for blood you need to give it to them or face civil unrest. It is about making an example out of people to discourage other lawbreaking.
This is grossly inaccurate. Placebos have been proven to not only have extreme psychological effects like curing pain, but also sometimes extreme physiological effects. For example, placebos have proven to be a good alternative to steroids for strength enhancement. Curing infections. There are any number of stories of people walking again or regaining their eyesight when given a placebo. There is pretty much absolutely nothing that is not positively influenced by placebos.
How does this fall considering his longstanding support of euthanasia? Did he fail to achieve his wish of assisted suicide when the disease got too debilitating? Did he change his mind? Did he die naturally before it became an issue? Did existing laws prevent him?
OK, but most expensiveness watches are not bought by watch guys, just rich guys who want something pretty on their wrists and the more expensive the better.
Considering Tesla actually is marketed more as a high end car than some save the whales green peace car I don't agree with your analogy. Tesla either is, or is in a great position to quickly become a direct competitor to those all levels of rich "car" guy cars. Yes they cannot win over the retro-revamed 1964 chevy muscle car guys, but the guy the goes out to buy a NEW Porsche is looking at Teslas. Apple is not and never could become a direct competitor to either those $30 cheap give give me the correct time watches, or those 1-2 hundred cheap look at this gold thing strapped to my wrist watches, or those multiple thousand dollar mechanical pieces of art.
What? Shouldn't we get competent people within their area of expertise do that? Isn't the BBS owned by the British government? Don't they have to explain their expenses and stay within their charter? AKA We give you X million a year to produce good British programming, not run amusement parts or build condominiums.
it can only finish the remaining 20% of an 80% (complete) lower receiver.
So the idea is to buy this legal mill, and buy a legal paperweight, and then turn it into something is not as east or legal to sell?
These are just politicians. They probably just forward porn and memes to eachother all day long, and occasionally mail some billionaire to ask for a donation..
Probably because they could of estimated the answer of 7*10^152 by hand in an afternoon. They spends months to get the exact count, so they better show it.
This is incredibly exciting news. I am physicists are already rethinking their theories of the universe based on this breakthrough at Goodyear marketing.
I never really understood either side, far above my head. But I have used Ubuntu a few times and followed their major changes over the last decade. If there is one thing I do understand is that if Ubuntu is switching to it it must be a trendy piece of crap, far from ready for prime time.
So just like America then?
I guess the crux of teh matter of psychological wellness and companionship. The state destroyed much of marriage through providing PART of the service marriage used to provide. The state can easily provide the physically necessities of life that tribes and then families used to ensure their members. But it is a lot harder to imagine the state being your friend or companion the same way a person or small group could be. But the family is already destroyed, and along with that the necessarily aspect of community. Can the state compensate and provide that as well? I don't know. Maybe drugs of some kind could do that. Alternatively, could some community exist without the physical needs of the past to drive it to? Could we have tribal/family units of random individuals who choose to interact simply for social reasons? I have doubts about this sustainable working for the entire population.
Alternatively, I think it is theoretically plausible we could see a progression into different societal stability mechanisms. The state could take over the traditional role of the tribe/family unit; They are of course already well on the way into this. They could care for individuals, raise children, and most likely also need to be heavily invested in procreation either forcing/incentivising people to create babies or some lab stuff. I could see it working if we had a revolution in sex toys to placate the masses of lonely and dispossessed people.
Why would the alpha males want to run around banging every homely chick who asks? So those women will be forced to start looking at alternatives unless they want to be celibate.
Except that does not seem to ever happen. Through some genetic science we know with absolute certainty that only about 20% (it varied around this number quite a bit) of men historically got to procreate throughout all of prehistory before monogamist civilization sprang up compared to 85%+ percent of women which is generally considered to be just about every woman who survived the viruses/dangers of life back then. People tend to not look at animals to understand themselves enough, but really they are not only compatible they are identicle. Men looking for attractiveness in women is just an attribute of a monogamous society, they will have any woman who asks. No monkey, no rhino, no mammal in the history of mammals have ever turned down a woman; excluding the last few thousand years of monogamous society. It does not matter what mammalian society you are studying, the top 5-30% of the studs service all the females; Women are not traditionally graded and measured against eachother in that way; As each and every one already has the most important attribute of being able to produce babies.
It's not unrelated, but it is debatable how it affects things. My contention is that divorce rates were 0% (or very low, after that) because women in previous centuries and generations were second-class citizens and couldn't leave bad marriages (and the same also went for men, but to a lesser degree; society frowned so much on divorce that it just wasn't done). The rates are much higher now because women have equal rights, and are able to have their own careers, so they don't need men to be meal tickets any more, so people don't stay in unhappy marriages like they used to. All this points to the idea that monogamy and life-long marriages are simply a bad and unworkable idea for most people. In fact, in centuries past, love wasn't even a factor in marriages, only convenience and politics.
I would agree with at least most of that. As I stated from the very beginning Marriage is obviously the repression of woman's natural inclination to procreate with as many alpha males as possible.
I disagree. Some people are luckier than others and have better or bigger families. I know lots of people whose families don't give a shit about them. Tribes don't have this problem so much.
I think you are picking and choosing your examples here. Not only is a modern example not useful as marriage has already mostly fallen apart, but not all tribes are the oculist paradise you are implying. Like I already said, some outright killed their elders when they got too old to be useful. And I doubt the 40 year old woman (isn't that suppose to be like the height of their sexual lives) got much action when competing with 20 year olds for the tiny fraction of alpha males. And marriage is not just a good way to encourage growth and procreation. It is also an excellent way to enforce the equality that is so important to large ant like societies. To sustain a large ant like society we need ways to turn individuals into cogs, I would hazard that marriage does this. Left to their own devices, women with fight over the 25% of alpha men, and leave a huge number of dispossess. But unlike tribal living large ant like societies do not have a mechanism to handle this. Ants developed sexual reproductive methods that just allowed 100% of the society to be comprised of females, we are stuck with around 50/50 and so large societies need institutions like marriage.
And perhaps more to the point It is not what is better. That is a meaningless question. The question is "why"? Agricultural civilization developed because the places where it did not were invaded and conquered by the tribes who did develop it. There is always a huge force driving lifeforms to cooperate, build societies more powerful than individuals, and in such a way propagate. whether it is single celled life ordering themselves into groups and eventually creating the first advanced life, or that concept expanding until we have animals and plants filed with millions and billions of different types of lifeforms all working together in a complex confusing network. Or higher, how ecosystems built themselves to work together or humans eventually banded together into bigger and bigger societies to outperform the individualists and tribalists.
I am not trying to argue that monogamy is good, but why it came about and for what reasons. I am more of a primal traditional conservative. If it were up to me I would probably have everyone just stick with the proven method of living like animals in small tribal units. Also, historically divorce rates were at 0%. Does this prove that monogamy is good? No, it is just a single unrelated fact.
I am saying no such thing. And that is also besides the point. I described a transition from one societal type to another. Not only is neither better, but both can have solutions to looking after post-fertile females and perhaps more to the point incentivising them to be productive. That is the problem with broad societal concept, it is hard to say exactly what caused what and often in what can seem like a paradox two things can cause each other. As groups got bigger the traditional tribal sharing society broke down. It could not work any more, and necessitated the family taking over much of the previous duties of the tribe. But beyond that, I would argue that the family unit incentives and protects the post-fertile woman more than the tribal sharing society of old did. Furthermore, it sort of does it for both. They allow the elders to draw power from their still young and physically capable offspring more effectively than in a free form village format. But both cultural type often revered the elderly. But it is important to not get overly sentimental, many of the former cultures (hunter gatherers and the like) were not overly attached to their elderly and in some cases killed or neglected until death their old and infirm (when their lifestyle necessitated that type of cultural brutality).
On gender roles and actions I really did not think I disagreed with anything you said. I thought we were pretty much in agreement there.
You seem to be rather refuting your own arguments here. Was agriculture capable of providing more food or was it less food? You don't seem to be clear. I would argue that agriculture was the worst thing to ever happened to humans and the entire planet but that is mostly a personal preference not a fact. And I think you are messing up cause and effect. Agriculture caused huge societies; Villages just did not happen to become overpopulated for the first time in millions of years and decide to invent agriculture. And population has always threatened to overcome advances in food production. Mass starvation is not a sign that agriculture was worse at providing food than hunter gathering but of the continual cycle of overpopulation and the resultant reduction in population.