What you are actually saying is that Muslims are not humans but robots, which are hardwired to react in a certain way to certain input, and thus cannot be held responsible for what they do.
Absolutely not. BUT...
It is well known that a) many global regions largely populated by Muslims have suffered from political turmoil, revolutions and other forms of conflict recently, making them very volatile and susceptible to provocation; and b) that they are often instigated by religious leaders (riots tend to spark AFTER prayers) - which is no surprise considering that their power and influence grows significantly once the political issue becomes a "matter of faith".
It's not the people that are bellicose - it is, as always, a selected elite that benefits from plunging people into conflict.
Also, that there with robots is a bit of a straw man.
What's the difference? Exposing Islam for what it is will undoubtedly be viewed as an attack on their faith by devout Muslims. So let's stop pussyfooting around Islam and let them know time and time again exactly what we think of their backward, intolerant and violent religion. A purported "religion of peace" according to its apologists, but when someone says it isn't, they are usually threatened with violence. Thus, it's a "religion of peace" in the same way that North Korea is a "people's democratic republic".
The difference is in my (faulty) assumption that the original poster was "someone who has intellectual issues with religionS" - instead of being "actually a religious extremist, with cultural and religious biases bordering on racism".
Cause, you see, anything that you and the poster above are trying to ascribe to one particular religion can be ascribed to any other just as well. No religion is a religion of peace no more than it is a religion of war. What they all are though is a set of rules and moral parables from neolithic times used by those who, with the backing of superstitious traditions, use them to control the gullible and uneducated.
Exposing ALL religions as irrelevant and often contradictory sets of harmful superstitions is a moral act - as their teachings present an induction of delusion in those susceptible, often exploiting the moments of emotional instability. "Exposing" ONLY ONE religion as "backward, intolerant and violent" is, again, religious extremism with cultural and religious biases bordering on racism.
How exactly do you make this play together with a worldwide Internet? You can shout pretty much anything on it, knowing that it'll reach people all across the globe, and you are pretty much guaranteed to get someone somewhere offended. So now what, we should crack down on all offensive speech on the grounds that someone got mad and did something nasty?
I don't think that "cracking down" by government or some other "high authority" would help. Two things MIGHT though.
Education of public that "it's not nice to do some things - online or off" (Yeah, I know.) and ridicule of those who practice such trolling, presenting them for what they really are.
I was not using it to illustrate the motivation of the crowd. I was using it to point out that taking the result of individual trolling aimed at deliberately provoking an expected and violent response, and then shifting the burden of that deliberate provocation to "crowds that choose" is hypocritical at best.
Or try it this way. If one knows that the particular theater crowd will stampede out of the theater if someone shouts "Cookies!" (It's the national convention of cookiephobes.), what is the difference between shouting "Cookies!" and shouting "Fire!" in that crowd?
One does not get "It's OK" points for provoking someone if the provocation seems irrational to the provocateur or the third party.
Which has about as much relevance to my comment above as yours does. Sorry, but you are nitpicking a minor issue, appealing to authority and even switching the theses by inserting one example which apparently in your opinion clashes with my generalization of "all religions being absolutist philosophies".
And then you "prove it" with an example of "Jain extremists being paralyzed by their pacifism... can't take their eyes off the ground lest they step on an ant, they filter their drinking water through cheese cloth lest they swallow and kill a bug".
If that is not absolutism taken to extreme, I don't know what is. And if you're arguing that their religion is benevolent and not hurting anyone, read that part about what it does to its followers again. That's borderline self-immolation and quite definitely mortification of both the flesh and the mind.
The best way to expose beasts is for them to do that themselves. Muslims will not listen to non-Muslims, but they will expose themselves by their actions.
It's time to meet cultural war with cultural war.
Hmmm... You seem to be having issues with only ONE religion.
I'm sorry about that. I was under the impression that you are someone who has intellectual issues with religionS, and who was wasting his energies and causing himself unnecessary stress by trying to fight them or simply by taking it all too personally.
When in fact you are actually a religious extremist, with cultural and religious biases bordering on racism - just like those you are supposedly against. It would be funny if the irony was not so sad.
If you're gonna go there, you might as well nitpick that "proscribed" typo as well.
Every religion has rules. Call them what you like, but they tend to be strict as they are rules sent down from God Himself. Those religious rules explain EVERYTHING in the Universe. Not the least of all, there is always a rule(s) about the nature of good and evil.
Describing the world in such black and white terms is pure absolutism.
Religion being based on a myth (usually a very detailed and organized one) and not on scientific theory, those religious rules are not based on real life but on a system of imaginary values built on the myth of that particular religion. Some of those values MAY coincide with real life rules but they all lose their relevance the moment the magical thinking starts - i.e. when philosophy becomes religious dogma and ritual.
All religions are absolutist philosophies, with very specific ideas of good and evil based not on real life but on imaginary properties proscribed by their own scripture. As such, they are all destined to clash with the real world sooner or later.
When that happens, there is really no choice for someone who's high on religion - you're either on the side of god, angels and good or you're on the side of evil. And evil, as we all know, must be vanquished. Man's law be damned. We're talking higher power here.
Abortion clinic bombers don't think that they are killing doctors - they are just doing god's work, eliminating the child murderers.
The film "caused" nothing. Islamists CHOSE violence, which reflects on their Superstition, not the film.
That's like saying that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater did not cause the subsequent injuries and deaths - theater goers chose to trample those people.
There is a very real burden of blame and responsibility on the creator of the movie, which was clearly created to be inflammatory. From its production values, that was clearly not free speech nor art - that was flamebaiting. An act of verbal violence, hoping to incite a response of actual violence from some group of religious fanatics somewhere.
There being plenty of such groups around the world, just waiting for an excuse to commit acts of violence against those they perceive as enemies, Nakoula's film is no different than a football hooligan vandalizing a pub of the opposite team's fans right before the big game. Saying that the original act didn't cause the riots afterwards is ignoring the evidence of a very clear chain of cause and effect.
...and is well worth the few casualties the Islamists inflict.
That's what they said! Only their rationalization is a bit different. But they are completely with you on the "few casualties" part.
If _I_ attack Superstition that makes me not PC and a Bad Man.
If you are actually after a positive result you shouldn't "attack" their superstition. Don't stoop to that level. Instead, expose it. Both to reason and to the truth. Superstition, religious or otherwise, is a house of cards trying to support the entirety of the Universe. It collapses on its own as soon as anyone starts prodding it instead of praising it.
Well, have some Superstition direct from the source! In your face, by their choice.
Meanwhile, Stevens, 52, had been found by local people and taken, unrecognized, to a hospital, around 1 a.m. A doctor failed to revive him and pronounced him dead of smoke inhalation.
Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and lost grants due to the controversy. ... The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ. ... During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.
Just because no one was actually killed, it does not make one kind of religious violence more civilized or rational than the other. Nor is it unheard of for Christian religious fanatics to commit indiscriminate acts of violence over a movie.
You can't troll people who don't CHOOSE to be trolled!
Now that's being a bit obtuse. We ARE talking here about people who believe that they have a direct line to the creator of the Universe by kneeling on the floor, putting their hands in a certain position and pronouncing a special incantation. The kind of people who get trolled by pieces of toast, FFS.
It's not like they are the most reasonable bunch in the world, capable of rational thought when that one special topic comes up. After all, they are all conditioned to believe in one form of hell or another, where those who are against the above mentioned creator of the Universe and his laws must end up. Where they too will end up as well if they accidentally eat certain food on a certain day or if they forget to do a certain ritual or if they say the name of the above mentioned creatorTM. And then there's all that thing about impending Armageddon.
Seriously, what do you expect to get from people who are conditioned to be in constant fear not only for their own existence, but for the existence of EVERYTHING if someone insults their creatorTM?
Sorry about that. Haven't seen your reply. Possibly due to its 0-score.
You go to *4.1 without placing responsibility on the people who caused it to bump from *1 (or *2).
I am placing no responsibility whatsoever on ANY of those 4.1 people. I am simply comparing living standard numbers to show why one may be considered "rich" (in the USA) if one makes 150k a year, and simply "middle class well off" if he/she makes couple of thousands less.
It's not about if someone making $149k, $150k or $151k can be considered rich.
Try instead to figure out who's standard of living is poor and how much are they making. Keep in mind that there are many levels below simply "poor". Then you look above that until you get to an acceptable standard of living. Then above that you'll find the "Doing OK" crowd. Then the "Well off" ones. Then the rich. Then the very rich. Then the super rich.
Or... you can take a shortcut and just look at the minimum wage. I'm guessing that we can agree that it is a decent enough economic indicator for an online discussion between laymen.
You're making one minimum wage? You can barely afford the cost of living for one person. Yourself. 1-2 MinWage? You could support another person and still live poorly, or live at some more acceptable level alone. 5 times minimum wage allows you alone to support an entire family of four and then some. Incidentally, that is apparently also the point where one earns enough to be happy.
It's pretty easy to see where those $150k guys, making 10+ minimum wages, fall on such a scale.
As for a "why a specific number"... Well, try it like this. If you are making enough money to provide a family of 4.1 (Mom, dad and the statistical number of children needed to continue the growth of population.) with their own 2*MinWage - you are the golden standard of upper middle class. Each member of a such family can afford a middle class life on their own, and together they are a happy, economically functional, upper middle class family. The fucking ***American DreamTM***. America The Beautiful starts playing in the background, a bald eagle flies through the frame.
Add those numbers up for the highest US MinWage (Washington) and you get: $9.04 * 8 hours * 5 day * 50 weeks * 4.1 people * 2 = $148256
That is the PEAK of upper middle class in the USA. Above that starts the upper class - the rich.
EVERYTHING physical decays. It's kindofa law. A second one... of something or other.
Also, you are arguing against a subset of an argument against an analogy. A poor analogy, cause it was used to try to equate physical, material objects with ideas. And I really hope that I don't have to explain you the difference between the two.
collecting interest on an investment their granddaddy made 50 years ago. Or let's say they're living in a house that granddaddy bought 50 years ago. Or let's say they live on a reservation that the Feds agreed the Sioux would be allowed to self-govern.
All those things you mention are physical things. As such, they suffer from physical decay, they become obsolete and they lose in value. Plus they need maintenance and there are various other costs associated with their use.
Copyright laws impose artificial limitations to THOUGHTS AND IDEAS. Which don't decay, rarely become obsolete and generally become more valuable with time and dissemination.
Also, granddad's house is ever going to be of use to only a limited number of people. Granddad's song or a novel released to public domain becomes usable by (and potentially useful to) the entirety of present and future societies. And it doesn't even end with humans. AI, robots or Martians get to benefit from it too.
But yeah, changing JRRT's copyrights back to the duration that they were when he published, is just fine. 50 years, not 90, is what he was promised. But it is too late to offer JRRT a 14 year copyright or a copyright that expires the day after he dies. He can't hear your new offer.
You're not giving 14 years of copyright to JRRT. You can't. He's dead. He don' get to sign no contracts no more.
On the other hand, it is a very common thing to have a transition period with such matters. Kill the current copyright laws, make them life + 21 from now on (or whatever is the legal age of the potential offspring), roll back the ones that got upgraded to the current standard to their original values - and then just let the things play out. People owning copyright to stuff that got created under the current laws get to keep their copyright for their 100+ years, everything else gets adjusted.
Nobody currently living loses a dime, everyone profits from all those old works becoming public domain, and the future generations have a little less of burden of our stupidity to bear.
You are doing a common techie thing - looking for and finding a technological solution for a non-technological problem. It's OK, we all do that.
Try this. Can you, and are you allowed to, SELL your digital music/video after you're done with it? You know... like the way you could do with a CD/DVD. Only without scratch marks on the files. After all, you paid good money for it. It has to be worth SOMETHING, right? If it becomes worthless the moment you give money for it - that is a scam.
And that is not a technological problem. It is a legal issue.
One stemming from the fact that we have, while still hanging on to an industrial age mentality, simply danced blindly into an information age. Where ordered and codified bits of information such as laws have an immediate, far-reaching and often unpredictable effects on human lives and on the physical world. Also, where non-physical informational constructs and ideas such as corporations have all the rights of living, breathing humans (and more) but none of their limitations - such as morality, mortality or even simple physical decay.
We have for quite some time been living in an information age version of a wild west frontier - only with laws instead of steel. And once again, only a privileged few get to directly design and decide about the tools with which the world is shaped and controlled. Everyone else just gets to experience the effects.
And it would be nice if there was a technological solution for that (not to be confused with THAT above), but I'm afraid that it is probably more of a philosophical thing. We need something like the Asimov's Laws of Robotics (including the zeroth law), only for the legal world.
Appleâ(TM)s mantra of using technology to bring people closer together also dovetails neatly with the teachings of the orange-robed monks at the Dhammakaya Temple. They preach a worldly, tech-savvy form of Buddhism which instructs worshipers that it isnâ(TM)t a sin to grow rich, as long as they contribute a chunk of their earnings to the Dhammakaya cause.
Material possessions are cool. Just give us money.
Among other things, he has said the reincarnated Mr. Jobs spends much of his time lounging in a glass palace resembling an Apple store. Phra Chaibul also has said the being formerly known as Steve Jobs is attended by 20 servants, who seem to resemble the Apple store âGeniusesâ(TM)
The spiritual rewards also appear to be worth the effort, at least according to Phra Chaibul. He says that Mr. Jobs now enjoys sleeping on a floating hover-bed, and when he thinks of a piece of music he would like to hear, it automatically plays. If he is hungry, an aide quickly brings him a tasty treat.
âoeEverything is high-tech, beautiful, and simple, exactly the way he likes it, and he is filled with great excitement and amazement,â Phra Chaibul says. In fact, the technology surrounding the reincarnated Mr. Jobs works so seamlessly that he has no reason to âoebare his canine teethâ or otherwise exercise the hot temper for which he was known on earth.
Whatâ(TM)s more, Mr. Jobs was reborn in a younger, more handsome form. Phra Chaibul says he now appears to be around 35 to 40 years old, with a full head of hair. Artist renderings accompanying Phra Chaibulâ(TM)s lectures show a rejuvenated Mr. Jobs living in a photo-shopped, air-brushed utopia where he hangs out with other sprites and revels in the achievements of friends and colleagues he left behind on earth.
What does a celestial warrior-philosopher need with servants? Or glass palaces? Or floating hover-beds? Or tasty treats? Or hair? Or pathetically "younger" body of 35-40? Why not go for a viral 19-21 with a wisdom of several lifetimes?
Probably cause the above mentioned Phra Chaibul is 68 and 35 seems to his unimaginative mind (Really? Afterlife apex for a celestial warrior-philosopher is about auto-playing music and snacks on a floating bed?) like an impossibly distant age when he was "young".
And if you want to SEE what he actually meant, please step this way. Dhamma Media Channel has renderings of all Steve's previous incarnations on display. Including an explanation why he died of cancer.
SPOILER:
In a previous incarnation he had beaten to death an "unlicensed doctor" who "gave the counterfeit medicine to his older brother". PI Steve (Previous Incarnation Steve) ended up selling his family business AND donating a part of his liver to save his brother. "Unlicensed doctor's" death on the other hand "was caused mainly by liver hemorrhage." See how it all ties together? AMAZOING-OING-OING-OING!
Back in the hunter-gatherer era, the ability to scare off potential suitors might help a woman in dedicating her existing attention towards the raising of an existing child. Popping out one kid a year (even if child mortality is high) results in a sizable family. And what with the father(s) absent hunting, or in a non-monogamous society where dad just moves on, mom can't afford to stretch her resources too far.
Hunter-gatherer societies which don't enforce monogamous relationships are destined to be matriarchal. "Popping out one kid a year" along with absent (and frankly, unknown) fathers creates social circles of mothers and their children. I.e. Families.
And with few resources available bigger IS better - if your family is surviving on ants, you need to be able to gather a lot of them. More hands, more resources. Also, large families tend to have many aunts as well - children being a responsibility not only of their blood mother but of ALL mothers in the family.
And as the article itself stated: it is very likely that the areas where previous ice cores were gathered may not have been adequately representative of antarctica as a whole.
Nevertheless, those earlier ice cores have been a foundation stone for much of AGW theory.
You DO realize that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too there?
New core samples which demonstrate more extreme AGW effects mean that the old core samples which show lesser AGW effects were not valid. Ergo, AGW not only proven again, but more extreme than previously reported. BUT, since new eXtreme 2.0 samples show more AGW effects - AGW does not exist cause the previous samples weren't showing enough of it.
You are trying to say that something is not happening because our old observation, which downplayed its effect, didn't show it to be as strong as our new observation does.
E.g. When I touch the hotplate of the electric stove with my bare hand it burns me, but as I only felt it getting worm when I was touching it through the mitten - the stove must be broken. Further more, it can't be running on electricity because it does not heat the same with and without me wearing a mitten.
So, Mr. Logic, knock off the straw man. My point is made and your irrelevancies have no bearing on it.
OK. Serves me right for giving you way too much credit, and leaving you enough ground to back out of that claim. Which was, let me remind you "whether this is true or not, or whether the mainstream propaganda is true or not, they are contradictory".
Should have just called you out on your claim that regardless of the actual situation - your position must be true. Which is such a tangled ball of fallacies (proof by assertion for starters) that it is no wonder you are dodging even an amicable questioning of the logic involved - instead choosing to represent it as a strawman. Good for you. Attack IS the best defense, right? Particularly when you got no other argument other than "cause I say so".
I guess my expectations about this conversation were too high. Serves me right expecting more from someone who keeps using words as "propaganda", "theory" (as if that word has negative connotations) and "promotion" when talking about scientific concepts. I.e. talking about science as it it's politics.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are actually saying is that Muslims are not humans but robots, which are hardwired to react in a certain way to certain input, and thus cannot be held responsible for what they do.
Absolutely not. BUT...
It is well known that a) many global regions largely populated by Muslims have suffered from political turmoil, revolutions and other forms of conflict recently, making them very volatile and susceptible to provocation; and b) that they are often instigated by religious leaders (riots tend to spark AFTER prayers) - which is no surprise considering that their power and influence grows significantly once the political issue becomes a "matter of faith".
It's not the people that are bellicose - it is, as always, a selected elite that benefits from plunging people into conflict.
Also, that there with robots is a bit of a straw man.
What's the difference? Exposing Islam for what it is will undoubtedly be viewed as an attack on their faith by devout Muslims. So let's stop pussyfooting around Islam and let them know time and time again exactly what we think of their backward, intolerant and violent religion. A purported "religion of peace" according to its apologists, but when someone says it isn't, they are usually threatened with violence. Thus, it's a "religion of peace" in the same way that North Korea is a "people's democratic republic".
The difference is in my (faulty) assumption that the original poster was "someone who has intellectual issues with religionS" - instead of being "actually a religious extremist, with cultural and religious biases bordering on racism".
Cause, you see, anything that you and the poster above are trying to ascribe to one particular religion can be ascribed to any other just as well.
No religion is a religion of peace no more than it is a religion of war.
What they all are though is a set of rules and moral parables from neolithic times used by those who, with the backing of superstitious traditions, use them to control the gullible and uneducated.
Exposing ALL religions as irrelevant and often contradictory sets of harmful superstitions is a moral act - as their teachings present an induction of delusion in those susceptible, often exploiting the moments of emotional instability.
"Exposing" ONLY ONE religion as "backward, intolerant and violent" is, again, religious extremism with cultural and religious biases bordering on racism.
How exactly do you make this play together with a worldwide Internet? You can shout pretty much anything on it, knowing that it'll reach people all across the globe, and you are pretty much guaranteed to get someone somewhere offended. So now what, we should crack down on all offensive speech on the grounds that someone got mad and did something nasty?
That is a very good question.
And I'm sad to say that I don't really have an answer, though these guys seem to be on the right track.
I don't think that "cracking down" by government or some other "high authority" would help.
Two things MIGHT though.
Education of public that "it's not nice to do some things - online or off" (Yeah, I know.) and ridicule of those who practice such trolling, presenting them for what they really are.
I was not using it to illustrate the motivation of the crowd.
I was using it to point out that taking the result of individual trolling aimed at deliberately provoking an expected and violent response, and then shifting the burden of that deliberate provocation to "crowds that choose" is hypocritical at best.
Or try it this way.
If one knows that the particular theater crowd will stampede out of the theater if someone shouts "Cookies!" (It's the national convention of cookiephobes.), what is the difference between shouting "Cookies!" and shouting "Fire!" in that crowd?
One does not get "It's OK" points for provoking someone if the provocation seems irrational to the provocateur or the third party.
http://slashdot.org/~AlexLibman/comments
And my mom makes the best cookies.
Which has about as much relevance to my comment above as yours does.
Sorry, but you are nitpicking a minor issue, appealing to authority and even switching the theses by inserting one example which apparently in your opinion clashes with my generalization of "all religions being absolutist philosophies".
And then you "prove it" with an example of "Jain extremists being paralyzed by their pacifism... can't take their eyes off the ground lest they step on an ant, they filter their drinking water through cheese cloth lest they swallow and kill a bug".
If that is not absolutism taken to extreme, I don't know what is.
And if you're arguing that their religion is benevolent and not hurting anyone, read that part about what it does to its followers again.
That's borderline self-immolation and quite definitely mortification of both the flesh and the mind.
The best way to expose beasts is for them to do that themselves. Muslims will not listen to non-Muslims, but they will expose themselves by their actions.
It's time to meet cultural war with cultural war.
Hmmm... You seem to be having issues with only ONE religion.
I'm sorry about that.
I was under the impression that you are someone who has intellectual issues with religionS, and who was wasting his energies and causing himself unnecessary stress by trying to fight them or simply by taking it all too personally.
When in fact you are actually a religious extremist, with cultural and religious biases bordering on racism - just like those you are supposedly against.
It would be funny if the irony was not so sad.
If you're gonna go there, you might as well nitpick that "proscribed" typo as well.
Every religion has rules.
Call them what you like, but they tend to be strict as they are rules sent down from God Himself.
Those religious rules explain EVERYTHING in the Universe. Not the least of all, there is always a rule(s) about the nature of good and evil.
Describing the world in such black and white terms is pure absolutism.
Religion being based on a myth (usually a very detailed and organized one) and not on scientific theory, those religious rules are not based on real life but on a system of imaginary values built on the myth of that particular religion.
Some of those values MAY coincide with real life rules but they all lose their relevance the moment the magical thinking starts - i.e. when philosophy becomes religious dogma and ritual.
Ludicrous.
...it lacks proper promotion as there are plenty of blasphemy laws out there.
Indians are probably just waiting for a chance to at least burn someone in effigy over it.
Why "religion" ? You make it sound like all religions have their followers pull this crap, when in reality ... it's only one of them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence
All religions are absolutist philosophies, with very specific ideas of good and evil based not on real life but on imaginary properties proscribed by their own scripture.
As such, they are all destined to clash with the real world sooner or later.
When that happens, there is really no choice for someone who's high on religion - you're either on the side of god, angels and good or you're on the side of evil.
And evil, as we all know, must be vanquished. Man's law be damned. We're talking higher power here.
Abortion clinic bombers don't think that they are killing doctors - they are just doing god's work, eliminating the child murderers.
A devine being can't die, on a cross or in any other way.
...that the almighty and all-powerfull god CAN'T make a rock so heavy he himself can't lift it?
Also, that's a very... "specific" view on christian approach to the divinity of Jesus.
The film "caused" nothing. Islamists CHOSE violence, which reflects on their Superstition, not the film.
That's like saying that shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater did not cause the subsequent injuries and deaths - theater goers chose to trample those people.
There is a very real burden of blame and responsibility on the creator of the movie, which was clearly created to be inflammatory.
From its production values, that was clearly not free speech nor art - that was flamebaiting.
An act of verbal violence, hoping to incite a response of actual violence from some group of religious fanatics somewhere.
There being plenty of such groups around the world, just waiting for an excuse to commit acts of violence against those they perceive as enemies, Nakoula's film is no different than a football hooligan vandalizing a pub of the opposite team's fans right before the big game.
Saying that the original act didn't cause the riots afterwards is ignoring the evidence of a very clear chain of cause and effect.
...and is well worth the few casualties the Islamists inflict.
That's what they said!
Only their rationalization is a bit different. But they are completely with you on the "few casualties" part.
If _I_ attack Superstition that makes me not PC and a Bad Man.
If you are actually after a positive result you shouldn't "attack" their superstition. Don't stoop to that level.
Instead, expose it. Both to reason and to the truth.
Superstition, religious or otherwise, is a house of cards trying to support the entirety of the Universe.
It collapses on its own as soon as anyone starts prodding it instead of praising it.
Well, have some Superstition direct from the source! In your face, by their choice.
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/us-ambassador-christopher-stevens-killed-body-dragged-through-streets-by-muslims-islam-religion-of-peace-2.jpg
You are letting your emotions cloud your judgement. Looking at humanitarian effort, you are seeing violence and hate.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/13/us-libya-ambassador-assault-idUSBRE88C02Q20120913
Meanwhile, Stevens, 52, had been found by local people and taken, unrecognized, to a hospital, around 1 a.m. A doctor failed to revive him and pronounced him dead of smoke inhalation.
Piss Christ didn't cause Christians to kill people...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ#Reception
Serrano received death threats and hate mail, and lost grants due to the controversy.
...
...
The work was vandalized at the National Gallery of Victoria, Australia, and gallery officials reported receiving death threats in response to Piss Christ.
During a retrospective of Serrano's work at the National Gallery of Victoria in 1997, the then Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, George Pell, sought an injunction from the Supreme Court of Victoria to restrain the National Gallery of Victoria from publicly displaying Piss Christ, which was not granted. Some days later, one patron attempted to remove the work from the gallery wall, and two teenagers later attacked it with a hammer.
Just because no one was actually killed, it does not make one kind of religious violence more civilized or rational than the other.
Nor is it unheard of for Christian religious fanatics to commit indiscriminate acts of violence over a movie.
You can't troll people who don't CHOOSE to be trolled!
Now that's being a bit obtuse.
We ARE talking here about people who believe that they have a direct line to the creator of the Universe by kneeling on the floor, putting their hands in a certain position and pronouncing a special incantation.
The kind of people who get trolled by pieces of toast, FFS.
It's not like they are the most reasonable bunch in the world, capable of rational thought when that one special topic comes up.
After all, they are all conditioned to believe in one form of hell or another, where those who are against the above mentioned creator of the Universe and his laws must end up.
Where they too will end up as well if they accidentally eat certain food on a certain day or if they forget to do a certain ritual or if they say the name of the above mentioned creatorTM.
And then there's all that thing about impending Armageddon.
Seriously, what do you expect to get from people who are conditioned to be in constant fear not only for their own existence, but for the existence of EVERYTHING if someone insults their creatorTM?
And apparently also a semantics nazi.
Wouldn't being a semantics nazi make you an anti-semantic?
Sorry about that. Haven't seen your reply. Possibly due to its 0-score.
You go to *4.1 without placing responsibility on the people who caused it to bump from *1 (or *2).
I am placing no responsibility whatsoever on ANY of those 4.1 people.
I am simply comparing living standard numbers to show why one may be considered "rich" (in the USA) if one makes 150k a year, and simply "middle class well off" if he/she makes couple of thousands less.
Rationalizing the numbers if you will.
It's not about if someone making $149k, $150k or $151k can be considered rich.
Try instead to figure out who's standard of living is poor and how much are they making. Keep in mind that there are many levels below simply "poor".
Then you look above that until you get to an acceptable standard of living.
Then above that you'll find the "Doing OK" crowd.
Then the "Well off" ones.
Then the rich.
Then the very rich.
Then the super rich.
Or... you can take a shortcut and just look at the minimum wage.
I'm guessing that we can agree that it is a decent enough economic indicator for an online discussion between laymen.
You're making one minimum wage? You can barely afford the cost of living for one person. Yourself.
1-2 MinWage? You could support another person and still live poorly, or live at some more acceptable level alone.
5 times minimum wage allows you alone to support an entire family of four and then some.
Incidentally, that is apparently also the point where one earns enough to be happy.
It's pretty easy to see where those $150k guys, making 10+ minimum wages, fall on such a scale.
As for a "why a specific number"...
Well, try it like this.
If you are making enough money to provide a family of 4.1 (Mom, dad and the statistical number of children needed to continue the growth of population.) with their own 2*MinWage - you are the golden standard of upper middle class.
Each member of a such family can afford a middle class life on their own, and together they are a happy, economically functional, upper middle class family.
The fucking ***American DreamTM***. America The Beautiful starts playing in the background, a bald eagle flies through the frame.
Add those numbers up for the highest US MinWage (Washington) and you get:
$9.04 * 8 hours * 5 day * 50 weeks * 4.1 people * 2 = $148256
That is the PEAK of upper middle class in the USA. Above that starts the upper class - the rich.
EVERYTHING physical decays. It's kindofa law. A second one... of something or other.
Also, you are arguing against a subset of an argument against an analogy.
A poor analogy, cause it was used to try to equate physical, material objects with ideas.
And I really hope that I don't have to explain you the difference between the two.
collecting interest on an investment their granddaddy made 50 years ago. Or let's say they're living in a house that granddaddy bought 50 years ago. Or let's say they live on a reservation that the Feds agreed the Sioux would be allowed to self-govern.
All those things you mention are physical things.
As such, they suffer from physical decay, they become obsolete and they lose in value. Plus they need maintenance and there are various other costs associated with their use.
Copyright laws impose artificial limitations to THOUGHTS AND IDEAS.
Which don't decay, rarely become obsolete and generally become more valuable with time and dissemination.
Also, granddad's house is ever going to be of use to only a limited number of people.
Granddad's song or a novel released to public domain becomes usable by (and potentially useful to) the entirety of present and future societies.
And it doesn't even end with humans. AI, robots or Martians get to benefit from it too.
But yeah, changing JRRT's copyrights back to the duration that they were when he published, is just fine. 50 years, not 90, is what he was promised. But it is too late to offer JRRT a 14 year copyright or a copyright that expires the day after he dies. He can't hear your new offer.
You're not giving 14 years of copyright to JRRT. You can't. He's dead. He don' get to sign no contracts no more.
On the other hand, it is a very common thing to have a transition period with such matters.
Kill the current copyright laws, make them life + 21 from now on (or whatever is the legal age of the potential offspring), roll back the ones that got upgraded to the current standard to their original values - and then just let the things play out.
People owning copyright to stuff that got created under the current laws get to keep their copyright for their 100+ years, everything else gets adjusted.
Nobody currently living loses a dime, everyone profits from all those old works becoming public domain, and the future generations have a little less of burden of our stupidity to bear.
You are doing a common techie thing - looking for and finding a technological solution for a non-technological problem.
It's OK, we all do that.
Try this.
Can you, and are you allowed to, SELL your digital music/video after you're done with it?
You know... like the way you could do with a CD/DVD. Only without scratch marks on the files.
After all, you paid good money for it. It has to be worth SOMETHING, right?
If it becomes worthless the moment you give money for it - that is a scam.
And that is not a technological problem. It is a legal issue.
One stemming from the fact that we have, while still hanging on to an industrial age mentality, simply danced blindly into an information age.
Where ordered and codified bits of information such as laws have an immediate, far-reaching and often unpredictable effects on human lives and on the physical world.
Also, where non-physical informational constructs and ideas such as corporations have all the rights of living, breathing humans (and more) but none of their limitations - such as morality, mortality or even simple physical decay.
We have for quite some time been living in an information age version of a wild west frontier - only with laws instead of steel.
And once again, only a privileged few get to directly design and decide about the tools with which the world is shaped and controlled.
Everyone else just gets to experience the effects.
And it would be nice if there was a technological solution for that (not to be confused with THAT above), but I'm afraid that it is probably more of a philosophical thing.
We need something like the Asimov's Laws of Robotics (including the zeroth law), only for the legal world.
Yeah, but then you would have probably never learned about Steve's past lives.
I mean, come on, how often do you get to see renderings of someone's previous AND future incarnations, including them beating someone to death with their bare hands.
http://blogs.wsj.com/searealtime/2012/08/31/thai-group-says-steve-jobs-reincarnated-as-warrior-philosopher/
Appleâ(TM)s mantra of using technology to bring people closer together also dovetails neatly with the teachings of the orange-robed monks at the Dhammakaya Temple.
They preach a worldly, tech-savvy form of Buddhism which instructs worshipers that it isnâ(TM)t a sin to grow rich, as long as they contribute a chunk of their earnings to the Dhammakaya cause.
Material possessions are cool. Just give us money.
Among other things, he has said the reincarnated Mr. Jobs spends much of his time lounging in a glass palace resembling an Apple store. Phra Chaibul also has said the being formerly known as Steve Jobs is attended by 20 servants, who seem to resemble the Apple store âGeniusesâ(TM)
The spiritual rewards also appear to be worth the effort, at least according to Phra Chaibul. He says that Mr. Jobs now enjoys sleeping on a floating hover-bed, and when he thinks of a piece of music he would like to hear, it automatically plays. If he is hungry, an aide quickly brings him a tasty treat.
âoeEverything is high-tech, beautiful, and simple, exactly the way he likes it, and he is filled with great excitement and amazement,â Phra Chaibul says. In fact, the technology surrounding the reincarnated Mr. Jobs works so seamlessly that he has no reason to âoebare his canine teethâ or otherwise exercise the hot temper for which he was known on earth.
Whatâ(TM)s more, Mr. Jobs was reborn in a younger, more handsome form. Phra Chaibul says he now appears to be around 35 to 40 years old, with a full head of hair. Artist renderings accompanying Phra Chaibulâ(TM)s lectures show a rejuvenated Mr. Jobs living in a photo-shopped, air-brushed utopia where he hangs out with other sprites and revels in the achievements of friends and colleagues he left behind on earth.
What does a celestial warrior-philosopher need with servants?
Or glass palaces? Or floating hover-beds? Or tasty treats? Or hair?
Or pathetically "younger" body of 35-40? Why not go for a viral 19-21 with a wisdom of several lifetimes?
Probably cause the above mentioned Phra Chaibul is 68 and 35 seems to his unimaginative mind (Really? Afterlife apex for a celestial warrior-philosopher is about auto-playing music and snacks on a floating bed?) like an impossibly distant age when he was "young".
And if you want to SEE what he actually meant, please step this way.
Dhamma Media Channel has renderings of all Steve's previous incarnations on display.
Including an explanation why he died of cancer.
SPOILER:
In a previous incarnation he had beaten to death an "unlicensed doctor" who "gave the counterfeit medicine to his older brother".
PI Steve (Previous Incarnation Steve) ended up selling his family business AND donating a part of his liver to save his brother.
"Unlicensed doctor's" death on the other hand "was caused mainly by liver hemorrhage."
See how it all ties together?
AMAZOING-OING-OING-OING!
One other thing, how do I distinguish clowd clowns from regular clowns?
They spurt green ichor instead of blood when you cut their head off.
Back in the hunter-gatherer era, the ability to scare off potential suitors might help a woman in dedicating her existing attention towards the raising of an existing child. Popping out one kid a year (even if child mortality is high) results in a sizable family. And what with the father(s) absent hunting, or in a non-monogamous society where dad just moves on, mom can't afford to stretch her resources too far.
Hunter-gatherer societies which don't enforce monogamous relationships are destined to be matriarchal.
"Popping out one kid a year" along with absent (and frankly, unknown) fathers creates social circles of mothers and their children.
I.e. Families.
And with few resources available bigger IS better - if your family is surviving on ants, you need to be able to gather a lot of them. More hands, more resources.
Also, large families tend to have many aunts as well - children being a responsibility not only of their blood mother but of ALL mothers in the family.
And as the article itself stated: it is very likely that the areas where previous ice cores were gathered may not have been adequately representative of antarctica as a whole.
Nevertheless, those earlier ice cores have been a foundation stone for much of AGW theory.
You DO realize that you are trying to have your cake and eat it too there?
New core samples which demonstrate more extreme AGW effects mean that the old core samples which show lesser AGW effects were not valid. Ergo, AGW not only proven again, but more extreme than previously reported.
BUT, since new eXtreme 2.0 samples show more AGW effects - AGW does not exist cause the previous samples weren't showing enough of it.
You are trying to say that something is not happening because our old observation, which downplayed its effect, didn't show it to be as strong as our new observation does.
E.g. When I touch the hotplate of the electric stove with my bare hand it burns me, but as I only felt it getting worm when I was touching it through the mitten - the stove must be broken.
Further more, it can't be running on electricity because it does not heat the same with and without me wearing a mitten.
So, Mr. Logic, knock off the straw man. My point is made and your irrelevancies have no bearing on it.
OK. Serves me right for giving you way too much credit, and leaving you enough ground to back out of that claim.
Which was, let me remind you "whether this is true or not, or whether the mainstream propaganda is true or not, they are contradictory".
Should have just called you out on your claim that regardless of the actual situation - your position must be true.
Which is such a tangled ball of fallacies (proof by assertion for starters) that it is no wonder you are dodging even an amicable questioning of the logic involved - instead choosing to represent it as a strawman.
Good for you. Attack IS the best defense, right?
Particularly when you got no other argument other than "cause I say so".
I guess my expectations about this conversation were too high.
Serves me right expecting more from someone who keeps using words as "propaganda", "theory" (as if that word has negative connotations) and "promotion" when talking about scientific concepts.
I.e. talking about science as it it's politics.
Plenty of things we no longer need but still have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality