Um, no. Most will request a tithe (after all without any donations the church goes bankrupt) but they don't require it. Effectively Scientology requires an "admission" fee and even more money for their equivalent for salvation. On the other hand Christianity clearly states "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) And also "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Any protestant branch that demands money (other than for something that would require money such as going on a trip, buying expensive things, etc) especially for salvation contradicts biblical teaching. I can't say for Mormons but I don't think they have the "admission" fee mentality that Scientology has.
But if someone is good at one thing, does it well throughout life, they will usually have a job when their current industry is destroyed because a second industry often larger emerges from the ashes of the first.
When (if) all the welding is taken over by machines the student can simply go to the next thing. Be that repairing the welding machines, welding smaller hand crafted things that machines can't/won't do, or running the welding machines.
Schools do not teach you how to learn, at least not the public schools in the USA. They teach you how to fill in a blank, how to guess the right choice, how to cram for some useless test, how to score high on a standardized test, etc. We must remember that societies, throughout all time are like a pyramid, at the base are the people who can't do anything, above them are the people who do a lot of things but can't do them well, then above them are the people who can do a lot of things but do them well, above them are the people who do one thing and can do it well. Our education system was designed to move people up the pyramid, sadly we stop at giving a lot of varied education but no one does it well. Most people who are diagnosed with ADHD don't fit into that, they do one thing and do it well. If there is one thing history has told us it is that things change, jobs are destroyed but even more are created and those who do well at the job that was destroyed will find their place easily in one thats created from the destruction.
Practical alternatives: Less general education and more specialized education. Most people who are diagnosed with ADHD have a certain field that they really care about and can really excel in, be it woodworking, computers, certain branches of science, history, etc. Our education system does not let students really customize what works for them. An ADHD student who really wants to be a welder and is amazing at welding isn't going to care too much about things that aren't related to welding such as history. That student then does poorly in history. Put that student in a shop class and they will do amazing. We try to have far too generic classes that are mandated in education, allow students to pick what they want to be in and learn that rather than things that they don't care about and the ADHD program will slowly fade away.
Realize that eventually you'll have to learn something to get by in the world and you'll be completely unprepared for it.
...And how many high school classes really prepare you for the world and day to day living? Sure, history is nice to know and the basis is almost necessary in order to make political choices, but does that really affect your day to day living unless you are a historian? Math beyond basic geometry is useless to those who aren't in a math based career field (unless you are engineer, programmer, etc. you aren't going to need to know the sine or cosine of anything). Chemistry is useless unless you become a chemist, sure the basis is used for a lot of things, but you don't really have to understand the reactions. Biology beyond basic anatomy is borderline useless unless you go into a science based discipline. Etc. Most high school classes are worthless in retrospect for most students, yet we still keep making them take more classes than ever before. Its no wonder many students don't pay attention in class, they won't use the material being taught.
...And the parents will say that they are clearly ADHD! Because they don't like eating vegetables, they would rather play outside then sit through church, they would rather play video games than read and they don't particularly like school. CLEARLY the answer is that its ADHD and not just the fact that most kids observe most of the ADHD symptoms. And of course the answer is never to improve the education system or just let kids behave as kids but its obviously to drug them up!
The problem is most high school courses are courses that have no point in the real world. No one especially not at 16, 17 or 18 cares to know about something that doesn't matter, especially when its taught by an uninteresting teacher who can't teach.
Well all I have to say is that if you get this czar near any 4chan people you will soon hear headlines of "Internet Czar Rickrolled", or "Internet Czar Looking at Goatse"
As of 2009, there is no such thing as a cheap nuclear reactor. Whenever you have a government that protects against fraud and force, if the nuclear reactors weren't safe, the people can sue the makers of them out of business the second some radiation leaks out. This would be such a massive lawsuit (along with charges brought against the people who bought it for violating people's right to life) that no company would dare make one again.
So while the government couldn't ban nuclear reactors, they could sue anyone who attempted to make one and sell it or had it in a house that leaked radiation. So effectively that problem takes care of itself.
Yeah, the free market has worked out so well over the past several months. It certainly hasn't had an adverse affect on the entire population of the first world. No-sir-ee.
Um, in case you haven't realized it the USA is not fully free market, if it had been then these things wouldn't have happened. A free market wouldn't be tied down to union wages, sure, unions could exist, but laws preventing you from firing striking workers, non-union workers working, etc. wouldn't happen. Whenever the major motor companies started failing they could have cut wages if it was worded in their contract or cut some benefits. Instead due to regulation, they couldn't, such things helped lead them to their current state. Banks similarly had laws tying their hands due to the FDIC. Whenever the banks won't loan to small business owners who they have lent money to numerous times with full payment and no late payments for ~30 years, and the government then decides to label them as "risky" so they discourage lending, that also hurts the economy.
The free market encourages failures, by letting the weak survive, you are only prolonging the inevitable to the point where many think you have to bail them out or risk a serious economic meltdown.
Newsflash: All society is linked. If someone over there fucks up bad enough, it'll hurt you over here. Shutting you eyes and praying for the invisible hand of the free market won't save you.
No it doesn't. Give me a single example how in a fully free market someone messing up so badly ends up hurting everyone.
Regulation is essential. The ethanol subsidies are idiotic and should end, but making the free market out to be some sort of panacea is childish.
Name me an profitable industry that has failed because of too much free market, you will either find that A) They were unfit to survive without government support B) Were totally unneeded (such as the horse and buggy industry after the rise of the car) or C) There was still too much government intervention
The reasons why shareware exploded into growth in the 90s were because of a number of reasons. Hardware was expensive, today if a game doesn't work because you have too little RAM all you need to do is spend less than $20 and get a gig of DDR2 RAM, likewise if you don't have enough storage, you can move some pictures or movies onto a few GB flash drive for less than $20, if you don't have a fast enough graphics card all you need to do is spend $100 and you can get one that will handle most games (well, perhaps not Chrysis but other than that....), if your CPU is the bottleneck you can get a decent enough box for less than $500, back in the 90s an upgrade like that could be a thousand dollars or more. Shareware gave you a chance to make sure the game ran decently before you spent $50 on it. It also curbed piracy, by giving away part of the game for free pirates had something to distribute other than the full game. On the other hand shareware was as annoying as heck and still is especially on non-PC platforms such as Windows Mobile, iPhone (though due to the app store its a lot better than on Windows Mobile), or the generic cell phone.
I don't have to pay for the free market's mistakes. If a company creates a horrible product I don't have to buy it, I don't have to support that company. Whenever the government creates a product thats horrible I still have to pay for it even if I don't use it.
The free market is perfect in the fact that everyone gets what they deserve*. If I feel like releasing a product no one wants, fine, but then I go broke. If I don't feel like doing anything but eating potato chips thats fine, I just will soon be making friends with Bob the three fingered hobo out on the street. If I make a groundbreaking invention I can sell it and make a bunch of money.
There really are no flaws for the average person in the free market economy. So long as the government protects from fraud and force, everyone gets what they deserve. Its fair.
Thats because A) You get your ethanol from sugarcane, its much more efficient to make B) Your government pays for part of it plus conditions where the sugarcane is grown is poor at best leading to lower wages and a lower price for the sugarcane C) Your engines are made out of parts designed for ethanol in the USA they aren't, they are built for pure gas
Despite theese drawbacks you mention, false matches aren't a problem as any match can be manually verified by a real human later, correct or not.
Sure, but then you have a team of officers trying to arrest you, making n effort to explain themselves, probably tasering you or pepper spraying you just because they can, dragging you to their station, making you wait a few hours, fingerprinting you, before finally "realizing" they have the wrong person. All the while your day has been ruined because of buggy software. Or perhaps in Turkey and the rest of Europe police officers kindly ask you to step aside and handcuff you rather then tackling you like they do in America.
That integrity-violating techonology can help tracking down known criminals and providing evidence for previous crimes, is very real.
Sure, but facial recognizing software is buggy, whats to say that they catch you for a crime you legitimately did, then apply the same facial mask to previous tapes that show crimes that you did not do but contain a similar facial mask. Because you are a known criminal they aren't going to give you reasonable doubt.
CCTV cameras aren't intended to stop crimes from happening, altrough the psycological effect of "maybe im surveilenced" could potentially lead to a reduction in crimes. It would be intresting to observe how the positive effects compare to the other risks, drawbacks and integrity violations.
The "maybe I'm being watched" attitude is one of dystopian novels and shouldn't be one we are embracing. Maybe I'm being watched as I buy a book critical of the current administration, Maybe I'm being watched as I show support to some demonstrators who are critical of the nation, Maybe I'm being watched as I buy something that might be questionably morally. This leads to the basis of thoughtcrime, of legal actions being placed under such scrutiny that in the wrong hands they can make a case against you. Its an attitude of slavery, of the utter lack of freedom.
There is a massive amount of oil still left. Whenever we start to get close to running out of oil we will find alternative energy sources. To date, there is no energy source that is cheaper, more efficient and profitable other than oil. Government funding only go so far, and most of the time it ends up wasting tax dollars for an undefined goal and leads to many dead ends. Let the free market do it and you will have a solution. Let the government do it and you will end up with even more wasted tax dollars and a broken "solution".
Government projects only work with a defined goal. Just think of our space program, there was a definite goal of putting a man on the moon within a few years. It was quickly accomplished. On the other hand projects with little to no goals such as the war in Iraq end up wasting money, time and lives.
Public transport also raises a lot of other questions. Not only the general pain of having to deal with the hobo who is sitting in his own pee, but also disease transmission. If swine flu had been a real lethal pandemic and we had mostly public transportation it would spread and wipe out a lot of the population much more quickly than most people being confined to cars for day-to-day travel.
The free market will always, always, always, always come out ahead. Government funding ends up with a lot of wasted money and time. If nothing else at least private corporations are not stealing from your paycheck.
The problem with giving Iran nuclear weapons is the fact that they have expressed wishes recently to utterly destroy certain nations. Even the USA in all its warmongering shies away from such statements. If Iran gets nuclear weapons we can expect to see a third cold war. The difference being that the USSR was careful and considered everything before they acted. Sure, they wanted to bomb the heck out of the USA but they knew doing it would lead to massive retaliatory strikes that could render most of the Soviet landscape a radioactive wasteland.
The return rate would probably end up being too high. Even though MS/finally/ fixed the RRoD in newer consoles doesn't mean that it would work for a cable box. Most people don't mind being without a 360 for a week or two, on the other hand the masses would be quite ticked off at MS or the cable company if they couldn't watch TV for a week.
The main problem with the Zune is that it was so pathetically late that all anyone could think of is "Oh look, an iPod clone made by MS that looks... brown". Thats what the public thought of it, had the Zune came out earlier it might have had a chance, but I would have to say that anyone looking at a Zune would have to think first that its an iPod clone. Thats what killed it.
it will be intressting to see if it really leads to an 1984 big brother state, or will actually lead to superiour crime fighting.
The problem is, most real crimes are rare and occur mostly in uninhabited or lower-class areas. This isn't going to stop murders, rape, major theft, etc. all the while eroding privacy. The summary mentions pickpocketing, pickpocketing is hardly observable in a crowd of people, I doubt these cameras would be able to track down the crime itself. Then there is the problem of false matches. A lot of people look remarkably alike in facial structure but look different in other areas that may or may not be tracked by this camera. For example, skin, eye, hair, etc. can often be the difference between a false match or a correct one. Machines though either rely on this too much (hair can easily be changed making it useless) or not enough (two people looking totally different with side-by-side comparisons but may have same facial structure), then some things can change in different lighting environments, etc.
Sure, Nigger in modern usage is derogatory, it was derogatory back before the major civil rights movements too. However does that mean we should go through every historical document and change it? Take To Kill a Mockingbird for instance, the use of nigger in there was typical for the time in which it was written. If we change it to a less obscene term we end up diluting its anti-racism message.
These are not contemporary maps, but maps in which 'scum town' would be used rather then the contemporary term of ghetto. If they were contemporary, sure, by all means take it out, but they are outdated maps using outdated terms that aren't meant for much other than research and historical value.
Ok, lets say some European company did the same thing with slave plantations in the USA. Say I use that to make racist comments. Surely the fault isn't on me because I'm just a pawn in society and surely society isn't at fault because theres nothing wrong with discrimination. The same logic applies here. Discrimination is fundamentally wrong, I'm sure we can all agree on that. Therefore, the logical conclusion would be societies based on discrimination would be wrong also. The Japanese culture is a very modern culture. This isn't about some tribe of people in Africa who made first contact with any other groups of people 20 years ago, but a culture on par with that of Europe and America. Discrimination should not be tolerated, its a flaw of the society and culture.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, no. Most will request a tithe (after all without any donations the church goes bankrupt) but they don't require it. Effectively Scientology requires an "admission" fee and even more money for their equivalent for salvation. On the other hand Christianity clearly states "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 6:23) And also "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Any protestant branch that demands money (other than for something that would require money such as going on a trip, buying expensive things, etc) especially for salvation contradicts biblical teaching. I can't say for Mormons but I don't think they have the "admission" fee mentality that Scientology has.
But if someone is good at one thing, does it well throughout life, they will usually have a job when their current industry is destroyed because a second industry often larger emerges from the ashes of the first.
When (if) all the welding is taken over by machines the student can simply go to the next thing. Be that repairing the welding machines, welding smaller hand crafted things that machines can't/won't do, or running the welding machines.
Schools do not teach you how to learn, at least not the public schools in the USA. They teach you how to fill in a blank, how to guess the right choice, how to cram for some useless test, how to score high on a standardized test, etc. We must remember that societies, throughout all time are like a pyramid, at the base are the people who can't do anything, above them are the people who do a lot of things but can't do them well, then above them are the people who can do a lot of things but do them well, above them are the people who do one thing and can do it well. Our education system was designed to move people up the pyramid, sadly we stop at giving a lot of varied education but no one does it well. Most people who are diagnosed with ADHD don't fit into that, they do one thing and do it well. If there is one thing history has told us it is that things change, jobs are destroyed but even more are created and those who do well at the job that was destroyed will find their place easily in one thats created from the destruction.
Practical alternatives: Less general education and more specialized education. Most people who are diagnosed with ADHD have a certain field that they really care about and can really excel in, be it woodworking, computers, certain branches of science, history, etc. Our education system does not let students really customize what works for them. An ADHD student who really wants to be a welder and is amazing at welding isn't going to care too much about things that aren't related to welding such as history. That student then does poorly in history. Put that student in a shop class and they will do amazing. We try to have far too generic classes that are mandated in education, allow students to pick what they want to be in and learn that rather than things that they don't care about and the ADHD program will slowly fade away.
Realize that eventually you'll have to learn something to get by in the world and you'll be completely unprepared for it.
...And the parents will say that they are clearly ADHD! Because they don't like eating vegetables, they would rather play outside then sit through church, they would rather play video games than read and they don't particularly like school. CLEARLY the answer is that its ADHD and not just the fact that most kids observe most of the ADHD symptoms. And of course the answer is never to improve the education system or just let kids behave as kids but its obviously to drug them up!
The problem is most high school courses are courses that have no point in the real world. No one especially not at 16, 17 or 18 cares to know about something that doesn't matter, especially when its taught by an uninteresting teacher who can't teach.
Haven't people realized by now that ADHD is nothing more than a symptom of our education system and not a syndrome in and of itself?
But congress has the power to invalidate software patents because the patent system was created by congress.
Sure, but IBM has a lot of money to lobby congress with, that would allow for more rapid reform rather then applying for prior art patents.
Well all I have to say is that if you get this czar near any 4chan people you will soon hear headlines of "Internet Czar Rickrolled", or "Internet Czar Looking at Goatse"
As of 2009, there is no such thing as a cheap nuclear reactor. Whenever you have a government that protects against fraud and force, if the nuclear reactors weren't safe, the people can sue the makers of them out of business the second some radiation leaks out. This would be such a massive lawsuit (along with charges brought against the people who bought it for violating people's right to life) that no company would dare make one again.
So while the government couldn't ban nuclear reactors, they could sue anyone who attempted to make one and sell it or had it in a house that leaked radiation. So effectively that problem takes care of itself.
Yeah, the free market has worked out so well over the past several months. It certainly hasn't had an adverse affect on the entire population of the first world. No-sir-ee.
Um, in case you haven't realized it the USA is not fully free market, if it had been then these things wouldn't have happened. A free market wouldn't be tied down to union wages, sure, unions could exist, but laws preventing you from firing striking workers, non-union workers working, etc. wouldn't happen. Whenever the major motor companies started failing they could have cut wages if it was worded in their contract or cut some benefits. Instead due to regulation, they couldn't, such things helped lead them to their current state. Banks similarly had laws tying their hands due to the FDIC. Whenever the banks won't loan to small business owners who they have lent money to numerous times with full payment and no late payments for ~30 years, and the government then decides to label them as "risky" so they discourage lending, that also hurts the economy.
The free market encourages failures, by letting the weak survive, you are only prolonging the inevitable to the point where many think you have to bail them out or risk a serious economic meltdown.
Newsflash: All society is linked. If someone over there fucks up bad enough, it'll hurt you over here. Shutting you eyes and praying for the invisible hand of the free market won't save you.
No it doesn't. Give me a single example how in a fully free market someone messing up so badly ends up hurting everyone.
Regulation is essential. The ethanol subsidies are idiotic and should end, but making the free market out to be some sort of panacea is childish.
Name me an profitable industry that has failed because of too much free market, you will either find that A) They were unfit to survive without government support B) Were totally unneeded (such as the horse and buggy industry after the rise of the car) or C) There was still too much government intervention
The reasons why shareware exploded into growth in the 90s were because of a number of reasons. Hardware was expensive, today if a game doesn't work because you have too little RAM all you need to do is spend less than $20 and get a gig of DDR2 RAM, likewise if you don't have enough storage, you can move some pictures or movies onto a few GB flash drive for less than $20, if you don't have a fast enough graphics card all you need to do is spend $100 and you can get one that will handle most games (well, perhaps not Chrysis but other than that....), if your CPU is the bottleneck you can get a decent enough box for less than $500, back in the 90s an upgrade like that could be a thousand dollars or more. Shareware gave you a chance to make sure the game ran decently before you spent $50 on it. It also curbed piracy, by giving away part of the game for free pirates had something to distribute other than the full game. On the other hand shareware was as annoying as heck and still is especially on non-PC platforms such as Windows Mobile, iPhone (though due to the app store its a lot better than on Windows Mobile), or the generic cell phone.
I don't have to pay for the free market's mistakes. If a company creates a horrible product I don't have to buy it, I don't have to support that company. Whenever the government creates a product thats horrible I still have to pay for it even if I don't use it.
The free market is perfect in the fact that everyone gets what they deserve*. If I feel like releasing a product no one wants, fine, but then I go broke. If I don't feel like doing anything but eating potato chips thats fine, I just will soon be making friends with Bob the three fingered hobo out on the street. If I make a groundbreaking invention I can sell it and make a bunch of money.
There really are no flaws for the average person in the free market economy. So long as the government protects from fraud and force, everyone gets what they deserve. Its fair.
Thats because A) You get your ethanol from sugarcane, its much more efficient to make B) Your government pays for part of it plus conditions where the sugarcane is grown is poor at best leading to lower wages and a lower price for the sugarcane C) Your engines are made out of parts designed for ethanol in the USA they aren't, they are built for pure gas
Despite theese drawbacks you mention, false matches aren't a problem as any match can be manually verified by a real human later, correct or not.
Sure, but then you have a team of officers trying to arrest you, making n effort to explain themselves, probably tasering you or pepper spraying you just because they can, dragging you to their station, making you wait a few hours, fingerprinting you, before finally "realizing" they have the wrong person. All the while your day has been ruined because of buggy software. Or perhaps in Turkey and the rest of Europe police officers kindly ask you to step aside and handcuff you rather then tackling you like they do in America.
That integrity-violating techonology can help tracking down known criminals and providing evidence for previous crimes, is very real.
Sure, but facial recognizing software is buggy, whats to say that they catch you for a crime you legitimately did, then apply the same facial mask to previous tapes that show crimes that you did not do but contain a similar facial mask. Because you are a known criminal they aren't going to give you reasonable doubt.
CCTV cameras aren't intended to stop crimes from happening, altrough the psycological effect of "maybe im surveilenced" could potentially lead to a reduction in crimes. It would be intresting to observe how the positive effects compare to the other risks, drawbacks and integrity violations.
The "maybe I'm being watched" attitude is one of dystopian novels and shouldn't be one we are embracing. Maybe I'm being watched as I buy a book critical of the current administration, Maybe I'm being watched as I show support to some demonstrators who are critical of the nation, Maybe I'm being watched as I buy something that might be questionably morally. This leads to the basis of thoughtcrime, of legal actions being placed under such scrutiny that in the wrong hands they can make a case against you. Its an attitude of slavery, of the utter lack of freedom.
There is a massive amount of oil still left. Whenever we start to get close to running out of oil we will find alternative energy sources. To date, there is no energy source that is cheaper, more efficient and profitable other than oil. Government funding only go so far, and most of the time it ends up wasting tax dollars for an undefined goal and leads to many dead ends. Let the free market do it and you will have a solution. Let the government do it and you will end up with even more wasted tax dollars and a broken "solution".
Government projects only work with a defined goal. Just think of our space program, there was a definite goal of putting a man on the moon within a few years. It was quickly accomplished. On the other hand projects with little to no goals such as the war in Iraq end up wasting money, time and lives.
Public transport also raises a lot of other questions. Not only the general pain of having to deal with the hobo who is sitting in his own pee, but also disease transmission. If swine flu had been a real lethal pandemic and we had mostly public transportation it would spread and wipe out a lot of the population much more quickly than most people being confined to cars for day-to-day travel.
The free market will always, always, always, always come out ahead. Government funding ends up with a lot of wasted money and time. If nothing else at least private corporations are not stealing from your paycheck.
Not if we are speaking Russian, in Soviet Russia language evolves you!
The problem with giving Iran nuclear weapons is the fact that they have expressed wishes recently to utterly destroy certain nations. Even the USA in all its warmongering shies away from such statements. If Iran gets nuclear weapons we can expect to see a third cold war. The difference being that the USSR was careful and considered everything before they acted. Sure, they wanted to bomb the heck out of the USA but they knew doing it would lead to massive retaliatory strikes that could render most of the Soviet landscape a radioactive wasteland.
The return rate would probably end up being too high. Even though MS /finally/ fixed the RRoD in newer consoles doesn't mean that it would work for a cable box. Most people don't mind being without a 360 for a week or two, on the other hand the masses would be quite ticked off at MS or the cable company if they couldn't watch TV for a week.
The main problem with the Zune is that it was so pathetically late that all anyone could think of is "Oh look, an iPod clone made by MS that looks... brown". Thats what the public thought of it, had the Zune came out earlier it might have had a chance, but I would have to say that anyone looking at a Zune would have to think first that its an iPod clone. Thats what killed it.
it will be intressting to see if it really leads to an 1984 big brother state, or will actually lead to superiour crime fighting.
The problem is, most real crimes are rare and occur mostly in uninhabited or lower-class areas. This isn't going to stop murders, rape, major theft, etc. all the while eroding privacy. The summary mentions pickpocketing, pickpocketing is hardly observable in a crowd of people, I doubt these cameras would be able to track down the crime itself. Then there is the problem of false matches. A lot of people look remarkably alike in facial structure but look different in other areas that may or may not be tracked by this camera. For example, skin, eye, hair, etc. can often be the difference between a false match or a correct one. Machines though either rely on this too much (hair can easily be changed making it useless) or not enough (two people looking totally different with side-by-side comparisons but may have same facial structure), then some things can change in different lighting environments, etc.
Sure, Nigger in modern usage is derogatory, it was derogatory back before the major civil rights movements too. However does that mean we should go through every historical document and change it? Take To Kill a Mockingbird for instance, the use of nigger in there was typical for the time in which it was written. If we change it to a less obscene term we end up diluting its anti-racism message.
These are not contemporary maps, but maps in which 'scum town' would be used rather then the contemporary term of ghetto. If they were contemporary, sure, by all means take it out, but they are outdated maps using outdated terms that aren't meant for much other than research and historical value.
Ok, lets say some European company did the same thing with slave plantations in the USA. Say I use that to make racist comments. Surely the fault isn't on me because I'm just a pawn in society and surely society isn't at fault because theres nothing wrong with discrimination. The same logic applies here. Discrimination is fundamentally wrong, I'm sure we can all agree on that. Therefore, the logical conclusion would be societies based on discrimination would be wrong also. The Japanese culture is a very modern culture. This isn't about some tribe of people in Africa who made first contact with any other groups of people 20 years ago, but a culture on par with that of Europe and America. Discrimination should not be tolerated, its a flaw of the society and culture.