I do all of my Windows development inside of VMWare. It hogs disk space and there's a performance penalty... but I can easily backup with virtual machine. It also allows me to evaluate MS beta products, try out service packs, etc in an isolated environment.
As has been stated several times... it's a just a game.
You don't have to become the master of the universe to have fun. I've played several of these games, especially DAoC. But I don't have anywhere near the time required to get to the "end game."
The most fun I've had in these games are when I get together with my real life friends and go screw around. We'll take our lower level character and go raid a lowbie dungeon. Or we'll go get totally lost and explore the world as we find our way back. It's just fun to hang out in the virtual world with your buddies, who have been transformed into mages, warriors, monks, etc.
Sadly this type of casual play doesn't justify the monthly charges. Which is why all my accounts are currently disabled...
I'm sure that's true. Text can just be a poor medium for attempted humor, that I wanted to be sure..:)
Apparently I have failed to convince you that conservatives merely have a difference of opinion about the identity of the oppressed groups. Most of your post is the traditional "why conservatives suck" stuff. That makes me sad. But even if you're not willing the go there, I thank you all the same. Your posts make me think about my own positions in a new way and that's valuable to me.
So I'll reply to your comments and perform the, mostly likely, fruitless task of explaining you why I don't think we suck.
My first reply gave the Falwell and Coulter quotes.
Indeed. As far as Rev. Falwell, he really doesn't have the following or influence you might imagine. He's in a news a bunch because he comes out with some abrasive comments like the one you illustrated. I would say he's the conservative equivalent to Rev. Al Sharpton on your side. Just straight enough to stay in the mainstream, but only gets coverage for the wacko things he says or does. But that's fine. I'll see your "Falwell" and raise you a "Bush." I'm repeatedly informed of what a right-wing religious zealot President Bush is. Yet he has increased funding for AIDS above and beyond anything we've seen since the disease entered the scene. He went to Africa specifically to address the issue. I would say that President Bush as done more to fight AIDS then the last four Presidents combined. Also consider someone like Mother Theresa. She was as conservative Christian as they came. Yet she spent her life serving those in poverty and with terrible diseases (including AIDS) and training other people to do the same. Honestly, I think that your selection of Falwell as the conservative spokesperson for AIDS, tells me more about what you think about conservatives then what conservatives think of AIDS.
As for Coulter, I think you were quoting her out of context. Your original statement made it sound as if a conservative leader (which she is) advocated as policy the unprovoked bombing of non-Christian countries for the sole purpose of converting them by force. That's not the case at all. That article was written a couple days after 9/11. Coulter was grieving for her friend who was murdered in a horrible manner. I'm sure she was angry, afraid, and very sorrowful. Now, of course, she's still responsible for what she writes. But what she was writing was advocating an aggressive response in defense of America by any military, economic or social means necessary. Not that non-Christian nations should be bombed for no reason other then being of a different faith.
They tend to not get repeatedly elected to the US Senate by Liberals, though.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK. He claimes to have reformed and that may be true. But the conservatives you mentioned have made the same claims. Thurmond was the first Senator to put an African-American on his staff. Sen Clinton is said to have made frequent use of anti-Jewish slurs according to the first-hand account of Dick Morris. Lt. Governor Bustamante (of the California recall) used the N-word in a speech a few years ago. It just slipped out he claimed. Which is probably true of someone used to using that word. There's plenty of mud for each side to throw. I also would say that what happened to Sen. Lott supports my claim that the battle over racism is largely won. For that single comment he was thrust from the leadership of the Senate by his fellow conservatives.
Contributions are seen as political speech, and some powerful groups on the Right suppressed the Log Cabins' speech. Sure, it was the Right's perogerative, but it greatly implies a bigotry.
I disagree. It is a right (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court) for individuals and groups to choose who they are associated with. The public pol
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You know, this could go on for awhile. We're probably both too hard-headed to let the other get the last word. I guess eventually/. will shut the story down. So who gets the last word will probably be a matter of luck. Or perhaps Divine Providence. (just a joke:))
First of all, you can go find an individual nut that'll say anything. You pull out, probably from memory, some wild statements from unidentified "Conservative Christian leaders." I've heard similarly radical statements from the left. Environmentalist leaders who say that the human race should be made extinct. Vandalizing of people's automobiles, clothing, etc. I hope we can agree that ownership of property is a human right. Also consider the rioting and looting that follows nearly every meeting of the WTO. I've seen anti-semitic leftist leaders spreading the most terrible hatred I've ever witnessed. Calling for the extermination of Jews and all white people (including children, as they will grow to become the evil white oppressors). But I don't judge all of liberalism based on the wild statements of a, relatively, few radicals. You shouldn't judge conservatism or Christianity by those criteria either.
Second of all. After reading your response several times, I think that part of the problem is that we use the same words to describe different things. Please don't take that as an accusation that "my way is better." I believe that, but it's not my point at the moment.:) I'm trying to understand my own world-view better, as much as get a glimpse of yours. My take on what you have said is that you view "human rights" as a struggle of an oppressed group to gain equal treatment/respect/access to resources, etc. I would agree with that (hey! we agree on something!).
But I think we disagree on who exactly is the oppressed. Certainly we can agree, as you did with the kids in Mexico, that those living in third world poverty are oppressed. But then you diverged into terms such as "wanting to kill social welfare programs", and "pro-Segregation, anti-Civil Rights Conservatives." Here I disagree. There can be a very honest argument made that many of these social welfare programs are wasteful and ineffective. Throwing dollars at a social problem is usually not the best way to handle them. If spending money solved these problems, they'd be gone because we certainly spend a heck of a lot of money. So because someone (or some group) opposes a government run social program doesn't make them anti-human rights. It may just be that they have a different solution for the problem. For the work that we do in Mexico, it would probably take the government setting up a whole office with paid staff and tons of costly overhead. We do it with the time/talent/treasure of a few dozen unpaid volunteers working in love. If we wanted to expand and take over some work that is performed by the government (and do a better job for a fraction of the cost) the headline would be "Conservatives Slash Orphanage Budget." Implying that we cared nothing for orphans, when EXACTLY the opposite is true!
As far a "pro-Segregation, anti-Civil Rights Conservatives", I would point out, in passing, that the Civil Rights battle lines were not as clearly drawn as you might be indicating. Many leftist leaders have a less-then-stellar record in this regard (Sen. Robert Byrd comes to mind). And that much of the civil rights movement was powered by people's Christian faith. That being said, I do agree that in the 1960-1970s the left did take leadership in that movement and they were correct in doing so. The efforts of everyone on the correct side of that battle are to be commended. The problem is that this battle is largely won. Is there still racism? Of course. There will be as long as there is evil in the world. But the institutionalized, legalized, rampant racism of the past is gone, and an honest argument to be made that the remedies to racism have gone too
Now why would a conservative Christian on/. be touchy...;->
Thanks for the additional explanation. You seem to be more reasonable then I initially presumed. I do think that #4 on your list did offer a bit of a commentary on who's moral and just tho. But perhaps that was unintended.
Human rights, though, tend to more a focus for the left than the right.
I do think, with all due respect, that you may believe in a bit of a stereo type. I'm pretty much your standard conservative Christian, with the exception of being opposed to capital punishment. But I also run a web site devoted to helping children with AIDS in Mexico. I work in a soup kitchen and visit people abandoned in nursing homes.
Just about all my friends share my ideology, and just about all are similarly devoted. I don't tell you this to tell you what swell guy I am, but to point out that caring about the dignity of people transcends ideology.
We may have different motives for what we do. I would suppose (forgive me if I'm wrong) that you are motivated by a personal code of conduct of some sort. I'm motivated by the example and commands of Christ. But please don't believe that because someone isn't liberal that they care less about human rights.
Try any of the following: 1) Local chapter of ACLU 2) Local Amnestry group 3) Local artist or arts school 4) Any town with a healthy population of liberals
my.. my... How very superior you are. You might also look in the following places:
1) Your local Church 2) Your local Right to Life group 3) Your local Bible college 4) Any town with a healthy population of conservatives who follow the teaching of Christ that the love of money is the root of all evil.
My wife would never wear a huge stone. There are just too many people in need for that kind of prideful nonsense. And if we did freak out and get one it would be a cause of shame, in our circle of friends, not esteem.
I'm very aware that conservatives are not the only people with morals. You seem not to understand the same thing about liberals.
Fair enough. What I was actually trying to say was that he was a member of a team that translated the entire Bible; and that being a member of that very successful project was a great accomplishment. But I admit that my post didn't get that across very clearly.
Also worth noting is that Tolkin was one of the original translators of the New Jerusalem Bible.
yes... yes... I know that many of you don't believe in God, etc. But, hopefully, you'll recognize that translating the entire Bible to English is quite an accomplishment for one of our favorite authors. And, just maybe, you'll even appreciate how happy it makes us Christians to have this great author bring his talents to scripture.
Then again, maybe I'll just get modded to oblivion...
Is it just me, or is that "It's Coming Soon" lady kind of scary. She's got, like, spikes coming out of her head. And what looks like a tenticle next to her face... Maybe the $11,000 fine is just for first offenders and they sic her on them next...
I couldn't disagree more. How close are chimps to learning how to drive a car? Or to use a computer? Or to take a trip to the moon?
But I can tell you what's most special. Art. As soon as a chimp can draw a picture of their house, or of their parents or of anything else; then I'd think about moving them onto the same level with us. This is the clearest place where we see that humans differ from animals by type, not just degree. A human doesn't carve a sculpture well and a chimp does it badly. A human does it well and a chimp can't do it at all. This ability to imagine, mentally conceive and create is the genesis of all that makes humans unique.
Target and Toys 'R Us should have been collecting sales tax all along. Since they have stores nation-wide, they have nexus in all of the states. By 'agreeing' to collect sales tax, they're just agreeing to start doing what they should have been doing already.
Behind the scenes, they probably made a deal to agree to these taxes in exchange for the states not going after them for past taxes on their Internet business.
The spin that the stores have put on this is pretty clever. By agreeing to the tax, they put pressure on Internet sites without nexus (like Amazon and eBay) to pay sales taxes on their business. They know full well that Amazon and eBay (without a network of stores) will have a difficult time figuring out how to collect all these taxes. Target and Toys 'R Us already have it figured out. This gives the chains with physical locations an advantage.
Also, this is just the beginning. Once sales tax is collected on online purchases (which won't add up to much money), what to stop a whole new wave of taxes on online sales? It's going to get expensive and complex very quickly.
Worse of all, big sites like Amazon and eBay will find a way to cope, but Mom 'n Pop Internet stores likely won't survive. Less competition, higher prices, less innovation. As is the case with most taxes, the consumer loses in the end...
First off I want to say that I really enjoy your conversation. It is thought provoking:-)
That's very kind. Thanks! I enjoy the conversation as well. Nothing beats just sitting down and thinking about this sort of thing. It's what we have brains for. Be they either God given or drudged up from the old pond of ooze (or both!).:-)
If absolute morality exists then where is the proof, not just so much conjecture... Otherwise we are left to decide our own morality exactly as we've always done, via intuition, predilections, and taught behavior.
I would use an analogy of the folks who recently won the big lottery. I bet they have 'friends' that they haven't talked to for 20 years showing up on their doorstep. Of course, it has nothing to do with the money. They all just wanted to stop by...:-> I would think that this would be the worst part of having all that money. You never know who your real friends are, and who's just trying to extract something from you. I'd probably even be tempted to move to a new town and hide the fact that I was rich, just so folks would like me for being me.
Now imagine that you're God. You are the ultimate lottery winner. You got to be God, the ageless, timeless, ultimate perfect reality. If this guy we're to come down here in all his finery, of course everyone would follow him around like puppies. (actually I think we'd probably all run screaming in terror, but it's just an analogy:)). We would do whatever he wanted, think whatever he wanted, and be whatever he wanted, out of fear and awe. He's big and we're little. We wouldn't have any sort of choice or option other then that.
For better or worse (I think better) God has a higher purpose for us then this. He doesn't want mindless groupies following him around, nodding our heads and laughing at his jokes even when they're not funny. He wants sons and daughters who love him for being him. Amazing isn't it? As big as he is, he values our free expressions of love.
But the only way we can offer them is to be free not to offer them. Coercive love isn't love at all. So he withdraws. For a pitifully short period of time (our lives) he removes himself from our direct experience. We can experience him, but only indirectly. God is not at all interested in proving his existence to us. Quite the opposite. If he did that, he would be right back in the position of having lap dogs instead of children. But he certainly provides ample evidence for his being there. But only evidence and argument, not scientific proof. But to someone who honestly seeks him, he will reveal himself. Not in a bolt of lightening or a crash of thunder. But in a much deeper, spiritual manner. This ends up actually being proof to the person, once he has already made his/her choice to love God. But it will never be able to be used as proof for anyone else, as they have not yet chosen. Often others will write the person's experience of God off as a psychological reaction. Which I find very amusing.
So here we are. I can't prove that God exists to anyone. But I can make a very reasonable argument. Obviously no one can prove that God doesn't exist (can't prove a negative), and they can make an argument. Both will be valid arguments, but only one can be true. Now God has us right where he wants us. Those who choose to love him may do so and have ample justification for their choice. He will then confirm their choice to them individually, and teach them about himself (including morality). Those who choose not to love God may do so, and have ample justification for their choice. Everyone get's to decide what they want. Of course, that doesn't change what actually is. But they get to decide how to respond to what is.
A reasonable question to all of this would be, "if God reveals himself to people who love him, why are there so many different religions." In order to answer that, I'll have to reveal my own predilection. I'm a Christian, specially a Roman Catholic. The Catechism [christusrex.org] addresses questions such as this in part by saying:
The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life. CCC 841 [christusrex.org]
Being an absolutist sort of a guy, I do believe that if people live in freedom, have a relationship with God, and strive to learn and deepen that relationship they will ultimately end up in the Church. But I also recognize the truth and beauty that can be found it other religions and I do believe that those religions can be very effectively used by God to make people into sons and daughters. I view them as incomplete and sometimes erroneous, but very valid. As such, I don't see 'many religions.' I see people striving to know God as best they can, given what they have to work with. Many people will make it all the way to the Church. Many will not. But God will be there for anyone who honestly strives to know him.
You deserve a chance to respond to all of this, and this story will be dying soon. Feel free to email me directly, if you wish. elitusprime-AT-yahoo-DOT-com.
What you end up with is a perfect picture of our world!
You do indeed. But that doesn't help answer the question about God's existence. For example, let's suppose that morality is absolute. Then let's assume that people via their free will reject that morality and set up their own moral system in order to justify their immoral actions. What we end up with is also a perfect picture of our world!
I believe that you can extend this circumstance to the whole of human conflict. IMHO, the only 'truth' in morality comes from the impartial hand of evolution/survival.
I would disagree. Suppose that we found out that the 'optimal' human population for the world was three billion people. If we kept the population at that level, the world would be a better place for the human race, and our species would reap all sorts of survival benefits. Would you favor the murder of 50% of the world's population for the 'good' of the species? I think (hope) you would recognize that as wrong, precisely because our morality is more than just survival or self preservation.
How can people possibly believe that a being that created the universe and everything in it could still give a crap about one species on one planet that isn't much evolved past being a instinct driven animal?
It is exactly the infinite nature of God that allows for him to care about us. God doesn't have a limited amount of ability or time to 'spend' on us. His infinite nature allows him to spend forever caring about each atom in the universe without losing a moment.
Certainly God is way beyond our understanding. Heck, the universe is way beyond that. But don't limit God by thinking that he's so big that he wouldn't care about something (or someone) so small. He can care precisely because he's so big.
Common fucking sense. People are perfectly capable of learning that physical pain hurts and that emotional pain hurts. People are perfectly capable of learning that giving love to someone is more rewarding than giving pain to someone.
Ah, but I'm afraid that still doesn't answer the question. Hitler found killing more rewarding then loving. How can you judge him to be wrong? Just because you prefer to love rather then to kill? Who are you to impose 'your morality' onto Hitler?
Answering with 'common sense' doesn't cut it. Common sense is just a social convention. What was common sense 200 years ago can be foolish today. What is common sense today will likely be foolish 200 years from now. But there is a truth.
Hitler's actions are wrong, whether he found them rewarding or not. The only way they can be 'wrong' is if there is a 'right' that is independent of humans and their individual social conventions. Otherwise it's just 'my morality' vs. 'your morality.'
If my morality says it's ok to stick a knife in your eye, and I find that rewarding, who are you to tell me it's wrong. Oh sure, you may try to stop me, either yourself or through surrogates (law enforcement). But it goes deeper then that doesn't it. It's wrong for me to hurt someone for no reason. You can feel it in your gut. No matter what 'my morality' may say. And that feeling of wrongness is unjustified without an ultimate right. And 'ultimate right' is the definition of God.
Seems to me that most of this ripped-off rant is flamebait, there is one part that is interesting enough to respond to.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being.
Has it ever occurred to you to question your frame of reference? Christianity teaches that there is a God and that this God is absolute perfection. It also teaches a fundamentality positive view of the universe, as it also teaches that God the ultimate reality. Thus, what really exists is perfect goodness. Everything else is only so much smoke and mirrors. But I digress...
Let's suppose that your nihilist point of view is correct and there is no God, and therefore no ultimate perfection. Why is it that you can recognize that so many things in the world are all screwed up? In fact, what does it mean to 'be screwed up?' The Christian would answer it means to be in conflict with God, and therefore to be in conflict with the ultimate reality of the universe. He would say that Hitler was 'bad' as he killed millions, which is contrary to God. He would say that Mother Theresa is 'good' as she (and those who followed her) saved millions, which is in conformance with God.
As you don't believe in God, what is your reference for saying that the world is screwed up? Is it simply that you don't like what's going on? That would mean that you've made yourself into a god and the ultimate arbiter of good and evil. Which, to me, would make you crazy. Is your reference the legal system? If it's legal it must be good? That would make you even crazier.
Ultimately, you have no reference. If you're going to adopt this atheistic perspective, you pretty much have to chuck the idea of good and evil all together. And if you do that, then don't complain about evil in the world. That's for people who believe in evil. But I really don't think you'll do that, no matter how much you might rant on/. I don't think that you will really say that Hitler and Mother Theresa were the same.
Why don't I think you'll say that? Because I know that you're created in God's image and that you are fundamentality good. If you weren't you wouldn't be so upset with what's wrong in the world. Like it or not, your fundamental nature is 'on God's side.' You will get ticked at evil and injustice in the world, and you'll desire to do something to fix it. It's your nature. It's in your blood. And if it's not, then you've become a monster. Which is what God and his religion are trying to stop from happening.
Hmmmm... I look forward to hearing exactly how David *expected* me to interpret an email that said "Go ahead and submit the story to Slashdot.":-)
Also to those who claim that they can reinvent these menus in a few minutes. I agree if you have v6 browsers. But these things work all the way back to v4 browsers. Plus they're tested on 30 something minor versions of the v4 browsers on multiple OSs. If you need to support older browsers, the menus can save you a lot of time and trouble. That being said, I do think the licensing scheme they adopted is pretty nutty. Who needs menus for five pages?!
Slashdot Mirror
I do all of my Windows development inside of VMWare. It hogs disk space and there's a performance penalty... but I can easily backup with virtual machine. It also allows me to evaluate MS beta products, try out service packs, etc in an isolated environment.
As has been stated several times... it's a just a game.
You don't have to become the master of the universe to have fun. I've played several of these games, especially DAoC. But I don't have anywhere near the time required to get to the "end game."
The most fun I've had in these games are when I get together with my real life friends and go screw around. We'll take our lower level character and go raid a lowbie dungeon. Or we'll go get totally lost and explore the world as we find our way back. It's just fun to hang out in the virtual world with your buddies, who have been transformed into mages, warriors, monks, etc.
Sadly this type of casual play doesn't justify the monthly charges. Which is why all my accounts are currently disabled...
I'm a Lib doesn't mean I go into apoplectic fits.
:)
I'm sure that's true. Text can just be a poor medium for attempted humor, that I wanted to be sure..
Apparently I have failed to convince you that conservatives merely have a difference of opinion about the identity of the oppressed groups. Most of your post is the traditional "why conservatives suck" stuff. That makes me sad. But even if you're not willing the go there, I thank you all the same. Your posts make me think about my own positions in a new way and that's valuable to me.
So I'll reply to your comments and perform the, mostly likely, fruitless task of explaining you why I don't think we suck.
My first reply gave the Falwell and Coulter quotes.
Indeed. As far as Rev. Falwell, he really doesn't have the following or influence you might imagine. He's in a news a bunch because he comes out with some abrasive comments like the one you illustrated. I would say he's the conservative equivalent to Rev. Al Sharpton on your side. Just straight enough to stay in the mainstream, but only gets coverage for the wacko things he says or does. But that's fine. I'll see your "Falwell" and raise you a "Bush." I'm repeatedly informed of what a right-wing religious zealot President Bush is. Yet he has increased funding for AIDS above and beyond anything we've seen since the disease entered the scene. He went to Africa specifically to address the issue. I would say that President Bush as done more to fight AIDS then the last four Presidents combined. Also consider someone like Mother Theresa. She was as conservative Christian as they came. Yet she spent her life serving those in poverty and with terrible diseases (including AIDS) and training other people to do the same. Honestly, I think that your selection of Falwell as the conservative spokesperson for AIDS, tells me more about what you think about conservatives then what conservatives think of AIDS.
As for Coulter, I think you were quoting her out of context. Your original statement made it sound as if a conservative leader (which she is) advocated as policy the unprovoked bombing of non-Christian countries for the sole purpose of converting them by force. That's not the case at all. That article was written a couple days after 9/11. Coulter was grieving for her friend who was murdered in a horrible manner. I'm sure she was angry, afraid, and very sorrowful. Now, of course, she's still responsible for what she writes. But what she was writing was advocating an aggressive response in defense of America by any military, economic or social means necessary. Not that non-Christian nations should be bombed for no reason other then being of a different faith.
They tend to not get repeatedly elected to the US Senate by Liberals, though.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Robert Byrd was a member of the KKK. He claimes to have reformed and that may be true. But the conservatives you mentioned have made the same claims. Thurmond was the first Senator to put an African-American on his staff. Sen Clinton is said to have made frequent use of anti-Jewish slurs according to the first-hand account of Dick Morris. Lt. Governor Bustamante (of the California recall) used the N-word in a speech a few years ago. It just slipped out he claimed. Which is probably true of someone used to using that word. There's plenty of mud for each side to throw. I also would say that what happened to Sen. Lott supports my claim that the battle over racism is largely won. For that single comment he was thrust from the leadership of the Senate by his fellow conservatives.
Contributions are seen as political speech, and some powerful groups on the Right suppressed the Log Cabins' speech. Sure, it was the Right's perogerative, but it greatly implies a bigotry.
I disagree. It is a right (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court) for individuals and groups to choose who they are associated with. The public pol
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. You know, this could go on for awhile. We're probably both too hard-headed to let the other get the last word. I guess eventually /. will shut the story down. So who gets the last word will probably be a matter of luck. Or perhaps Divine Providence. (just a joke :))
:) I'm trying to understand my own world-view better, as much as get a glimpse of yours. My take on what you have said is that you view "human rights" as a struggle of an oppressed group to gain equal treatment/respect/access to resources, etc. I would agree with that (hey! we agree on something!).
First of all, you can go find an individual nut that'll say anything. You pull out, probably from memory, some wild statements from unidentified "Conservative Christian leaders." I've heard similarly radical statements from the left. Environmentalist leaders who say that the human race should be made extinct. Vandalizing of people's automobiles, clothing, etc. I hope we can agree that ownership of property is a human right. Also consider the rioting and looting that follows nearly every meeting of the WTO. I've seen anti-semitic leftist leaders spreading the most terrible hatred I've ever witnessed. Calling for the extermination of Jews and all white people (including children, as they will grow to become the evil white oppressors). But I don't judge all of liberalism based on the wild statements of a, relatively, few radicals. You shouldn't judge conservatism or Christianity by those criteria either.
Second of all. After reading your response several times, I think that part of the problem is that we use the same words to describe different things. Please don't take that as an accusation that "my way is better." I believe that, but it's not my point at the moment.
But I think we disagree on who exactly is the oppressed. Certainly we can agree, as you did with the kids in Mexico, that those living in third world poverty are oppressed. But then you diverged into terms such as "wanting to kill social welfare programs", and "pro-Segregation, anti-Civil Rights Conservatives." Here I disagree. There can be a very honest argument made that many of these social welfare programs are wasteful and ineffective. Throwing dollars at a social problem is usually not the best way to handle them. If spending money solved these problems, they'd be gone because we certainly spend a heck of a lot of money. So because someone (or some group) opposes a government run social program doesn't make them anti-human rights. It may just be that they have a different solution for the problem. For the work that we do in Mexico, it would probably take the government setting up a whole office with paid staff and tons of costly overhead. We do it with the time/talent/treasure of a few dozen unpaid volunteers working in love. If we wanted to expand and take over some work that is performed by the government (and do a better job for a fraction of the cost) the headline would be "Conservatives Slash Orphanage Budget." Implying that we cared nothing for orphans, when EXACTLY the opposite is true!
As far a "pro-Segregation, anti-Civil Rights Conservatives", I would point out, in passing, that the Civil Rights battle lines were not as clearly drawn as you might be indicating. Many leftist leaders have a less-then-stellar record in this regard (Sen. Robert Byrd comes to mind). And that much of the civil rights movement was powered by people's Christian faith. That being said, I do agree that in the 1960-1970s the left did take leadership in that movement and they were correct in doing so. The efforts of everyone on the correct side of that battle are to be commended. The problem is that this battle is largely won. Is there still racism? Of course. There will be as long as there is evil in the world. But the institutionalized, legalized, rampant racism of the past is gone, and an honest argument to be made that the remedies to racism have gone too
uh... no. Is everyone who disagrees with you a troll? I thought liberals were open minded...
Now why would a conservative Christian on /. be touchy... ;->
Thanks for the additional explanation. You seem to be more reasonable then I initially presumed. I do think that #4 on your list did offer a bit of a commentary on who's moral and just tho. But perhaps that was unintended.
Human rights, though, tend to more a focus for the left than the right.
I do think, with all due respect, that you may believe in a bit of a stereo type. I'm pretty much your standard conservative Christian, with the exception of being opposed to capital punishment. But I also run a web site devoted to helping children with AIDS in Mexico. I work in a soup kitchen and visit people abandoned in nursing homes.
Just about all my friends share my ideology, and just about all are similarly devoted. I don't tell you this to tell you what swell guy I am, but to point out that caring about the dignity of people transcends ideology.
We may have different motives for what we do. I would suppose (forgive me if I'm wrong) that you are motivated by a personal code of conduct of some sort. I'm motivated by the example and commands of Christ. But please don't believe that because someone isn't liberal that they care less about human rights.
Thanks for the discussion!
Try any of the following:
1) Local chapter of ACLU
2) Local Amnestry group
3) Local artist or arts school
4) Any town with a healthy population of liberals
my.. my... How very superior you are. You might also look in the following places:
1) Your local Church
2) Your local Right to Life group
3) Your local Bible college
4) Any town with a healthy population of conservatives who follow the teaching of Christ that the love of money is the root of all evil.
My wife would never wear a huge stone. There are just too many people in need for that kind of prideful nonsense. And if we did freak out and get one it would be a cause of shame, in our circle of friends, not esteem.
I'm very aware that conservatives are not the only people with morals. You seem not to understand the same thing about liberals.
Fair enough. What I was actually trying to say was that he was a member of a team that translated the entire Bible; and that being a member of that very successful project was a great accomplishment. But I admit that my post didn't get that across very clearly.
Also worth noting is that Tolkin was one of the original translators of the New Jerusalem Bible.
yes... yes... I know that many of you don't believe in God, etc. But, hopefully, you'll recognize that translating the entire Bible to English is quite an accomplishment for one of our favorite authors. And, just maybe, you'll even appreciate how happy it makes us Christians to have this great author bring his talents to scripture.
Then again, maybe I'll just get modded to oblivion...
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/donotcall/in dex.html
Is it just me, or is that "It's Coming Soon" lady kind of scary. She's got, like, spikes coming out of her head. And what looks like a tenticle next to her face... Maybe the $11,000 fine is just for first offenders and they sic her on them next...
Fine with me...
If you're mostly taking math/science classes, get yourself a note book and a boat load of pencils.
If you're mostly taking literature/philosophy, nothing beat having your laptop loaded with a searchable copy of the complete works of Plato...
lol! I mean no offense. These are nice pictures and all... but they're rather "abstract" to say the least. I think you're seeing more then is there.
But thanks for the reply. I enjoy the conversation.
I couldn't disagree more. How close are chimps to learning how to drive a car? Or to use a computer? Or to take a trip to the moon?
But I can tell you what's most special. Art. As soon as a chimp can draw a picture of their house, or of their parents or of anything else; then I'd think about moving them onto the same level with us. This is the clearest place where we see that humans differ from animals by type, not just degree. A human doesn't carve a sculpture well and a chimp does it badly. A human does it well and a chimp can't do it at all. This ability to imagine, mentally conceive and create is the genesis of all that makes humans unique.
Art is the signature of man.
Target and Toys 'R Us should have been collecting sales tax all along. Since they have stores nation-wide, they have nexus in all of the states. By 'agreeing' to collect sales tax, they're just agreeing to start doing what they should have been doing already.
Behind the scenes, they probably made a deal to agree to these taxes in exchange for the states not going after them for past taxes on their Internet business.
The spin that the stores have put on this is pretty clever. By agreeing to the tax, they put pressure on Internet sites without nexus (like Amazon and eBay) to pay sales taxes on their business. They know full well that Amazon and eBay (without a network of stores) will have a difficult time figuring out how to collect all these taxes. Target and Toys 'R Us already have it figured out. This gives the chains with physical locations an advantage.
Also, this is just the beginning. Once sales tax is collected on online purchases (which won't add up to much money), what to stop a whole new wave of taxes on online sales? It's going to get expensive and complex very quickly.
Worse of all, big sites like Amazon and eBay will find a way to cope, but Mom 'n Pop Internet stores likely won't survive. Less competition, higher prices, less innovation. As is the case with most taxes, the consumer loses in the end...
Well said. I must admit that I'm pleasantly surprised that you got modded up. Maybe there's hope for /. yet... :-)
This is a pretty sad commentary on the state of TV programming. Is this all American culture has to offer anymore?
First off I want to say that I really enjoy your conversation. It is thought provoking :-)
That's very kind. Thanks! I enjoy the conversation as well. Nothing beats just sitting down and thinking about this sort of thing. It's what we have brains for. Be they either God given or drudged up from the old pond of ooze (or both!). :-)
If absolute morality exists then where is the proof, not just so much conjecture... Otherwise we are left to decide our own morality exactly as we've always done, via intuition, predilections, and taught behavior.
I would use an analogy of the folks who recently won the big lottery. I bet they have 'friends' that they haven't talked to for 20 years showing up on their doorstep. Of course, it has nothing to do with the money. They all just wanted to stop by... :-> I would think that this would be the worst part of having all that money. You never know who your real friends are, and who's just trying to extract something from you. I'd probably even be tempted to move to a new town and hide the fact that I was rich, just so folks would like me for being me.
Now imagine that you're God. You are the ultimate lottery winner. You got to be God, the ageless, timeless, ultimate perfect reality. If this guy we're to come down here in all his finery, of course everyone would follow him around like puppies. (actually I think we'd probably all run screaming in terror, but it's just an analogy :)). We would do whatever he wanted, think whatever he wanted, and be whatever he wanted, out of fear and awe. He's big and we're little. We wouldn't have any sort of choice or option other then that.
For better or worse (I think better) God has a higher purpose for us then this. He doesn't want mindless groupies following him around, nodding our heads and laughing at his jokes even when they're not funny. He wants sons and daughters who love him for being him. Amazing isn't it? As big as he is, he values our free expressions of love.
But the only way we can offer them is to be free not to offer them. Coercive love isn't love at all. So he withdraws. For a pitifully short period of time (our lives) he removes himself from our direct experience. We can experience him, but only indirectly. God is not at all interested in proving his existence to us. Quite the opposite. If he did that, he would be right back in the position of having lap dogs instead of children. But he certainly provides ample evidence for his being there. But only evidence and argument, not scientific proof. But to someone who honestly seeks him, he will reveal himself. Not in a bolt of lightening or a crash of thunder. But in a much deeper, spiritual manner. This ends up actually being proof to the person, once he has already made his/her choice to love God. But it will never be able to be used as proof for anyone else, as they have not yet chosen. Often others will write the person's experience of God off as a psychological reaction. Which I find very amusing.
So here we are. I can't prove that God exists to anyone. But I can make a very reasonable argument. Obviously no one can prove that God doesn't exist (can't prove a negative), and they can make an argument. Both will be valid arguments, but only one can be true. Now God has us right where he wants us. Those who choose to love him may do so and have ample justification for their choice. He will then confirm their choice to them individually, and teach them about himself (including morality). Those who choose not to love God may do so, and have ample justification for their choice. Everyone get's to decide what they want. Of course, that doesn't change what actually is. But they get to decide how to respond to what is.
A reasonable question to all of this would be, "if God reveals himself to people who love him, why are there so many different religions." In order to answer that, I'll have to reveal my own predilection. I'm a Christian, specially a Roman Catholic. The Catechism [christusrex.org] addresses questions such as this in part by saying:
Being an absolutist sort of a guy, I do believe that if people live in freedom, have a relationship with God, and strive to learn and deepen that relationship they will ultimately end up in the Church. But I also recognize the truth and beauty that can be found it other religions and I do believe that those religions can be very effectively used by God to make people into sons and daughters. I view them as incomplete and sometimes erroneous, but very valid. As such, I don't see 'many religions.' I see people striving to know God as best they can, given what they have to work with. Many people will make it all the way to the Church. Many will not. But God will be there for anyone who honestly strives to know him.You deserve a chance to respond to all of this, and this story will be dying soon. Feel free to email me directly, if you wish. elitusprime-AT-yahoo-DOT-com.
Thanks for the conversation!
What you end up with is a perfect picture of our world!
You do indeed. But that doesn't help answer the question about God's existence. For example, let's suppose that morality is absolute. Then let's assume that people via their free will reject that morality and set up their own moral system in order to justify their immoral actions. What we end up with is also a perfect picture of our world!
I believe that you can extend this circumstance to the whole of human conflict. IMHO, the only 'truth' in morality comes from the impartial hand of evolution/survival.
I would disagree. Suppose that we found out that the 'optimal' human population for the world was three billion people. If we kept the population at that level, the world would be a better place for the human race, and our species would reap all sorts of survival benefits. Would you favor the murder of 50% of the world's population for the 'good' of the species? I think (hope) you would recognize that as wrong, precisely because our morality is more than just survival or self preservation.
How can people possibly believe that a being that created the universe and everything in it could still give a crap about one species on one planet that isn't much evolved past being a instinct driven animal?
It is exactly the infinite nature of God that allows for him to care about us. God doesn't have a limited amount of ability or time to 'spend' on us. His infinite nature allows him to spend forever caring about each atom in the universe without losing a moment.
Certainly God is way beyond our understanding. Heck, the universe is way beyond that. But don't limit God by thinking that he's so big that he wouldn't care about something (or someone) so small. He can care precisely because he's so big.
Common fucking sense. People are perfectly capable of learning that physical pain hurts and that emotional pain hurts. People are perfectly capable of learning that giving love to someone is more rewarding than giving pain to someone.
Ah, but I'm afraid that still doesn't answer the question. Hitler found killing more rewarding then loving. How can you judge him to be wrong? Just because you prefer to love rather then to kill? Who are you to impose 'your morality' onto Hitler?
Answering with 'common sense' doesn't cut it. Common sense is just a social convention. What was common sense 200 years ago can be foolish today. What is common sense today will likely be foolish 200 years from now. But there is a truth.
Hitler's actions are wrong, whether he found them rewarding or not. The only way they can be 'wrong' is if there is a 'right' that is independent of humans and their individual social conventions. Otherwise it's just 'my morality' vs. 'your morality.'
If my morality says it's ok to stick a knife in your eye, and I find that rewarding, who are you to tell me it's wrong. Oh sure, you may try to stop me, either yourself or through surrogates (law enforcement). But it goes deeper then that doesn't it. It's wrong for me to hurt someone for no reason. You can feel it in your gut. No matter what 'my morality' may say. And that feeling of wrongness is unjustified without an ultimate right. And 'ultimate right' is the definition of God.
Seems to me that most of this ripped-off rant is flamebait, there is one part that is interesting enough to respond to.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed. Results like these do not belong on the résumé of a Supreme Being.Has it ever occurred to you to question your frame of reference? Christianity teaches that there is a God and that this God is absolute perfection. It also teaches a fundamentality positive view of the universe, as it also teaches that God the ultimate reality. Thus, what really exists is perfect goodness. Everything else is only so much smoke and mirrors. But I digress...
Let's suppose that your nihilist point of view is correct and there is no God, and therefore no ultimate perfection. Why is it that you can recognize that so many things in the world are all screwed up? In fact, what does it mean to 'be screwed up?' The Christian would answer it means to be in conflict with God, and therefore to be in conflict with the ultimate reality of the universe. He would say that Hitler was 'bad' as he killed millions, which is contrary to God. He would say that Mother Theresa is 'good' as she (and those who followed her) saved millions, which is in conformance with God.
As you don't believe in God, what is your reference for saying that the world is screwed up? Is it simply that you don't like what's going on? That would mean that you've made yourself into a god and the ultimate arbiter of good and evil. Which, to me, would make you crazy. Is your reference the legal system? If it's legal it must be good? That would make you even crazier.
Ultimately, you have no reference. If you're going to adopt this atheistic perspective, you pretty much have to chuck the idea of good and evil all together. And if you do that, then don't complain about evil in the world. That's for people who believe in evil. But I really don't think you'll do that, no matter how much you might rant on /. I don't think that you will really say that Hitler and Mother Theresa were the same.
Why don't I think you'll say that? Because I know that you're created in God's image and that you are fundamentality good. If you weren't you wouldn't be so upset with what's wrong in the world. Like it or not, your fundamental nature is 'on God's side.' You will get ticked at evil and injustice in the world, and you'll desire to do something to fix it. It's your nature. It's in your blood. And if it's not, then you've become a monster. Which is what God and his religion are trying to stop from happening.
I could code my own implimentation of this in 5-10 mins!
Then please do so. Post a link.
Still waiting for that link to your menus. If you can do them in 10 minutes you should easily have them done by now...
Hmmmm... I look forward to hearing exactly how David *expected* me to interpret an email that said "Go ahead and submit the story to Slashdot." :-)
Also to those who claim that they can reinvent these menus in a few minutes. I agree if you have v6 browsers. But these things work all the way back to v4 browsers. Plus they're tested on 30 something minor versions of the v4 browsers on multiple OSs. If you need to support older browsers, the menus can save you a lot of time and trouble. That being said, I do think the licensing scheme they adopted is pretty nutty. Who needs menus for five pages?!