Ask any Russian today, why his country invaded Crimea — and they'll tell you, it was done to "protect the Russian-speaking population from the Nazis in Kiev". The joke has plenty of truth to it, though, I suppose, Germans in Czechoslovakia were making similar jokes in 1938...
"Oh, HIV will magically mutate into something harmless! That's why the disease model is wrong! Not because it was a lie all along!"
That was my first thought too. Though I don't have enough education to have an opinion on this matter myself, I do know one biologist, who once argued rather adamantly, that there is no (sufficiently) credible evidence of HIV causing AIDS...
This new study would certainly provide a good way for the established scientists — who sneered and jeered at people expressing similar skepticism — to save their faces... Curiously, the two links cited in that Wikipedia article as "proof" of causality, state only that there is a "belief", the causality exists...
The question of interpretation is not what it would mean to you if you buddy said it, but what it meant to the people who wrote it.
You asked me, what I think it meant. My friends would've meant the same thing as the founders did — I certainly think so.
Whether to extend to TV or internet is a question of hermeneutics not interpretation
How neat of you to completely skip everything else I wrote — about only petitioning the government being protected by the 1st Amendment, and only if the petition is for redress of grievances...
If the First Amendment really does protect the right to sell (adult) pornography (a rather obvious perversion of the Founder's intentions — if we really cared about them), the Second ought to protect owning and bearing of not only brass-knuckles and swords, but rocket-launchers and tanks — and certainly "assault" rifles of any magazine-capacity...
He argues for less fidelity to it [the Constitution -mi].
Yea, sure. More like zero fidelity — the entire piece is titled: "Let's give up on the Constitution"...
The first amendment has much more limited application in semi-private environments.
What has changed to these limits since the 60-ies? Not the laws... It is just the Illiberals of the past, who enjoyed the Amendment's protections back then (see Tinker v. Des Moines of 1969, for one example — that it was about school rather than college is immaterial here), have grown-up, taken the comfortable (semi)-government jobs, and no longer recognize the Amendment as applicable in the same circumstances.
This has nothing to do with the race of the writers of the document or its age.
Wrong — you didn't read the full text. Here it is — from NY Times articletitled "Let’s Give Up on the Constitution":
Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?
See? The fact that the founders were White, "propertied", male — and long-dead — really is among the reasons brought up for abolishing the Constitution...
What do you think, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" means?
To me it means, people should be armed so they can be ready to defend their free country.
In reading any document you have to look at the intent behind the wording, and their intent is pretty clear as the documents show.
Yeah, if we applied your principle to the First Amendment, the only "free speech" rights you'd have, would be to petition the government. And only for redress of grievances. (As well as only after registering, passing background checks, and only using means available in the 18th century — such as print or personal speech — but certainly not online or TV.)
no one really argues against the entire constitution
The primary argument — cited by all such "critics" — is that some of the founding fathers owned slaves. Presumably, they'd reject the Pythagorean theorem too, because the ancient mathematician was a slave-owner. And, for one more example, the Aristotle's Logic — on the same grounds...
Such is their hatred of the 2nd Amendment and limits on the government's power (when it is in Democratic control, of course), they don't realize, the 1st will be thrown out together with the 2nd.
The one hit of his caliber — the (co)invention of DNA — ought to be enough even if the "hitter" is a jerk...
his racism and sexism would probably continue to be overlooked if he continued making fundamental discoveries
A person having — and even expressing — inflammatory opinions should not be raising the requirement. To continue with my Mel Gibson analogy, he'll remain great in "Braveheart" and I'd love to have him autograph the DVD for me, even he not only "hates Jews", but turns out to be torturing kittens for fun...
But the 2nd amendment's clear intent was that America not having a standing army only a standing navy with state militias constituting the army.
The only thing "clear" in the 2nd Amendment is that keeping and bearing arms is a right. There is not a word there about "army" (standing or otherwise), much less "navy".
And, yes, both parties tend to treat that right (which can only be taken away by the Judiciary) as a mere privilege (which may be granted and withdrawn by the Executive on a whim).
But only the Left would argue, Constitution is "too old" to apply...
The constitution clearly rejects the notion of corporations as legal entities yet Republicans seem to be quite happy with corporate charters existing inner state and not for public purposes.
Even if the Constitution really is "clear" on this matter (and let's not get side-tracked), the point was not, whether parties willingly ignore it, but that only the Illiberals (though few among even them) would openly argue, the entire document is "ancient" (and written by White old slave-owners to boot) and therefor should not apply...
Fuck everyone who just became less informed because you spouted of your uneducated racist-ass beliefs.
And this, is how Illiberals react, when a thoughtcriminal challenges their — unsubstantiated — beliefs... This perfect example of Illiberal approach to arguing makes a good conversational piece and is now available printed on archive-quality paper.
Wild-caught. Order it with an attractive (organic) wood frame for only $9.99 more and receive free shipping within continental US. Call now, operators are standing by.
By definition, IQ is measured as a standard distribution curve with an IQ of 100 being the average. If everyone on the planet suddenly got twice as smart, we'd still have the same IQ because again, IQ measures you in relation to the rest of the population.
This suggests, some sort of absolute IQ measurement should be developed — so that differences between generations in a population, or contemporary populations of different locales can be meaningfully measured. One obvious application would be to track the efficiency of public education, but there can, of course, be others...
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact
Which only tells you that IQ tests do not measure intelligence.
Ah, this is so cool, it certainly deserves the high "Insightful" moderation. So, when a test comes up with results, that go against your existing dogma, you reject the test — not the dogma? "Hide the decline" much?
I do not know whether or not Africans — or any other race — have a higher (or lower) IQ (or intelligence, if that's what you prefer). But if you are going to argue, that nobody is smarter, then you better have your evidence lined-up — something better than a dogmatic belief.
Penalizing scientists for thoughtcrimes does not advance humanity's progress...
Watson, best known for his work deciphering the DNA double helix alongside Francis Crick in 1953, made an incendiary remark regarding the intelligence of black people that lost him the admiration of the scientific community. It made him, in his own words, an "unperson."
Whether he is a racist or not — indeed, whether he was right or not — he was, undoubtedly, a brilliant scientist. To turn him away from scientific pursuits was not only unfair to him, but simply foolish of the rest of us — plain and simple. Worse, for organizations receiving government research grants (that's nearly all higher education institutions) to have done that, was unconstitutional too.
At least, Mel Gibson — a similarly brilliant actor and director — kept doing, what he does best, even after his (alleged) racism became well-publicized... His probable antisemitism hurts me for one, but I still consider "Apocalypto" and "The Passion of Christ" to be master-pieces... It is too bad, Mr. Watson had not been able to create his due to his thoughtcrime.
That doesn't mean that such a society is impossible
A number of countries — USSR, North Korea, Cuba — have gone through not only the initial period of mass-murders (which you could explain away by character-flaws of the initial crop of leaders), but through the subsequent decades of economic misery and human rights deprivation too. None of them has anything to show for it — the mass-murders may have ended, but the misery and deprivations continue.
So, no, whatever theory may suggest, "such a society" is, indeed, impossible in practice... And Marxism has been debunked in theory too — as much as anything can be debunked in these imprecise "sciences".
but merely that the kinds of people who are capable of bringing it about without turning into dictators are so rare that such a person has not yet been born.
Just how many more times is the humanity to attempt this "worker's paradise" — before we start hanging those wearing Che Guevara T-shirts on lamp-posts?
They just kill them for conflicting with their ideals, rather than for being political nuisances.
The underlying cause of this tolerance of mass-murder — which leads to occasional outbreaks of actual mass-murder — is the collectivist notion, that the glorious Collective ought to trump the cantankerous Individual — for The Greater Good. Once you accept it, there is no stopping...
The US too had a Civil War — 50 years before Russia. There was plenty of killing, some of it unwarranted, but there were no mass-murders. That, in my not so humble opinion, is because we are (or were) an Individualist country.
On contrast, 70 years before our Civil War here, France too had its own — being a Collectivist society, they had an awful lot of mass-executions. The guillotine — invented for easy butchering of animals — was adopted to killing humans instead... Soviet revolutionaries thought of Jacobines fondly, while vowing not to repeat their mistakes (that is, not killing enough enemies).
For decades Commy-sympathizers like yourself have been singing a variety of tunes to the effect that "Communism is good, Stalin was bad". No way, no how — every time Communism was attempted in earnest, it resulted in mass-murder followed by decades of miserable existence for survivors robbed of both economic wealth and human rights.
Yeah, only having the cook and the driver being able to spit on my pizza really makes the idea much, much more delightful.
"Delightful" may not be the right word here, but, yes, the fewer people are able to spit into your food, the less your health is endangered. At least, you have some idea of how healthy your servants are, whereas total strangers could carry a really nasty infection...
Slashdot Mirror
Why so anonymous?
Please, don't hate...
Not at all. But you are welcome to cite examples of important things happening, that weren't mentioned on either the two sites.
Ask any Russian today, why his country invaded Crimea — and they'll tell you, it was done to "protect the Russian-speaking population from the Nazis in Kiev". The joke has plenty of truth to it, though, I suppose, Germans in Czechoslovakia were making similar jokes in 1938...
That was my first thought too. Though I don't have enough education to have an opinion on this matter myself, I do know one biologist, who once argued rather adamantly, that there is no (sufficiently) credible evidence of HIV causing AIDS...
This new study would certainly provide a good way for the established scientists — who sneered and jeered at people expressing similar skepticism — to save their faces... Curiously, the two links cited in that Wikipedia article as "proof" of causality, state only that there is a "belief", the causality exists...
Nonsense. I take Drudge Report and Slashdot as the news-sites of record — and I have not missed anything important yet. Thank you very much.
That one is even better, when told not about Ukrainians in Odesa, but about Soviet expats (of whatever ethnicity) in Brooklyn...
You asked me, what I think it meant. My friends would've meant the same thing as the founders did — I certainly think so.
How neat of you to completely skip everything else I wrote — about only petitioning the government being protected by the 1st Amendment, and only if the petition is for redress of grievances...
If the First Amendment really does protect the right to sell (adult) pornography (a rather obvious perversion of the Founder's intentions — if we really cared about them), the Second ought to protect owning and bearing of not only brass-knuckles and swords, but rocket-launchers and tanks — and certainly "assault" rifles of any magazine-capacity...
Yea, sure. More like zero fidelity — the entire piece is titled: "Let's give up on the Constitution"...
What has changed to these limits since the 60-ies? Not the laws... It is just the Illiberals of the past, who enjoyed the Amendment's protections back then (see Tinker v. Des Moines of 1969, for one example — that it was about school rather than college is immaterial here), have grown-up, taken the comfortable (semi)-government jobs, and no longer recognize the Amendment as applicable in the same circumstances.
Wrong — you didn't read the full text. Here it is — from NY Times article titled "Let’s Give Up on the Constitution":
See? The fact that the founders were White, "propertied", male — and long-dead — really is among the reasons brought up for abolishing the Constitution...
One Ukrainian says to another:
To me it means, people should be armed so they can be ready to defend their free country.
Yeah, if we applied your principle to the First Amendment, the only "free speech" rights you'd have, would be to petition the government. And only for redress of grievances. (As well as only after registering, passing background checks, and only using means available in the 18th century — such as print or personal speech — but certainly not online or TV.)
I certainly wish so, but that's just not true:
The primary argument — cited by all such "critics" — is that some of the founding fathers owned slaves. Presumably, they'd reject the Pythagorean theorem too, because the ancient mathematician was a slave-owner. And, for one more example, the Aristotle's Logic — on the same grounds...
Such is their hatred of the 2nd Amendment and limits on the government's power (when it is in Democratic control, of course), they don't realize, the 1st will be thrown out together with the 2nd.
But, perhaps more worryingly than these fringe loudmouths, is the calm dismissal of even the 1st Amendment by the boring bureaucrats of today: “This isn’t really the ’60s anymore [...] people can’t really protest like that anymore".
The one hit of his caliber — the (co)invention of DNA — ought to be enough even if the "hitter" is a jerk...
A person having — and even expressing — inflammatory opinions should not be raising the requirement. To continue with my Mel Gibson analogy, he'll remain great in "Braveheart" and I'd love to have him autograph the DVD for me, even he not only "hates Jews", but turns out to be torturing kittens for fun...
The only thing "clear" in the 2nd Amendment is that keeping and bearing arms is a right. There is not a word there about "army" (standing or otherwise), much less "navy".
And, yes, both parties tend to treat that right (which can only be taken away by the Judiciary) as a mere privilege (which may be granted and withdrawn by the Executive on a whim).
But only the Left would argue, Constitution is "too old" to apply...
Even if the Constitution really is "clear" on this matter (and let's not get side-tracked), the point was not, whether parties willingly ignore it, but that only the Illiberals (though few among even them) would openly argue, the entire document is "ancient" (and written by White old slave-owners to boot) and therefor should not apply...
The Bill of Rights is comparably ancient. So what? Old does not mean "wrong" (unless you are a teenager in the rebellious phase)...
Makes sense to me. In fact, seems like a good — forward-compatible — law indeed...
What I see is that, contrary to your stage name (or — given your combativeness — perhaps, "nom de guerre" is a better term), you "kan not reed"...
Hear, hear. Sorry, honey, but you have to be a nubile White female to apply.
Please, don't hate.
And this, is how Illiberals react, when a thoughtcriminal challenges their — unsubstantiated — beliefs... This perfect example of Illiberal approach to arguing makes a good conversational piece and is now available printed on archive-quality paper.
Wild-caught. Order it with an attractive (organic) wood frame for only $9.99 more and receive free shipping within continental US. Call now, operators are standing by.
This suggests, some sort of absolute IQ measurement should be developed — so that differences between generations in a population, or contemporary populations of different locales can be meaningfully measured. One obvious application would be to track the efficiency of public education, but there can, of course, be others...
That Africans have, on average, lower IQs, is a scientific fact
Which only tells you that IQ tests do not measure intelligence.
Ah, this is so cool, it certainly deserves the high "Insightful" moderation. So, when a test comes up with results, that go against your existing dogma, you reject the test — not the dogma? "Hide the decline" much?
I do not know whether or not Africans — or any other race — have a higher (or lower) IQ (or intelligence, if that's what you prefer). But if you are going to argue, that nobody is smarter, then you better have your evidence lined-up — something better than a dogmatic belief.
Penalizing scientists for thoughtcrimes does not advance humanity's progress...
Whether he is a racist or not — indeed, whether he was right or not — he was, undoubtedly, a brilliant scientist. To turn him away from scientific pursuits was not only unfair to him, but simply foolish of the rest of us — plain and simple. Worse, for organizations receiving government research grants (that's nearly all higher education institutions) to have done that, was unconstitutional too.
At least, Mel Gibson — a similarly brilliant actor and director — kept doing, what he does best, even after his (alleged) racism became well-publicized... His probable antisemitism hurts me for one, but I still consider "Apocalypto" and "The Passion of Christ" to be master-pieces... It is too bad, Mr. Watson had not been able to create his due to his thoughtcrime.
A number of countries — USSR, North Korea, Cuba — have gone through not only the initial period of mass-murders (which you could explain away by character-flaws of the initial crop of leaders), but through the subsequent decades of economic misery and human rights deprivation too. None of them has anything to show for it — the mass-murders may have ended, but the misery and deprivations continue.
So, no, whatever theory may suggest, "such a society" is, indeed, impossible in practice... And Marxism has been debunked in theory too — as much as anything can be debunked in these imprecise "sciences".
Just how many more times is the humanity to attempt this "worker's paradise" — before we start hanging those wearing Che Guevara T-shirts on lamp-posts?
Yeah, "Socialism" is inevitable — followed by the equally inevitable Communism :-) Karl Marx much?
The underlying cause of this tolerance of mass-murder — which leads to occasional outbreaks of actual mass-murder — is the collectivist notion, that the glorious Collective ought to trump the cantankerous Individual — for The Greater Good. Once you accept it, there is no stopping...
The US too had a Civil War — 50 years before Russia. There was plenty of killing, some of it unwarranted, but there were no mass-murders. That, in my not so humble opinion, is because we are (or were) an Individualist country.
On contrast, 70 years before our Civil War here, France too had its own — being a Collectivist society, they had an awful lot of mass-executions. The guillotine — invented for easy butchering of animals — was adopted to killing humans instead... Soviet revolutionaries thought of Jacobines fondly, while vowing not to repeat their mistakes (that is, not killing enough enemies).
I meant to make a joke with my original posting, but you chose to bleat something about politics... So, here it is...
The naivette is all yours. If Lenin was any better than Stalin, it was not at all obvious. It was he, who presided over campaign of mass-murder known as Red Terror — including killing off of the Russian clergy. And, yes, he not only tolerated, but ordered taking — and executing — of the opponents' hostages, among other steps...
For decades Commy-sympathizers like yourself have been singing a variety of tunes to the effect that "Communism is good, Stalin was bad". No way, no how — every time Communism was attempted in earnest, it resulted in mass-murder followed by decades of miserable existence for survivors robbed of both economic wealth and human rights.
As was often written on various propaganda posters in USSR: Lenin died but his cause lives on! .
"Delightful" may not be the right word here, but, yes, the fewer people are able to spit into your food, the less your health is endangered. At least, you have some idea of how healthy your servants are, whereas total strangers could carry a really nasty infection...