So you seem to assert that the "right religion" tells adherents that "Jesus Christ is their Savior who died for their sins"...
Do I have that right?
Because you have been so quiet on this matter for so long, and so many of your writings seem to me to be so unchristian, that I thought you might have changed...
There is no "right religion" to choose
False. Of course there is.
they shouldn't brainwash the children into any religion
If by "brainwash" you mean parents cannot teach their children that Jesus Christ is their Savior who died for their sins, then you're wrong. This is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
pudge, as your friend, i thought i should point out some things you missed in the post you replied to:
Well, obviously other religions can't offer any ethical guidance, and exposing the kids to them will clearly cause them to hate Christianity. Better not even expose them to other thoughts! And the best place to go for that? Here in the US.
Who the hell are YOU -- or any government -- to deprive the parents of their right to make that choice? Ridicule it all you want, but it is THEIR choice.
Well, in fact it is not.
True. In Germany. (remember, pudge, there is a whole other world out there)
It is one of those areas where you have to judge personal freedom against societal needs or desires.
True. In America, if you teach your child to be the wheel-man as you snipe out the trunk of your car, you can expect society to step in. And, if the social services people come by, and realize that you are a nut case abusing your children by "educating" them, you can expect the judge to back them up.
Like deciding whether it is ok to carry weapons in public... Different societies have different views on these issues.
True. In Germany, they see this differently than in America. (remember, pudge, there is a whole other world out there)
I like that European model in many ways. The founding fathers knew that if every farmer had a muzzzle loader, the cannon and cavalry of the monarchs and despots could not keep them in power against the will of the people. But how the hell did America get from there to automatic weaponry?
There are good reasons to make education an issue of public control. There might also good reasons to allow home-schooling.
True. And true.
Germany as a state / society has decided that it rather wants public control over where, what and when children learn. Other states like the US may handle this differently. As pointed out earlier, you don't have to send your kid to public school in Germany, there are private ones following different educational theories. You can even try to get your own school (not easy, but possible). But a child has to be in school somewhere, meaning be with other children and being exposed to ideas, material, subjects that have been agreed upon as being those that are relevant.
So, it is one of those personal rights you have to give up being a member of society. Makes sense to any German I ever talked to (I'm one myself).
Well, I see the point of the poster. It is a change from my way of thinking, but I see the internal consistency of it.
Now, let's see how you approached this whole thing...
Well, in fact it is not.
False.
It is one of those areas where you have to judge personal freedom against societal needs or desires.
False.
Like deciding whether it is ok to carry weapons in public or whether traffic is on the left or right side of the road.
The former is clear: we do have that fundamental right. The latter, not being about rights at all, is irrelevant to this discussion.
There are good reasons to make education an issue of public control.
False.
But a child has to be in school somewhere, meaning be with other children and being exposed to ideas, material, subjects that have been agreed upon as being those that are relevant.
False.
So, it is one of those personal rights you have to give up being a member of society.
False.
Governments exist to secure liberties, not to take them away. They literally have no right to do it.
Oh my, so many falses! Not a single true. How unusual to see su
Seriously, as I get older, and I know fewer and fewer people without kids, I run into this view less and less.
Seriously, it may be that having children makes those people you know stupid, or it may just be something about the people you know, or the people you don't know.
You seem to forget that Germany has an outstanding education system and thinking you can educate your kids better is well...
Factual.
Your statement could be false if your definition of "better" disagrees with that of santax.
I can also confirm that I find your response to santax to be illogical.
I could even go so far as to speculate that you suspect or know that your definition of "better" differs from that of santax, in which case I would speculate that your response tends toward falsehood in its intent.
But it seems to me that there are many flaws in using all the data you have on your own site. I can point them out, but they are so obvious that I am surprised you are not aware of them.
For example, to get you thinking and encourage a discussion, ip addresses can change, multiple users can have the same ip addresses, cookies can be deleted, persons can use more than one computer, multiple persons can use one computer.
It seems to me the more valid and more difficult approach to the problem of OS and browser choices and changes is not to look at websites used by persons (one or many or even all sites), but look at persons (many or all) and see what browsers and OS they use.
And you will never have a non-"flawed" methodology for capturing this information, even for the users on your own site.
False, of course. It has a degree of error, but it is not flawed methodolgy. There's a difference: we have a good sample, they do not.
You say "we have a good sample, they do not." (emphasis mine).
It appears Gazbo asks an open-ended question; you have been critical about the sample other others, and you say you ("we", including you) have a good sample.
By "we", do you mean slashdot?
By good, what makes it more than bad and less than excellent?
By sample, what do you mean specific to this question? Please feel free to assume I know as much as you learned from an introductory text on sampling methodology. As you know, good methods applied to bad data give bad results.
My interest, and perhaps Gazbo's, is to "we", and "good", much more than sample.
Gee, where have you been the past 8 years? do you really think George or Dick would have gone quietly? now that you know some part of what they were doing quietly to subvert the constitution? we are at war buddy, and no impeachment or Senate conviction can overcome the EXECUTIVE's role in our god-blessed U S of A! you expect the attorney general would have removed the shrub? or the fbi? or the army? how is that going to work?
now, Bill, he would have gone. but not even the opposition party was dumb enough to go there.
I predict the democracy-loving people of Iran will not allow any fraudulent election of their leader[s] to stand.
I know people from Iran, people who left after the Shah was overthrown, and SAVAK dismantled. I find them to be rightly proud of their history, and ready to right a wrong when they see it. And quite knowledgable about where their country is, and how it got there.
Thanks for pointing me to those writings you made.
I respect such beliefs, but I confirm that I do not share them at this point in my life.
I have seen some amazing things that a mind can do. I have learned of truly remarkable things, like the mosquito. But, I have not studied religion or life enough to be very firm in my beliefs. So, for now, I confirm I enjoy doing some things I know how to do, learning some things I don't know how to do, and sharing some knowledge and ignorance with others.
But if you mean "creatures from another planet", sorry, I'm a skeptic
If you mean creatures from another planet that have visited the planet Earth, I am a skeptic.
But I am quite skeptical that this is the only planet with intelligent life. In fact, I believe there are probably many planets with intelligent life, where that intelligent life has no concept of "god".
I confirm it is a very big number of planets times a very low probability, but why should Earth be unique about (semi-)intelligent life?
Slashdot Mirror
So you seem to assert that the "right religion" tells adherents that "Jesus Christ is their Savior who died for their sins"...
Do I have that right?
Because you have been so quiet on this matter for so long, and so many of your writings seem to me to be so unchristian, that I thought you might have changed...
There is no "right religion" to choose
False. Of course there is.
they shouldn't brainwash the children into any religion
If by "brainwash" you mean parents cannot teach their children that Jesus Christ is their Savior who died for their sins, then you're wrong. This is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.
pudge, as your friend, i thought i should point out some things you missed in the post you replied to:
Well, obviously other religions can't offer any ethical guidance, and exposing the kids to them will clearly cause them to hate Christianity. Better not even expose them to other thoughts! And the best place to go for that? Here in the US.
Who the hell are YOU -- or any government -- to deprive the parents of their right to make that choice? Ridicule it all you want, but it is THEIR choice.
Well, in fact it is not.
True. In Germany. (remember, pudge, there is a whole other world out there)
It is one of those areas where you have to judge personal freedom against societal needs or desires.
True. In America, if you teach your child to be the wheel-man as you snipe out the trunk of your car, you can expect society to step in. And, if the social services people come by, and realize that you are a nut case abusing your children by "educating" them, you can expect the judge to back them up.
Like deciding whether it is ok to carry weapons in public ... Different societies have different views on these issues.
True. In Germany, they see this differently than in America. (remember, pudge, there is a whole other world out there)
I like that European model in many ways. The founding fathers knew that if every farmer had a muzzzle loader, the cannon and cavalry of the monarchs and despots could not keep them in power against the will of the people. But how the hell did America get from there to automatic weaponry?
There are good reasons to make education an issue of public control. There might also good reasons to allow home-schooling.
True. And true.
Germany as a state / society has decided that it rather wants public control over where, what and when children learn. Other states like the US may handle this differently. As pointed out earlier, you don't have to send your kid to public school in Germany, there are private ones following different educational theories. You can even try to get your own school (not easy, but possible). But a child has to be in school somewhere, meaning be with other children and being exposed to ideas, material, subjects that have been agreed upon as being those that are relevant.
So, it is one of those personal rights you have to give up being a member of society. Makes sense to any German I ever talked to (I'm one myself).
Well, I see the point of the poster. It is a change from my way of thinking, but I see the internal consistency of it.
Now, let's see how you approached this whole thing...
Well, in fact it is not.
False.
It is one of those areas where you have to judge personal freedom against societal needs or desires.
False.
Like deciding whether it is ok to carry weapons in public or whether traffic is on the left or right side of the road.
The former is clear: we do have that fundamental right. The latter, not being about rights at all, is irrelevant to this discussion.
There are good reasons to make education an issue of public control.
False.
But a child has to be in school somewhere, meaning be with other children and being exposed to ideas, material, subjects that have been agreed upon as being those that are relevant.
False.
So, it is one of those personal rights you have to give up being a member of society.
False.
Governments exist to secure liberties, not to take them away. They literally have no right to do it.
Oh my, so many falses! Not a single true. How unusual to see su
Seriously, as I get older, and I know fewer and fewer people without kids, I run into this view less and less.
Seriously, it may be that having children makes those people you know stupid, or it may just be something about the people you know, or the people you don't know.
Or maybe it is something else.
Logically. ;-)
Any thoughts?
your friend,
Mr. Confirmer.
and people who don't want to know, will foe.
people who want to know, will personalize their news to avoid those who don't want to know, and favor those who do want to know
you know?
Hi Chris !
This is your friend again.
I noticed your exchange:
You seem to forget that Germany has an outstanding education system and thinking you can educate your kids better is well...
Factual.
Your statement could be false if your definition of "better" disagrees with that of santax.
I can also confirm that I find your response to santax to be illogical.
I could even go so far as to speculate that you suspect or know that your definition of "better" differs from that of santax, in which case I would speculate that your response tends toward falsehood in its intent.
In any case, I wonder why you made that response.
Do you wonder?
Hey, muthaFucka, how do you do it? racism permeates our society, and much as I try, it isn't easy to keep it out.
i guess the answer is in trying.
See you out there. And don't get roped in by the ACs too much. They are amusing, but seldom important.
Ciao!
Don't try to trick him!
But it seems to me that there are many flaws in using all the data you have on your own site. I can point them out, but they are so obvious that I am surprised you are not aware of them.
For example, to get you thinking and encourage a discussion, ip addresses can change, multiple users can have the same ip addresses, cookies can be deleted, persons can use more than one computer, multiple persons can use one computer.
It seems to me the more valid and more difficult approach to the problem of OS and browser choices and changes is not to look at websites used by persons (one or many or even all sites), but look at persons (many or all) and see what browsers and OS they use.
What do you think?
And you will never have a non-"flawed" methodology for capturing this information, even for the users on your own site.
False, of course. It has a degree of error, but it is not flawed methodolgy. There's a difference: we have a good sample, they do not.
You say " we have a good sample, they do not." (emphasis mine).
It appears Gazbo asks an open-ended question; you have been critical about the sample other others, and you say you ("we", including you) have a good sample.
By "we", do you mean slashdot?
By good, what makes it more than bad and less than excellent?
By sample, what do you mean specific to this question? Please feel free to assume I know as much as you learned from an introductory text on sampling methodology. As you know, good methods applied to bad data give bad results.
My interest, and perhaps Gazbo's, is to "we", and "good", much more than sample.
What you say is interesting.
Ciao!
You are new around here, aren't you?
Gee, where have you been the past 8 years? do you really think George or Dick would have gone quietly? now that you know some part of what they were doing quietly to subvert the constitution? we are at war buddy, and no impeachment or Senate conviction can overcome the EXECUTIVE's role in our god-blessed U S of A! you expect the attorney general would have removed the shrub? or the fbi? or the army? how is that going to work?
now, Bill, he would have gone. but not even the opposition party was dumb enough to go there.
I predict the democracy-loving people of Iran will not allow any fraudulent election of their leader[s] to stand.
I know people from Iran, people who left after the Shah was overthrown, and SAVAK dismantled. I find them to be rightly proud of their history, and ready to right a wrong when they see it. And quite knowledgable about where their country is, and how it got there.
So, I wish them all gook luck and god speed.
Regards,
p_c
Thanks, again. This may take awhile, if I have to read the "Paxil Diary" also- new to me.
I respect such beliefs, but I confirm that I do not share them at this point in my life.
I have seen some amazing things that a mind can do. I have learned of truly remarkable things, like the mosquito. But, I have not studied religion or life enough to be very firm in my beliefs. So, for now, I confirm I enjoy doing some things I know how to do, learning some things I don't know how to do, and sharing some knowledge and ignorance with others.
And f*cking with some dumbasses.
Ciao,
pudge_confirmer
But if you mean "creatures from another planet", sorry, I'm a skeptic
If you mean creatures from another planet that have visited the planet Earth, I am a skeptic.
But I am quite skeptical that this is the only planet with intelligent life. In fact, I believe there are probably many planets with intelligent life, where that intelligent life has no concept of "god".
I confirm it is a very big number of planets times a very low probability, but why should Earth be unique about (semi-)intelligent life?
I confirm pudge posted
"FTW".
I confirm obscenity is just not like him. I confirm he is not just some newbie.