You may be right, but I don't thinks so. At least not yet. The difference between the China-U.S. situation is that both of these states have the power to back that 'posturing' up. Russia does not. It does not matter whether anyone cares or not (which I sincerely think they do, considering the ramifications were a conflict to occur), but that China/U.S. could make them care. The sentiment that the USA's day is over flies in the face of what every International Relations scholar thinks today. The US is still by far the most powerful economic and military state in the world.
There is a clear precedent for positioning, because that is all that is it, like this in the international arena. It's similar to what England is experiencing. A former superpower finds itself landing on its backside, yet still has this great desire to be powerful. So they talk like they always have, pretending like they have the same might on the international stage as they once had, and it ends up looking somewhat pathetic. It is a severe identity crisis. It's kind of like an actress who, after a bad script or two, falls out of the national spotlight. She feels like she has to act like a star more than she ever has to keep up the illusion that she still posseses her old fame.
Re:Just because property rights aren't absolute
on
Why Community Matters
·
· Score: 1
How can you claim to be Thomist and not mention the existence of God and the role of revelation as fundamental to all 'right' arguments? There wasn't enough in your post to decide whether your argument was good (it could be) or not so hot (also a possibility). I really couldn't decide whether to mod you up or down, so I did neither.
Actually it wasn't Hatch that led the impeachment, especially considering that as a Senator he has no authority to initiate or lead an impeachment inquiry (you're confusing impeachment with conviction trial). Rather, Bob Barr of the Judiciary Committee and others launched the process (even before the Lewinsky scandal).
Hatch is a consumate professional politican. Agree or disagree with his politics, please explain to me how he is supposed to gain the support of his constituents without being 'contemputous holier-than-thou?' Remember, Utah is a staunchly conservative state, possibly the most in the Union.
I really find that funny. Electronic paper trying to become more like real paper. Why not just go with real paper instead of using something that is trying, but can never quite be, real paper? How will you ever reproduce that great book smell?
When the English first used the long bow on the battlefield, their opponents were up in arms. Killing from a distance was pure cowardice! Firing blindly into the lines of their enemies, the English had discovered a highly efficient method of killing that would revolutionize warfare. However, the archers did not fight as men, but cowards. They were not brave enough battle face to face with their enemy.
The 'death from above' warfare that is typical of the technologically advanced American military presents a similar situation. Not only are we imperialist pigs, but also cowards in the face of most of the world. As successful as we may (or may not) be, this is one of the many reasons we are hated throughout the world.
In my experience, the main problem with gaming under Linux is... it's a pain in the butt. After using Linux as an NOS mostly, I decided to try my hand at Linux games, to see if I could finally convert from Windows as a home OS. To date, I have tried Heroes III, Unreal Tournament, and Quake III and none of them have worked right out of the box. There has always been a different problem, and once one was fixed, another popped up. After hours of work, I gave up, switched over to my Windows box, and within minutes was fragging away. Others I have talked to have had different experiences. But some have also had problems similar to mine. Until games work reasonably 'out of the box', Linux will not be viable for gamers, most of whom would rather play than finagle around with libraries.
Reminds me of Physics class, playing poorly coded games on my TI-85! Um, yeah, I'm working on that vector now. Honest! Man, its a good thing I can't justify spending the money on a PP!
Shouldn't Linux and gang be involved heavily in this? You would think that the people with the most in depth knowledge of the 'low-level' workings of the OS would know what is best. If Linux says "this filesytem is best," I would tend to believe him.
By this logic, just about anyone in the business is suspect. What about ftp transfers? What about email? Could an ISP be responsible for someone who emails an mp3 to a friend? The precedent that this sets is extrememly dangerous.
So, why have newspapers anymore? At the most, all we need is one sheet of paper w/ the links and a scanner. No problem. Have newspapers lost their relevance or do they still have a niche in society?
Certainly, the ACLU's stated objective is to protect the rights of everyone to say / do whatever they want. This is horrendous for any society. Healthy societies require limits.
While they may profess to not make judgement between 'right' and 'wrong' the affects of their actions destroy the distinction between. If they really believed something could be 'wrong,' then it would be an incredible lack of social responsibility to allow these views to be expressed, and possibly convert others. Consider that for a moment... No, the ACLU does not see 'right' nor 'wrong.' They are merely obsessed with eliminating any restraints placed on people, healthy or otherwise.
In fact, the tyranny of the majority is alive and well... but not in the way you are thinking. The majority has spoken, saying you cannot take away any of my freedoms, whether natural or created. And anyone that says otherwise should be censored. Let me ask you a question. Would the ACLU sponsor gropus who wanted to get rid of the ACLU on the grouds that the ACLU is violating their rights to prevent people from spreading the wrong message? I doubt it, because any true assertion of 'rightness' is censored by the ACLU.
Let me ask you another question. If a group was out there that was proclaiming a view that was potentially dangerous to society, would you be in favor of limiting their speech in order to protect the good of everyone? For to be socially responsible, you have to be able to judge what views are dangerous and take steps to prevent these views from propogating.
The facts come from the philosophy upon which the ACLU stands. Thus, it is difficult, if not impossible, to provide a bulleted list of facts showing th ACLU's impact. I'll attempt a short, simplified version of the philosophic logic. This is not mine, many philosophers have said this and I doubt I can explain it as well.
1. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the all consuming passion of American democracy is the right to equality;
2. He also showed that this leads to passion for freedoms (would take a long time to explain, read Democracy in America;
3. In a society, complete freedom is not good. The cliche example is yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Rules governing behavior are good for any society.
4. Thus, equality leads to a kind of anarchy of freedom (gross vulgarization, but I can't do much better here). That's the gist of the logic anyway.
The destroying difference part is tough to explain, especially in such a limited venue, but I will try. Difference is defined by good and bad. For example, my clothes do not make me any different than you are, nor my hairstyle, etc. However, if I believed that we should do away with democracy and make someone king of all the Americans, then I would wager that I was quite distinct in my thinking than you. You might even go so far as to say I shouldn't take that position. Say you place great importance on our democratic system of government and I place great importance on
The ACLU comes in and says 'everything should be permissible.' Anyone can say whatever they want, and do whatever they want (except murder, unless you consider abortion murder). Thus, they are suggesting that any viewpoint is equaly valid as the next. They may say the opposite, but the effects of their actions implies this relativism. In this way, they destroy the distinction between 'right' and 'wrong' and our little disagreement on governmental systems becomes trivial.
I hope I've explained this well. I don't know how much philosophy you've read, so it may seem a bit weird. Or maybe I've suprised myself and done a good job here!
You make an interesting distinction between American Liberalism and democracy. In fact, they have become synonymous in the modern era. This is unfortunate. American Liberalism is a crime, democracy is not.
The ACLU is one of the most destructive organizations out there. It's goal is to break down every single difference in society. With every action that it takes, the ACLU is making you more and more like me, and vice versa. Any believer in 'personal freedom' would be appalled at the acts of societal leveling that the ACLU takes part in.
Toqueville prophecied the coming of such organizations of obsessive equality. He was not impressed.
So what? Nearly everyone has MP3's these days, and nearly everyone KNOWS that this is practically the same thing as pirating software. I use Napster, but if I was one of the blocked, I really don't have any reason to complain. I got caught doing something I know is unlawful. Oh well, too bad for me.
RMS's take on right and wrong is very Kantian, although I wonder if he's ever read Kant. I have a feeling that his ideas of right and wrong are entirely subjective. Even if you claim to be looking effects to other people, you still look from your own eyes. This is problematic, and unavoidable.
From a philosophic standpoint, RMS's views are rather weak. His natural rights argument, while practically plagarized from Locke, fall apart quickly when questioned (i.e. What natural right to life does a man have who is drowning in the ocean?). Rights are really just conventions created by modern liberal thought.
His proclaimed athism also tends to conflict with his rejection of relativism. If there is no God, where does his basis for judgment come from? Natural moral sense decays under questioning in a universe without God. Without God, one must make a personal judgement, which is w/out authority. This is the foundation of relativism.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this a troll post? It's a completely legitmate point.
You may be right, but I don't thinks so. At least not yet. The difference between the China-U.S. situation is that both of these states have the power to back that 'posturing' up. Russia does not. It does not matter whether anyone cares or not (which I sincerely think they do, considering the ramifications were a conflict to occur), but that China/U.S. could make them care. The sentiment that the USA's day is over flies in the face of what every International Relations scholar thinks today. The US is still by far the most powerful economic and military state in the world.
There is a clear precedent for positioning, because that is all that is it, like this in the international arena. It's similar to what England is experiencing. A former superpower finds itself landing on its backside, yet still has this great desire to be powerful. So they talk like they always have, pretending like they have the same might on the international stage as they once had, and it ends up looking somewhat pathetic. It is a severe identity crisis. It's kind of like an actress who, after a bad script or two, falls out of the national spotlight. She feels like she has to act like a star more than she ever has to keep up the illusion that she still posseses her old fame.
How can you claim to be Thomist and not mention the existence of God and the role of revelation as fundamental to all 'right' arguments? There wasn't enough in your post to decide whether your argument was good (it could be) or not so hot (also a possibility). I really couldn't decide whether to mod you up or down, so I did neither.
....I was really worried that we were going to lose interest in sex.
Political Philosophy Aristotle called it the "Master Science of the Good" Learn why technology is evil, then go practice it.
Actually it wasn't Hatch that led the impeachment, especially considering that as a Senator he has no authority to initiate or lead an impeachment inquiry (you're confusing impeachment with conviction trial). Rather, Bob Barr of the Judiciary Committee and others launched the process (even before the Lewinsky scandal). Hatch is a consumate professional politican. Agree or disagree with his politics, please explain to me how he is supposed to gain the support of his constituents without being 'contemputous holier-than-thou?' Remember, Utah is a staunchly conservative state, possibly the most in the Union.
Great authors = Stephenson/Clancy/Crichton?
I really find that funny. Electronic paper trying to become more like real paper. Why not just go with real paper instead of using something that is trying, but can never quite be, real paper? How will you ever reproduce that great book smell?
The 'death from above' warfare that is typical of the technologically advanced American military presents a similar situation. Not only are we imperialist pigs, but also cowards in the face of most of the world. As successful as we may (or may not) be, this is one of the many reasons we are hated throughout the world.
In my experience, the main problem with gaming under Linux is ... it's a pain in the butt. After using Linux as an NOS mostly, I decided to try my hand at Linux games, to see if I could finally convert from Windows as a home OS. To date, I have tried Heroes III, Unreal Tournament, and Quake III and none of them have worked right out of the box. There has always been a different problem, and once one was fixed, another popped up. After hours of work, I gave up, switched over to my Windows box, and within minutes was fragging away. Others I have talked to have had different experiences. But some have also had problems similar to mine. Until games work reasonably 'out of the box', Linux will not be viable for gamers, most of whom would rather play than finagle around with libraries.
Reminds me of Physics class, playing poorly coded games on my TI-85! Um, yeah, I'm working on that vector now. Honest! Man, its a good thing I can't justify spending the money on a PP!
err...that would be 'Linus' not 'Linux.' I know I know, my fault for not using 'preview.'
Shouldn't Linux and gang be involved heavily in this? You would think that the people with the most in depth knowledge of the 'low-level' workings of the OS would know what is best. If Linux says "this filesytem is best," I would tend to believe him.
By this logic, just about anyone in the business is suspect. What about ftp transfers? What about email? Could an ISP be responsible for someone who emails an mp3 to a friend? The precedent that this sets is extrememly dangerous.
So, why have newspapers anymore? At the most, all we need is one sheet of paper w/ the links and a scanner. No problem. Have newspapers lost their relevance or do they still have a niche in society?
While they may profess to not make judgement between 'right' and 'wrong' the affects of their actions destroy the distinction between. If they really believed something could be 'wrong,' then it would be an incredible lack of social responsibility to allow these views to be expressed, and possibly convert others. Consider that for a moment ... No, the ACLU does not see 'right' nor 'wrong.' They are merely obsessed with eliminating any restraints placed on people, healthy or otherwise.
In fact, the tyranny of the majority is alive and well ... but not in the way you are thinking. The majority has spoken, saying you cannot take away any of my freedoms, whether natural or created. And anyone that says otherwise should be censored. Let me ask you a question. Would the ACLU sponsor gropus who wanted to get rid of the ACLU on the grouds that the ACLU is violating their rights to prevent people from spreading the wrong message? I doubt it, because any true assertion of 'rightness' is censored by the ACLU.
Let me ask you another question. If a group was out there that was proclaiming a view that was potentially dangerous to society, would you be in favor of limiting their speech in order to protect the good of everyone? For to be socially responsible, you have to be able to judge what views are dangerous and take steps to prevent these views from propogating.
1. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the all consuming passion of American democracy is the right to equality;
2. He also showed that this leads to passion for freedoms (would take a long time to explain, read Democracy in America;
3. In a society, complete freedom is not good. The cliche example is yelling fire in a crowded theatre. Rules governing behavior are good for any society.
4. Thus, equality leads to a kind of anarchy of freedom (gross vulgarization, but I can't do much better here). That's the gist of the logic anyway.
The destroying difference part is tough to explain, especially in such a limited venue, but I will try. Difference is defined by good and bad. For example, my clothes do not make me any different than you are, nor my hairstyle, etc. However, if I believed that we should do away with democracy and make someone king of all the Americans, then I would wager that I was quite distinct in my thinking than you. You might even go so far as to say I shouldn't take that position. Say you place great importance on our democratic system of government and I place great importance on
The ACLU comes in and says 'everything should be permissible.' Anyone can say whatever they want, and do whatever they want (except murder, unless you consider abortion murder). Thus, they are suggesting that any viewpoint is equaly valid as the next. They may say the opposite, but the effects of their actions implies this relativism. In this way, they destroy the distinction between 'right' and 'wrong' and our little disagreement on governmental systems becomes trivial.
I hope I've explained this well. I don't know how much philosophy you've read, so it may seem a bit weird. Or maybe I've suprised myself and done a good job here!
These do not contradict my thesis. Rather, they support it. Unlimited freedom = unlimited leveling. See Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America
You make an interesting distinction between American Liberalism and democracy. In fact, they have become synonymous in the modern era. This is unfortunate. American Liberalism is a crime, democracy is not.
The ACLU is one of the most destructive organizations out there. It's goal is to break down every single difference in society. With every action that it takes, the ACLU is making you more and more like me, and vice versa. Any believer in 'personal freedom' would be appalled at the acts of societal leveling that the ACLU takes part in.
Toqueville prophecied the coming of such organizations of obsessive equality. He was not impressed.
Wait a minute ... now aliens can come down and upload a virus to our satelites. We're opening the backdoor to alien hackers!
So what? Nearly everyone has MP3's these days, and nearly everyone KNOWS that this is practically the same thing as pirating software. I use Napster, but if I was one of the blocked, I really don't have any reason to complain. I got caught doing something I know is unlawful. Oh well, too bad for me.
When he 'gets' relativism, his views won't be any better than anyone else. If he takes on relativism, why even bother anymore?
From a philosophic standpoint, RMS's views are rather weak. His natural rights argument, while practically plagarized from Locke, fall apart quickly when questioned (i.e. What natural right to life does a man have who is drowning in the ocean?). Rights are really just conventions created by modern liberal thought.
His proclaimed athism also tends to conflict with his rejection of relativism. If there is no God, where does his basis for judgment come from? Natural moral sense decays under questioning in a universe without God. Without God, one must make a personal judgement, which is w/out authority. This is the foundation of relativism.