In each of those systems success is tied to gaming the system. The methods are slightly different, but the end result is the same - if you try to play by the rules you get screwed.
But you are also making assertions - that incarnating and dying on a cross implies a sacrifice. If god can't be understood by mortals, then why give his acts such human labels? Christianity demands that god is treated as a self sacrificing entity since it incarnated and let itself be killed - looking at god in the same was we'd look at a human (death is bad), while at the same time also looking at god as completely inhuman (sure he didn't let himself stay dead, but that's OK since he's god, so the sacrifice still counts). So why not include your own words, that non-gods cannot tell what incarnation implied for a god, when considering the Bible? Why should any of it's texts dealing with the incarnation be considered anything more then guesswork?
That graph kind of reminds me of the Dune books. Just like there, the Catholic church may have been the reason Europe progressed so quickly compared to the rest of the world. A millennium of forced stagnation to make people despise religious calls for 'slower change', and enough different nations in a small area to have plenty of backups when one or two tried to slow down the pace of development.
Well most people own at least something, so the threshold for 'profitable' is about the same as 'is alive'.
If you look at history here are also plenty of cases where 'heretics' were persecuted simple because they could be. The pope would offer and 'crusaders' any land the soon to be exterminated heretics occupied, and both sides were happy. The church maintained it's supremacy and the crusader got some newly uninhabited land to exploit.
Well it depends on what you do to push them. Now I agree that the Innocence of Muslims was a piece of crap, likely designed to do exactly what happened (although I might be giving the author too much credit, he could just be an idiotic asshole rather then just an asshole), and the movie should not have been made. But should Youtube have censored one asshole to appease another? Once they started doing that, where would they stop? When the only content available was selected readings from the Koran?
So in a world where there are people that will kill to protect slavery, slavery should never be criticized? Being willing to kill to prevent something from being said does not make it wrong to say that thing. It just makes you wrong.
Well since the won't be US companies using dumping prices to stifle competition, perhaps those countries will get to have their own companies making new products. Then those companies will be able to export into the US, competing with the overpriced products of the US companies. And isn't that what free market is all about - competition?
Well the shooters in these killing sprees aren't expecting to survive (unlike the Florida criminals). Most of them kill themselves. So would the threat of being shot really stop them? Or would it just slightly decrease the number of kids they kill (while likely increasing the number of 'friendly fire' incidents).
It's exactly as good an argument as those that support public sex offender lists. Both would contain people that might present a greater danger to kids. And both would be totally useless when it came to actually protecting kids or anyone else.
Do you think a guy can act? Does saying that you're worried and acting like it mean you are worried, or just a good actor? Does screaming mean you are in pain? If it does, all those guys in Hollywood must be some serious masochists to keep their jobs.
When people die they give up something they have a finite supply of - life. Isn't that kind of the definition of sacrifice? Giving something valuable up? Is the time of an eternal omnipotent omnipresent entity limited? Does incarnation 'give something up'?
You ask me not to remove things from my consideration, so I'd like to ask you to do the same thing. Even if we assume that every record of the event was a truthful recollection, does that mean the record itself is completely accurate? Or were the writers just fallible people, which might have been fooled by tricks or misinterpreted things they saw?
Close. Except change the car dealer to a company that just leases cars. The customers have the choice of changing their ISP, if the ISP is not willing to stop leasing cars to people that commit driveby shootings.
It's about as much their business as a list of sex offenders. You can even use the same excuse: 'Think of the children'. It lets the parents know which neighbors have guns in their house, so they can prohibit their children from visiting those houses, in case the guns are poorly secured.
No, it wouldn't get them blacklisted. It would just require them to wait a week each time they started spamming again. And would that be wrong? Most people here complain that offering the pay-to-get-off-the-list is blackmail. So wouldn't removing that option make everything OK?
It's more like someone you lent your CC did a charge back on a purchase, and the company added you to a list that has people who did a charge back in the last week on it. Now that company is trusted enough that other stores use their list to block CCs that present a risk of charge backs. They tell you that your CC will be removed in a week if you stop doing charge backs, or you can pay a fee to have it removed immediately. So either wait a few days or pay them and you'll be fine. The lessen you should learn here is to stop lending your CC (IPs) to assholes.
It would probably be tough for the car to detect every possible problem with itself. Imagine the front of the car being covered with black paint, blocking the front lights. How would the car be able to detect that? But it could present quite a traffic hazard.
There would be cases where the car's owner would deserve the ticket - busted lights, missing first aid kits, no winter tires,.... So give the ticket to the car's owner, then have the manufacturer reimburse the owner if it was the fault of the 'driver'
But humans are also not exactly perfect at reacting to the unexpected. So why dismiss an automatic car that is not perfect, but may still be better than many human drivers?
I agree with you in principle, but point 2 would be a nightmare. Imagine trying to compose a test that people would agree shows the maturity to consent to sex. Half the world would demand that one of the questions be: Do you think sex outside marriage is wrong?' and answering in the negative should mean an automatic fail. And don't even get me started on questions about disagreeing with your elders.
But what is the point of 'sacrificing' yourself, when you're not sacrificing anything? The terrible thing about death for humans is that it's a one-way process. So why consider death a big sacrifice if it's most important feature is missing - you're just going to respawn later. Even the torture of the crucifixion becomes questionable, when the guy being tortured is omnipotent - if he can turn water to wine then blood to morphine shouldn't be much of a stretch. Did he even suffer, or did he just moan while being stoned?
As for the records, there are a few things to consider. First, how many records are there of most people not performing miracles? It's rare for people to record the fact that something unexpected did NOT happen that day. At the time Jesus was little more then the head of a Cult. So since his cult was not yet large or violent, why would you expect there to be extensive records about his actions. Most accounts of him would be by his followers. And just like the leaders of cults today, those followers would likely attribute special powers to their leaders. Another thing that should be considered is that it was the christian church that was main organization which preserved the records of that time. Even some of the contents of the works of Josephus are likely to have been 'extended' by their christian keepers. So how likely would a work that proclaimed Jesus a fraud have been not just to escape destruction but to be actively preserved?
Slashdot Mirror
In each of those systems success is tied to gaming the system. The methods are slightly different, but the end result is the same - if you try to play by the rules you get screwed.
But you are also making assertions - that incarnating and dying on a cross implies a sacrifice. If god can't be understood by mortals, then why give his acts such human labels?
Christianity demands that god is treated as a self sacrificing entity since it incarnated and let itself be killed - looking at god in the same was we'd look at a human (death is bad), while at the same time also looking at god as completely inhuman (sure he didn't let himself stay dead, but that's OK since he's god, so the sacrifice still counts).
So why not include your own words, that non-gods cannot tell what incarnation implied for a god, when considering the Bible? Why should any of it's texts dealing with the incarnation be considered anything more then guesswork?
The dark ages might not have been caused by the Church, but without it they may have just been a dark century or two.
That graph kind of reminds me of the Dune books. Just like there, the Catholic church may have been the reason Europe progressed so quickly compared to the rest of the world.
A millennium of forced stagnation to make people despise religious calls for 'slower change', and enough different nations in a small area to have plenty of backups when one or two tried to slow down the pace of development.
Well most people own at least something, so the threshold for 'profitable' is about the same as 'is alive'.
If you look at history here are also plenty of cases where 'heretics' were persecuted simple because they could be. The pope would offer and 'crusaders' any land the soon to be exterminated heretics occupied, and both sides were happy. The church maintained it's supremacy and the crusader got some newly uninhabited land to exploit.
You should have just warned them that capitalism doesn't work either.
That's what I meant. And it also what makes it extra dangerous. (Want to play with my dad's gun?)
Well it depends on what you do to push them. Now I agree that the Innocence of Muslims was a piece of crap, likely designed to do exactly what happened (although I might be giving the author too much credit, he could just be an idiotic asshole rather then just an asshole), and the movie should not have been made.
But should Youtube have censored one asshole to appease another? Once they started doing that, where would they stop? When the only content available was selected readings from the Koran?
So in a world where there are people that will kill to protect slavery, slavery should never be criticized?
Being willing to kill to prevent something from being said does not make it wrong to say that thing. It just makes you wrong.
Well since the won't be US companies using dumping prices to stifle competition, perhaps those countries will get to have their own companies making new products. Then those companies will be able to export into the US, competing with the overpriced products of the US companies. And isn't that what free market is all about - competition?
Well the shooters in these killing sprees aren't expecting to survive (unlike the Florida criminals). Most of them kill themselves. So would the threat of being shot really stop them? Or would it just slightly decrease the number of kids they kill (while likely increasing the number of 'friendly fire' incidents).
Yes, the size of the donations might be similar, but try getting a meeting with your representative as a 1$ donor.
It's exactly as good an argument as those that support public sex offender lists. Both would contain people that might present a greater danger to kids. And both would be totally useless when it came to actually protecting kids or anyone else.
Do you think a guy can act? Does saying that you're worried and acting like it mean you are worried, or just a good actor? Does screaming mean you are in pain? If it does, all those guys in Hollywood must be some serious masochists to keep their jobs.
When people die they give up something they have a finite supply of - life. Isn't that kind of the definition of sacrifice? Giving something valuable up? Is the time of an eternal omnipotent omnipresent entity limited? Does incarnation 'give something up'?
You ask me not to remove things from my consideration, so I'd like to ask you to do the same thing. Even if we assume that every record of the event was a truthful recollection, does that mean the record itself is completely accurate? Or were the writers just fallible people, which might have been fooled by tricks or misinterpreted things they saw?
Close. Except change the car dealer to a company that just leases cars. The customers have the choice of changing their ISP, if the ISP is not willing to stop leasing cars to people that commit driveby shootings.
It's about as much their business as a list of sex offenders. You can even use the same excuse: 'Think of the children'. It lets the parents know which neighbors have guns in their house, so they can prohibit their children from visiting those houses, in case the guns are poorly secured.
Just think of all the 'contributions' they'd get from the automobile industry if they did force-obsolete 95% of all cars.
No, it wouldn't get them blacklisted. It would just require them to wait a week each time they started spamming again. And would that be wrong? Most people here complain that offering the pay-to-get-off-the-list is blackmail. So wouldn't removing that option make everything OK?
It's more like someone you lent your CC did a charge back on a purchase, and the company added you to a list that has people who did a charge back in the last week on it.
Now that company is trusted enough that other stores use their list to block CCs that present a risk of charge backs.
They tell you that your CC will be removed in a week if you stop doing charge backs, or you can pay a fee to have it removed immediately.
So either wait a few days or pay them and you'll be fine. The lessen you should learn here is to stop lending your CC (IPs) to assholes.
It would probably be tough for the car to detect every possible problem with itself. Imagine the front of the car being covered with black paint, blocking the front lights. How would the car be able to detect that? But it could present quite a traffic hazard.
And Slovenia. You're required to have basic emergency supplies in your car.
There would be cases where the car's owner would deserve the ticket - busted lights, missing first aid kits, no winter tires,.... So give the ticket to the car's owner, then have the manufacturer reimburse the owner if it was the fault of the 'driver'
But humans are also not exactly perfect at reacting to the unexpected. So why dismiss an automatic car that is not perfect, but may still be better than many human drivers?
I agree with you in principle, but point 2 would be a nightmare. Imagine trying to compose a test that people would agree shows the maturity to consent to sex. Half the world would demand that one of the questions be: Do you think sex outside marriage is wrong?' and answering in the negative should mean an automatic fail. And don't even get me started on questions about disagreeing with your elders.
But what is the point of 'sacrificing' yourself, when you're not sacrificing anything? The terrible thing about death for humans is that it's a one-way process. So why consider death a big sacrifice if it's most important feature is missing - you're just going to respawn later. Even the torture of the crucifixion becomes questionable, when the guy being tortured is omnipotent - if he can turn water to wine then blood to morphine shouldn't be much of a stretch. Did he even suffer, or did he just moan while being stoned?
As for the records, there are a few things to consider. First, how many records are there of most people not performing miracles? It's rare for people to record the fact that something unexpected did NOT happen that day. At the time Jesus was little more then the head of a Cult. So since his cult was not yet large or violent, why would you expect there to be extensive records about his actions. Most accounts of him would be by his followers. And just like the leaders of cults today, those followers would likely attribute special powers to their leaders.
Another thing that should be considered is that it was the christian church that was main organization which preserved the records of that time. Even some of the contents of the works of Josephus are likely to have been 'extended' by their christian keepers. So how likely would a work that proclaimed Jesus a fraud have been not just to escape destruction but to be actively preserved?