...it seems like a terrible state of affairs because it is tantamount to saying that our government can't provision our troops with something as basic as enough coffee and they don't pay our troops enough to feed and clothe their families.
I apologize again, this time for getting my sources confused.
So, what was this about me making your emotional argument into a strawman?
I'm actually still discussing the article blurb itself, where the submitter complains about how depressing it is that the military doesn't pay its soldiers enough to start a family.
You were suggesting there might be pragmatic or utilitarian reasons for the military should subsidize soldiers' families. I was emphasizing the distinction between your rational utilitarian argument and the article submitter's emotional argument.
I did not mean to misrepresent your argument as a strawman. I apologize if I caused offense.
I'm sure there are good arguments in favor of government-subsidized military families, just as I'm sure there are good arguments against it. Whatever the actual policy, it's sure to involve tradeoffs, and it's sure to have as many opponents as proponents.
But nobody deserves things they can't afford. And nobody is entitled to government subsidies for luxury items they can't afford on their own. And maybe the military would be better off if entry-level soldiers getting entry-level pay focused on mastering their career and advancing to better-paying ranks before investing in a family.
All I'm saying is, if you look at your paycheck, see that you can't afford a family, and decide to start one anyway, that's your decision and your responsibility, not the government's.
If you think that the government would benefit from subsidizing families for soldiers that can't afford them on their own, the proper solution is to lobby the government to change its policies, and encourage your fellow citizens to do the same.
The wrong way to change government policy is to start a family you can't afford, and then pretend that the military is being hateful because they don't much care to back your irresponsiblity.
You're obviously a smart person. Therefore, let us all complain about how much more you could be doing to cure cancer, if you weren't wasting time posting on Slashdot instead.
Besides, it's not like the government doesn't invest in R&D across the board, not just in military applications. And since military R&D is a necessary investment for a nation-state, the proper attitude should not be "I wish we didn't do any military R&D spending", but rather "it's a good thing even military R&D results in non-military benefits".
The American Constitution recognizes three inalienable rights as being granted to all human beings "by their creator", whatever that means.
If robots ever evolve to the point of making philosophical and metaphysical demands for "rights", then they're going to have to face the harsh philosophical and metaphysical possibility that, as humanity's creations, they have no claim to anything except what we see fit to grant them.
This is assuming "rights" even exist, and aren't just a mass delusion we've cooked to make us feel like we're entitled to any kind of respect or justice in this world.
Conflict between better and worse. Between what you see as desireable and what you see as undesireable.
I never said every struggle was "epic"; on the contrary, the struggle between good and evil is usually banal and commonplace, as here.
But if you think that the difference between my opinion and your opinion is no more important than the difference between my taste for strawberry ice cream and your taste for pistachio, then why is it important to you to try to change my opinion?
The tone of your post implies that you think I am wrong. In replying, you are trying to correct my mistaken ideas. How is this not a struggle between what you believe is "evil" (my ideas), and what you believe is "good" (your ideas)? I mean, why are you even bothering to reply, if not in the hope that your effort will make the world a better place, and me a better person. And how is this effort not your own attempt to replace an evil thing with a good thing?
The dispute over what is truly good and what is truly evil is part of the struggle.
If we actually had a clear understanding of the abosolute truth (whatever that may be, and assuming it even exists), we probably wouldn't struggle nearly as much as we do with our moral dilemmas.
I don't think very much of anybody is completely evil.
But that doesn't mean that right and wrong don't exist. Hitler may not have been completely evil, but there's no denying he perpetrated some pretty evil shit, and that there was a huge struggle to put a stop to his evil and to try to replace it with something good.
And there's no denying that struggles like this go on all the time, all over the world and in our own hearts.
Have you ever agnized over doing the right thing versus doing the easy thing? That's the struggle between good and evil, right there. Sarah Connor vs. the Terminator is just a metaphor for the obvious and universal flaws in human nature: the struggle between good and evil is much more realistic than the struggle between a twentysomething party girl and a killer android from the future.
Much better is the struggle between principled but impractical vs. unpricipled yet practical. The redeeming factor for Swordfish, for example.
I see this as a classic example of good vs. evil.
What you're describing is a conflict between doing what you know to be right ("principled") even though it's very difficult ("impractical") and doing what you know to be wrong ("unprincipled", though really it's just a different set of principles) because it's easier.
And that right there is exactly what the struggle between good and evil is. It happens every day, in our own choices, and in the choices of the people we interact with.
Stories, especially stories that illustrate fundamental principles, are often simpler and clearer than real life. This is usually a good thing; it gives us a chance to look at the fundamental principles, apart from the confusion of the real world.
Fairy tales are true, not because they tell us that dragons really exist, but because they tell us that dragons can really be defeated.
Sure, the dragons don't appear in real life as they do on the Hollywood screen; sometimes, they're just a private idea or temptation of our own. But look at the world around you. Can you honestly tell me that the struggle between good and evil isn't a constant factor in all our affairs?
I do think the bennies spread around a lot better than you claim. But I'm also not a naive idealist who thinks that everyhing is going to be perfect real soon now; nor that there won't always be marginal situations in which the bennies don't spread around at all,; nor that human beings at their worst won't continue to introduce complications and failures into the best of solutions, for the forseeable future of the human race.
The fact that Africa continues to be a seething pesthole of misery and violence, with no sign of letting up, in spite of all the benefits several thousand years of human civilization have been able to come up with, says more to me about the limitations of human nature than it says about the limits of human invention and industry.
Oh, please. ONE documented case of mammal extinction in the past fifty years, from one of the worst perpetrators outside of sub-Saharan Africa no less. Meanwhile, dozens of at-risk species have been pulled back from the brink of extinction during the same period, and scores more have been kept from the brink altogether.
Sounds like the current methods, whatever they are, have a pretty good track record.
Your point is also well-taken, but what does it have to do with the controversy about limiting industrial activity and technological innovation for the purposes of reducing anthropogenic global warming at whatever the cost to people everywhere?
Actually, I think global warming is a cyclical phenomenon, of which anthropogenic causes make up an insignificant fraction during this particular cycle; and that the pain and suffering caused by reducing anthropogenic causes will greatly outweigh the benefits (and will not actually have a significant effect on the cycle, since we're still not capable of massive terraforming or weather control).
1. Cut back on industrial activity and technological innovation, in order to preserve a naturally-occuring medecine that will require industrial activity and technological innovation in order to be useful, OR
2. Continue with industrial activity and technological innovation, to better exploit what natural medicines we encounter, as well as more quickly develop synthetic medicines.
For all we know, we may be six months away from discovering a synthetic painkiller which operates in the same way and doesn't depend on a rare and changing ecological niche for its production.
Aspirin and other OTC painkillers are available around the world, at affordable prices.
In fact, there's hundreds of thousands of widely-distributed, affordably-priced medecins out there.
Please don't confuse the small number of brand-new, cutting-edge drugs, still paying off their extremely expensive R&D efforts, with the vast majority of affordable medications.
Here's the thing, though: Life itself demands a lifetime of servitude.
And the work I do now, to keep body and soul together, not only is it easier than the work I would've had to do without civilization, but my quality of life is better, the scope of leisure activities available to me is greater, and the surplus wealth I have accumulated is greater, than anything our primitive cave-dwelling ancestors ever enjoyed. And that's with The Man exploiting me every day.
What does your post-apocalyptic Rockefeller Center have to offer me, that's superior to civilization? And if the uncivilized wilderness really has that much to offer, why are you here fondling the Internet, instead of stalking beasts in the Amazon the way Mother Nature intended?
In before "we must halt all industrial and technological advancements, to stop global warming before we lose all these wonderful natural cures!"
The bitter irony is that it's these very industrial and technological advancements that make the discovery, analysis, synthesis, mass production, and world-wide distribution at affordable prices of this painkiller possible in the first place.
It's depressing how many people demand the benefits of civilization, without accepting any of its tradeoffs.
Instead of wasting time posting on Slashdot, I suggest you explore the depths of sea yourself, if you care so much about it. "If you want a job done right..." and all that. I mean, if you think there's new medicines and fuels down there, how can you justify sitting on your ass fondling the Internet? Why would you suggest priorities for others that you don't have for yourself?
I propose we limit the corporate paranoia to people in a position of significant responsibility and authority inside the company... including the people with root access to the company's computer systems.
It's not that IT employees are more likely to do bad things than other people; but rather that IT employees are often in a position not only to do more harm when they go bad, but also cover it up better.
You don't need background checks for everybody, just for those employees in a position of significant responsibility and authority.
Slashdot Mirror
It was made by you in your discussion with me:
I apologize again, this time for getting my sources confused.
So, what was this about me making your emotional argument into a strawman?
I'm actually still discussing the article blurb itself, where the submitter complains about how depressing it is that the military doesn't pay its soldiers enough to start a family.
You were suggesting there might be pragmatic or utilitarian reasons for the military should subsidize soldiers' families. I was emphasizing the distinction between your rational utilitarian argument and the article submitter's emotional argument.
I did not mean to misrepresent your argument as a strawman. I apologize if I caused offense.
I'm sure there are good arguments in favor of government-subsidized military families, just as I'm sure there are good arguments against it. Whatever the actual policy, it's sure to involve tradeoffs, and it's sure to have as many opponents as proponents.
But nobody deserves things they can't afford. And nobody is entitled to government subsidies for luxury items they can't afford on their own. And maybe the military would be better off if entry-level soldiers getting entry-level pay focused on mastering their career and advancing to better-paying ranks before investing in a family.
All I'm saying is, if you look at your paycheck, see that you can't afford a family, and decide to start one anyway, that's your decision and your responsibility, not the government's.
If you think that the government would benefit from subsidizing families for soldiers that can't afford them on their own, the proper solution is to lobby the government to change its policies, and encourage your fellow citizens to do the same.
The wrong way to change government policy is to start a family you can't afford, and then pretend that the military is being hateful because they don't much care to back your irresponsiblity.
You're obviously a smart person. Therefore, let us all complain about how much more you could be doing to cure cancer, if you weren't wasting time posting on Slashdot instead.
Besides, it's not like the government doesn't invest in R&D across the board, not just in military applications. And since military R&D is a necessary investment for a nation-state, the proper attitude should not be "I wish we didn't do any military R&D spending", but rather "it's a good thing even military R&D results in non-military benefits".
Right, because individuals have no responsibility to look at their paycheck and decide not to incur additional expenses by starting a family.
And if they do invest in children or other luxury items they can't afford, the government has an obligation to subsidize those luxuries.
Who grants rights?
The American Constitution recognizes three inalienable rights as being granted to all human beings "by their creator", whatever that means.
If robots ever evolve to the point of making philosophical and metaphysical demands for "rights", then they're going to have to face the harsh philosophical and metaphysical possibility that, as humanity's creations, they have no claim to anything except what we see fit to grant them.
This is assuming "rights" even exist, and aren't just a mass delusion we've cooked to make us feel like we're entitled to any kind of respect or justice in this world.
Conflict between better and worse. Between what you see as desireable and what you see as undesireable.
I never said every struggle was "epic"; on the contrary, the struggle between good and evil is usually banal and commonplace, as here.
But if you think that the difference between my opinion and your opinion is no more important than the difference between my taste for strawberry ice cream and your taste for pistachio, then why is it important to you to try to change my opinion?
The tone of your post implies that you think I am wrong. In replying, you are trying to correct my mistaken ideas. How is this not a struggle between what you believe is "evil" (my ideas), and what you believe is "good" (your ideas)? I mean, why are you even bothering to reply, if not in the hope that your effort will make the world a better place, and me a better person. And how is this effort not your own attempt to replace an evil thing with a good thing?
The dispute over what is truly good and what is truly evil is part of the struggle.
If we actually had a clear understanding of the abosolute truth (whatever that may be, and assuming it even exists), we probably wouldn't struggle nearly as much as we do with our moral dilemmas.
The way I see it, there are only two ways you could get from "there are better solutions than protesting" to "protesting is banned":
1. You're incredibly stupid.
2. You're being deliberately obtuse.
Which is it?
I don't think very much of anybody is completely evil.
But that doesn't mean that right and wrong don't exist. Hitler may not have been completely evil, but there's no denying he perpetrated some pretty evil shit, and that there was a huge struggle to put a stop to his evil and to try to replace it with something good.
And there's no denying that struggles like this go on all the time, all over the world and in our own hearts.
Have you ever agnized over doing the right thing versus doing the easy thing? That's the struggle between good and evil, right there. Sarah Connor vs. the Terminator is just a metaphor for the obvious and universal flaws in human nature: the struggle between good and evil is much more realistic than the struggle between a twentysomething party girl and a killer android from the future.
I see this as a classic example of good vs. evil.
What you're describing is a conflict between doing what you know to be right ("principled") even though it's very difficult ("impractical") and doing what you know to be wrong ("unprincipled", though really it's just a different set of principles) because it's easier.
And that right there is exactly what the struggle between good and evil is. It happens every day, in our own choices, and in the choices of the people we interact with.
Stories, especially stories that illustrate fundamental principles, are often simpler and clearer than real life. This is usually a good thing; it gives us a chance to look at the fundamental principles, apart from the confusion of the real world.
Fairy tales are true, not because they tell us that dragons really exist, but because they tell us that dragons can really be defeated.
Sure, the dragons don't appear in real life as they do on the Hollywood screen; sometimes, they're just a private idea or temptation of our own. But look at the world around you. Can you honestly tell me that the struggle between good and evil isn't a constant factor in all our affairs?
That's actually about the only natural and realistic plot device there is.
Actually, I am the OP, as well.
But no matter.
I do think the bennies spread around a lot better than you claim. But I'm also not a naive idealist who thinks that everyhing is going to be perfect real soon now; nor that there won't always be marginal situations in which the bennies don't spread around at all,; nor that human beings at their worst won't continue to introduce complications and failures into the best of solutions, for the forseeable future of the human race.
The fact that Africa continues to be a seething pesthole of misery and violence, with no sign of letting up, in spite of all the benefits several thousand years of human civilization have been able to come up with, says more to me about the limitations of human nature than it says about the limits of human invention and industry.
Oh, please. ONE documented case of mammal extinction in the past fifty years, from one of the worst perpetrators outside of sub-Saharan Africa no less. Meanwhile, dozens of at-risk species have been pulled back from the brink of extinction during the same period, and scores more have been kept from the brink altogether.
Sounds like the current methods, whatever they are, have a pretty good track record.
Your point is also well-taken, but what does it have to do with the controversy about limiting industrial activity and technological innovation for the purposes of reducing anthropogenic global warming at whatever the cost to people everywhere?
Actually, I think global warming is a cyclical phenomenon, of which anthropogenic causes make up an insignificant fraction during this particular cycle; and that the pain and suffering caused by reducing anthropogenic causes will greatly outweigh the benefits (and will not actually have a significant effect on the cycle, since we're still not capable of massive terraforming or weather control).
I see a different dilemma:
1. Cut back on industrial activity and technological innovation, in order to preserve a naturally-occuring medecine that will require industrial activity and technological innovation in order to be useful, OR
2. Continue with industrial activity and technological innovation, to better exploit what natural medicines we encounter, as well as more quickly develop synthetic medicines.
For all we know, we may be six months away from discovering a synthetic painkiller which operates in the same way and doesn't depend on a rare and changing ecological niche for its production.
Aspirin and other OTC painkillers are available around the world, at affordable prices.
In fact, there's hundreds of thousands of widely-distributed, affordably-priced medecins out there.
Please don't confuse the small number of brand-new, cutting-edge drugs, still paying off their extremely expensive R&D efforts, with the vast majority of affordable medications.
Here's the thing, though: Life itself demands a lifetime of servitude.
And the work I do now, to keep body and soul together, not only is it easier than the work I would've had to do without civilization, but my quality of life is better, the scope of leisure activities available to me is greater, and the surplus wealth I have accumulated is greater, than anything our primitive cave-dwelling ancestors ever enjoyed. And that's with The Man exploiting me every day.
What does your post-apocalyptic Rockefeller Center have to offer me, that's superior to civilization? And if the uncivilized wilderness really has that much to offer, why are you here fondling the Internet, instead of stalking beasts in the Amazon the way Mother Nature intended?
In before "we must halt all industrial and technological advancements, to stop global warming before we lose all these wonderful natural cures!"
The bitter irony is that it's these very industrial and technological advancements that make the discovery, analysis, synthesis, mass production, and world-wide distribution at affordable prices of this painkiller possible in the first place.
It's depressing how many people demand the benefits of civilization, without accepting any of its tradeoffs.
Instead of wasting time posting on Slashdot, I suggest you explore the depths of sea yourself, if you care so much about it. "If you want a job done right..." and all that. I mean, if you think there's new medicines and fuels down there, how can you justify sitting on your ass fondling the Internet? Why would you suggest priorities for others that you don't have for yourself?
It sounds like you're saying we should extend corporate paranoia to secretaries as well.
Based on the argument you've made here, I agree.
I propose we limit the corporate paranoia to people in a position of significant responsibility and authority inside the company... including the people with root access to the company's computer systems.
It's not that IT employees are more likely to do bad things than other people; but rather that IT employees are often in a position not only to do more harm when they go bad, but also cover it up better.
You don't need background checks for everybody, just for those employees in a position of significant responsibility and authority.