I agree, genes+environment is a recursive system. I remember thinking along those lines years ago when I first heard about the nature/nurture debate years ago. I thought it was a ridiculous debate, as it seemed obvious to me that nature and nurture were simply two sides of the same coin.
You've only stated the obvious, I'm asking, what happens after that? I think that the powers that be assume that the insurance file will come out eventually anyhow. Nothing they do will change that, they are thinking post-wikileaks, will anyone else want to do what Julian has done?
A martyr only motivates the desperate, or the brave. The other 95% of the population just gets terrified. If what you say were true, terrorism wouldn't work, everyone that a terrorist killed would just be a martyr that serves to recruit more people to fight the terrorists.
And I don't mean to belittle you, but unless you have had your life credibly threatened by a power that is capable of and willing to carry out that threat, you have no idea how you would actually react in that situation, and claiming you do is mere ego stroking and posturing. Everyone thinks they are capable of standing up to evil, until it actually comes knocking on their door.
Please, if you have evidence of other countries' diplomats collecting biometric, bank account, and credit card information on our politicians, I would love to see it. It should be easy to find, right, I mean, everyone does this, according to you.
Which makes me wonder, why did Hillary specifically order them to do it? If everyone else was doing it, why weren't we? And why did our diplomats complain about the orders, if this is common practice?
Seeing as how this has been done for years by everyone, and is common knowledge in the intelligence community, I'm sure you can provide some documented examples of others doing it to us. Right? Should be simple. Everyone knows that everyone does it, and I'm a fool for questioning this, right?
Your argument is damned by your own statements if you can't find evidence.
Gathering biometric, bank account, and credit card information on foreign politicians. Which Hillary ordered them to do, and which they complained about, which leads me to believe this was not standard practice.
You could show evidence that other countries have asked their diplomats to gather credit card and biometric information on US politicians. And "but everyone knows they do that!" is not evidence. Don't try to claim that you can't provide this evidence because it is secret, either. Syvcraft-fu specifically said it wasn't secret, so the evidence must be out there, right?
I don't have a favorite band of thugs. The bands of thugs were all installed by the US. I was talking about free and fair democratic elections of people like Salvadore Allende in Chile.
Who explicitly threatened our nation, it's citizens, or businesses?
I did consider our military and technological might, but I feel that it must be considered in the context of other extant powers' military and technological might. As the "What have the Romans done for us" bit in Life of Brian humorously demonstrates, the Romans had a fairly large technological edge themselves. We have about the same edge in military power over our rivals that the British did at the height of their empire.
How you initially respond may be genetic, and there will always be a genetic component to your response, but culture plays a huge role. For instance, I choose to use a condom. Is choosing to use a condom genetic? It can't be, condoms are too recent for us to have evolved any sort of genetic response to them. You could say the safety/risk weighting factors are genetic, and my choice to play it safe or risky is genetic, but my specific choice to use an actual condom is cultural more than it is genetic.
It basically sounds like you are discounting the idea of learned behaviors, which is a fairly outlandish stance to take.
As for infidelity, you obviously understand and agree with my basic point, but quibble over semantics.
I didn't ask about a crack whore, I asked if you used a condom. I do. Therefore, even though I have had lots of sex with lots of partners, I am probably at less risk than you and your wife.
Also, ever hear stories of people married fifteen, twenty years? They think they know everything about each other and then BAM! betrayal. And before it happened, they all thought, "It could never happen to us! We love each other and are open and honest!"
Evolution is always performing a balancing act between safe and inefficient monogamy and risky but effective promiscuity. AIDS may be new, but diseases that destroy your chance to reproduce without killing you are ancient. From your genes' point of view, there is no difference between AIDS and something that renders you sterile.
Do you really believe that AIDS is something new on the evolutionary scene? It isn't, but condoms sure are.
Some people brush their teeth before going to bed, and then have sex. But it isn't just brushing your teeth, it could be eating corn chips, or HoneyComb cereal, or anything else that can give you cuts in your mouth.
You may want to research how many political activists the US has killed in the past before saying with such certainty that people will be up in arms were Julian to be killed. In five years, everyone but the die hard conspiracy theorists will have forgotten about it.
People believe what they want to believe. Almost everyone wants to believe that they are a good person. They believe that good people stand up to injustice. They believe that, being good people, if they were to witness injustice, they would fight it.
But people are basically lazy and cowardly, as well. So, they have a choice in cases like this, believe the convenient story and do nothing, or believe the "conspiracy theorists" and fight the very power that they now believe perfectly willing to kill them.
Which story do you think people are going to choose to believe, the one that requires them to do nothing, or the one that requires them to fight the very power that has killed before and will kill again?
No, everything is a mixture of genetics and environment. How our genes are expressed is determined by our environment. Infidelity itself is not despicable, deceit is despicable. Not every committed relationship is monogamous.
You use a condom with your wife? Ever go down on her after brushing your teeth? Do you know who she slept with before you? Has she ever had a blood transfusion? I've had dozens of sex partners, used a condom and other safe sex practices (including no oral if there is any suspicion of a cut or scrape in the mouth) every time. Who do you think is really more at risk?
The story of every successful empire isn't so much of officially taking over territory as it is one of making darn sure that the person in charge of other countries is under our control.
Fixed that for you. And even if we figure in all the regimes where we influence things, we are in no way the equal of the Roman or British empires, in terms of our world wide influence.
Yes, as I stated, I know that diplomats are in the intelligence business. But there is a line between professional spies and diplomats, and both we and other countries have been reluctant to cross that line in the past, for good reason. Diplomats do other work besides just spying, you know.
Perhaps you could show evidence that this sort of thing has been done in the4 past, and is not considered unusual in international circles?
I don't know about that. We've done it so many times in the past and gotten away with it, why not now? After all, suspicion might fall on us, but what is suspicion? In five years, his death will be just more fodder for nutty conspiracy theorists.
Yes, but there is still a line between diplomat and spy, and we crossed it. What we did was not normal for diplomats, and if any other country's diplomats were caught doing those things to us, they would be expelled from the US.
Dumping gasoline on what fire, exactly? Where is this fire? What would you expect the outcome to be, if Assange were martyred? Present us with a scenario as to what exactly happens after Assange is killed. And remember that while people love a martyr, they don't actually want to be one.
But Assange is not the source of any of this information, and the information is already out there. I fail to see how discrediting the publisher of a leak discredits the leaked information. Now that the information is out there, interested parties will champion bringing it to daylight. Discrediting Assange does nothing. Destroying him sends a clear message that merely discrediting him or imprisoning him would not.
Ah, yes, the old "Ice Picks for Anarchists" ploy. One thing on which capitalist authoritarians and communist authoritarians can bothy agree: anarchists get ice picks to the head.
As for me, I refuse to subscribe to any political philosophy that has failed to get any of its leaders ice picked. If your leaders aren't getting ice picks through the head, your party isn't radical enough.
Government monopolies are fine, as long as the "right people" own them. It's when "the people" own and control them that we send in the goons. I guess you didn't notice that we DID try to stage another coup down in Venezuela recently? And we ordered Morales thrown out of the Bolivian congress, which he was. Too bad for us he was then elected president, eh?
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, genes+environment is a recursive system. I remember thinking along those lines years ago when I first heard about the nature/nurture debate years ago. I thought it was a ridiculous debate, as it seemed obvious to me that nature and nurture were simply two sides of the same coin.
You've only stated the obvious, I'm asking, what happens after that? I think that the powers that be assume that the insurance file will come out eventually anyhow. Nothing they do will change that, they are thinking post-wikileaks, will anyone else want to do what Julian has done?
A martyr only motivates the desperate, or the brave. The other 95% of the population just gets terrified. If what you say were true, terrorism wouldn't work, everyone that a terrorist killed would just be a martyr that serves to recruit more people to fight the terrorists.
And I don't mean to belittle you, but unless you have had your life credibly threatened by a power that is capable of and willing to carry out that threat, you have no idea how you would actually react in that situation, and claiming you do is mere ego stroking and posturing. Everyone thinks they are capable of standing up to evil, until it actually comes knocking on their door.
Please, if you have evidence of other countries' diplomats collecting biometric, bank account, and credit card information on our politicians, I would love to see it. It should be easy to find, right, I mean, everyone does this, according to you.
Which makes me wonder, why did Hillary specifically order them to do it? If everyone else was doing it, why weren't we? And why did our diplomats complain about the orders, if this is common practice?
Seeing as how this has been done for years by everyone, and is common knowledge in the intelligence community, I'm sure you can provide some documented examples of others doing it to us. Right? Should be simple. Everyone knows that everyone does it, and I'm a fool for questioning this, right?
Your argument is damned by your own statements if you can't find evidence.
Gathering biometric, bank account, and credit card information on foreign politicians. Which Hillary ordered them to do, and which they complained about, which leads me to believe this was not standard practice.
You could show evidence that other countries have asked their diplomats to gather credit card and biometric information on US politicians. And "but everyone knows they do that!" is not evidence. Don't try to claim that you can't provide this evidence because it is secret, either. Syvcraft-fu specifically said it wasn't secret, so the evidence must be out there, right?
I don't have a favorite band of thugs. The bands of thugs were all installed by the US. I was talking about free and fair democratic elections of people like Salvadore Allende in Chile.
Who explicitly threatened our nation, it's citizens, or businesses?
I did consider our military and technological might, but I feel that it must be considered in the context of other extant powers' military and technological might. As the "What have the Romans done for us" bit in Life of Brian humorously demonstrates, the Romans had a fairly large technological edge themselves. We have about the same edge in military power over our rivals that the British did at the height of their empire.
While I believe that you are correct and they can't go on pulling this shit indefinitely, I don't think they believe it.
How you initially respond may be genetic, and there will always be a genetic component to your response, but culture plays a huge role. For instance, I choose to use a condom. Is choosing to use a condom genetic? It can't be, condoms are too recent for us to have evolved any sort of genetic response to them. You could say the safety/risk weighting factors are genetic, and my choice to play it safe or risky is genetic, but my specific choice to use an actual condom is cultural more than it is genetic.
It basically sounds like you are discounting the idea of learned behaviors, which is a fairly outlandish stance to take.
As for infidelity, you obviously understand and agree with my basic point, but quibble over semantics.
I didn't ask about a crack whore, I asked if you used a condom. I do. Therefore, even though I have had lots of sex with lots of partners, I am probably at less risk than you and your wife.
Also, ever hear stories of people married fifteen, twenty years? They think they know everything about each other and then BAM! betrayal. And before it happened, they all thought, "It could never happen to us! We love each other and are open and honest!"
Evolution is always performing a balancing act between safe and inefficient monogamy and risky but effective promiscuity. AIDS may be new, but diseases that destroy your chance to reproduce without killing you are ancient. From your genes' point of view, there is no difference between AIDS and something that renders you sterile.
Do you really believe that AIDS is something new on the evolutionary scene? It isn't, but condoms sure are.
Some people brush their teeth before going to bed, and then have sex. But it isn't just brushing your teeth, it could be eating corn chips, or HoneyComb cereal, or anything else that can give you cuts in your mouth.
You may want to research how many political activists the US has killed in the past before saying with such certainty that people will be up in arms were Julian to be killed. In five years, everyone but the die hard conspiracy theorists will have forgotten about it.
People believe what they want to believe. Almost everyone wants to believe that they are a good person. They believe that good people stand up to injustice. They believe that, being good people, if they were to witness injustice, they would fight it.
But people are basically lazy and cowardly, as well. So, they have a choice in cases like this, believe the convenient story and do nothing, or believe the "conspiracy theorists" and fight the very power that they now believe perfectly willing to kill them.
Which story do you think people are going to choose to believe, the one that requires them to do nothing, or the one that requires them to fight the very power that has killed before and will kill again?
No, everything is a mixture of genetics and environment. How our genes are expressed is determined by our environment. Infidelity itself is not despicable, deceit is despicable. Not every committed relationship is monogamous.
You use a condom with your wife? Ever go down on her after brushing your teeth? Do you know who she slept with before you? Has she ever had a blood transfusion? I've had dozens of sex partners, used a condom and other safe sex practices (including no oral if there is any suspicion of a cut or scrape in the mouth) every time. Who do you think is really more at risk?
The story of every successful empire isn't so much of officially taking over territory as it is one of making darn sure that the person in charge of other countries is under our control.
Fixed that for you. And even if we figure in all the regimes where we influence things, we are in no way the equal of the Roman or British empires, in terms of our world wide influence.
Yes, as I stated, I know that diplomats are in the intelligence business. But there is a line between professional spies and diplomats, and both we and other countries have been reluctant to cross that line in the past, for good reason. Diplomats do other work besides just spying, you know.
Perhaps you could show evidence that this sort of thing has been done in the4 past, and is not considered unusual in international circles?
I don't know about that. We've done it so many times in the past and gotten away with it, why not now? After all, suspicion might fall on us, but what is suspicion? In five years, his death will be just more fodder for nutty conspiracy theorists.
Sweden has called in Interpol, Assange is officially on the run from the law right now.
Really? You think it is only the US that is that pissed at him?
Yes, but there is still a line between diplomat and spy, and we crossed it. What we did was not normal for diplomats, and if any other country's diplomats were caught doing those things to us, they would be expelled from the US.
Why, thank you! Although I hope I never have to take you up on that offer...
Dumping gasoline on what fire, exactly? Where is this fire? What would you expect the outcome to be, if Assange were martyred? Present us with a scenario as to what exactly happens after Assange is killed. And remember that while people love a martyr, they don't actually want to be one.
But Assange is not the source of any of this information, and the information is already out there. I fail to see how discrediting the publisher of a leak discredits the leaked information. Now that the information is out there, interested parties will champion bringing it to daylight. Discrediting Assange does nothing. Destroying him sends a clear message that merely discrediting him or imprisoning him would not.
Ah, yes, the old "Ice Picks for Anarchists" ploy. One thing on which capitalist authoritarians and communist authoritarians can bothy agree: anarchists get ice picks to the head.
As for me, I refuse to subscribe to any political philosophy that has failed to get any of its leaders ice picked. If your leaders aren't getting ice picks through the head, your party isn't radical enough.
Government monopolies are fine, as long as the "right people" own them. It's when "the people" own and control them that we send in the goons. I guess you didn't notice that we DID try to stage another coup down in Venezuela recently? And we ordered Morales thrown out of the Bolivian congress, which he was. Too bad for us he was then elected president, eh?