Karma does not really apply to "your" next life. The meaning of karma is impersonal, in my opinion. Do good things, and good things will happen to someone. Do bad things, and bad things will happen to someone. It is not some magical balance scale that rights all wrongs and rewards all good deeds. If you desire more justice than you see in the world, you must act to help create it. And that does not mean taking the law into your own hands, as that is not real justice.
Chicago? Chicago is a doddle, a walk in the park, a pretty princess tea party with magical unicorns compared to New Mexico. Chicago is more like LA, where everyone is an aggressive driver, yes, but relatively courteous and skilled. Her in New Mexcico, they are insanely aggressive and simply BAD at the art of driving. In Chicago, if you are driving along a freeway bumper to bumper during rush hour, and you signal, people will let you in. Here, you NEVER use your signals, as people will close ranks to prevent you from getting in if you signal first. Everyone here is looking to screw everyone else on the road, driving around in a perpetual state of road rage, their machismo threatened by every driver ahead of or beside them on the road. If you are not rapidly receding in their rear view mirror, you are an enemy who must be destroyed.
Well, that is certainly your right as a citizen. It does not mean that is the smartest way for you to act. There is a reason so many religions and philosophies the world over stress forgiveness. It is not for the benefit of those who need to be forgiven. Forgiveness is for the benefit of those who were wronged.
If there is some Slashdot Hive Mind, and it feels the way you claim it does, why did my comment get modded up? In fact, I might venture to guess that the reason your comments do not get the acclaim you believe they deserve has nothing to do with any supposed Hive Mind.
Yes, forgiveness. Delightful concept, that. God will forgive me no matter how vindictive, petty, and unforgiving I am. All I have to do is make puppy dog eyes at Him and claim I am really, really sorry. Bonus points if I wait until the very moment before I die to ask for that forgiveness, right?
Rights from God and not man. But of course these thoughts come from principles of the bible. Which many Americans have long forgotten about. Only few remain.
Also, please tell me how I may logically distinguish between the rights the True God imparted to us, and the rights that humans merely claim to be divinely derived. If you have a method based on logic and not faith, I think many people would find that very useful.
That is demonstrably not true, as I have noticed that, contrary to my philosophy, bad things occasionally happen to me, and good things happen to other people. In the best of all possible worlds, this would not be the case.
Oh AmicusNYCL, you hopelessly naive liberal do-gooder, you. Don't you realize that every single time a bad thing happens to someone else, they deserve it? Conversely, all good things that happen to me are deserved as well. This philosophy has helped me feel good about myself while not caring about anyone else, and it can help you too! Blame the victim, I always say. It's just easier.
Well, I'm sorry that your experiences with the human race have been so universally negative. It may seem insulting, or like self serving puffery, but in my experience, normal people tend to think that most other folks are normal people, while it is the douchebags who think everyone else is a douchebag. I'm sure you are the exception, though.
It seems as though there are quite a few people here who do not think the punishment decided on by our legal system is enough, and wish this "spam king" would have to keep paying, and paying, and paying for his crimes. Now, I do not hold absolute trust in our current legal system, but the alternative is mob rule and vigilante justice, which is a thing no sane citizen would wish for.
Personally, I think the punishment is sort of light. But that does not entitle me to take action against the man. The law of the land does not boil down to "What I, personally, think is fair." If I felt strongly enough that this punishment was too light, I would write to my representatives to advocate for tougher cyber-crime laws. I would not go to this criminal's new home town with a gun, as some are (jokingly? who knows in today's political climate.) advocating.
Nor do I wish that this man never finds employment again. That would mean that my tax dollars would go to support him. I'd rather he finds some useful work, due to my own self-interest, and my feeling that, once you have paid your dues to society, you deserve a second chance.
This is coming from my civilized side. My vindictive side thinks the man should die in a fire, but I am trying REALLY HARD not to give in to my vindictive side. If I did that, we'd have a lot of dead motorists here in New Mexico (land of the worst drivers in the world) and I would be in jail myself.
Nobody wants to talk about it because it isn't funny. Uncyclopedia is slightly better than Encyclopedia Dramatica, but I don't find either funny at all. In fact, I've read much funnier things on bathroom stalls. The writing is amateurish, college humor at best, pre-school level on average. "Haha, we stick kittens' heads in our mouths to get high!" Yes, that is truly the height of hilarity.
Now if you will excuse me, I am trying to come up with a rhyme that is the opposite of "Here I sit, broken hearted..." but I can't come up with anything sensible that rhymes with "shit my pants." Maybe I can publish it on Uncyclopedia.
Why is the default to delete? Surely deletion should require overwhelmingly convincing evidence, not just that six people didn't like it whilst five people had good arguments to retain it.
Because some people have very little power in the real world, and are unhappy with that situation. In real life they may be pathetic antisocial dorks with no friends and bad hygiene, but on wikipedia they can piss in your cheerios and there is nothing you can do about it.
Great. So I say fuck you Wikipedia, and my chances of ever editing an article go down even further.
And wikipedia admins rejoice. They don't want any more opinions diluting their own. The more reasonable people they can chase away, the better, from their point of view. If wikipedia really were open to all, they would not be that important. They would not have as much control. No, wikipedia admins, for the most part, do not want to share their toy with you.
That the term exists is yet more proof that wikipedia is NOT open to all, that wikipedia admins have fostered an us versus them mentality, that wikipedians see wikipedia as a fortress of facts besieged by foreign devils, and that many if not most core wikipedia admins view wikipedia as their personal plaything. Wikipedia admins disgust me, they appear to be entirely composed of petty junior high school students who weren't smart enough to make the chess club or popular enough to get into the A/V club.
It wasn't doomed from the beginning. It was doomed by it's cultural choices. Generally, there are more decent people in the world than douchebags. But the douchebags tend to be louder. Still, it takes a special set of circumstances to let the douchebags dominate. Usually this involves a critical mass of douchebags at high levels poisoning the culture of institution. The douchebags think everyone is out to get them, because everyone IS out to get them, because they are douchebags. And so the douchebags take great pains to alienate every non-douchebag they see, by engaging in petty slap fights, which douchebags enjoy but normal people despise. In the end, the institution in question devolves into a bunch of whiny self important douchebags running about screeching at each other and just pinching and slapping anyone they can get their doughy, clammy little hands on. These are people to whom a petty argument represents the most rewarding social interaction they are likely to have that day.
Read it and weep, you fucking terrorists. This isn't trolling, this is patriotism, calling out the madmen who attack my country. You want to mod me troll? Bring it, I've got karma to burn.
Uh huh. Just read that page, took all of thirty seconds. It is very short, short on facts, and even based on the facts presented, does not make a case for present day leftism terrorism. It claims leftist terrorism was once a problem . Cherry picking the dates 2000-2005, hmm, what happened during those years that might skew things? It also leaves out many, many right wing attacks. My source, and the FBI page linked to from your cherry-picker page, both list more. I guess he has his own criteria for what constitutes a right wing attack?
Fuck you, AC troll. I'm not wasting my time on you. Think whatever your tiny brain is capable of thinking, I don't give a fuck, because YOU aren't a real person, you are an AC and you simply do not matter. You are a nobody, but I'm different. I have a different constitution, I have a different brain, I have a different heart. I got tiger blood, man. I'm tired of pretending I'm NOT a total bitchin' rock star from mars. I'm an F-18, bro, and I will destroy you in the air and deploy my ordnance to the ground
Slashdot Mirror
Either that or he was being as facetious as I was, but in the opposite direction.
Karma does not really apply to "your" next life. The meaning of karma is impersonal, in my opinion. Do good things, and good things will happen to someone. Do bad things, and bad things will happen to someone. It is not some magical balance scale that rights all wrongs and rewards all good deeds. If you desire more justice than you see in the world, you must act to help create it. And that does not mean taking the law into your own hands, as that is not real justice.
Chicago? Chicago is a doddle, a walk in the park, a pretty princess tea party with magical unicorns compared to New Mexico. Chicago is more like LA, where everyone is an aggressive driver, yes, but relatively courteous and skilled. Her in New Mexcico, they are insanely aggressive and simply BAD at the art of driving. In Chicago, if you are driving along a freeway bumper to bumper during rush hour, and you signal, people will let you in. Here, you NEVER use your signals, as people will close ranks to prevent you from getting in if you signal first. Everyone here is looking to screw everyone else on the road, driving around in a perpetual state of road rage, their machismo threatened by every driver ahead of or beside them on the road. If you are not rapidly receding in their rear view mirror, you are an enemy who must be destroyed.
Well, that is certainly your right as a citizen. It does not mean that is the smartest way for you to act. There is a reason so many religions and philosophies the world over stress forgiveness. It is not for the benefit of those who need to be forgiven. Forgiveness is for the benefit of those who were wronged.
If there is some Slashdot Hive Mind, and it feels the way you claim it does, why did my comment get modded up? In fact, I might venture to guess that the reason your comments do not get the acclaim you believe they deserve has nothing to do with any supposed Hive Mind.
Yes, forgiveness. Delightful concept, that. God will forgive me no matter how vindictive, petty, and unforgiving I am. All I have to do is make puppy dog eyes at Him and claim I am really, really sorry. Bonus points if I wait until the very moment before I die to ask for that forgiveness, right?
Rights from God and not man. But of course these thoughts come from principles of the bible. Which many Americans have long forgotten about. Only few remain.
Over three quarters of the US population claims to be some form of Christian. Get off your martyrdom kick, you are the majority.\
http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf
Also, please tell me how I may logically distinguish between the rights the True God imparted to us, and the rights that humans merely claim to be divinely derived. If you have a method based on logic and not faith, I think many people would find that very useful.
That is demonstrably not true, as I have noticed that, contrary to my philosophy, bad things occasionally happen to me, and good things happen to other people. In the best of all possible worlds, this would not be the case.
You don't say? What an interesting take on modern society. Do you, perhaps, have some sort of periodical I might subscribe to?
Did you simply skip to that line and ignore the rest of my post?
Oh AmicusNYCL, you hopelessly naive liberal do-gooder, you. Don't you realize that every single time a bad thing happens to someone else, they deserve it? Conversely, all good things that happen to me are deserved as well. This philosophy has helped me feel good about myself while not caring about anyone else, and it can help you too! Blame the victim, I always say. It's just easier.
Well, I'm sorry that your experiences with the human race have been so universally negative. It may seem insulting, or like self serving puffery, but in my experience, normal people tend to think that most other folks are normal people, while it is the douchebags who think everyone else is a douchebag. I'm sure you are the exception, though.
What's worse?
Reading Slashdot for years, virus writers seem to be better thought of.
It takes some small measure of hacking skill to write a good virus. All it takes to be a spam king is to have the morals of a rabid weasel.
It seems as though there are quite a few people here who do not think the punishment decided on by our legal system is enough, and wish this "spam king" would have to keep paying, and paying, and paying for his crimes. Now, I do not hold absolute trust in our current legal system, but the alternative is mob rule and vigilante justice, which is a thing no sane citizen would wish for.
Personally, I think the punishment is sort of light. But that does not entitle me to take action against the man. The law of the land does not boil down to "What I, personally, think is fair." If I felt strongly enough that this punishment was too light, I would write to my representatives to advocate for tougher cyber-crime laws. I would not go to this criminal's new home town with a gun, as some are (jokingly? who knows in today's political climate.) advocating.
Nor do I wish that this man never finds employment again. That would mean that my tax dollars would go to support him. I'd rather he finds some useful work, due to my own self-interest, and my feeling that, once you have paid your dues to society, you deserve a second chance.
This is coming from my civilized side. My vindictive side thinks the man should die in a fire, but I am trying REALLY HARD not to give in to my vindictive side. If I did that, we'd have a lot of dead motorists here in New Mexico (land of the worst drivers in the world) and I would be in jail myself.
Nobody wants to talk about it because it isn't funny. Uncyclopedia is slightly better than Encyclopedia Dramatica, but I don't find either funny at all. In fact, I've read much funnier things on bathroom stalls. The writing is amateurish, college humor at best, pre-school level on average. "Haha, we stick kittens' heads in our mouths to get high!" Yes, that is truly the height of hilarity.
Now if you will excuse me, I am trying to come up with a rhyme that is the opposite of "Here I sit, broken hearted..." but I can't come up with anything sensible that rhymes with "shit my pants." Maybe I can publish it on Uncyclopedia.
Why is the default to delete? Surely deletion should require overwhelmingly convincing evidence, not just that six people didn't like it whilst five people had good arguments to retain it.
Because some people have very little power in the real world, and are unhappy with that situation. In real life they may be pathetic antisocial dorks with no friends and bad hygiene, but on wikipedia they can piss in your cheerios and there is nothing you can do about it.
Great. So I say fuck you Wikipedia, and my chances of ever editing an article go down even further.
And wikipedia admins rejoice. They don't want any more opinions diluting their own. The more reasonable people they can chase away, the better, from their point of view. If wikipedia really were open to all, they would not be that important. They would not have as much control. No, wikipedia admins, for the most part, do not want to share their toy with you.
We certainly needed a word to express the fact that we believe someone we disagree with has been anally raped.
That the term exists is yet more proof that wikipedia is NOT open to all, that wikipedia admins have fostered an us versus them mentality, that wikipedians see wikipedia as a fortress of facts besieged by foreign devils, and that many if not most core wikipedia admins view wikipedia as their personal plaything. Wikipedia admins disgust me, they appear to be entirely composed of petty junior high school students who weren't smart enough to make the chess club or popular enough to get into the A/V club.
It wasn't doomed from the beginning. It was doomed by it's cultural choices. Generally, there are more decent people in the world than douchebags. But the douchebags tend to be louder. Still, it takes a special set of circumstances to let the douchebags dominate. Usually this involves a critical mass of douchebags at high levels poisoning the culture of institution. The douchebags think everyone is out to get them, because everyone IS out to get them, because they are douchebags. And so the douchebags take great pains to alienate every non-douchebag they see, by engaging in petty slap fights, which douchebags enjoy but normal people despise. In the end, the institution in question devolves into a bunch of whiny self important douchebags running about screeching at each other and just pinching and slapping anyone they can get their doughy, clammy little hands on. These are people to whom a petty argument represents the most rewarding social interaction they are likely to have that day.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right
Read it and weep, you fucking terrorists. This isn't trolling, this is patriotism, calling out the madmen who attack my country. You want to mod me troll? Bring it, I've got karma to burn.
Uh huh. Just read that page, took all of thirty seconds. It is very short, short on facts, and even based on the facts presented, does not make a case for present day leftism terrorism. It claims leftist terrorism was once a problem . Cherry picking the dates 2000-2005, hmm, what happened during those years that might skew things? It also leaves out many, many right wing attacks. My source, and the FBI page linked to from your cherry-picker page, both list more. I guess he has his own criteria for what constitutes a right wing attack?
Was this really the best you could do?
No foreigners are as big a threat as the right wing. Little Timmy McVeigh was only the most well known of the bunch.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right
Fuck you, AC troll. I'm not wasting my time on you. Think whatever your tiny brain is capable of thinking, I don't give a fuck, because YOU aren't a real person, you are an AC and you simply do not matter. You are a nobody, but I'm different. I have a different constitution, I have a different brain, I have a different heart. I got tiger blood, man. I'm tired of pretending I'm NOT a total bitchin' rock star from mars. I'm an F-18, bro, and I will destroy you in the air and deploy my ordnance to the ground
Politicians will be held accountable by the citizens and not re-elected. Strikes work. Not gonna watch your rickroll, or whatever, sorry.