That said, do you really believe that someone is evil merely because they don't have the same amount of 'respect' for the dead that you do? What if they care about the living and not whether someone joked about or insulted a corpse? I'd say that it doesn't take much for someone to qualify as "evil" in your eyes.
Because you're are going to either die alone, lonely, and weeping into a bottle of rotgut vodka
What about "none of the above"? Isn't that an option? Or can you see into the future? Or did you just feel the need to insult someone merely because they have a different opinion than you? Well, that's always fine, I suppose.
or by police bullet when your psychopathic tendencies get the better of you.
It's nice that you can diagnose mental disorders on the fly with so little information. How did you ever gain such an ability?
I guess people who care about the people, and not their bodies, are actually all psychopaths.
Subjective. Bam. I just sand-blasted your stale saltine of an argument.
What is "subjective"? The first sentence was merely sarcasm.
The world would undoubtably be a much better place
Now that is indeed subjective.
Whether these posters are actually psychopaths or not, society generally concludes that there is something "wrong"
Society can conclude whatever it wants. But it's really rather irrelevant to whether they're 'right' or 'wrong'. Personally, I conclude that people who are offended by such jokes or insults are oversensitive babies. But what does it matter?
Cry me a river if you feel victimized by society's desire to consider you "abnormal".
I don't feel victimized by anything. I just find it amusing.
However, "cry me a river" is exactly what I'd use in response to people who are actually offended by such things.
It just seems like a fundamental tenet of being a human being.
Apparently it isn't. Unless the people who made those comments are actually aliens from another planet, of course.
I do find it amusing, though, how just because some people have a different sense of humor than some other people, those people are seemingly being labeled 'monsters' and other such things. As if the fact that they don't want to cry at the passing of every random person means that their sense of humor is 'wrong' (and I doubt even people who say that they are wrong care that much about random people).
absolutely most fundamental difference between animals and humans
Humans are animals.
and thus, is one of the foundations for any civilized behavior patterns.
I see. So: we're different from animals, which makes us civilized, and civilized things are objectively good? That's your argument?
Also, I wouldn't say that getting offended over a dead lump of meat qualifies as "civilized."
Your argument, at least from my perspective, failed to actually explain why it's a good thing to get offended by jokes or insults directed at dead people. It seems like all you said was, "Other animals treat their dead 'poorly'. Therefore, doing that is bad."
Right after that probably comes not sticking your neighbor in the eye with a sharpened stick simply for the sake of doing it.
The two aren't even remotely related. One is joking/insulting a dead lump of meat (something that probably can't care about such a thing, and in this case, it happened far away from where the family could see it), and in the other case, it's hurting an innocent person (whether that's good or bad is another matter, but they are different situations). Personally, I don't care if someone insults or jokes about dead lumps of meat.
It's better not to insult people who aren't able to defend themselves
According to who? I don't really care who someone insults. As far as I know, the dead don't care about much of anything. Even the family probably isn't around on Slashdot to see it.
I don't believe that anyone is or should be immune to insults or criticism. But it's still seemingly met with, "They're dead! Therefore, all of your arguments are invalidated and you're objectively evil because you don't care about the same things that I do."
Yes. Anyone different than the norm is obviously objectively broken.
Or perhaps they don't even have a lack of empathy. Perhaps they just don't feel the same way that you or others do about certain things. You know, they have different priorities than you. What they care about may be different than what you care about. And vice versa.
Perhaps they don't feel like crying every single time someone dies. Perhaps they find such jokes funny.
and the only excuse
Subjective.
But if you're 20+ and still posting things like the above comments, you are on the way of becoming a pathetic loser.
Subjective. Also, I too would like to be able to see into the future.
I never said that I didn't understand why some people believe this to be a tragedy. It's just that I find it amusing how it seems like people get so easily offended when it comes to dead people.
You don't understand because you're just a useless little twirp with no real life experiences.
Your assumption. It's easy enough to lump someone in with a specific group just because they don't agree with you.
No one asked you to care
I just find it funny that the instant someone dies, they seem to become immune to criticism in some people's eyes (that or you can't insult them). Anyone who dares make a joke or insult them is obviously objectively evil or wrong (or, at least, that's what they appear to be saying).
we're just puzzled why you feel its time for insults to her.
I didn't. But perhaps they thought it would be humorous (and it might have been... to them). Watching people take offense to it is what I find amusing, however.
Yes. I could understand it if they insulted her while she was still alive (a little). But when she turns into a dead lump of meat? The horror! They must respect dead meat because I said so!
The comment was modded up. When it's a case of a GPL violation, the violators who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers are childish and entitled. But in an article on the Pirate Bay, suddenly it's all about demonizing the evil RIAA and MPAA, and piracy is just a cultural revolution that sticks it to the evil corporations--the artists who aren't getting paid don't even enter into the discussion, probably because of the guilty feelings it would inspire to be reminded of the reality of the situation.
Another thing that could be used to determine if a class should be mandatory or not would be its potential "usefulness." Would it be useful to the majority if they could do X? How likely are the majority to do X?
That's why I'm unsure of history. There are at least a few key events that may be useful to know about.
Wow, ok, so you really don't value any sort of general education, and you do value your ignorance. Just, wow.
Value it? No more so than you value your ignorance of things you know nothing about. I have no interest in them. I also don't have an interest in my ignorance of them.
I use my grounding in languages when I come across them, to interpret words in the European languages I can still read, give me an idea of those I can't and give me an insight into the origins of the language I speak. I use my grounding in history to put the news I hear into historical context and better understand the world around me. I use my grounding in geography to understand natural features and the different countries of the world.
Not everyone is cut out for doing those things or even cares about them. But, then again, I don't know just how many would find these things useful.
Your history example sounds like the most useful thing out of the three.
Personally I'm glad you don't get a say.
The only option people who are dissatisfied with this system have, really, is to pull their children out of school.
Most people won't directly use anything they learned in school except to read and write and add up. We could teach them that in a year.
Sounds good.
OTOH most people use computers, by introducing basic computer programming the minister hopes that many more people will use this knowledge, even if they don't go on to study it further or get employed in the sector, the knowledge will help them the same way other knowledge in a broad-based educational system helps them.
If someone can prove to me that a majority of people will use this knowledge, then I'll probably agree with the decision.
Further to this, objecting to this *specific* change is irrational if you really disagree with the entire system.
I don't believe that to be "irrational." Disagreeing with the entire system doesn't mean that I can't disagree with this change.
So you really only believe in vocational training? Fine, let's drop everything past addition and subtraction. Kids can research and choose on their own if they want to do algebra, or division, who needs to do division every day?
Every day? But I never mentioned anything about using something every day. A majority simply have to use it. Do the majority of people truly not use multiplication or division?
Algebra I can believe.
Seriously, you're arguing for a nation of ill-educated morons.
I'd say that doesn't sound too different from what we have now. The difference is that these "ill-educated morons" won't be, from my perspective, wasting so much of their time. Of course, I do not believe that someone merely being ignorant of something makes them an "ill-educated moron." If that were the case, that would apply to everyone.
Let me guess - do you support the abolition of child labour laws too?
So you remember nothing of history, geography, languages, literature or anything else? And you resent being forced to study them?
History? Aside from a few key events (and even those are pretty vague), nothing. Geography? Again, not much. Languages? If you mean foreign languages, nothing (wasn't interested, and the classes weren't very good, anyway). Literature? Again, not much. Maybe I just have an awful memory, but it seems to be this way for everyone that I know (and they came from various schools).
Resent? I view it as a waste of time, but I feel nothing about it.
Enjoy your ignorance.
I'll manage. I'm sure you manage being ignorant about a lot of things that you don't (and likely won't) use.
It's about giving people a grounding in essential subjects
Which I've already replied to.
They're 10, they don't get electives
I thought it would be clear by now that I disagree with much of the current public education system. I don't see why there can't be electives. I also thought it was clear that I disagree with this as a mandatory class. You keep bringing up with the fact that they're ten years old, but I do not care. I think it should wait until high school, and be an optional class. The original post was about how it shouldn't be mandatory. I agree with that.
I've already said that I think that early on, they should be taught the essentials, and then in high school, they choose what to do. By essentials, I mean things that most people will use.
So not only do they blame the pirates themselves (because their actions may or may not result in a loss of potential profit), but they blame people (in this case, the government) who don't try to stop them (because, if they did stop them, they couldn't do something that may or may not result in a loss of potential profit)? I guess everyone's to blame, then. Clearly the people didn't try hard enough to force the government to pass such laws. Sue everyone!
But it's not just because they're unsure, it's because we think it's useful to everyone to have at least some grounding in all of these things, not just basic arithmetic and reading/writing.
As I've said before, if they don't use it and don't care about it, it's unlikely that they'll remember it to begin with. Or, at least, that's the case with me and everyone that I know.
It probably won't result in much.
It's also because without a good depth of study (a class or two per week for a year or two before kids choose their subjects to carry on with) it's very hard to know if someone's interested in the subject or has the ability to carry on with it.
Then they can do their own research. Again, I disagree with the fact that classes are being forced upon people when most people aren't going to use the knowledge just because people aren't sure if they are interested in the material.
If they really want to find their desired subject, then another alternative would be to take all of the usual classes.
Slashdot Mirror
actual uncloaked, unabashed and unashamed evil.
I don't believe in absolute morals.
That said, do you really believe that someone is evil merely because they don't have the same amount of 'respect' for the dead that you do? What if they care about the living and not whether someone joked about or insulted a corpse? I'd say that it doesn't take much for someone to qualify as "evil" in your eyes.
Well, I pity you. I honestly do.
That's horribly offensive.
Because you're are going to either die alone, lonely, and weeping into a bottle of rotgut vodka
What about "none of the above"? Isn't that an option? Or can you see into the future? Or did you just feel the need to insult someone merely because they have a different opinion than you? Well, that's always fine, I suppose.
or by police bullet when your psychopathic tendencies get the better of you.
It's nice that you can diagnose mental disorders on the fly with so little information. How did you ever gain such an ability?
I guess people who care about the people, and not their bodies, are actually all psychopaths.
Who did I 'troll'? I merely told them what I think.
That's why you're being labeled a "sick fuck".
Personally, I'm surprised they can function in society. It doesn't seem to take much to offend them.
Subjective. Bam. I just sand-blasted your stale saltine of an argument.
What is "subjective"? The first sentence was merely sarcasm.
The world would undoubtably be a much better place
Now that is indeed subjective.
Whether these posters are actually psychopaths or not, society generally concludes that there is something "wrong"
Society can conclude whatever it wants. But it's really rather irrelevant to whether they're 'right' or 'wrong'. Personally, I conclude that people who are offended by such jokes or insults are oversensitive babies. But what does it matter?
Cry me a river if you feel victimized by society's desire to consider you "abnormal".
I don't feel victimized by anything. I just find it amusing.
However, "cry me a river" is exactly what I'd use in response to people who are actually offended by such things.
It just seems like a fundamental tenet of being a human being.
Apparently it isn't. Unless the people who made those comments are actually aliens from another planet, of course.
I do find it amusing, though, how just because some people have a different sense of humor than some other people, those people are seemingly being labeled 'monsters' and other such things. As if the fact that they don't want to cry at the passing of every random person means that their sense of humor is 'wrong' (and I doubt even people who say that they are wrong care that much about random people).
immature
Subjective.
But judging by what you seem to be saying you appear to be an immature berk, posting merely to rile people.
I see. You disagree, therefore I'm a troll? You might think I'm a bit blunt, but I assure you that I said here are indeed my own opinions.
absolutely most fundamental difference between animals and humans
Humans are animals.
and thus, is one of the foundations for any civilized behavior patterns.
I see. So: we're different from animals, which makes us civilized, and civilized things are objectively good? That's your argument?
Also, I wouldn't say that getting offended over a dead lump of meat qualifies as "civilized."
Your argument, at least from my perspective, failed to actually explain why it's a good thing to get offended by jokes or insults directed at dead people. It seems like all you said was, "Other animals treat their dead 'poorly'. Therefore, doing that is bad."
Right after that probably comes not sticking your neighbor in the eye with a sharpened stick simply for the sake of doing it.
The two aren't even remotely related. One is joking/insulting a dead lump of meat (something that probably can't care about such a thing, and in this case, it happened far away from where the family could see it), and in the other case, it's hurting an innocent person (whether that's good or bad is another matter, but they are different situations). Personally, I don't care if someone insults or jokes about dead lumps of meat.
Because it's not productive
So? I still don't care if someone criticizes or insults dead people.
Something being "unproductive" (in your opinion) doesn't mean that it's bad (or something such as that).
lacking in class.
Subjective.
Subjective. Conversely, someone could say that people who get offended that easily are lacking a little something on the inside.
It's better not to insult people who aren't able to defend themselves
According to who? I don't really care who someone insults. As far as I know, the dead don't care about much of anything. Even the family probably isn't around on Slashdot to see it.
I don't believe that anyone is or should be immune to insults or criticism. But it's still seemingly met with, "They're dead! Therefore, all of your arguments are invalidated and you're objectively evil because you don't care about the same things that I do."
Lack of empathy is a clear social dysfunction
Yes. Anyone different than the norm is obviously objectively broken.
Or perhaps they don't even have a lack of empathy. Perhaps they just don't feel the same way that you or others do about certain things. You know, they have different priorities than you. What they care about may be different than what you care about. And vice versa.
Perhaps they don't feel like crying every single time someone dies. Perhaps they find such jokes funny.
and the only excuse
Subjective.
But if you're 20+ and still posting things like the above comments, you are on the way of becoming a pathetic loser.
Subjective. Also, I too would like to be able to see into the future.
if you don't understand why this is a tragedy
I never said that I didn't understand why some people believe this to be a tragedy. It's just that I find it amusing how it seems like people get so easily offended when it comes to dead people.
You find it amusing because you're a sick fuck.
Your opinions differ from mine. Therefore, you're objectively evil.
I'd love to see someone like you try this bullshit in a real world setting.
Why? Because might makes right?
You don't understand because you're just a useless little twirp with no real life experiences.
Your assumption. It's easy enough to lump someone in with a specific group just because they don't agree with you.
No one asked you to care
I just find it funny that the instant someone dies, they seem to become immune to criticism in some people's eyes (that or you can't insult them). Anyone who dares make a joke or insult them is obviously objectively evil or wrong (or, at least, that's what they appear to be saying).
we're just puzzled why you feel its time for insults to her.
I didn't. But perhaps they thought it would be humorous (and it might have been... to them). Watching people take offense to it is what I find amusing, however.
Have a little respect; she's dead.
Yes. I could understand it if they insulted her while she was still alive (a little). But when she turns into a dead lump of meat? The horror! They must respect dead meat because I said so!
So offensive.
Your comment is highly offensive to me. Suggesting that there is something wrong with other people... what is wrong with you?
but this is actually the truth.
At least in their minds, anyway...
It's not theft : you already payed for it. No one is losing money.
But if you would've paid them again, then they would've had more money. You stole their potential profit!
they are the reason for its destruction.
But the people who actually did the destroying? Those guys? They had absolutely nothing to do with it.
Just like the ones who implement DRM have nothing to do with that.
The comment was modded up. When it's a case of a GPL violation, the violators who feel entitled to the free labor of strangers are childish and entitled. But in an article on the Pirate Bay, suddenly it's all about demonizing the evil RIAA and MPAA, and piracy is just a cultural revolution that sticks it to the evil corporations--the artists who aren't getting paid don't even enter into the discussion, probably because of the guilty feelings it would inspire to be reminded of the reality of the situation.
Maybe it isn't the same people?
Another thing that could be used to determine if a class should be mandatory or not would be its potential "usefulness." Would it be useful to the majority if they could do X? How likely are the majority to do X?
That's why I'm unsure of history. There are at least a few key events that may be useful to know about.
Wow, ok, so you really don't value any sort of general education, and you do value your ignorance. Just, wow.
Value it? No more so than you value your ignorance of things you know nothing about. I have no interest in them. I also don't have an interest in my ignorance of them.
I use my grounding in languages when I come across them, to interpret words in the European languages I can still read, give me an idea of those I can't and give me an insight into the origins of the language I speak.
I use my grounding in history to put the news I hear into historical context and better understand the world around me.
I use my grounding in geography to understand natural features and the different countries of the world.
Not everyone is cut out for doing those things or even cares about them. But, then again, I don't know just how many would find these things useful.
Your history example sounds like the most useful thing out of the three.
Personally I'm glad you don't get a say.
The only option people who are dissatisfied with this system have, really, is to pull their children out of school.
Most people won't directly use anything they learned in school except to read and write and add up. We could teach them that in a year.
Sounds good.
OTOH most people use computers, by introducing basic computer programming the minister hopes that many more people will use this knowledge, even if they don't go on to study it further or get employed in the sector, the knowledge will help them the same way other knowledge in a broad-based educational system helps them.
If someone can prove to me that a majority of people will use this knowledge, then I'll probably agree with the decision.
Further to this, objecting to this *specific* change is irrational if you really disagree with the entire system.
I don't believe that to be "irrational." Disagreeing with the entire system doesn't mean that I can't disagree with this change.
So you really only believe in vocational training? Fine, let's drop everything past addition and subtraction. Kids can research and choose on their own if they want to do algebra, or division, who needs to do division every day?
Every day? But I never mentioned anything about using something every day. A majority simply have to use it. Do the majority of people truly not use multiplication or division?
Algebra I can believe.
Seriously, you're arguing for a nation of ill-educated morons.
I'd say that doesn't sound too different from what we have now. The difference is that these "ill-educated morons" won't be, from my perspective, wasting so much of their time. Of course, I do not believe that someone merely being ignorant of something makes them an "ill-educated moron." If that were the case, that would apply to everyone.
Let me guess - do you support the abolition of child labour laws too?
Not really.
I get it ok, you disagree with teaching kids anything they haven't researched and come to demand for themselves.
Only if it's not used by the majority.
How much research did you do into your own education when you were 10?
Not much. But even if I said otherwise, I'm sure I would be the exception.
So you remember nothing of history, geography, languages, literature or anything else? And you resent being forced to study them?
History? Aside from a few key events (and even those are pretty vague), nothing. Geography? Again, not much. Languages? If you mean foreign languages, nothing (wasn't interested, and the classes weren't very good, anyway). Literature? Again, not much. Maybe I just have an awful memory, but it seems to be this way for everyone that I know (and they came from various schools).
Resent? I view it as a waste of time, but I feel nothing about it.
Enjoy your ignorance.
I'll manage. I'm sure you manage being ignorant about a lot of things that you don't (and likely won't) use.
It's about giving people a grounding in essential subjects
Which I've already replied to.
They're 10, they don't get electives
I thought it would be clear by now that I disagree with much of the current public education system. I don't see why there can't be electives. I also thought it was clear that I disagree with this as a mandatory class. You keep bringing up with the fact that they're ten years old, but I do not care. I think it should wait until high school, and be an optional class. The original post was about how it shouldn't be mandatory. I agree with that.
I've already said that I think that early on, they should be taught the essentials, and then in high school, they choose what to do. By essentials, I mean things that most people will use.
So not only do they blame the pirates themselves (because their actions may or may not result in a loss of potential profit), but they blame people (in this case, the government) who don't try to stop them (because, if they did stop them, they couldn't do something that may or may not result in a loss of potential profit)? I guess everyone's to blame, then. Clearly the people didn't try hard enough to force the government to pass such laws. Sue everyone!
But it's not just because they're unsure, it's because we think it's useful to everyone to have at least some grounding in all of these things, not just basic arithmetic and reading/writing.
As I've said before, if they don't use it and don't care about it, it's unlikely that they'll remember it to begin with. Or, at least, that's the case with me and everyone that I know.
It probably won't result in much.
It's also because without a good depth of study (a class or two per week for a year or two before kids choose their subjects to carry on with) it's very hard to know if someone's interested in the subject or has the ability to carry on with it.
Then they can do their own research. Again, I disagree with the fact that classes are being forced upon people when most people aren't going to use the knowledge just because people aren't sure if they are interested in the material.
If they really want to find their desired subject, then another alternative would be to take all of the usual classes.