But just because some idiot confuses their facts and opinions, yet gets other idiots to take them seriously, doesn't mean the same trick will work for you.
It's kind of hard to not take them seriously when they explicitly state it as a fact and claim that intelligence is the main reason.
And why should that matter to us?
It only matters if you're planning on stating a fact. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.
"Ultimately pointless" is not identical to "pointless on Earth in the year 2011".
Sure it is. It's pointless now, and it will be pointless in the future. Now, can you tell me who it isn't pointless to? Us. I'm playing logic games, here.
You spoke of value. That is inherently an opinion.
I don't know how idiotic you think people are, but even humans are not that foolish. The humor of it wears off very fast.
People will not see beyond it and try to read something into it that is not there.
Where are you getting this information? I've seen multiple English courses read this book and everyone handled it properly and knew what the word meant at the time.
There is no excuse to change the books. Just leave them alone, and let idiots who can't handle strings of letters miss out.
I don't know, but they shouldn't state their opinion as a fact unless they can prove their claim (that some entity or object somehow gave their pointless existence more worth than everything else). For instance, I'm under the opinion that all existence is equally worthless. How am I incorrect when others aren't?
Humans do have a remarkable and unique combination of abilities.
This has nothing to do with what I'm trying to state.
Doesn't change that we're here now
No, it doesn't, but ultimately, whether you like it or not, our very existence is likely pointless.
which incidentally is an activity most other creatures can't do
Here you are pointing out the difference between humans and animals again and seemingly missing my point.
When did we start talking about opinions (because you keep mentioning them for some unexplainable reason)?
However if that was in the book, and a teacher tried to teach it, no kid would be able to look through todays meanings of those words to see the true meaning of the book.
So tell them the original meaning, not change the wording. It takes a few seconds at most. Just stop being lazy.
However an introductory chapter explaining the original wording and the context would be historically useful.
It doesn't need that either. Just an explanation from something or someone.
I don't see that the universe's opinion, should it ever have one on this matter, outweighs my own anyway.
We aren't talking about opinions. We're talking about facts. People claim that the opinion that humans are the 'best' species is a fact, when it is only an opinion.
That intelligence is "petty".
It is when you consider the fact that the only meaning your life holds is what you want it to. No matter how intelligent you are, your life will eventually come to an end, and even if you left behind accomplishments, they are only for more people who will also die and eventually even those will fade away.
Yes, it did. So, how is changing it completely (and therefore making people not aware of how language was used at the time) going to solve this any better than just uttering its meaning at the time?
This is not censorship
That's very naive, especially considering that they already stated that it was censorship (or that they were removing it simply because they wanted to cause less offense among people with weaker minds).
its changing the story back to the original meaning by removing a word that has a different meaning now than it did back then.
It wanted to convey that the word "nigger" was commonplace. Or, at least, that is what it was successful at doing. I'd rather have someone mention that it had a different meaning rather than change the wording around. If people can't do any research, then they shouldn't claim to understand the book or the time period it was written in.
Happens all the time to make things more readable.
Really? How, may I ask, is censoring the word "nigger" going to make it more readable? It's plainly clear what it means to me.
Do you think rewriting it to make it more acceptable to the readers was not a good thing?
Yes. It essentially changes what it was originally supposed to convey. Whether that be its meaning or its interpretation of the language used at the time. What is the point of bending over backwards for people with such weak minds that they can't handle strings of letters?
Yes if it was a simple matter of finding something offensive I would say it was censorship to remove it.
Did you read? It is because some people find the word offensive. Also, it's absolutely pointless and counterproductive to go through every book and replace words with other words just to presumably satisfy a newer generation (for whatever reason). Seriously, just leave things alone.
Also, directly above that comment, you mentioned making it more "acceptable" to readers. Is that an acknowledgement that you know that this is censorship? Something shouldn't be changed merely because people who can't handle strings of letters don't like it.
Perhaps I was unclear. What I meant was that I'm none too fond of this seemingly common ideal that humans are factually more important than everything else on the planet (as in, they are somehow valued more by the universe than everything else). Now, if someone stated that they personally believe that humans are more important, then that is a different matter altogether, but I'm mainly speaking of people who misrepresent it as a fact.
I really don't see why something as petty as intelligence should affect this decision. Everything dies, and in the end, ones intelligence means nothing. Elevating yourself above another entity simply for that reason is incredibly arrogant.
Judaism teaches that speech is the most powerful tool at your disposal
Yet, when someone insults me, I feel nothing. You are not obligated to get offended by mere words, and if you do, it is ultimately your own fault. I suggest that people strengthen their weak minds and overcome the social conditioning that states that they must be offended by words.
you degrade your very soul
Two conditions have to be met for this to be true: souls must exist and they must be offended.
That couldn't be more incorrect.
Really? Words certainly never hurt me after I realized just how petty they really were. I'll attempt to make a logical argument, but someone else's words will never truly harm me unless I let them. It's nice to assume that you must be offended by strings of letters, but I feel it is incredibly naive.
It also destroys art by altering the original context, thereby changing the message.
Have you ever been on the receiving end of blatant discrimination?
I don't understand what this has to do with anything. Words are merely strings of letters with a meaning (all of them). No word is inherently 'bad', and people who believe such have likely been socially conditioned to believe it.
That helped me relate to how black people feel about the n-word.
It's a word with a use. If it isn't aimed at them (and even if it is), there is no reason for them to get offended. You're not obligated to get offended by mere words.
Besides that, this book shows how language was used at the time. Censoring it now so people can stay in their little bubbles is completely pointless and counterproductive to the books' point.
You're incorrect. Technically, censorship can be employed by someone other than the government. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that the worst form of censorship is typically employed by a government entity, but all I'm trying to state is that this still can be considered censorship (and again, it's fortunate that you still have access to uncensored versions).
The issue here is that there needs to be an edition that can be used to teach children of all races and all ages.
Like the original version?
The original edition uses words that many people don't want to read and don't want their children to read.
Why is it so hard to understand that every word is just a string of letters with a meaning, including 'bad' words? If we didn't treat them as some sort of 'taboo', then they wouldn't even be appealing to use out of context. You are by no means obligated to get offended by a string of letters, and if you let yourself be offended, it is your fault. Censorship is ridiculous no matters who it claims to be 'protecting' (which really means keeping them ignorant). That includes children.
Additionally, children are quite fond of repeatedly using new words that they have just learned. I can easily picture elementary school children tormenting classmates with the n-word after hearing it repeated over 200 times in class.
I wonder why that is? Whether or not they know the word "nigger," they will find other means of 'insulting' others. It's just a word with a meaning, much like "idiot" or "retard." Censoring something for someone will only succeed in keeping them ignorant for inane reasons. Society needs to move on from the childish and illogical notion that certain words shouldn't be used simply because some people don't like their meaning (and while they're at it, toughen up).
Lots of things don't "hurt much" but still shouldn't be done. An example would censoring any and all insults and violence on television. You could probably leave that to your imagination, but it would be annoying and useless, right? That said, it also wouldn't "hurt much" if they just stopped censoring the words.
Yes, but the book is meant to portray language as it was then. We shouldn't edit out any old words in every book and replace them to new ones and call it a "translation."
Chances are, if children are kept in bubbles and keep being told that 'bad' words are 'bad' because they are 'bad', they will never be able to handle any 'bad' words. I mean, really, if we just acknowledged that they were just strings of letters with meanings like any other word, this wouldn't even be a problem.
An Alabama publisher named NewSouth Books will be editing and censoring the book so that schools and parents might provide their children the ability to study the classic without fear of properly addressing the torturous history of racism and slavery in The United States of America.
I thought that was part of the point. Oh, well, we need to protect the children from words that they are not even obligated to get offended by (it could turn them into racists, after all)! Why don't we just lock all children in some sort of bubble forever and get it over with?
Win7 stays out of my way, doesn't nag me about things
Well, yeah. I don't think I've ever had an operating system "nag me" before. What does that even mean?
Honest, I just can't imagine not wanting to upgrade to Windows 7 (unless you have really old hardware with really limited memory and CPU speed).
Perhaps people don't want to pay hundreds for an operating system with a few improvements at best. Call me when they do something revolutionary or extremely noteworthy. It probably is good, and if I got it on a new computer I certainly wouldn't mind, but I'm not going to upgrade for a few features.
Slashdot Mirror
But just because some idiot confuses their facts and opinions, yet gets other idiots to take them seriously, doesn't mean the same trick will work for you.
It's kind of hard to not take them seriously when they explicitly state it as a fact and claim that intelligence is the main reason.
And why should that matter to us?
It only matters if you're planning on stating a fact. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand.
"Ultimately pointless" is not identical to "pointless on Earth in the year 2011".
Sure it is. It's pointless now, and it will be pointless in the future. Now, can you tell me who it isn't pointless to? Us. I'm playing logic games, here.
You spoke of value. That is inherently an opinion.
Thank you! This is precisely what I mean.
You can explain till your face is blue.
I don't know how idiotic you think people are, but even humans are not that foolish. The humor of it wears off very fast.
People will not see beyond it and try to read something into it that is not there.
Where are you getting this information? I've seen multiple English courses read this book and everyone handled it properly and knew what the word meant at the time.
There is no excuse to change the books. Just leave them alone, and let idiots who can't handle strings of letters miss out.
Well, why should they have a different opinion?
I don't know, but they shouldn't state their opinion as a fact unless they can prove their claim (that some entity or object somehow gave their pointless existence more worth than everything else). For instance, I'm under the opinion that all existence is equally worthless. How am I incorrect when others aren't?
Humans do have a remarkable and unique combination of abilities.
This has nothing to do with what I'm trying to state.
Doesn't change that we're here now
No, it doesn't, but ultimately, whether you like it or not, our very existence is likely pointless.
which incidentally is an activity most other creatures can't do
Here you are pointing out the difference between humans and animals again and seemingly missing my point.
When did we start talking about opinions (because you keep mentioning them for some unexplainable reason)?
If your whole business model collapses when you remove all the illegal material, then you are probably being immoral.
Illegal is not the same as immoral.
However if that was in the book, and a teacher tried to teach it, no kid would be able to look through todays meanings of those words to see the true meaning of the book.
So tell them the original meaning, not change the wording. It takes a few seconds at most. Just stop being lazy.
However an introductory chapter explaining the original wording and the context would be historically useful.
It doesn't need that either. Just an explanation from something or someone.
I don't see that the universe's opinion, should it ever have one on this matter, outweighs my own anyway.
We aren't talking about opinions. We're talking about facts. People claim that the opinion that humans are the 'best' species is a fact, when it is only an opinion.
That intelligence is "petty".
It is when you consider the fact that the only meaning your life holds is what you want it to. No matter how intelligent you are, your life will eventually come to an end, and even if you left behind accomplishments, they are only for more people who will also die and eventually even those will fade away.
It had a different meaning back then.
Yes, it did. So, how is changing it completely (and therefore making people not aware of how language was used at the time) going to solve this any better than just uttering its meaning at the time?
This is not censorship
That's very naive, especially considering that they already stated that it was censorship (or that they were removing it simply because they wanted to cause less offense among people with weaker minds).
its changing the story back to the original meaning by removing a word that has a different meaning now than it did back then.
It wanted to convey that the word "nigger" was commonplace. Or, at least, that is what it was successful at doing. I'd rather have someone mention that it had a different meaning rather than change the wording around. If people can't do any research, then they shouldn't claim to understand the book or the time period it was written in.
Happens all the time to make things more readable.
Really? How, may I ask, is censoring the word "nigger" going to make it more readable? It's plainly clear what it means to me.
Do you think rewriting it to make it more acceptable to the readers was not a good thing?
Yes. It essentially changes what it was originally supposed to convey. Whether that be its meaning or its interpretation of the language used at the time. What is the point of bending over backwards for people with such weak minds that they can't handle strings of letters?
Yes if it was a simple matter of finding something offensive I would say it was censorship to remove it.
Did you read? It is because some people find the word offensive. Also, it's absolutely pointless and counterproductive to go through every book and replace words with other words just to presumably satisfy a newer generation (for whatever reason). Seriously, just leave things alone.
Also, directly above that comment, you mentioned making it more "acceptable" to readers. Is that an acknowledgement that you know that this is censorship? Something shouldn't be changed merely because people who can't handle strings of letters don't like it.
What? I was trying to state that the universe doesn't somehow favor humans over everything else (which is what some people seem to believe).
and implies the existence of choice.
Maybe. What is your point?
Perhaps I was unclear. What I meant was that I'm none too fond of this seemingly common ideal that humans are factually more important than everything else on the planet (as in, they are somehow valued more by the universe than everything else). Now, if someone stated that they personally believe that humans are more important, then that is a different matter altogether, but I'm mainly speaking of people who misrepresent it as a fact.
I really don't see why something as petty as intelligence should affect this decision. Everything dies, and in the end, ones intelligence means nothing. Elevating yourself above another entity simply for that reason is incredibly arrogant.
Judaism teaches that speech is the most powerful tool at your disposal
Yet, when someone insults me, I feel nothing. You are not obligated to get offended by mere words, and if you do, it is ultimately your own fault. I suggest that people strengthen their weak minds and overcome the social conditioning that states that they must be offended by words.
you degrade your very soul
Two conditions have to be met for this to be true: souls must exist and they must be offended.
That couldn't be more incorrect.
Really? Words certainly never hurt me after I realized just how petty they really were. I'll attempt to make a logical argument, but someone else's words will never truly harm me unless I let them. It's nice to assume that you must be offended by strings of letters, but I feel it is incredibly naive.
It also destroys art by altering the original context, thereby changing the message.
This is the only part that I agree with you on.
Have you ever been on the receiving end of blatant discrimination?
I don't understand what this has to do with anything. Words are merely strings of letters with a meaning (all of them). No word is inherently 'bad', and people who believe such have likely been socially conditioned to believe it.
That helped me relate to how black people feel about the n-word.
It's a word with a use. If it isn't aimed at them (and even if it is), there is no reason for them to get offended. You're not obligated to get offended by mere words.
Besides that, this book shows how language was used at the time. Censoring it now so people can stay in their little bubbles is completely pointless and counterproductive to the books' point.
You're incorrect. Technically, censorship can be employed by someone other than the government. There is no doubt in my mind, however, that the worst form of censorship is typically employed by a government entity, but all I'm trying to state is that this still can be considered censorship (and again, it's fortunate that you still have access to uncensored versions).
The issue here is that there needs to be an edition that can be used to teach children of all races and all ages.
Like the original version?
The original edition uses words that many people don't want to read and don't want their children to read.
Why is it so hard to understand that every word is just a string of letters with a meaning, including 'bad' words? If we didn't treat them as some sort of 'taboo', then they wouldn't even be appealing to use out of context. You are by no means obligated to get offended by a string of letters, and if you let yourself be offended, it is your fault. Censorship is ridiculous no matters who it claims to be 'protecting' (which really means keeping them ignorant). That includes children.
Additionally, children are quite fond of repeatedly using new words that they have just learned. I can easily picture elementary school children tormenting classmates with the n-word after hearing it repeated over 200 times in class.
I wonder why that is? Whether or not they know the word "nigger," they will find other means of 'insulting' others. It's just a word with a meaning, much like "idiot" or "retard." Censoring something for someone will only succeed in keeping them ignorant for inane reasons. Society needs to move on from the childish and illogical notion that certain words shouldn't be used simply because some people don't like their meaning (and while they're at it, toughen up).
but really it doesn't hurt much.
Lots of things don't "hurt much" but still shouldn't be done. An example would censoring any and all insults and violence on television. You could probably leave that to your imagination, but it would be annoying and useless, right? That said, it also wouldn't "hurt much" if they just stopped censoring the words.
The word should stay there to show how language was used at the time.
The word is so offensive today that it detracts from the story the book was intended to tell.
It frightens me when I think about how many people are afraid of mere words. Every word has a use and a meaning and is merely a string of letters.
But meanings change
So we should go back and rewrite/censor every book that contains words that we no longer accept?
I see nothing wrong with removing it, and no I don't see that as censorship.
You don't see it as censorship when people want to remove the word simply because some people find it offensive?
The fact that the words are considered 'bad' is precisely why they are so appealing. Like every other word, they have their uses, and are just words.
The kid will not understand why
So tell them.
However, the best solution would be to leave the book alone and ignore the people who want to keep everyone else in bubbles.
Language changes a lot in 100 years
Yes, but the book is meant to portray language as it was then. We shouldn't edit out any old words in every book and replace them to new ones and call it a "translation."
Chances are, if children are kept in bubbles and keep being told that 'bad' words are 'bad' because they are 'bad', they will never be able to handle any 'bad' words. I mean, really, if we just acknowledged that they were just strings of letters with meanings like any other word, this wouldn't even be a problem.
An Alabama publisher named NewSouth Books will be editing and censoring the book so that schools and parents might provide their children the ability to study the classic without fear of properly addressing the torturous history of racism and slavery in The United States of America.
I thought that was part of the point. Oh, well, we need to protect the children from words that they are not even obligated to get offended by (it could turn them into racists, after all)! Why don't we just lock all children in some sort of bubble forever and get it over with?
Might cost Sony a bunch, but hardly showstopping if they start to see real damage from pirate games or hacks.
I don't think the chances of copyright infringers stealing physical property from Sony are very high.
"You have unused icons on your desktop!"
"You need to reboot to apply updates!"
Doesn't happen to me. I turned them off.
Clearly you've not used it, or spent any time comparing the two.
No, I just didn't see anything noteworthy (by my standards).
Everything I said was noteworthy and real.
Well, not to me. I'm sure it's a good operating system, but I have no need to upgrade for such small things.
support for SSDs
I'm pretty sure you can get SSDs to work with XP, right?
better and easier to use UI
I don't have any problems with XP.
so your claim that XP is as good or at least good enough to not warrent upgrading, is just ridiculous and laughable.
It isn't ridiculous. It's my opinion. The improvements and features you listed, while good, are not noteworthy enough for me to upgrade.
Win7 stays out of my way, doesn't nag me about things
Well, yeah. I don't think I've ever had an operating system "nag me" before. What does that even mean?
Honest, I just can't imagine not wanting to upgrade to Windows 7 (unless you have really old hardware with really limited memory and CPU speed).
Perhaps people don't want to pay hundreds for an operating system with a few improvements at best. Call me when they do something revolutionary or extremely noteworthy. It probably is good, and if I got it on a new computer I certainly wouldn't mind, but I'm not going to upgrade for a few features.