You say that like you expect me to disagree. I left the Republican party for several of the reasons you state. Others you're just exaggerating and race-baiting, but you do have some valid points. I didn't like or vote for McCain either.
Do you morons ever actually say anything? An entire paragraph, and you said nothing intelligent. You simply imply that what I'm saying is somehow nonsensical or illogical without taking a single step to prove it.
How do you know I wasn't outraged? Have you looked at my posting history over the last 8 years?
But yet again, you're deflecting the criticism of the current administration by referring to the last one, and that is NOT a valid argument. Neither is casting aspersions on me personally.
Gees, get real, it will take the new administration, just the ones at the very top at least a year to replace the previous administrations crony placements,
It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to know who you're talking about. You don't need to spell it out. Why on Earth would I assume you were talking about the Clintons?
Now go ahead and draw your conclusions from the fact that you forgot what you said and think I can't make simple assumptions about your meaning.
Yet again, deflecting criticism by bashing on Bush.
Look, man. You had 8 years to bitch about the guy, and now that someone else is giving you some very good reasons to bitch, you're instead choosing to continue bashing on the last guy.
Open your eyes, open your mind, stop giving This Administration a pass on its own very unique set of problems.
Right, because the honest, unbiased reporting by the MSM, the constant barrage of attacks, and those quick-witted funny boys at Comedy Central had nothing to do with that perception, right? Or the fact that they conditioned 90% of/. to shun free discussion so much that they downmod anything positive about Bush or critical of liberals (not to mention the real-life analogs). Or maybe the fact that it's so engrained that people are still bringing up Bush to deflect criticism of Obama?
You guys were programmed. You were brainwashed, and it was done so skillfully that you still don't know it happened. Don't believe me? Watch how many robots mod nonsense about Bush/conservatives as Funny or Insightful as long as it's a "bon mot" -- even if it's trite, patently false, or nonsensical. Then watch as reasoned discussions are rated troll, flamebait, or overrated because they espouse conservative or libertarian ideals.
When you see it, ask yourself how it is that people will so willingly suppress reasoned discussion while promoting tired old platitudes. That's not intelligent, that's salivating when you hear a bell.
Sure - maybe not technically in his administration, but not for his lack of trying. And they would have made it too, if not for those meddling kids! (Care for a Scooby snack?) This is happening too often to be a mistake.
It's only a matter of time before something comes out about The Man Himself.
No, you can't really assume that because generally the users will be people outside of IT. While they may be real braniacs in their areas of interest, it usually comes at the expense of having any computer knowledge at all.
On the other end of the spectrum, you'll get business side guys who start hacking together batch scripts, VBScript, and Excel macros into a mission-critical system for which IT must now take on support responsibility.
And Offtopic. And Overrated. Oh, they love overrated because they can't be punished in the metamod system. They can't even take that little bit of responsibility for their actions. God forbid some metamod might think they were unjust and ding them for it.
I thought that everyone agreed that religion has no say in science. Why go backwards in this point?
You thought wrong, and nobody's going backwards so much as trying to avoid giving up too much ground to the anything-goes crowd.
Scientists routinely must go through ethics committees for any sort of experimentation on even rabbits and non-destructive trials on humans. The idea is fairly well entrenched that it's not right to hurt living beings unnecessarily, and that all reasonable precautions should be taken before doing so. There aren't a lot of ethics committees that would approve of killing a child or adult, so I'm wondering why you find this so hard to understand.
I think that the one potential life the embryo could have been (if the embryo was even viable) is a relatively cheap price for curing some of the greatest physical ills of our modern society.
One of the most frightening and chilling statements ever uttered on Slashdot. This is exactly the sort of moral relativism that this issue promotes. If it's already gone this far, give it 50 years.
You know, mods are so transparent it's ridiculous.
Several posts in this thread which are directly responding to the parent are modded "offtopic" because the mods don't like the message -- even though they're directly on topic. Yet cheap shots at religious people are modded up.
Oddly, these are the same areas of the world that used to kill their female children. I don't think I'm looking to them for moral guidance any time soon.
So because I don't agree with what you're saying, I'm just supposed to be quiet or risk being called a troll?
The fact is that I do believe what you're talking about is wrongheaded for the reasons given (and more). I'm not going to praise it when I'm arguing against it, and I'm under no obligation to praise people with whom I disagree. I believe that I am under an obligation to be polite about it, which is more than I can say about most libs nowadays.
The fact is that I do believe you and many others are deceived by the MSM. You said it was you and the MSM were deceived, but you were really only half right.
Amazing how easily mistaken people are when it's convenient to be so. It's easier to argue for "embryonic stem cells" when you can make the claim they don't come from embryos anyway. Why would any enlightened, scientifically minded person ban umbilical cord research? Keep looking for misdirections like this. You've taken your first step into a larger world.
I see that your argument is essentially "waste not want not," which is respectable. The argument is more about the ethics of exploitation. The fear is not that stem cells feel pain, or that they have a soul. It's that, once we start down that road, how far will we go? It's more about the soul of society versus the soul of the cell. At least, that's my objection to it.
Admittedly, there are some people who claim that the first embryonic cell has a soul, and, assuming that souls exist, you can follow the reduction without too much trouble.
It's easy to call people zealots, irrational, morons, or any number of names. It takes more effort to see things from their point of view and understand their assumptions. People opposed to the destruction or exploitation of human embryos are opposed either out of an understanding of human nature, or out of logical trains of thought given a certain assumption. You can argue these assumptions all you want, but don't start from the idea that these people are stupid. They're just coming at it from a different angle than you are.
(I'm not directing all of this at you, Shadow. People don't tend to like what I say, so my karma is in the crapper and I only get a couple posts per day. Seems many folks here are intellectually lazy enough to want to silence discourse instead of debating their points of view.)
But can't you see that entire industries, agendas, and personal freedom from responsibility hinge on the idea that life and non-life are decided by location? It's scientific and everything!
The idea that "life" could possibly exist in direct conflict with the desires of a selfish person is preposterous!
I was at first really upset by all the brain-dead people out there considering themselves so enlightened by voting for this guy because he was "the intelligent choice." It's amazing how easily manipulated by corporate interests these people were.
Think about it: Who, in his first month, has quadrupled the national deficit and keeps pushing for more -- most of which is being funneled to rich Liberals on Wall Street. (I work there, and believe me, most of New York -- Wall Street included -- are liberal Democrats and socialists. Don't believe me? Just try to hold a conversation with these people and espouse fiscal conservative ideals. Traders might be more libertarian, but most of the rest are socialist.) In fact, Wall Street was one of the biggest donors to Obama's inauguration.
I swear, liberals are some of the worst critical thinkers on the planet. Just gobble it up.
Look, everyone is saying "He's only been there a month - can't turn it around that fast - etc, etc." but the fact is that he's not only not slowing the spiral, he's making it worse by spending like a drunken sailor, selling ill-conceived Congressional spending bills, nominating corrupt cabinet officials and the "genius" Geithner who can't seem to come up with a plan that makes any sense at all.
So, where does "most of Europe" fall into the 22 countries polled? And how am I selecting my data to suit my agenda, now that you've properly read my post?
The problem is that the lemming general public is unaware of the information warfare that is going on, and will continue to be swayed by it.
If you want to know who to elect, look at the people who are the diametrical opposite of everything you want the US to be, and see what they want:
Venezuela Russia Most of Europe Iran North Korea
These folks don't want someone who stands up for what's right because they want to do what's wrong and get away with it.
That's why Obama's got sacks of cash from undisclosed overseas sources. That's why there are pro-Obama robocalls coming from Romania. That's why Acorn and the DNC are appealing to "idiots" and criminals in poor communities and prisons to "get the vote out." (By the way, "Educate the Idiots" was the Democratic slogan for a get-out-the-vote campaign aimed at low-income people and high-school dropouts.)
Do you really want a president who's preferred by "idiots", criminals, and hostile foreign governments?
Damn, the Obamods rolled out of bed early this morning! It's a good thing this is my trolling account. Maybe if I post enough, I can eat up their mod points so the adults can have an uncensored conversation.
Slashdot Mirror
You say that like you expect me to disagree. I left the Republican party for several of the reasons you state. Others you're just exaggerating and race-baiting, but you do have some valid points. I didn't like or vote for McCain either.
Do you morons ever actually say anything? An entire paragraph, and you said nothing intelligent. You simply imply that what I'm saying is somehow nonsensical or illogical without taking a single step to prove it.
Come back when you can debate like an adult.
How do you know I wasn't outraged? Have you looked at my posting history over the last 8 years?
But yet again, you're deflecting the criticism of the current administration by referring to the last one, and that is NOT a valid argument. Neither is casting aspersions on me personally.
It's not interesting at all. You said:
It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to know who you're talking about. You don't need to spell it out. Why on Earth would I assume you were talking about the Clintons?
Now go ahead and draw your conclusions from the fact that you forgot what you said and think I can't make simple assumptions about your meaning.
Moron.
Yet again, deflecting criticism by bashing on Bush.
Look, man. You had 8 years to bitch about the guy, and now that someone else is giving you some very good reasons to bitch, you're instead choosing to continue bashing on the last guy.
Open your eyes, open your mind, stop giving This Administration a pass on its own very unique set of problems.
Right, because the honest, unbiased reporting by the MSM, the constant barrage of attacks, and those quick-witted funny boys at Comedy Central had nothing to do with that perception, right? Or the fact that they conditioned 90% of /. to shun free discussion so much that they downmod anything positive about Bush or critical of liberals (not to mention the real-life analogs). Or maybe the fact that it's so engrained that people are still bringing up Bush to deflect criticism of Obama?
You guys were programmed. You were brainwashed, and it was done so skillfully that you still don't know it happened. Don't believe me? Watch how many robots mod nonsense about Bush/conservatives as Funny or Insightful as long as it's a "bon mot" -- even if it's trite, patently false, or nonsensical. Then watch as reasoned discussions are rated troll, flamebait, or overrated because they espouse conservative or libertarian ideals.
When you see it, ask yourself how it is that people will so willingly suppress reasoned discussion while promoting tired old platitudes. That's not intelligent, that's salivating when you hear a bell.
Sure - maybe not technically in his administration, but not for his lack of trying. And they would have made it too, if not for those meddling kids! (Care for a Scooby snack?) This is happening too often to be a mistake.
It's only a matter of time before something comes out about The Man Himself.
I think it's change, cuz this level of corruption in such a young administration is unprecedented.
Believe it!
No, you can't really assume that because generally the users will be people outside of IT. While they may be real braniacs in their areas of interest, it usually comes at the expense of having any computer knowledge at all.
On the other end of the spectrum, you'll get business side guys who start hacking together batch scripts, VBScript, and Excel macros into a mission-critical system for which IT must now take on support responsibility.
No, it's best to lock 'em down tight.
And Offtopic. And Overrated. Oh, they love overrated because they can't be punished in the metamod system. They can't even take that little bit of responsibility for their actions. God forbid some metamod might think they were unjust and ding them for it.
Cowards, the lot of them.
If it's so bad, you don't need to stay.
(Again, all the flowery philosophy falls away when it comes to stickin the gun in your mouth, doesn't it?)
This conversation is awfully full of people who proclaim freedom while declaring the lives of others unworthy and cheap.
You thought wrong, and nobody's going backwards so much as trying to avoid giving up too much ground to the anything-goes crowd.
Scientists routinely must go through ethics committees for any sort of experimentation on even rabbits and non-destructive trials on humans. The idea is fairly well entrenched that it's not right to hurt living beings unnecessarily, and that all reasonable precautions should be taken before doing so. There aren't a lot of ethics committees that would approve of killing a child or adult, so I'm wondering why you find this so hard to understand.
One of the most frightening and chilling statements ever uttered on Slashdot. This is exactly the sort of moral relativism that this issue promotes. If it's already gone this far, give it 50 years.
You know, mods are so transparent it's ridiculous.
Several posts in this thread which are directly responding to the parent are modded "offtopic" because the mods don't like the message -- even though they're directly on topic. Yet cheap shots at religious people are modded up.
Truly the moderation system has become a weapon.
Oddly, these are the same areas of the world that used to kill their female children. I don't think I'm looking to them for moral guidance any time soon.
So because I don't agree with what you're saying, I'm just supposed to be quiet or risk being called a troll?
The fact is that I do believe what you're talking about is wrongheaded for the reasons given (and more). I'm not going to praise it when I'm arguing against it, and I'm under no obligation to praise people with whom I disagree. I believe that I am under an obligation to be polite about it, which is more than I can say about most libs nowadays.
The fact is that I do believe you and many others are deceived by the MSM. You said it was you and the MSM were deceived, but you were really only half right.
So what you're saying is that I made a polite argument that you didn't like. And this qualifies for trolling nowadays.
Amazing how easily mistaken people are when it's convenient to be so. It's easier to argue for "embryonic stem cells" when you can make the claim they don't come from embryos anyway. Why would any enlightened, scientifically minded person ban umbilical cord research? Keep looking for misdirections like this. You've taken your first step into a larger world.
I see that your argument is essentially "waste not want not," which is respectable. The argument is more about the ethics of exploitation. The fear is not that stem cells feel pain, or that they have a soul. It's that, once we start down that road, how far will we go? It's more about the soul of society versus the soul of the cell. At least, that's my objection to it.
Admittedly, there are some people who claim that the first embryonic cell has a soul, and, assuming that souls exist, you can follow the reduction without too much trouble.
It's easy to call people zealots, irrational, morons, or any number of names. It takes more effort to see things from their point of view and understand their assumptions. People opposed to the destruction or exploitation of human embryos are opposed either out of an understanding of human nature, or out of logical trains of thought given a certain assumption. You can argue these assumptions all you want, but don't start from the idea that these people are stupid. They're just coming at it from a different angle than you are.
(I'm not directing all of this at you, Shadow. People don't tend to like what I say, so my karma is in the crapper and I only get a couple posts per day. Seems many folks here are intellectually lazy enough to want to silence discourse instead of debating their points of view.)
But can't you see that entire industries, agendas, and personal freedom from responsibility hinge on the idea that life and non-life are decided by location? It's scientific and everything!
The idea that "life" could possibly exist in direct conflict with the desires of a selfish person is preposterous!
I was at first really upset by all the brain-dead people out there considering themselves so enlightened by voting for this guy because he was "the intelligent choice." It's amazing how easily manipulated by corporate interests these people were.
Think about it: Who, in his first month, has quadrupled the national deficit and keeps pushing for more -- most of which is being funneled to rich Liberals on Wall Street. (I work there, and believe me, most of New York -- Wall Street included -- are liberal Democrats and socialists. Don't believe me? Just try to hold a conversation with these people and espouse fiscal conservative ideals. Traders might be more libertarian, but most of the rest are socialist.) In fact, Wall Street was one of the biggest donors to Obama's inauguration.
I swear, liberals are some of the worst critical thinkers on the planet. Just gobble it up.
Look, everyone is saying "He's only been there a month - can't turn it around that fast - etc, etc." but the fact is that he's not only not slowing the spiral, he's making it worse by spending like a drunken sailor, selling ill-conceived Congressional spending bills, nominating corrupt cabinet officials and the "genius" Geithner who can't seem to come up with a plan that makes any sense at all.
Sadly, crimes against humanity are often user-friendly.
If you hate the United States, then stay out of it. It's that easy. Don't ruin it and drag it down for those of us who rather enjoy it here.
So, where does "most of Europe" fall into the 22 countries polled? And how am I selecting my data to suit my agenda, now that you've properly read my post?
The problem is that the lemming general public is unaware of the information warfare that is going on, and will continue to be swayed by it.
If you want to know who to elect, look at the people who are the diametrical opposite of everything you want the US to be, and see what they want:
Venezuela
Russia
Most of Europe
Iran
North Korea
These folks don't want someone who stands up for what's right because they want to do what's wrong and get away with it.
That's why Obama's got sacks of cash from undisclosed overseas sources. That's why there are pro-Obama robocalls coming from Romania. That's why Acorn and the DNC are appealing to "idiots" and criminals in poor communities and prisons to "get the vote out." (By the way, "Educate the Idiots" was the Democratic slogan for a get-out-the-vote campaign aimed at low-income people and high-school dropouts.)
Do you really want a president who's preferred by "idiots", criminals, and hostile foreign governments?
Damn, the Obamods rolled out of bed early this morning! It's a good thing this is my trolling account. Maybe if I post enough, I can eat up their mod points so the adults can have an uncensored conversation.