The question is who votes against them. If your answer is "duh, not me...", give yourself a kick for all of us, please.
Time to implement a zero tolerance policy for political idiocy, I think. Write letters to the editors of the mainstream press, the idiot's political opponents (whoever ran against them last election will do, they'll probably pass it on to the upcoming opponent), and if you feel really inspired, the idiot's prominent constituents, like the mayor and city councillors of the idiot's base city, major fund contributors, etc. This will cost you a couple hours' work and a couple dollars' stamps.
Or say "duh, I couldn't be bothered..." and give yourself another kick. Harder, this time, please.
The "specialness" is that it manipulates objects specifically *without* using a "grabber". It basically buzzes or shakes objects from one place to another across a surface. The amplitude and direction of vibrations can be varied, which allows for some really cool effects like moving only items that weigh within a certain range, or are of a certain shape.
Example. Pour some salt, some flour, some ball bearings and some little plastic fishing floaters into a bottle. Shake well. Tip the homogenous mass onto the manipulator surface. It can be programmed to send different vibrations in different directions which will have the effect of sorting the four different kinds of stuff into the four corners of the table.
Very very cool. As with all new techniques, applications already exist and more will be found.
Darryl.
Violence should not be looked upon as unnatural. It is a natural part of being a living creature. Hungry and terrified, "red in tooth and claw", is the default state. Seeing ourselves as non-violent and decrying violence in others is a conscious moral choice. We live in the least violent time we ever have. This is a Good Thing.
The idea that humans are naturally kind and peaceful and decent, and would stay that way unless exposed to "Quake" and "Reservoir Dogs", is quite wrong. The "noble savage" isn't noble at all, and is very savage indeed. We should be kind and peaceful and decent, this is our moral duty, but we aren't that way by nature. If we were, there'd be no need for morality as a concept.
The "conditioning" that's going on in society is conditioning away from violence; teaching kids to share, to be polite, to wait turns and ask nicely, is conditioning. Attraction to violence is the natural state that conditioning works against.
By all means condemn violence, that's part of the conditioning process. But don't forget to give credit for peace.
As to your other point, women in Muslim (or other theocratic) countries are far more strongly confined into a role as sex objects than in secular democracies. In our societies a woman is a sex object, of course, but is much freer to define herself as a complete person, as worker, employer, public servant, investor, artist, whatever she wants to do.
We are all sex objects, assuming we're at all attractive! This is necessary and good. What kind of sexual relationship could you have unless you desire your partner, and your partner desires you? How are you going to find a partner if you don't desire some range of people?
"Leering" takes that same role in sexual appreciation that vulgar insults take in conversation. Decent people don't. Leering is not inherent in the concept of viewing people as sex objects, nor is porn always dehumanizing or disempowering. Leering and the sort of porn that appeals to a leerer is all about control, and especially about sex as a means of controlling and of control over the sexual expression of others.
This misapprehension is the core of the American--and generally, human--fear of sexuality: the erroneous idea that sexual appreciation must involve the control and dehumanization of the person appreciated.
It is natural to desire control over a sexually attractive person, just as it is natural to desire that a person who is annoying us should be harmed, or a person that we like should be unfairly advantaged. Morality is the reason why we don't just do whatever is natural to us. We recognize the concept of other people's rights and feelings.
Libertarianism, like most political philosophies, rests upon the notion of rights. The right to go about one's business; the right to decide one's fate; the right to not be bothered. However, rights are axiomatic. That is to say, they are an agreed-on, but unproved, proposition from which other propositions are developed. "It's obviously true, so we'll work from that."
I put it to you that we *don't* have rights. At all. We have *responsibilities*. What we perceive as our rights (eg not to be harmed) are an inverse view of the responsibilities of others (eg not to harm us).
This is akin to the difference between Protestant and Catholic religious philosophy. You are not a special creature, put on Earth to do whatever you please because you are beautiful and valuable in your own right. You are a human being, granted the gifts of will and foresight, put on Earth to serve God and your fellow living creatures, and you *must* fulfil that mission to the best of the ability which you have been granted. No arguments; you *must* do the right thing.
Alternatively, we could take neither view. Humans, like all living and unliving things, just *are*, without presumption or consequence. We are expected by one another to follow social rules, which vary from society to society and time to time. People constantly agitate to change these rules, for whatever reasons (such as aesthetics, empathy, or greed) appeal to them.
These three views (rights, responsibilities or chaos) are equally logical. Your axioms are not everyone's axioms.
Indeed, it is cruel and unusual punishment, which should be reserved for those who deserve it. I suggest that script kiddies be used for these experiments.
Darryl.
Slashdot Mirror
... isn't the right question.
...", give yourself a kick for all of us, please.
..." and give yourself another kick. Harder, this time, please.
The question is who votes against them. If your answer is "duh, not me
Time to implement a zero tolerance policy for political idiocy, I think. Write letters to the editors of the mainstream press, the idiot's political opponents (whoever ran against them last election will do, they'll probably pass it on to the upcoming opponent), and if you feel really inspired, the idiot's prominent constituents, like the mayor and city councillors of the idiot's base city, major fund contributors, etc. This will cost you a couple hours' work and a couple dollars' stamps.
Or say "duh, I couldn't be bothered
Darryl.
The "specialness" is that it manipulates objects specifically *without* using a "grabber". It basically buzzes or shakes objects from one place to another across a surface. The amplitude and direction of vibrations can be varied, which allows for some really cool effects like moving only items that weigh within a certain range, or are of a certain shape. Example. Pour some salt, some flour, some ball bearings and some little plastic fishing floaters into a bottle. Shake well. Tip the homogenous mass onto the manipulator surface. It can be programmed to send different vibrations in different directions which will have the effect of sorting the four different kinds of stuff into the four corners of the table. Very very cool. As with all new techniques, applications already exist and more will be found. Darryl.
The idea that humans are naturally kind and peaceful and decent, and would stay that way unless exposed to "Quake" and "Reservoir Dogs", is quite wrong. The "noble savage" isn't noble at all, and is very savage indeed. We should be kind and peaceful and decent, this is our moral duty, but we aren't that way by nature. If we were, there'd be no need for morality as a concept.
The "conditioning" that's going on in society is conditioning away from violence; teaching kids to share, to be polite, to wait turns and ask nicely, is conditioning. Attraction to violence is the natural state that conditioning works against.
By all means condemn violence, that's part of the conditioning process. But don't forget to give credit for peace.
As to your other point, women in Muslim (or other theocratic) countries are far more strongly confined into a role as sex objects than in secular democracies. In our societies a woman is a sex object, of course, but is much freer to define herself as a complete person, as worker, employer, public servant, investor, artist, whatever she wants to do.
We are all sex objects, assuming we're at all attractive! This is necessary and good. What kind of sexual relationship could you have unless you desire your partner, and your partner desires you? How are you going to find a partner if you don't desire some range of people?
"Leering" takes that same role in sexual appreciation that vulgar insults take in conversation. Decent people don't. Leering is not inherent in the concept of viewing people as sex objects, nor is porn always dehumanizing or disempowering. Leering and the sort of porn that appeals to a leerer is all about control, and especially about sex as a means of controlling and of control over the sexual expression of others.
This misapprehension is the core of the American--and generally, human--fear of sexuality: the erroneous idea that sexual appreciation must involve the control and dehumanization of the person appreciated.
It is natural to desire control over a sexually attractive person, just as it is natural to desire that a person who is annoying us should be harmed, or a person that we like should be unfairly advantaged. Morality is the reason why we don't just do whatever is natural to us. We recognize the concept of other people's rights and feelings.
Darryl.
Libertarianism, like most political philosophies, rests upon the notion of rights. The right to go about one's business; the right to decide one's fate; the right to not be bothered. However, rights are axiomatic. That is to say, they are an agreed-on, but unproved, proposition from which other propositions are developed. "It's obviously true, so we'll work from that."
I put it to you that we *don't* have rights. At all. We have *responsibilities*. What we perceive as our rights (eg not to be harmed) are an inverse view of the responsibilities of others (eg not to harm us).
This is akin to the difference between Protestant and Catholic religious philosophy. You are not a special creature, put on Earth to do whatever you please because you are beautiful and valuable in your own right. You are a human being, granted the gifts of will and foresight, put on Earth to serve God and your fellow living creatures, and you *must* fulfil that mission to the best of the ability which you have been granted. No arguments; you *must* do the right thing.
Alternatively, we could take neither view. Humans, like all living and unliving things, just *are*, without presumption or consequence. We are expected by one another to follow social rules, which vary from society to society and time to time. People constantly agitate to change these rules, for whatever reasons (such as aesthetics, empathy, or greed) appeal to them.
These three views (rights, responsibilities or chaos) are equally logical. Your axioms are not everyone's axioms.
Darryl.
Indeed, it is cruel and unusual punishment, which should be reserved for those who deserve it. I suggest that script kiddies be used for these experiments. Darryl.