I completely agree. Yet another story that highlights how prosecutors are given entirely too much power and there's no way to hold them accountable. The most messed up part is that we're sending non-violent criminals to prison. Everyone cheered when Madoff was sent to prison, I didn't hear a single person mention the eighth amendment. No one mentioned that, as a prison inmate, he would just be a further burden to society.
Unless a person is a threat to society, I can't see the justification for putting them in prison. That's what jails should be for, they shouldn't be a camp of retribution, of societal vengeance. If a person is drunk and disorderly in public, or drinking and driving, they get thrown in the drunk tank until the next day. That makes sense, that's reasonable. They're a threat to society until they sober up. If a person kills someone and it's not in self defense, then they've proven themselves to be irrational and dangerous. They need to be kept away from the greater society.
If this guy is guilty, should be be punished? No doubt. Should he serve a single day in jail/prison? Absolutely not. That doesn't benefit anyone except the corporations that run our prison system. Community service should be the standard punishment for most crimes because it's a form of restitution to society. But no, the standard form of punishment is a fine or time. A fine that goes to paying for the out of control penal system that the U.S. employs on both a state and federal level.
The mainstream media dub every Microsoft product 'the best yet!', even when it sucks.
It never pays to insult a heavy advertiser.
This is the best poop I've ever tasted!
What I always wonder is why they would release a version that is worse than the previous version. Shouldn't any new version of any product be the 'best yet?' Of course, this is the company that released Vista and gave us the ribbon interface.
First of all, I'm religious and I believe in God. I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky, or any conscious entity for that matter, that created and oversees the universe.
I really don't know where to start with the rest of your post. You don't really debunk anything I say.
1) On the statistical probability thing: those are all guesses. No one knows what the statistical probability of life forming is. If one assumes that the universe is infinite, or at the very least infinitely expanding, then no outcome that's not impossible is shocking regardless of it's improbability. Winning the lottery is extremely improbable. Winning the lottery when you have millions of tickets isn't.
2) Intelligent design doesn't give a reason for evolution. Evolution gives a reason for evolution. Ockam's Razor, 'nuff said.
We are just supposed to believe that things can pop in and out of existence at any time.. like a Universe. Which is not logical by the way. If that were true, we would never have existed since Universes would be popping up inside of our Universe all the time causing collapses.
The Big Bang theory doesn't suggest that things pop in and out of existence at any time. Unlike any other theory of existence there are mathematical models to support the Big Bang theory that utilizes the laws of physics.
In your opinion, but your opinion is not factual.
3) Of couse everything in my post was my opinion. I debate the factual part. Einstein's theological beliefs are highly debated and I, for one, won't attempt to put words in his mouth. Even if he did believe in a creator, as smart as Einstein was, he wasn't infallible and much has been discovered since his death.
4) I never defined the unmoved mover theory, so it makes sense that your misinterpretation of what I wrote wasn't a definition of it. I outlined some assumptions that ancient Greeks had, that were logical at the time, that predicated such a theory. Newton's theories made the theory questionable, man's expeditions to outer space empirically demonstrated combined with the Big Bang theory made the unmoved mover fully anachronistic.
I have a deep respect for the ancient Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle, and I never implied they were ass backwards. But, like Plato's allegory of the cave, they had empirical limitations. The unmoved mover was a shadow on the wall, and the object projecting this shadow was the Big Bang.
Intelligent Design is something you completely misunderstand or portray incorrectly.
5) Interesting how, despite how long your post is, you repeatedly took the time to tell me I'm wrong but you never really corrected me. I've read Behe and other defenders of ID. Maybe I'm just missing something, but I've never met a biologist who took the theory seriously, either, so I doubt it.
6) Theology is not an attempt to explain why things happen. Theology is an attempt to explain why one ought to take on a particular moral code. According to the book (wiki) definition, "it's the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and its influences and of the nature of religious truths." The nature of physical phenomena is irrelevant to theology, that is the realm of physics, biology, cosmology, and other sciences. The surest sign of a bogus theology is that it attempts to explain creation.
God is goodness. Goodness is that which is of high quality. The most perverse thing that's happened to God is that the concept was anthropomorphized by ignorant men in various cultures throughout history.
Also, do you believe one could be an atheist and reasonably believe in a form of intelligent design? Why or why not?
I'll answer this one: It doesn't matter what one's religious persuasion is, they cannot reasonably believe in a form of intelligent design. Intelligent design fails the test of reason, and even if it didn't, it fails empirically. Most importantly, the theory it attempts to compete with, evolution, passes both logical and empirical tests.
Even before the term 'intelligent design' was coined and before there was enough hard, empirical evidence to instill the confidence in evolution that the scientific community currently has, teleological arguments were debunked using reason alone. I recommend you check out David Hume's writings on it.
That's how poor of an argument intelligent design is. The assumptions it relies on were debunked before it even became a theory. Basically, intelligent design is an attempt to integrate a philosophical argument that dates back to Socrates' time into modern biology. It made sense for ancient Greeks to argue over such things, it even made sense for people such as Thomas Aquinas all the way up to Hume. It stopped making sense when Darwin was published.
It's sort of like the 'unmoved mover' theory. It made sense when one's assumption was that 'what goes up, must come down,' or that, 'an object's natural state is to remain still.' Modern physics, both in theory and empirically, tell us otherwise. Without the concept of gravity one could reasonably conclude that an 'unmoved mover' must exist, as the great paragon of logic, Aristotle, concluded. Intelligent design is like if a bunch of fundamentalists attempted to debunk modern physics using the primary mover theory.
If one uses their religion to deny reality then they misunderstand the purpose of religion.
- all have done unethical acts ( read your history )
But Scientology is an unethical institution. That can be said about pre-Lutheran Christianity, Islam during its jihadist spread, and Hinduism with the caste system applied. But I find it hard to point to, say, the Lutheran Church as being an unethical institution at any point in time. Or Buddhists. I'm sure someone would be quick to point out terrible things done by Buddhists or Lutherans, but that's not the same as the institution being unethical in its organization and practice. So no, not all religions have done unethical acts. People of all religions have most likely done unethical acts, but one would be hard pressed to find any person, religious or not, who has a clean record in that regard.
- all have beliefs people not brought in the religion would call superstition
Read Immanuel Kant. Even if you disagree with him, the basis of his philosophy (which is the basis of his Christianity), is logic. He was a logic professor. One would be hard pressed to label what many Buddhists believe to be superstition as well. I suggest you read some interviews with the Dali Lama, or better yet, one of his books. If you think that religion necessarily involves an invisible man in the sky, you don't know much about religion.
- all what people not brought in the religion would call myths.
Again, this is simply not true. While myths are common with most religions, 1) the inclusion or exclusion of myths has no bearing on whether a theology is defined as a religion 2) even when myths are present, that has no bearing on whether the theology is objectively true or not. Most non-fundamentalist Christians, for example, don't believe any myths. Do you believe the Trojan War occurred? Many myths are based on fact. The definition of 'myth' is pretty ambiguous. Oftentimes the only thing distinguishing a myth from a fable is that at one point the myth was taken to be literal truth. Most religious people don't believe the myths they preserve, such as Jesus turning water into wine. It's not like Greeks think that Zeus is a part of their history.
- all, from my viewpoint, are man-made (apologies to the women in the audience for the term)
First, in English 'man' isn't necessarily masculine if the sex is unknown or it's used to encompass both men and women. There's no need to apologize for using proper English.
Regarding your actual point, this one is a doozy. It's a sort of chicken/egg type question, but anyone who believes in objective morality would argue against your point. Robert Pirsig, who to the best of my knowledge isn't religious, argued that man didn't make God, God made man. What he meant was that our morality, our sense of good, is the characteristic that uniquely defines what it is to be human. This is something that man discovers through the application of logic (Aquinas, Kant, etc.), it's not something that man makes up on a whim. It wouldn't be objectively true if that were the case. Man cannot discover something that doesn't exist, hence objective morality, which is the goal of every religion to uncover (note: this is a key reason why Scientology is a cult, not a religion).
from an atheists point of view.
And what point of view would that be? Most atheists seem to be disinterested in religion in general and don't take the time to learn about it. You seem to be one of those. You sound like the uniformed guy who doesn't vote who says, "All politicians are the same, the political parties are all the same, etc." To me, all reality TV shows are the same, but since I don't really watch them, since I'm thoroughly uniformed about their specifics, I wouldn't take the bold step forward of claiming such a statement to be objectively true.
While I appreciate the writeup and found it interesting, perhaps you should have someone proofread your writings before publishing them. There are far too many errors in this thing.
That said, Scientologists are batshit insane and information is their enemy. It's great to see a book like this published and receiving so much attention.
No, I don't see how it's a left right issue, that's why I asked. I was hoping for an actual answer. . .
The left, concerning distributive justice, leans toward government involvement. Concerning social issues, rights, etc., the left fights for the issues their donors care about. When it comes to foreign policy . . . WWI - Wilson; WWII - FDR; Korean War - Truman; Vietnam - Kennedy/Johnson.
The right, concerning distributive justice, leans toward less government involvement. Concerning social issues, rights, etc., the right fights for the issues their donors care about. When it comes to foreign policy . . . Bush and Bush Jr.'s desert skirmishes are about the most notable thing.
For the past century our military has killed many more foreigners with a Democrat in charge than with a Republican. I get that Democrats are generally less enthusiastic about military spending than Republicans (i.e. they realize how absurdly gross and pointless most of our military spending is, but they don't have the spines to actually articulate that opinion), but that doesn't mean that it's against leftist ideals to use military force.
The only consistent ideological stance either party stands behind is their views of distributive justice. The rest is money. You think atheist Randians such as Paul Ryan like pretending they're Christians and paying lip service to pro-life and all sorts of other bullshit they don't believe in? No. But they need money and votes from those people. You think most Democrats in congress give a damn about homosexuals marrying one another and preventing digital copyright infringement? Hell no they don't. But they cash checks from people that do.
Lincoln was one of the most liberal presidents in history and he started a catastrophic, unconstitutional war that killed more Americans than almost every other American war combined. Jefferson, who opposed massive military spending, was quick to enter combat against those who threatened American mercantile security, despite the fact that he almost completely disbanded the military and navy. I don't see how the use of military force is a major right/left thing. If it is in any way, I would say that the right tends to use the military for bogus reasons to rake in cash for the military industrial complex whereas the left tends to use military force when they feel there is a moral imperative (doesn't mean they're always right, but at least the intention is there). Maybe that's just my bias speaking, but that was my original problem with your post -- it seemed to imply that liberals are usually too softhearted or perhaps too anti-war to use military force and historical that has just not been so. I think you meant it in the opposite way, that the right tends to consist of warhawks, but I don't see that as any real ideological difference. The ideological difference is in military spending, not military use.
Someone who is confident in their beliefs has no qualms with a level playing field....then again, isn't this a manipulation tool?
Why is that true? Considering how stupid the average voter is, I'm not confident in their ability to use reason to vote for the better candidate. I'm pretty sure most politicians look at the situation the same way I do.
Would you feel confident in your ability to defend yourself in a kangaroo court, even though you know you're innocent?
Pretty much the only area he could be considered right of Bush is his use of drones, and that's only because Bush didn't have this many drones to play with.
Donors don't deserve access to things they help to fund?
No. What makes you think that they do? I don't know how to make it any more explicit than the post you're replying to: they're donors, not investors. If you donate with stipulations then you're not really donating, you're purchasing something.
The unintended racism in your post aside, an easy way to explain rising test scores in America is that standards are constantly lowering in this country. It's much easier to graduate today than when I was in high school. When I was in high school it was much easier to graduate than when my parents were in high school.
My stepfather was an accountant, working for the government, with no college education. Good luck with that today. From his generation I've also known designers, programmers, and even a vice president of marketing who all lack any education higher than a high school diploma. The difference is that they were all required to understand basic English in order to graduate high school. They all took calculus in high school.
Today, one can get a high school diploma with a less than comprehensive understanding of basic algebra. I've tutored first and second year college students who I would label as functionally illiterate, who don't know the fundamentals of American History (and our history doesn't even date back that far, unlike the Europeans and Asians).
White kids in America don't do just as well as white kids in Europe. White kids from affluent areas sometimes do well. Everyone else, including white kids from blue collar areas, do extremely poorly. They do such a terrible job that for decades schools have consistently been lowering their standards and since No Child Left Behind they've been teaching to the test. Another important factor when examining race in America is that race is becoming less and less of a factor. There's much more diversity. Unfortunately, this isn't because minorities are climbing the socio-economic ladder but because middle class whites are falling off of it.
An example of America's low standards: A high school in Akron gave LeBron James a high school diploma, and he can't utter two sentences without disgracing the English language. Terrelle Pryor was enrolled at Ohio State for three years and could have returned for a fourth, despite the fact that the fundamentals of grammar escape him (also basic ethics; according to Terrelle, "Not everybody's the perfect person in the world. I mean everyone kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me, whatever.") Maurice Clarrett attended Ohio State for a year and maintained his eligibility by taking athletic electives such as bowling and golf. Sure, we coddle our athletes, but we also have a system in place where one can be dumb as dirt and still receive accreditation.
It would be wise for Mattel to change the values because then Scrabble enthusiasts everywhere would have a reason to buy another Scrabble board/chips. It would make for a nice cash grab and they have this research as a nifty excuse for doing so. My parents play Scrabble a lot (they're retired) and their set is at least thirty years old -- it's been around as long as I can remember. Even if they didn't upgrade, someone in the family would be quick to get one for them as a x-mas/b-day present.
There's a big difference. Using 'literally' to mean 'figuratively' is using the antonym, which is nonsensical and confusing. If I start using 'hot' to mean 'cold' then no one will no what the hell I'm talking about. Like, when someone says, "I literally couldn't move." They're saying they're paralyzed, not stunned with shock.
'Clip,' on the other hand, isn't an antonym for 'magazine.' In a technical sense, it's very similar and functional the same. I'm no gun expert, but I'm pretty sure that clips in the original, technically correct sense, haven't been used in decades. They were replaced by magazines. Since they are functionally equivalent, people tend to use the terms interchangeably. Since this trend continued to the point where 'clip' is not only more commonly used than 'magazine,' but it's also more universally understood, it's just pedantic to insist that 'clip' is an improper term to describe a magazine. In fact, I would argue that 'clip' is synonymous with 'magazine' because that's the way language has evolved.
It's not nonsensical like using a word to refer to its antonym. The only other case I can think of off the top of my head that does this is the word 'bad.' In phrases such as, 'bad to the bone,' or 'bad motherfucker,' the word 'bad' is used to refer to a positive trait. However, this isn't quite as nonsensical as mixing up 'literal' and 'figurative' because in cases where bad is used in such a way it tends to mean skirting traditional values or morality, which is viewed as a positive by those using it. The Joker, for example, would take any slight on his moral character as complimentary.
Basically, misuse of 'literally' demonstrates ignorance of the English language whereas misuse of 'clip' demonstrates ignorance of the nuances of gun parts. The former is unacceptable for anyone whose native language is English and the latter is unacceptable for gunsmiths and others who are expected to be experts regarding firearms.
And one can rant and rave about the Second Amendment all one wants, the court has ruled that previous restrictions are in fact legal, and would very likely continue to do so as long as restrictions do not outright prohibit any kind of firearm.
Wait, you're saying my right to own a nuclear weapon isn't constitutionally protected? How can I protect myself from tyranny without my own personal nuclear weapon?
Or it could be that people who get flu shots are still carriers and are spreading it even more and with now stronger strains (having battled with a strengthened immune system recently).
Who are you to let biology get in the way of an infeasible solution that thinks about the children? Obviously you're not thinking of the children. You hate children.
I have had far better luck at random meeting spots, and not the usual douchebag-packed clubs and watering holes.
One of my better dates I met at a single's night at a gun range. By being able to wield a firearm implies a lot:
1: She is not a felon. 2: She is mentally sound (or passed the background tests as such.) 3: She has not caused a domestic disturbance. 4: She has some mechanical aptitude. 5: She is able to focus/concentrate. 6: She is able to defend herself if need be. 7: She is able to do something that tends to be "unladylike".
These are qualities that are far more useful than the qualities found from club critters... which tends to be a lot less.
I don't see how wielding a firearm makes any of those assertions true.
That said, I'm still reluctant to ask out the intelligent female dancer that's about my age and fancies me, purely because we have the same dress size. Sadly I appear to be sufficiently superficial to want someone slimmer than I am.
Why don't you work out? It's kind of fucked up to expect a healthy mate when you're a fat slob. When healthy girls are with fat slobs they're in it for the fat slob's money. If you have a lot of money, go hang out in a trailer park and you'll find a thin 'dancer' real quick. She'll even be Catholic if you tell her to.
Specifically, for those of us who have figured out what we want.
If you think you know what you want out of another human you're just objectifying them, which is treacherously immoral. You're treating other people as a mere means to your ends.
This is why online dating sites are so terrible. The whole point is to treat people like animals at the fair rather than as actual people. You shouldn't know what you want out of a mate until you've found the right mate. I hate it when people ask me if I prefer blondes or Asians or busty girls or skinny girls or whathave you. Attractiveness is important, don't get me wrong (it doesn't matter how wonderful a girl's personality is if she can't get my dick hard), but to arbitrarily make the decision that blondes are better than redheads or that girls who share my interests are better than those who don't -- that attitude is disgusting.
Online dating dehumanizes people. Sorry if you're shy, I am too, but I just drink alcohol and I'm magically no longer shy for the night.
Uh, yeah. If a girl is on an online dating site she's all fucked in the head and has no self esteem. So, for me, if a girl's on an online dating site I know we're incompatible.
Dating sites are just legal pimps. If they actually worked to match up 'compatible' people at a high rate, they wouldn't last because they would have no repeat customers. Basically, you want to get laid but you don't know how to court a woman, so you turned to internet dating. Fifty years ago you would have turned to a brothel or the classifieds. Same thing.
I'm no Don Juan but I still prefer to do things the old fashioned way. It's a test of one's wits, persistence, and masculinity. Online dating and whores are just attempts to avoid one of life's great challenges -- it's akin to using Cliff Notes to understand that book that's real confusing. You may get what you need out of the Cliff Notes, all stripped down and boring, but you'll never get the full satisfaction of reading the book. Online dating just seems like free whores to me - you pay them in self-esteem rather than money. I'd start paying for whores before I sacrificed my dignity and signed up for an online dating site.
Obviously the paragon of wisdom on/. is the guy that uses ad hominem attacks, capitalizes words for emphasis, misinterprets my post, and posts as an AC. Oh, yeah, and the "GOOG-tard" thing is a real fine example of your credibility and objectivity.
If you think that Microsoft can continue to rake in billions off Office software and their operating system for decades to come you're sadly mistaken. You're correct that for Apple advertising is merely supplemental income, but Microsoft has been desperately searching for the next big thing for over a decade. Apple doesn't have this problem because they're a hardware company so your iAd analogy is completely fallacious.
You *clearly* have no concept of how these things work.
How what things work? Business? Somehow I doubt you're any more qualified to speculate on such things as I am.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely agree. Yet another story that highlights how prosecutors are given entirely too much power and there's no way to hold them accountable. The most messed up part is that we're sending non-violent criminals to prison. Everyone cheered when Madoff was sent to prison, I didn't hear a single person mention the eighth amendment. No one mentioned that, as a prison inmate, he would just be a further burden to society.
Unless a person is a threat to society, I can't see the justification for putting them in prison. That's what jails should be for, they shouldn't be a camp of retribution, of societal vengeance. If a person is drunk and disorderly in public, or drinking and driving, they get thrown in the drunk tank until the next day. That makes sense, that's reasonable. They're a threat to society until they sober up. If a person kills someone and it's not in self defense, then they've proven themselves to be irrational and dangerous. They need to be kept away from the greater society.
If this guy is guilty, should be be punished? No doubt. Should he serve a single day in jail/prison? Absolutely not. That doesn't benefit anyone except the corporations that run our prison system. Community service should be the standard punishment for most crimes because it's a form of restitution to society. But no, the standard form of punishment is a fine or time. A fine that goes to paying for the out of control penal system that the U.S. employs on both a state and federal level.
Stoners think tobacco smoke is deadly poison but marijuana smoke is a miracle cure-all.
Tabacco smoke is a deadly poison and marijuana does have medicinal benefits. You fail at snark.
The mainstream media dub every Microsoft product 'the best yet!', even when it sucks.
It never pays to insult a heavy advertiser.
This is the best poop I've ever tasted!
What I always wonder is why they would release a version that is worse than the previous version. Shouldn't any new version of any product be the 'best yet?' Of course, this is the company that released Vista and gave us the ribbon interface.
Right, I can see from my window the droves of users moving from Windows to Linux (or even Mac).
That's the beautiful thing abut Android. Linux users are everywhere and they don't even know that they're Linux users.
If I lived in an urban center and could see something other than deer through my window, I'd see droves of Linux and Mac users, too.
First of all, I'm religious and I believe in God. I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky, or any conscious entity for that matter, that created and oversees the universe.
I really don't know where to start with the rest of your post. You don't really debunk anything I say.
1) On the statistical probability thing: those are all guesses. No one knows what the statistical probability of life forming is. If one assumes that the universe is infinite, or at the very least infinitely expanding, then no outcome that's not impossible is shocking regardless of it's improbability. Winning the lottery is extremely improbable. Winning the lottery when you have millions of tickets isn't.
2) Intelligent design doesn't give a reason for evolution. Evolution gives a reason for evolution. Ockam's Razor, 'nuff said.
We are just supposed to believe that things can pop in and out of existence at any time.. like a Universe. Which is not logical by the way. If that were true, we would never have existed since Universes would be popping up inside of our Universe all the time causing collapses.
The Big Bang theory doesn't suggest that things pop in and out of existence at any time. Unlike any other theory of existence there are mathematical models to support the Big Bang theory that utilizes the laws of physics.
In your opinion, but your opinion is not factual.
3) Of couse everything in my post was my opinion. I debate the factual part. Einstein's theological beliefs are highly debated and I, for one, won't attempt to put words in his mouth. Even if he did believe in a creator, as smart as Einstein was, he wasn't infallible and much has been discovered since his death.
4) I never defined the unmoved mover theory, so it makes sense that your misinterpretation of what I wrote wasn't a definition of it. I outlined some assumptions that ancient Greeks had, that were logical at the time, that predicated such a theory. Newton's theories made the theory questionable, man's expeditions to outer space empirically demonstrated combined with the Big Bang theory made the unmoved mover fully anachronistic.
I have a deep respect for the ancient Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle, and I never implied they were ass backwards. But, like Plato's allegory of the cave, they had empirical limitations. The unmoved mover was a shadow on the wall, and the object projecting this shadow was the Big Bang.
Intelligent Design is something you completely misunderstand or portray incorrectly.
5) Interesting how, despite how long your post is, you repeatedly took the time to tell me I'm wrong but you never really corrected me. I've read Behe and other defenders of ID. Maybe I'm just missing something, but I've never met a biologist who took the theory seriously, either, so I doubt it.
6) Theology is not an attempt to explain why things happen. Theology is an attempt to explain why one ought to take on a particular moral code. According to the book (wiki) definition, "it's the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and its influences and of the nature of religious truths." The nature of physical phenomena is irrelevant to theology, that is the realm of physics, biology, cosmology, and other sciences. The surest sign of a bogus theology is that it attempts to explain creation.
God is goodness. Goodness is that which is of high quality. The most perverse thing that's happened to God is that the concept was anthropomorphized by ignorant men in various cultures throughout history.
Also, do you believe one could be an atheist and reasonably believe in a form of intelligent design? Why or why not?
I'll answer this one: It doesn't matter what one's religious persuasion is, they cannot reasonably believe in a form of intelligent design. Intelligent design fails the test of reason, and even if it didn't, it fails empirically. Most importantly, the theory it attempts to compete with, evolution, passes both logical and empirical tests.
Even before the term 'intelligent design' was coined and before there was enough hard, empirical evidence to instill the confidence in evolution that the scientific community currently has, teleological arguments were debunked using reason alone. I recommend you check out David Hume's writings on it.
That's how poor of an argument intelligent design is. The assumptions it relies on were debunked before it even became a theory. Basically, intelligent design is an attempt to integrate a philosophical argument that dates back to Socrates' time into modern biology. It made sense for ancient Greeks to argue over such things, it even made sense for people such as Thomas Aquinas all the way up to Hume. It stopped making sense when Darwin was published.
It's sort of like the 'unmoved mover' theory. It made sense when one's assumption was that 'what goes up, must come down,' or that, 'an object's natural state is to remain still.' Modern physics, both in theory and empirically, tell us otherwise. Without the concept of gravity one could reasonably conclude that an 'unmoved mover' must exist, as the great paragon of logic, Aristotle, concluded. Intelligent design is like if a bunch of fundamentalists attempted to debunk modern physics using the primary mover theory.
If one uses their religion to deny reality then they misunderstand the purpose of religion.
- all have done unethical acts ( read your history )
But Scientology is an unethical institution. That can be said about pre-Lutheran Christianity, Islam during its jihadist spread, and Hinduism with the caste system applied. But I find it hard to point to, say, the Lutheran Church as being an unethical institution at any point in time. Or Buddhists. I'm sure someone would be quick to point out terrible things done by Buddhists or Lutherans, but that's not the same as the institution being unethical in its organization and practice. So no, not all religions have done unethical acts. People of all religions have most likely done unethical acts, but one would be hard pressed to find any person, religious or not, who has a clean record in that regard.
- all have beliefs people not brought in the religion would call superstition
Read Immanuel Kant. Even if you disagree with him, the basis of his philosophy (which is the basis of his Christianity), is logic. He was a logic professor. One would be hard pressed to label what many Buddhists believe to be superstition as well. I suggest you read some interviews with the Dali Lama, or better yet, one of his books. If you think that religion necessarily involves an invisible man in the sky, you don't know much about religion.
- all what people not brought in the religion would call myths.
Again, this is simply not true. While myths are common with most religions, 1) the inclusion or exclusion of myths has no bearing on whether a theology is defined as a religion 2) even when myths are present, that has no bearing on whether the theology is objectively true or not. Most non-fundamentalist Christians, for example, don't believe any myths. Do you believe the Trojan War occurred? Many myths are based on fact. The definition of 'myth' is pretty ambiguous. Oftentimes the only thing distinguishing a myth from a fable is that at one point the myth was taken to be literal truth. Most religious people don't believe the myths they preserve, such as Jesus turning water into wine. It's not like Greeks think that Zeus is a part of their history.
- all, from my viewpoint, are man-made (apologies to the women in the audience for the term)
First, in English 'man' isn't necessarily masculine if the sex is unknown or it's used to encompass both men and women. There's no need to apologize for using proper English.
Regarding your actual point, this one is a doozy. It's a sort of chicken/egg type question, but anyone who believes in objective morality would argue against your point. Robert Pirsig, who to the best of my knowledge isn't religious, argued that man didn't make God, God made man. What he meant was that our morality, our sense of good, is the characteristic that uniquely defines what it is to be human. This is something that man discovers through the application of logic (Aquinas, Kant, etc.), it's not something that man makes up on a whim. It wouldn't be objectively true if that were the case. Man cannot discover something that doesn't exist, hence objective morality, which is the goal of every religion to uncover (note: this is a key reason why Scientology is a cult, not a religion).
from an atheists point of view.
And what point of view would that be? Most atheists seem to be disinterested in religion in general and don't take the time to learn about it. You seem to be one of those. You sound like the uniformed guy who doesn't vote who says, "All politicians are the same, the political parties are all the same, etc." To me, all reality TV shows are the same, but since I don't really watch them, since I'm thoroughly uniformed about their specifics, I wouldn't take the bold step forward of claiming such a statement to be objectively true.
While I appreciate the writeup and found it interesting, perhaps you should have someone proofread your writings before publishing them. There are far too many errors in this thing.
That said, Scientologists are batshit insane and information is their enemy. It's great to see a book like this published and receiving so much attention.
From the way it sounds, I don't think it's ICE-9.
No, I don't see how it's a left right issue, that's why I asked. I was hoping for an actual answer. . .
The left, concerning distributive justice, leans toward government involvement. Concerning social issues, rights, etc., the left fights for the issues their donors care about. When it comes to foreign policy . . . WWI - Wilson; WWII - FDR; Korean War - Truman; Vietnam - Kennedy/Johnson.
The right, concerning distributive justice, leans toward less government involvement. Concerning social issues, rights, etc., the right fights for the issues their donors care about. When it comes to foreign policy . . . Bush and Bush Jr.'s desert skirmishes are about the most notable thing.
For the past century our military has killed many more foreigners with a Democrat in charge than with a Republican. I get that Democrats are generally less enthusiastic about military spending than Republicans (i.e. they realize how absurdly gross and pointless most of our military spending is, but they don't have the spines to actually articulate that opinion), but that doesn't mean that it's against leftist ideals to use military force.
The only consistent ideological stance either party stands behind is their views of distributive justice. The rest is money. You think atheist Randians such as Paul Ryan like pretending they're Christians and paying lip service to pro-life and all sorts of other bullshit they don't believe in? No. But they need money and votes from those people. You think most Democrats in congress give a damn about homosexuals marrying one another and preventing digital copyright infringement? Hell no they don't. But they cash checks from people that do.
Lincoln was one of the most liberal presidents in history and he started a catastrophic, unconstitutional war that killed more Americans than almost every other American war combined. Jefferson, who opposed massive military spending, was quick to enter combat against those who threatened American mercantile security, despite the fact that he almost completely disbanded the military and navy. I don't see how the use of military force is a major right/left thing. If it is in any way, I would say that the right tends to use the military for bogus reasons to rake in cash for the military industrial complex whereas the left tends to use military force when they feel there is a moral imperative (doesn't mean they're always right, but at least the intention is there). Maybe that's just my bias speaking, but that was my original problem with your post -- it seemed to imply that liberals are usually too softhearted or perhaps too anti-war to use military force and historical that has just not been so. I think you meant it in the opposite way, that the right tends to consist of warhawks, but I don't see that as any real ideological difference. The ideological difference is in military spending, not military use.
Someone who is confident in their beliefs has no qualms with a level playing field. ...then again, isn't this a manipulation tool?
Why is that true? Considering how stupid the average voter is, I'm not confident in their ability to use reason to vote for the better candidate. I'm pretty sure most politicians look at the situation the same way I do.
Would you feel confident in your ability to defend yourself in a kangaroo court, even though you know you're innocent?
Pretty much the only area he could be considered right of Bush is his use of drones, and that's only because Bush didn't have this many drones to play with.
How is that policy a left/right issue?
Donors don't deserve access to things they help to fund?
No. What makes you think that they do? I don't know how to make it any more explicit than the post you're replying to: they're donors, not investors. If you donate with stipulations then you're not really donating, you're purchasing something.
The unintended racism in your post aside, an easy way to explain rising test scores in America is that standards are constantly lowering in this country. It's much easier to graduate today than when I was in high school. When I was in high school it was much easier to graduate than when my parents were in high school.
My stepfather was an accountant, working for the government, with no college education. Good luck with that today. From his generation I've also known designers, programmers, and even a vice president of marketing who all lack any education higher than a high school diploma. The difference is that they were all required to understand basic English in order to graduate high school. They all took calculus in high school.
Today, one can get a high school diploma with a less than comprehensive understanding of basic algebra. I've tutored first and second year college students who I would label as functionally illiterate, who don't know the fundamentals of American History (and our history doesn't even date back that far, unlike the Europeans and Asians).
White kids in America don't do just as well as white kids in Europe. White kids from affluent areas sometimes do well. Everyone else, including white kids from blue collar areas, do extremely poorly. They do such a terrible job that for decades schools have consistently been lowering their standards and since No Child Left Behind they've been teaching to the test. Another important factor when examining race in America is that race is becoming less and less of a factor. There's much more diversity. Unfortunately, this isn't because minorities are climbing the socio-economic ladder but because middle class whites are falling off of it.
An example of America's low standards: A high school in Akron gave LeBron James a high school diploma, and he can't utter two sentences without disgracing the English language. Terrelle Pryor was enrolled at Ohio State for three years and could have returned for a fourth, despite the fact that the fundamentals of grammar escape him (also basic ethics; according to Terrelle, "Not everybody's the perfect person in the world. I mean everyone kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me, whatever.") Maurice Clarrett attended Ohio State for a year and maintained his eligibility by taking athletic electives such as bowling and golf. Sure, we coddle our athletes, but we also have a system in place where one can be dumb as dirt and still receive accreditation.
It would be wise for Mattel to change the values because then Scrabble enthusiasts everywhere would have a reason to buy another Scrabble board/chips. It would make for a nice cash grab and they have this research as a nifty excuse for doing so. My parents play Scrabble a lot (they're retired) and their set is at least thirty years old -- it's been around as long as I can remember. Even if they didn't upgrade, someone in the family would be quick to get one for them as a x-mas/b-day present.
I really can't tell if you're being serious, but this post is more retarded than the shit I write.
Ouch, I should have read this before posting -- have fun with this one fellow grammar Nazis. I feel like such a hypocrite.
There's a big difference. Using 'literally' to mean 'figuratively' is using the antonym, which is nonsensical and confusing. If I start using 'hot' to mean 'cold' then no one will no what the hell I'm talking about. Like, when someone says, "I literally couldn't move." They're saying they're paralyzed, not stunned with shock.
'Clip,' on the other hand, isn't an antonym for 'magazine.' In a technical sense, it's very similar and functional the same. I'm no gun expert, but I'm pretty sure that clips in the original, technically correct sense, haven't been used in decades. They were replaced by magazines. Since they are functionally equivalent, people tend to use the terms interchangeably. Since this trend continued to the point where 'clip' is not only more commonly used than 'magazine,' but it's also more universally understood, it's just pedantic to insist that 'clip' is an improper term to describe a magazine. In fact, I would argue that 'clip' is synonymous with 'magazine' because that's the way language has evolved.
It's not nonsensical like using a word to refer to its antonym. The only other case I can think of off the top of my head that does this is the word 'bad.' In phrases such as, 'bad to the bone,' or 'bad motherfucker,' the word 'bad' is used to refer to a positive trait. However, this isn't quite as nonsensical as mixing up 'literal' and 'figurative' because in cases where bad is used in such a way it tends to mean skirting traditional values or morality, which is viewed as a positive by those using it. The Joker, for example, would take any slight on his moral character as complimentary.
Basically, misuse of 'literally' demonstrates ignorance of the English language whereas misuse of 'clip' demonstrates ignorance of the nuances of gun parts. The former is unacceptable for anyone whose native language is English and the latter is unacceptable for gunsmiths and others who are expected to be experts regarding firearms.
And one can rant and rave about the Second Amendment all one wants, the court has ruled that previous restrictions are in fact legal, and would very likely continue to do so as long as restrictions do not outright prohibit any kind of firearm.
Wait, you're saying my right to own a nuclear weapon isn't constitutionally protected? How can I protect myself from tyranny without my own personal nuclear weapon?
Or it could be that people who get flu shots are still carriers and are spreading it even more and with now stronger strains (having battled with a strengthened immune system recently).
Who are you to let biology get in the way of an infeasible solution that thinks about the children? Obviously you're not thinking of the children. You hate children.
I have had far better luck at random meeting spots, and not the usual douchebag-packed clubs and watering holes.
One of my better dates I met at a single's night at a gun range. By being able to wield a firearm implies a lot:
1: She is not a felon.
2: She is mentally sound (or passed the background tests as such.)
3: She has not caused a domestic disturbance.
4: She has some mechanical aptitude.
5: She is able to focus/concentrate.
6: She is able to defend herself if need be.
7: She is able to do something that tends to be "unladylike".
These are qualities that are far more useful than the qualities found from club critters... which tends to be a lot less.
I don't see how wielding a firearm makes any of those assertions true.
That said, I'm still reluctant to ask out the intelligent female dancer that's about my age and fancies me, purely because we have the same dress size. Sadly I appear to be sufficiently superficial to want someone slimmer than I am.
Why don't you work out? It's kind of fucked up to expect a healthy mate when you're a fat slob. When healthy girls are with fat slobs they're in it for the fat slob's money. If you have a lot of money, go hang out in a trailer park and you'll find a thin 'dancer' real quick. She'll even be Catholic if you tell her to.
Specifically, for those of us who have figured out what we want.
If you think you know what you want out of another human you're just objectifying them, which is treacherously immoral. You're treating other people as a mere means to your ends.
This is why online dating sites are so terrible. The whole point is to treat people like animals at the fair rather than as actual people. You shouldn't know what you want out of a mate until you've found the right mate. I hate it when people ask me if I prefer blondes or Asians or busty girls or skinny girls or whathave you. Attractiveness is important, don't get me wrong (it doesn't matter how wonderful a girl's personality is if she can't get my dick hard), but to arbitrarily make the decision that blondes are better than redheads or that girls who share my interests are better than those who don't -- that attitude is disgusting.
Online dating dehumanizes people. Sorry if you're shy, I am too, but I just drink alcohol and I'm magically no longer shy for the night.
Bars, work, church?
Uh, yeah. If a girl is on an online dating site she's all fucked in the head and has no self esteem. So, for me, if a girl's on an online dating site I know we're incompatible.
Dating sites are just legal pimps. If they actually worked to match up 'compatible' people at a high rate, they wouldn't last because they would have no repeat customers. Basically, you want to get laid but you don't know how to court a woman, so you turned to internet dating. Fifty years ago you would have turned to a brothel or the classifieds. Same thing.
I'm no Don Juan but I still prefer to do things the old fashioned way. It's a test of one's wits, persistence, and masculinity. Online dating and whores are just attempts to avoid one of life's great challenges -- it's akin to using Cliff Notes to understand that book that's real confusing. You may get what you need out of the Cliff Notes, all stripped down and boring, but you'll never get the full satisfaction of reading the book. Online dating just seems like free whores to me - you pay them in self-esteem rather than money. I'd start paying for whores before I sacrificed my dignity and signed up for an online dating site.
Obviously the paragon of wisdom on /. is the guy that uses ad hominem attacks, capitalizes words for emphasis, misinterprets my post, and posts as an AC. Oh, yeah, and the "GOOG-tard" thing is a real fine example of your credibility and objectivity.
If you think that Microsoft can continue to rake in billions off Office software and their operating system for decades to come you're sadly mistaken. You're correct that for Apple advertising is merely supplemental income, but Microsoft has been desperately searching for the next big thing for over a decade. Apple doesn't have this problem because they're a hardware company so your iAd analogy is completely fallacious.
You *clearly* have no concept of how these things work.
How what things work? Business? Somehow I doubt you're any more qualified to speculate on such things as I am.