The problems come when some Christians decide that the 'souls' of people are more important then their 'worldly' well being. And it strangely very rarely applies to their own personal well being.
For example the Church in my country is very active in collecting donations from the faithful. After every mass a person will go among the people with a collection plate, while the priest preaches about the importance of charity or something similar. Many poor people, that can barely survive on what they have still give money, since NOT giving is seen as a sin (at least by the priests). Meanwhile the Church has enough money that their leaders live in castles and mansions.
Another example is Africa and AIDS. There is nothing wrong with preaching abstinence. What is wrong is preaching that condoms are wrong, even in cases where one person is infected. But why bother with people's health? If they die, they'll go to heaven. Why try to make their earthly lives better or longer?
Would killing Hitler have made things better or worse? Ever played red alert?:)
We'd still have a paranoid dictator with an enormous army in the east Europe + a (probably) extremely weak Germany utterly incapable of defending itself.
My guess is that today's police forces are slightly more independent then the one in the movie. Their commanders are unlikely to be executed or disappeared if they do something that the political leadership does not approve of.
In the movie, the country was extremely centralized, and both of the 'leaders' were dead at the time the barricades were breached. The army could easily have stopped them, and probably wouldn't have felt bad about it. What they didn't dare do was act without orders.
That might be how they would like things to be, but isn't it the other way around?
Music company gives iTunes the master + the license to make and sell copies - license. User buy copies from iTunes, without any kind of a license to make more - sales.
Only transactions that were 'harmful' for the company should be disputable. For example, if the company bought a 2000$ computer system for 100k$, the court should be able to order the transaction reversed. If the company that was paid no longer exists, then the executive who authorised the transaction should be personally liable for the loss.
Why not have a NON-consuption tax? Anything you don't spend on products gets taxed? It sure would stimulate the economy.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
A wealth tax should also obligate the government to buy the house at the 'appraised' value, if no other buyers could be found.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
So you want to 'punish' people for being alive? How DARE they need food and shelter?
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
A simple tax code means fewer loopholes. So you can bet it's never going to happen.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
It would probably also lead to a partial return to a barter economy.
Hi there, this here car costs 1$, but I feel so attached to it I just couldn't sell it to you. On the other hand, I can see that piece of Gold also carries great value to you, while ALSO being worth 1$ or so. Why don't we exchange the two, swapping the sentimental values. Oh yes, by the way that will be.35$ tax.
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
What happens if you move your plane from Oregon to California? Do they tax it again?
Re:Such systems have been proposed before
on
The Zuckerberg Tax
·
· Score: 1
And just like Sales Tax, it will be easy to avoid by buying stuff abroad.
But taxes will usually be the smallest debt a bankrupt company has, since they were probably not earning much before going bust. The ability to claw back money should be used to pay all debts the company has.
Executives get their bonuses before bankruptcy. What is needed is laws that enable us to yank back any bonuses and dividends paid for X years before the company went bust.
The problem here is that you don't get to defend yourself at trial. All it takes is one annoyed judge and you could be spending the rest of your life in jail.
What if the judge ordered the defendant to reveal where he/she stashed the body, with the understanding that the knowledge of the location could not be used as evidence during the trial? The defendant would also not be forced to give evidence against himself. Don't want to tell us where the body is? Off to jail you go for the next few years.
Or when the government claims they 'lost' documents. Why don't judges hold the people responsive in contempt until the documents are found?
Why is it so hard for people to believe that someone forgot a password, but at the same time are totally willing to trust people who say they 'lost' documents?
My problem with the whole thing is that porn is singled out as the only thing that should be blocked from library computers.
We both agree that children should be exposed to things gradually. So why is it considered harmful for a child to see pornography, while at the same time it's OK to let him see a movie proclaiming that he's going to suffer eternally because of his 'wrong' faith? If some topics are 'bad' for young children, they (the children) should either be prevented from visiting the library without parental guidance, or ALL such topics should be banned from library computers visible to children and sections of the library open to unescorted children. So no porn, no religion, no politics, no violence, no massacres (lets just expand this to 99% of human history),..... All I'm asking for is some consistency.
As for your thoughts about 'unwanted' images. I have no problem with people looking at things in public, be it in books, magazines or on a computer screen. If they want to see what a fetus with a coat hanger stuck through it looks like, they should be free to do it. And if people want to look over their shoulders, they shouldn't be prevented from doing it. What I do have problem is people sticking pictures and texts into other people's hands or in front of their face. I don't care if they are about abortion, religion, politics, evolution,global warming, local rock events or the big big sale the local clothing store is about to have. Forcing people to pay attention to you is wrong. You can set up a stall to spread your message if you feel it needs to be spread. Just don't force me to stop and listen to you.
As for handing things to children, my thoughts are the same as for things available in libraries. Don't discriminate. If it's prohibited to give them pornography, it should also be prohibited to give them religious texts (at least I presume that's what a Jack Trick tract is?), or atheist texts for that matter. The rules should be the same for anything the parents might not want their child to learn about too soon.
Yes in Europe it's quite easy too see some porn, as news stands will often have a few adult magazines displayed.
I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I am fundementaly opposed to the idea of sex in public. It's just that most people in this topic equated someone watching porn and people having sex in public.
There is a difference between something happening in the room versus something happening on the screen. I doubt anyone can say that there isn't. Most people (well at least me) would be uncomfortable sitting next to a couple having sex, feeling that they are somehow intruding on their privacy (even if the couple seemed to be OK with it).
On the other hand there is also a difference between two people making love and the actions of porn actors. Sure they might look similar, but behind the scenes there is about as much difference between them as there is between a real war and an action movie set.
Now let's turn to your feelings that people shouldn't see porn in the library. Why not? What makes porn so much different from other topics? Why is porn 'bad' while simulated murder and torture is ok?
I never said the criminals are somehow blameless. But if we use your analogy the situation was like this: The US came to the house, ripped out the door then went and has a few pints to drink at the local pub, declaring they had to protect the local dartboard.
The criminals were still criminals. The US just made it much easier for them to prey on OTHER people.
Slashdot Mirror
The problems come when some Christians decide that the 'souls' of people are more important then their 'worldly' well being. And it strangely very rarely applies to their own personal well being.
For example the Church in my country is very active in collecting donations from the faithful. After every mass a person will go among the people with a collection plate, while the priest preaches about the importance of charity or something similar. Many poor people, that can barely survive on what they have still give money, since NOT giving is seen as a sin (at least by the priests). Meanwhile the Church has enough money that their leaders live in castles and mansions.
Another example is Africa and AIDS. There is nothing wrong with preaching abstinence. What is wrong is preaching that condoms are wrong, even in cases where one person is infected. But why bother with people's health? If they die, they'll go to heaven. Why try to make their earthly lives better or longer?
Would killing Hitler have made things better or worse? Ever played red alert? :)
We'd still have a paranoid dictator with an enormous army in the east Europe + a (probably) extremely weak Germany utterly incapable of defending itself.
My guess is that today's police forces are slightly more independent then the one in the movie. Their commanders are unlikely to be executed or disappeared if they do something that the political leadership does not approve of.
In the movie, the country was extremely centralized, and both of the 'leaders' were dead at the time the barricades were breached. The army could easily have stopped them, and probably wouldn't have felt bad about it. What they didn't dare do was act without orders.
That might be how they would like things to be, but isn't it the other way around?
Music company gives iTunes the master + the license to make and sell copies - license.
User buy copies from iTunes, without any kind of a license to make more - sales.
Only transactions that were 'harmful' for the company should be disputable. For example, if the company bought a 2000$ computer system for 100k$, the court should be able to order the transaction reversed. If the company that was paid no longer exists, then the executive who authorised the transaction should be personally liable for the loss.
Why not have a NON-consuption tax? Anything you don't spend on products gets taxed? It sure would stimulate the economy.
A wealth tax should also obligate the government to buy the house at the 'appraised' value, if no other buyers could be found.
So you want to 'punish' people for being alive? How DARE they need food and shelter?
A simple tax code means fewer loopholes. So you can bet it's never going to happen.
It would probably also lead to a partial return to a barter economy.
Hi there, this here car costs 1$, but I feel so attached to it I just couldn't sell it to you. On the other hand, I can see that piece of Gold also carries great value to you, while ALSO being worth 1$ or so. Why don't we exchange the two, swapping the sentimental values. Oh yes, by the way that will be .35$ tax.
What happens if you move your plane from Oregon to California? Do they tax it again?
And just like Sales Tax, it will be easy to avoid by buying stuff abroad.
Because they paid for people to announce how THIS version does not suck. So you constantly live in the (false) hope that it's true.
But taxes will usually be the smallest debt a bankrupt company has, since they were probably not earning much before going bust. The ability to claw back money should be used to pay all debts the company has.
Executives get their bonuses before bankruptcy. What is needed is laws that enable us to yank back any bonuses and dividends paid for X years before the company went bust.
What did their REAL pets do to you, that you want them to be subjected to wearing clothes?
The problem here is that you don't get to defend yourself at trial. All it takes is one annoyed judge and you could be spending the rest of your life in jail.
All evidence can be found. You just need your investigators too look EVERYWHERE, using ALL possible methods.
What if the judge ordered the defendant to reveal where he/she stashed the body, with the understanding that the knowledge of the location could not be used as evidence during the trial? The defendant would also not be forced to give evidence against himself. Don't want to tell us where the body is? Off to jail you go for the next few years.
Or when the government claims they 'lost' documents. Why don't judges hold the people responsive in contempt until the documents are found?
Why is it so hard for people to believe that someone forgot a password, but at the same time are totally willing to trust people who say they 'lost' documents?
US war of independence?
My problem with the whole thing is that porn is singled out as the only thing that should be blocked from library computers.
We both agree that children should be exposed to things gradually. So why is it considered harmful for a child to see pornography, while at the same time it's OK to let him see a movie proclaiming that he's going to suffer eternally because of his 'wrong' faith?
If some topics are 'bad' for young children, they (the children) should either be prevented from visiting the library without parental guidance, or ALL such topics should be banned from library computers visible to children and sections of the library open to unescorted children.
So no porn, no religion, no politics, no violence, no massacres (lets just expand this to 99% of human history),.....
All I'm asking for is some consistency.
As for your thoughts about 'unwanted' images. I have no problem with people looking at things in public, be it in books, magazines or on a computer screen. If they want to see what a fetus with a coat hanger stuck through it looks like, they should be free to do it. And if people want to look over their shoulders, they shouldn't be prevented from doing it.
What I do have problem is people sticking pictures and texts into other people's hands or in front of their face. I don't care if they are about abortion, religion, politics, evolution,global warming, local rock events or the big big sale the local clothing store is about to have. Forcing people to pay attention to you is wrong. You can set up a stall to spread your message if you feel it needs to be spread. Just don't force me to stop and listen to you.
As for handing things to children, my thoughts are the same as for things available in libraries. Don't discriminate. If it's prohibited to give them pornography, it should also be prohibited to give them religious texts (at least I presume that's what a Jack Trick tract is?), or atheist texts for that matter. The rules should be the same for anything the parents might not want their child to learn about too soon.
Yes in Europe it's quite easy too see some porn, as news stands will often have a few adult magazines displayed.
I'm sorry I gave you the impression that I am fundementaly opposed to the idea of sex in public. It's just that most people in this topic equated someone watching porn and people having sex in public.
There is a difference between something happening in the room versus something happening on the screen. I doubt anyone can say that there isn't. Most people (well at least me) would be uncomfortable sitting next to a couple having sex, feeling that they are somehow intruding on their privacy (even if the couple seemed to be OK with it).
On the other hand there is also a difference between two people making love and the actions of porn actors. Sure they might look similar, but behind the scenes there is about as much difference between them as there is between a real war and an action movie set.
Now let's turn to your feelings that people shouldn't see porn in the library. Why not? What makes porn so much different from other topics? Why is porn 'bad' while simulated murder and torture is ok?
I never said the criminals are somehow blameless. But if we use your analogy the situation was like this: The US came to the house, ripped out the door then went and has a few pints to drink at the local pub, declaring they had to protect the local dartboard.
The criminals were still criminals. The US just made it much easier for them to prey on OTHER people.
It wasn't so much the problem of just removing the dictator that left the void. Removing the army and the police was the real cause of the looting.
Just think what would happen in the US if the police stopped working for a few years. Iraq would seem like quiet village by comparison.
Reading religious material could be compared to reading erotic stories.
And watching porn can be compared to watching The passion of the Christ.