Lets go back to what I said that you're trying to misrepresent:
"And then somewhere in college you learn it from the most honest perspective, which is that an ego driven maniac came to do serve as much plight and plunder as he could possibly achieve, enslaving and selling people -- that the settlers did the same, and that the history of the United States is consistently punctuated with extremely violent and immoral acts that are glossed over and downplayed in any history that was taught in public schools (k-12). You learn that its been done before, was done recently, is going on now, and will likely continue."
This is in the context of talking about the history of Columbus and the 'discovery of america' story that surrounds his activity. As you see in what I quote, I point at the facts about US history --- revolution -- civil war -- french canadian war -- war with spanish -- war with natives -- slavery -- imperialism -- manifest destiny --- vietnam --- panama... etc etc etc.
What was your point again? You said I implied something, but I never said what you're fighting or took in implication. Reread it here and quit making crap up.
So you challenge my point, then concede it because not only it, but others like it were happening?
What was so 'funny' then? You just said it happened all over, but started out saying that what I said was distorted....
Methinks you're confused. You agree that it happened all over, but think its a distortion, when talking about specific people, events, and places, that those atrocities occurred.
There is some focus on native americans in the curriculum. Depending on your age, you get a different hiSTORY. When you're young, its about the nina, pinta, and santa maria coming across with Colombus at the mast and a glorious friendly feast with the natives where the settlers learned about popcorn and fun feather headwear. When you get older, they tell you that the settlers moved westward and that some of the natives resisted it. When you're in high school, you learn that settlers actually killed people to make room for their settlements and that wars were waged in various ways regarding the settlement (with the french, with the natives, etc).
And then somewhere in college you learn it from the most honest perspective, which is that an ego driven maniac came to do serve as much plight and plunder as he could possibly achieve, enslaving and selling people -- that the settlers did the same, and that the history of the United States is consistently punctuated with extremely violent and immoral acts that are glossed over and downplayed in any history that was taught in public schools (k-12). You learn that its been done before, was done recently, is going on now, and will likely continue.
I like Chris Rock's analysis: "I just 'discovered' your car stereo!"
I know. They force you to have an @gmail.com account for an "identity" that isn't necessary (other than to more fully track you and sell your life to big business).
From what I know, lots of people wanted in but didn't get an invite, s they stopped caring. The whole concept of the invite was a mistake in this case, and that was my point. They should have let anyone that cared to join.
The goals have been clearly expressed several times. Pretending not to know is ridiculous, and actually not knowing is indicative of laziness or having corporations as the source for your knowledge.
The protests are clearly about the change in national policy to benefit most people by means of removing the control corporations and bankers have over our country. You've been informed and if you use google for 5 minutes you might see that I simplified the point, but was correct.
Google+ had a restricted/limited test phase, but the public thought they might get to be part of it. The public is already on facebook. -The public tried to get in, only to be told "you're not invited yet.. go dig around for a while in your friends to see if one of them can invite you" -The public then either tried really hard to find someone to invite them, only to discover nobody else is on G+ because of the limited entry... or they never got into the 'club' and said "Meh, this isn't worth my effort, I'm already of facebook and all my friends are there anyway".
One should note that the shift from myspace to facebook was largely due to how myspace mismanaged its changes/upgrades and became a horrid, error-prone, piece of crap full of spam, fake accounts, and outright trashy implementation. And while facebook is beginning to make those same mistakes, it is not nearly as bad and the difference between facebook and G+ is minimal.
I'm on G+, and I would use it if I had friends on there. Nobody uses it because it was hard to get into, and so I don't use it but maybe once a month, only to find that hardly anything has been posted there. And the friends I do have on G+, just like me, are waiting for the big exodus from FB to occur, while keeping their primary foot still on FB territory.
FB will have to make a bigtime mistake to drive people away, or G+ will have to make a bigtime promotional drive to get people in (and not make the mistake of acting like its a secret club and blocking entry... if your servers can't handle everyone, then don't hope everyone comes or upgrade your server dedication)
I think its kind of funny that the negative impact of being lower-scoring, instead of driving the kids to become higher-scoring, drove them to complain about how it hurts their feelings. Its so ironic you can taste metal.
Saying it hurts your feelings to be classified as lower achieving has no impact on the reality that one is actually lower achieving. It changes nothing, and you're still dumb whether or not someone says it. If there is anything to learn from this complaint it is that the program did not efficiently motivate lower achieving kids to do anything but complain about their feelings being hurt. I'm not saying they should change or cancel the program because it hurt feelings, but because it failed to make them perform better and only succeeded to make them complain louder.
I guess this is what happens when society makes efforts to stop bullying. Bullying was the way that the dumb kids got to feel good and better than the smart kids. Society is working to end bullying --- those kids lose their outlet for their ego -- society tries to promote work and study -- those kids find a new outlet for the ego, defending lower-achievement by saying their feelings are hurt.
Here is the reality: 20 years ago, some douchebag slapped me in the back of the head and called me a nerd and got away with it. Now, his idiot son who also slacks just like he did, and learned how to be a slacker from dad's example, isn't allowed to slap nerds in the back of the head --- so instead he cries about his feeling being hurt when his ill-wits are made apparent, all the while avoiding the work and effort it would take to remedy the situation and become educated.
In reality, the nerds are pushed to the front. The back of the bus, where the unsurveilled freedom is had, was for the pushy ill-educated jocks and jerks.
I think the joke was to play at the history of Rosa Parks (a discriminated minority) in reference to today's oppressed intellectual minority, the smart kids.
The grades, alone, do the exact same thing. It doesn't take any act of sleuth to find out what your peers are scoring. Everyone knows who is getting what grades, and everyone recognizes HOW to get those grades (studying mostly, sometimes sucking up or befriending teachers works).
When I went to public school, kids who performed lower than me often harassed me for my high scores and used insults to cover the real problem which was that their egos were hurt by my performance. -----
The best answer would be to get rid of letter grades and also get rid of 'year grades'. Our youth should progress through school on an individually determined basis -- low performance in english should mean that kid doesn't move forward and is given more time on the basics that they struggle with --- not shoved forward a year into an even more difficult level that is built on the prior foundation that said kid already sucks at.
Most of the teachers I know and the people that are aware of the true problems in education are in support of a complete reorganization of the education system to one where the teacher is more of a guide for each student, approaching learning in a way that benefits each individual where they need help and allows them to grow and shine where they naturally do. (This plays into the limitations I faced being a high-achieving kid in public school --- I was rarely stimulated and everything was far too easy for me --- heavier study would have been challenging, interesting, and beneficial to me and society).
Scholarships are nearly completely geared toward females, minorities, and the extremely poor.
The kids in the top 5% may or may not be part of the group that might get them, but in any case they will need help in funding colleges because conservatives keep making it more and more a personal burden to learn. Spin it how you like, but conservative politic is trying to make sure only the rich can have formal instruction and knowledge. The pressures in this direction are the direct cause of why scholarships are so heavily biased to those who conservative politics exclude.
In any case, the purpose of the 'prize' in this idea is to drive the lower 95% to work harder and become the top 5%. It is a reward system that includes everyone so long as they are willing to work hard to win it.
I'm curious if it is about 10k *new* positions or 10k open ones, hence 10k programmers left their.NET position preemptively, knowing it would be phased out. This could be positive spin on a bad career move.
The masses also watch regular commercial corporate television like its the only book they ever needed... and they smoke, and eat processed food.... and they vote against their best interests as peons, thinking they will be kings.... and they actually pay people to setup their xbox360 for them because the red plug in the red ring''d hole and white plug in the white ring'd hole is just too difficult for them.... You wonder what idiots actually buy and read the trash magazines you see in grocery stores; guess what, its for THE MASSES.
Is there a planet I can move to where most of the people around me are actually interested in life and participating in it instead of plodding along living to the next day sucking salty-fat-cream from the corporate food and media tubes? Maybe the netherlands....
Did you say changing a couple settings was a problem? No. Wealth schizm is a problem. Materialism is a problem. Pocessed foods are a problem. Changing a couple settings and brief downtime is hardly a problem for people to endure.
How about the worlds' resources being hoarded by an extremely small group of people, leaving most humans in a less than optimal condition? That's a problem.
I believe the preamble sets the context to which the constitution should be applied and interpreted. So it would be quite significant that they established the constitution for those specific reasons. Read that again, they say they established the constitution "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,..."
You quoted it. You think the reasons they give for establishing the constitution are not exactly what the constitution is aimed at working for? I mean... You quoted it. Its right there..... You don't see it.... 3... 2... 1... backpedal.
The opposition didn't want single payer, nor a public nonprofit option. The people still need to be covered because hospitals cannot deny them, and we know that nobody would be 'personally responsible' enough to tell the ambulance to turn around because they don't deserve it (didn't have insurance).
Single Payer is how OUR government can take one of Maslow's most essential needs out of worry. And we can do it for 33% less than the total we pay as a whole right now.
One more note, the Dems who pushed the bill tried to have a public nonprofit option, which was one of the priority targets for removal by conservatives.
I would like to see hospitals given permission to turn away the uninsured people who actively participate in voting against mandated insurance programs.
As of now the hospitals have been ordered by courts to take in all people. As of now, conservatives pretend that they should have cake (not pay for insurance) and eat it too (get treated in emergencies anyway... don't pretend you'd abstain from the ER as your 'personal responsibility' view assumes; in truth you wouldn't).
It is right to ask hospitals to take all people in emergencies. It is RESPONSIBLE to require all people to have appropriate healthcare coverage.
Single Payer is what most Americans want, and can be afforded at a cost that is approximately 33% less than what we as a whole are paying already. Conservatives, also known as useful idiots, have learned from liars that this isn't possible, and enforce capitalist insurance through voting --- yet we all know they will go to the hospital when they get hurt or sick.
The reality is this: no matter what you pretend about outcasts or minority opinion, you will receive the repercussion and beneficence of your government's actions. That is my point. The reality is, if your government instigates issue, YOU suffer. Your government represents you and your peers, and if you ideas are unpopular but you feel they are necessary, then its your duty to make it popular. As I said before, your responsibility is obligate. You have no choice to abstain. Again, and as blunt as possible, IN ALL CASES THE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT AND RECEIVE THE BENEFIT AND DETRIMENT FROM ITS ACTIONS. JUST BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF YOUR COUNTRYMEN/PEERS MAY BE COMPLICIT OR IN SUPPORT OF CERTAIN OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS DOES NOT EXEMPT YOU FROM THE CONSEQUENCE OF THOSE ACTIONS. YOU WILL INHERENTLY RECEIVE WHAT YOU OR YOUR PEERS HAVE MADE POSSIBLE. THIS IS THE REALISM OF THE RESPONSIBILITY.
Quit posting anonymously if you want to be taken seriously. Doing so defeats the significance or impact of your argument. Ironically, your anonymity seems to be a tell of your supposition that you can't do anything about things around you and your reluctance to taking action.
My point was the THEME, not the framework. Like I said, dragons, swords, spells... unappealing. Those are components of the THEME. The framework is fine by me. I said before, I like postapocalyptic and space western themes...
In the actions that result, real people are affected. When war is waged, its you who dies, not a politician or a bill. You are responsible for the bulldog whose back you ride whether or not you chose to.
Like I said, in theory, the people of a nation permit their government to represent them. The government is an extension of the people. And in reality, the people of a nation are those who ultimatey receive the recourse for their government. An example: if north korea instigates war, who dies? Its government? Maybe. North Koreans? Absolutely. On sept 11, the politics and laws that instigated the attacks didn't die, people did.
Even if some majority of internet-using-nations decides to have a lesser sense of 'freedom' as a structure for the internet, my government will give me the freedom my constitution enforces. And if said majority tries to stop us, manipulate, or damage that freedom, I'll vote accordingly to send DEFENSE of my freedom wherever it is needed.
The rest of the world can give it all up for all I care, but its not happening here --- my point being that even if it happens here, it won't. We the people will be free, and we'll get it by democracy, through votes, or subversion through setting up our own ad-hoc networks.
And in truth, no country NEEDS to come to any agreement about it. If china doesn't like facebook, they can try to police their people, or just cut the pipes off physically; and its up to the Chinese people to actually control their government and get what they want, if they even care. The same goes for every other situation out there, and even here in the US we may one day be faced with the situation where we use democracy to protect net neutral internet (right now actually) or literally stand up and regain democracy.
If a GOVERNMENT wants to modify, restrict, manipulate, etc, the internet within its capacity, its borders, then so be it. If the people who are responsible for that government, its citizens, are not in agreement with their own government, then its their duty to force that agreement by democracy or popular revolution. They are responsible for what their government does, theoretically and realistically. And no matter how much you can disagree with me or pretend you're not responsible, you still are; scarily enough, there is no opt-out for citizenship in the world. There's no designated anarchist area for those who disagree and won't be responsible. If you disagree but feel the country is out of control, its your duty to inform your peers and restore informed democracy. Participation is obligate; responsibility is inherent.
Hey, ya'll can study in your cubicle just like you'll work in it... Authors and poets can do the same, or meet at coffee houses for fieldtrips or something...
But artists need canvas, scientists need beakers, actors need stages, athletes need fields, and mechanics need tools.
1.4 trillion a year in military industry spending... I'm sure some cuts to be spent elsewhere can be afforded. Or maybe we quit defending *LOOPHOLES* in taxes. Maybe there would be some sense in stopping select few from *EXPLOITING* a *LOOPHOLE* that was *NEVER INTENDED*.
Sorry, I just got enraged for a second about the illogical thoughts that some people maintain....
Anyway. Public education, single payer medicine, and better technological and transportation infrastructure could easily be achieved with modest military industry spending cuts. People won't even talk about it, but I do because its worth talking about more often. The loopholes, too. If you want tax breaks for the rich, do it the honest way, with congressional votes and presidential signature and supreme court agreement.... Loophole exploit is wrong no matter how you frame it.
You don't get me. In star wars a speederbike is your horse, a lightsaber or laser rifle is your sword, and some cool flamethbrower is your spells. Steroids are like enchantments....
I realize the concepts are the same, my point is about the theme... space westerns and post apocalyptic themes are what I prefer... I don't like traditional fantasy themes... boring.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets go back to what I said that you're trying to misrepresent:
"And then somewhere in college you learn it from the most honest perspective, which is that an ego driven maniac came to do serve as much plight and plunder as he could possibly achieve, enslaving and selling people -- that the settlers did the same, and that the history of the United States is consistently punctuated with extremely violent and immoral acts that are glossed over and downplayed in any history that was taught in public schools (k-12). You learn that its been done before, was done recently, is going on now, and will likely continue."
This is in the context of talking about the history of Columbus and the 'discovery of america' story that surrounds his activity. As you see in what I quote, I point at the facts about US history --- revolution -- civil war -- french canadian war -- war with spanish -- war with natives -- slavery -- imperialism -- manifest destiny --- vietnam --- panama... etc etc etc.
What was your point again? You said I implied something, but I never said what you're fighting or took in implication. Reread it here and quit making crap up.
So you challenge my point, then concede it because not only it, but others like it were happening?
What was so 'funny' then? You just said it happened all over, but started out saying that what I said was distorted....
Methinks you're confused. You agree that it happened all over, but think its a distortion, when talking about specific people, events, and places, that those atrocities occurred.
Funny how you contradicted yourself in one post.
There is some focus on native americans in the curriculum. Depending on your age, you get a different hiSTORY. When you're young, its about the nina, pinta, and santa maria coming across with Colombus at the mast and a glorious friendly feast with the natives where the settlers learned about popcorn and fun feather headwear. When you get older, they tell you that the settlers moved westward and that some of the natives resisted it. When you're in high school, you learn that settlers actually killed people to make room for their settlements and that wars were waged in various ways regarding the settlement (with the french, with the natives, etc).
And then somewhere in college you learn it from the most honest perspective, which is that an ego driven maniac came to do serve as much plight and plunder as he could possibly achieve, enslaving and selling people -- that the settlers did the same, and that the history of the United States is consistently punctuated with extremely violent and immoral acts that are glossed over and downplayed in any history that was taught in public schools (k-12). You learn that its been done before, was done recently, is going on now, and will likely continue.
I like Chris Rock's analysis: "I just 'discovered' your car stereo!"
I know. They force you to have an @gmail.com account for an "identity" that isn't necessary (other than to more fully track you and sell your life to big business).
Turds.
From what I know, lots of people wanted in but didn't get an invite, s they stopped caring. The whole concept of the invite was a mistake in this case, and that was my point. They should have let anyone that cared to join.
The goals have been clearly expressed several times. Pretending not to know is ridiculous, and actually not knowing is indicative of laziness or having corporations as the source for your knowledge.
The protests are clearly about the change in national policy to benefit most people by means of removing the control corporations and bankers have over our country. You've been informed and if you use google for 5 minutes you might see that I simplified the point, but was correct.
Make some effort to find out and you will.
This is what happened for many people:
Google+ had a restricted/limited test phase, but the public thought they might get to be part of it. The public is already on facebook.
-The public tried to get in, only to be told "you're not invited yet.. go dig around for a while in your friends to see if one of them can invite you"
-The public then either tried really hard to find someone to invite them, only to discover nobody else is on G+ because of the limited entry... or they never got into the 'club' and said "Meh, this isn't worth my effort, I'm already of facebook and all my friends are there anyway".
One should note that the shift from myspace to facebook was largely due to how myspace mismanaged its changes/upgrades and became a horrid, error-prone, piece of crap full of spam, fake accounts, and outright trashy implementation. And while facebook is beginning to make those same mistakes, it is not nearly as bad and the difference between facebook and G+ is minimal.
I'm on G+, and I would use it if I had friends on there. Nobody uses it because it was hard to get into, and so I don't use it but maybe once a month, only to find that hardly anything has been posted there. And the friends I do have on G+, just like me, are waiting for the big exodus from FB to occur, while keeping their primary foot still on FB territory.
FB will have to make a bigtime mistake to drive people away, or G+ will have to make a bigtime promotional drive to get people in (and not make the mistake of acting like its a secret club and blocking entry... if your servers can't handle everyone, then don't hope everyone comes or upgrade your server dedication)
I think its kind of funny that the negative impact of being lower-scoring, instead of driving the kids to become higher-scoring, drove them to complain about how it hurts their feelings. Its so ironic you can taste metal.
Saying it hurts your feelings to be classified as lower achieving has no impact on the reality that one is actually lower achieving. It changes nothing, and you're still dumb whether or not someone says it. If there is anything to learn from this complaint it is that the program did not efficiently motivate lower achieving kids to do anything but complain about their feelings being hurt. I'm not saying they should change or cancel the program because it hurt feelings, but because it failed to make them perform better and only succeeded to make them complain louder.
I guess this is what happens when society makes efforts to stop bullying. Bullying was the way that the dumb kids got to feel good and better than the smart kids. Society is working to end bullying --- those kids lose their outlet for their ego -- society tries to promote work and study -- those kids find a new outlet for the ego, defending lower-achievement by saying their feelings are hurt.
Here is the reality: 20 years ago, some douchebag slapped me in the back of the head and called me a nerd and got away with it. Now, his idiot son who also slacks just like he did, and learned how to be a slacker from dad's example, isn't allowed to slap nerds in the back of the head --- so instead he cries about his feeling being hurt when his ill-wits are made apparent, all the while avoiding the work and effort it would take to remedy the situation and become educated.
In reality, the nerds are pushed to the front. The back of the bus, where the unsurveilled freedom is had, was for the pushy ill-educated jocks and jerks.
I think the joke was to play at the history of Rosa Parks (a discriminated minority) in reference to today's oppressed intellectual minority, the smart kids.
The grades, alone, do the exact same thing. It doesn't take any act of sleuth to find out what your peers are scoring. Everyone knows who is getting what grades, and everyone recognizes HOW to get those grades (studying mostly, sometimes sucking up or befriending teachers works).
When I went to public school, kids who performed lower than me often harassed me for my high scores and used insults to cover the real problem which was that their egos were hurt by my performance.
-----
The best answer would be to get rid of letter grades and also get rid of 'year grades'. Our youth should progress through school on an individually determined basis -- low performance in english should mean that kid doesn't move forward and is given more time on the basics that they struggle with --- not shoved forward a year into an even more difficult level that is built on the prior foundation that said kid already sucks at.
Most of the teachers I know and the people that are aware of the true problems in education are in support of a complete reorganization of the education system to one where the teacher is more of a guide for each student, approaching learning in a way that benefits each individual where they need help and allows them to grow and shine where they naturally do. (This plays into the limitations I faced being a high-achieving kid in public school --- I was rarely stimulated and everything was far too easy for me --- heavier study would have been challenging, interesting, and beneficial to me and society).
Scholarships are nearly completely geared toward females, minorities, and the extremely poor.
The kids in the top 5% may or may not be part of the group that might get them, but in any case they will need help in funding colleges because conservatives keep making it more and more a personal burden to learn. Spin it how you like, but conservative politic is trying to make sure only the rich can have formal instruction and knowledge. The pressures in this direction are the direct cause of why scholarships are so heavily biased to those who conservative politics exclude.
In any case, the purpose of the 'prize' in this idea is to drive the lower 95% to work harder and become the top 5%. It is a reward system that includes everyone so long as they are willing to work hard to win it.
I'm curious if it is about 10k *new* positions or 10k open ones, hence 10k programmers left their .NET position preemptively, knowing it would be phased out. This could be positive spin on a bad career move.
The masses also watch regular commercial corporate television like its the only book they ever needed... and they smoke, and eat processed food.... and they vote against their best interests as peons, thinking they will be kings.... and they actually pay people to setup their xbox360 for them because the red plug in the red ring''d hole and white plug in the white ring'd hole is just too difficult for them.... You wonder what idiots actually buy and read the trash magazines you see in grocery stores; guess what, its for THE MASSES.
Is there a planet I can move to where most of the people around me are actually interested in life and participating in it instead of plodding along living to the next day sucking salty-fat-cream from the corporate food and media tubes? Maybe the netherlands....
Did you say changing a couple settings was a problem? No. Wealth schizm is a problem. Materialism is a problem. Pocessed foods are a problem. Changing a couple settings and brief downtime is hardly a problem for people to endure.
How about the worlds' resources being hoarded by an extremely small group of people, leaving most humans in a less than optimal condition? That's a problem.
I believe the preamble sets the context to which the constitution should be applied and interpreted. So it would be quite significant that they established the constitution for those specific reasons. Read that again, they say they established the constitution "...to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,..."
You quoted it. You think the reasons they give for establishing the constitution are not exactly what the constitution is aimed at working for? I mean... You quoted it. Its right there. .... You don't see it.... 3... 2... 1... backpedal.
The opposition didn't want single payer, nor a public nonprofit option. The people still need to be covered because hospitals cannot deny them, and we know that nobody would be 'personally responsible' enough to tell the ambulance to turn around because they don't deserve it (didn't have insurance).
Single Payer is how OUR government can take one of Maslow's most essential needs out of worry. And we can do it for 33% less than the total we pay as a whole right now.
One more note, the Dems who pushed the bill tried to have a public nonprofit option, which was one of the priority targets for removal by conservatives.
I would like to see hospitals given permission to turn away the uninsured people who actively participate in voting against mandated insurance programs.
As of now the hospitals have been ordered by courts to take in all people. As of now, conservatives pretend that they should have cake (not pay for insurance) and eat it too (get treated in emergencies anyway... don't pretend you'd abstain from the ER as your 'personal responsibility' view assumes; in truth you wouldn't).
It is right to ask hospitals to take all people in emergencies. It is RESPONSIBLE to require all people to have appropriate healthcare coverage.
Single Payer is what most Americans want, and can be afforded at a cost that is approximately 33% less than what we as a whole are paying already. Conservatives, also known as useful idiots, have learned from liars that this isn't possible, and enforce capitalist insurance through voting --- yet we all know they will go to the hospital when they get hurt or sick.
The reality is this: no matter what you pretend about outcasts or minority opinion, you will receive the repercussion and beneficence of your government's actions. That is my point. The reality is, if your government instigates issue, YOU suffer. Your government represents you and your peers, and if you ideas are unpopular but you feel they are necessary, then its your duty to make it popular. As I said before, your responsibility is obligate. You have no choice to abstain. Again, and as blunt as possible, IN ALL CASES THE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR GOVERNMENT AND RECEIVE THE BENEFIT AND DETRIMENT FROM ITS ACTIONS. JUST BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF YOUR COUNTRYMEN/PEERS MAY BE COMPLICIT OR IN SUPPORT OF CERTAIN OBJECTIVES AND ACTIONS DOES NOT EXEMPT YOU FROM THE CONSEQUENCE OF THOSE ACTIONS. YOU WILL INHERENTLY RECEIVE WHAT YOU OR YOUR PEERS HAVE MADE POSSIBLE. THIS IS THE REALISM OF THE RESPONSIBILITY.
Quit posting anonymously if you want to be taken seriously. Doing so defeats the significance or impact of your argument. Ironically, your anonymity seems to be a tell of your supposition that you can't do anything about things around you and your reluctance to taking action.
My point was the THEME, not the framework. Like I said, dragons, swords, spells... unappealing. Those are components of the THEME. The framework is fine by me. I said before, I like postapocalyptic and space western themes...
In the actions that result, real people are affected. When war is waged, its you who dies, not a politician or a bill. You are responsible for the bulldog whose back you ride whether or not you chose to.
Like I said, in theory, the people of a nation permit their government to represent them. The government is an extension of the people. And in reality, the people of a nation are those who ultimatey receive the recourse for their government. An example: if north korea instigates war, who dies? Its government? Maybe. North Koreans? Absolutely. On sept 11, the politics and laws that instigated the attacks didn't die, people did.
Be real.
Even if some majority of internet-using-nations decides to have a lesser sense of 'freedom' as a structure for the internet, my government will give me the freedom my constitution enforces. And if said majority tries to stop us, manipulate, or damage that freedom, I'll vote accordingly to send DEFENSE of my freedom wherever it is needed.
The rest of the world can give it all up for all I care, but its not happening here --- my point being that even if it happens here, it won't. We the people will be free, and we'll get it by democracy, through votes, or subversion through setting up our own ad-hoc networks.
And in truth, no country NEEDS to come to any agreement about it. If china doesn't like facebook, they can try to police their people, or just cut the pipes off physically; and its up to the Chinese people to actually control their government and get what they want, if they even care. The same goes for every other situation out there, and even here in the US we may one day be faced with the situation where we use democracy to protect net neutral internet (right now actually) or literally stand up and regain democracy.
If a GOVERNMENT wants to modify, restrict, manipulate, etc, the internet within its capacity, its borders, then so be it. If the people who are responsible for that government, its citizens, are not in agreement with their own government, then its their duty to force that agreement by democracy or popular revolution. They are responsible for what their government does, theoretically and realistically. And no matter how much you can disagree with me or pretend you're not responsible, you still are; scarily enough, there is no opt-out for citizenship in the world. There's no designated anarchist area for those who disagree and won't be responsible. If you disagree but feel the country is out of control, its your duty to inform your peers and restore informed democracy. Participation is obligate; responsibility is inherent.
Hey, ya'll can study in your cubicle just like you'll work in it... Authors and poets can do the same, or meet at coffee houses for fieldtrips or something...
But artists need canvas, scientists need beakers, actors need stages, athletes need fields, and mechanics need tools.
1.4 trillion a year in military industry spending... I'm sure some cuts to be spent elsewhere can be afforded. Or maybe we quit defending *LOOPHOLES* in taxes. Maybe there would be some sense in stopping select few from *EXPLOITING* a *LOOPHOLE* that was *NEVER INTENDED*.
Sorry, I just got enraged for a second about the illogical thoughts that some people maintain....
Anyway. Public education, single payer medicine, and better technological and transportation infrastructure could easily be achieved with modest military industry spending cuts. People won't even talk about it, but I do because its worth talking about more often. The loopholes, too. If you want tax breaks for the rich, do it the honest way, with congressional votes and presidential signature and supreme court agreement.... Loophole exploit is wrong no matter how you frame it.
You don't get me. In star wars a speederbike is your horse, a lightsaber or laser rifle is your sword, and some cool flamethbrower is your spells. Steroids are like enchantments....
I realize the concepts are the same, my point is about the theme... space westerns and post apocalyptic themes are what I prefer... I don't like traditional fantasy themes... boring.