what's wrong with Web Initial Signon (webiso nee` pubcookie)? it certainly works well in a University setting, and it might work well in other contexts.
You miss my point entirely. I'm not arguing that this implies that you can't hold any morals.My point is that the parent post about the danger of relativism was completely overstated, and I'm showing how a similar argument can be constructed for absolutism. I do believe that absolutism is dangerous; that does not mean that I believe it is impossible to make or justify any moral judgments.
You don't seem quite as stupid anymore, and you no longer force your stupidity down my throat with your obnoxious +1 bonus, so I actually see no need to suppress your views any longer. I was just curious.
There are some very clear rules that define collective morality, beyond just saying "it depends on your point of view". That kind of thinking only allows you to justify any sort of atrocity that serves your own interests.
I'd have to agree with you there, although it may not have been clear from my post that I would. I'm not arguing for moral relativism; just the necessity of evaluating both ends and moral rules.
I was presenting a corner case for absolutist theory in response to a similar attack on moral relativism. My actual point is that you need to be able to make value judgments, but that doesn't mean that you have the only correct value judgments.
I'm afraid I don't understand the analogy you're making in the last sentence.
You're simply wrong. We can make value judgments about moral rules just as we can make value judgments about actions. That does not imply, however, that there is only one right moral rule that can apply in every circumstance equally well. When you say that a rule is good, you also need to say, "good for what?" We acknowledge that people have many different needs, therefore we must conclude that they can have different moral rules that are perfectly legitimate for those differing needs. What we hope, when we discuss moral guidelines, is that there is some common core of moral rules that will be good for most cases.
Absolutism is a slippery slope. What do you do if there is a riot in the town, and you know that if you falsely prosecute and imprison this one man (although you know him to be innocent) many lives will be saved and the riot will end? What if you know that the riot will only end if the innocent man is lynched, thus saving ten other innocents?
The key to any moral system is recognizing that people have different moral values, that those differences can be legitimate, but still being able to make value judgments regarding which action is correct for a particular situation. Any hard and fast rule will cause problems, but the recognition that people live differently is not the same as total moral relativism.
It is actually kind of a big deal, but I'm not even going to bother patching it. I actually find OnUnload events to be handy as long as "open unrequested windows" is disabled.
So: people on Slashdot like Mozilla. This bug isn't a big enough deal to really affect anyone, so they don't complain.People on Slashdot hate Microsoft. The bug still isn't a big enough deal to do something about if you're affected, but you can point and laugh at Microsoft about it nonetheless.
Actually, there is file transfer support. I think you need to be using TOC to get it, though. It is not easy to send files, but you can definitely receive them.
Re:Looking more closely...
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
Time, Manner, Place.
It's the way we balance your rights as an individual with mine. Like, my right not to be trampled to death when you yell "theatre" in a crowded fire. You really are an alarmist here. Your right to shout "faggot" versus my right to not be called "faggot" in my workplace. How much simpler can this be?
Well, Gaim sucks at IRC. I use it for some of the other protocols though. Mostly it's good at Aim, and good enough for the other protocols that I can talk to people who use them in a pinch.
I've already adressed this in another comment, but also consider that admitting to an objective reality does not mean that all things must be viewed objectively. We can decide that some matters have room for subjectivity. This person is not an Objectivist, but he is not a relativist, since he can apply discrimination. He is, fact, a critical thinker. Neither Absolutists nor Relativists can apply any discrimination. Absolutists see only one correct solution, and relativists see no correct solution.
My position is that politics falls squarely into the realm of opinion. That is to say, we can evaluate various policies, but that does not imply that there is an objective "best" policy for every situation.
Most interesting scientific truths are also relative in this way; there are several correct ways of viewing them. Weight, speed, length, are all relative. This is a consequence of Relativity (which you clearly do not understand.)
I'm not a relativist; I consider myself sympathetic to utilitarian principles, although there are certainly some principles I would not bend. Your delusion that someone must be either an absolutist or a total moral relativist is revealing. I think both moral relatavists and absolutists will run into problems when they attempt to deal with the real world.
Ken Lay is a supreme capitalist. He followed his own greed. Isn't that what capitalism is about? Isn't capitalism supposed to lead to a perfect universe if everyone just is allowed to be as greedy as they want?
As for the irrationality of "objectivists," I remember having an argument with some at my school. They were willing to benefit from the student activities fee, which they feel is a form of taxation. That was a lost cause, perhaps. But they also refused to acknowledge that you need information to make a free decision. I tried to point out that a society in which people do not have at least a basic level of education cannot be a free one.
In general, absolutists are dangerous and can be easily painted into logical corners. They refuse to bend a principle, leading to interesting contradictions (like not accepting the loss of "freedom" in taxation for public schools although it provides the greater good of actually allowing capitalism to work better, reward talent, and lead to less self-perpetuating power structures).
Obviously the mentioning of Atlas Shrugged was only meant to inflame. It added nothing useful, and was very un-editorial. I can't think of any more vitriol inducing novel, excluding perhaps Mein Kamf. Seriously, it's time to fire Timothy. This isn't his first troll. Look here. Add your own examples of editors behaving badly here, which is starting to become a collection of reasons for firing the dumb sod. Mod me as flamebait if you like, but realize that nothing I have said is false. I'm just a bearer of bad news.
This idea of using Bayesian filters on Spam reminds me of an idea that I've tossed back and forth a couple of times with other slashdotters. I'm getting into neural nets, and I think it would be really interesting to do this kind of analysis on one of the largest data set around, the Slashdot comments. It would be a perfect database for training, because user moderations are attached to most comments. Specifically, I think it would be really cool to train a neural network to recognize trolls. Has anyone else ever thought about this? I would even be able to get academic credit for the research, but CmdrTaco didn't like the idea when I suggested it to him.
Just like the argument for bayesian analysis of SPAM, reason-based analyis of trolls is fundamentally flawed, as can be seen by the broken "lameness" filters. A neural network/bayesian approach would probably work much better at finding the features trolls have in common. Slashdot could mark likely trolls automatically after they are analyzed by the system, and users could filter "likely troll" in their user preferences page. But mostly, this would be a cool project to do, and I wish CmdrTaco would be more willing to allow direct database access for academic projects. Screen-scraping is not an attractive prospect.
That's actually a very modern view and not necessarily supported by the evidence. Who cares about "freedom" if you can't enjoy it? Do you feel freer in a society that has police to keep you safe, one with traffic laws to protect you when you cross the street, one where people don't feel "free" to kill you if they don't like your face? You can talk all that you want about "freedom" as an abstract principle, but before you do so, you need to understand the consequence of your principles. People do not regulate themselves; as libertarians note, people are basically selfish. The free market does not work without regulation, as has been admirably demostrated by recent events.
Freedom to me, and to most people, is the ability to lead their life in peace and pursue happiness in their own way. That means some amount of restrictions. The question should not be "should we live without any restrictions or should we live in a totalitarian society?" The important question is the appropriate level of restrictions. I think we can agree that some restrictions, notably those that prevent the infringement of the rights of others, are important. Within that morass there are plenty of remaining questions for debate, but libertarians have jumped right over the debate into the realm of the ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
does almost exactly that. They have yet to be sued, so go figure.
what's wrong with Web Initial Signon (webiso nee` pubcookie)? it certainly works well in a University setting, and it might work well in other contexts.
You miss my point entirely. I'm not arguing that this implies that you can't hold any morals.My point is that the parent post about the danger of relativism was completely overstated, and I'm showing how a similar argument can be constructed for absolutism. I do believe that absolutism is dangerous; that does not mean that I believe it is impossible to make or justify any moral judgments.
You don't seem quite as stupid anymore, and you no longer force your stupidity down my throat with your obnoxious +1 bonus, so I actually see no need to suppress your views any longer. I was just curious.
I'm afraid I don't understand the analogy you're making in the last sentence.
You're simply wrong. We can make value judgments about moral rules just as we can make value judgments about actions. That does not imply, however, that there is only one right moral rule that can apply in every circumstance equally well. When you say that a rule is good, you also need to say, "good for what?" We acknowledge that people have many different needs, therefore we must conclude that they can have different moral rules that are perfectly legitimate for those differing needs. What we hope, when we discuss moral guidelines, is that there is some common core of moral rules that will be good for most cases.
The key to any moral system is recognizing that people have different moral values, that those differences can be legitimate, but still being able to make value judgments regarding which action is correct for a particular situation. Any hard and fast rule will cause problems, but the recognition that people live differently is not the same as total moral relativism.
What are you doing back here? I thought you were bitchslapped into oblivion.
So: people on Slashdot like Mozilla. This bug isn't a big enough deal to really affect anyone, so they don't complain.People on Slashdot hate Microsoft. The bug still isn't a big enough deal to do something about if you're affected, but you can point and laugh at Microsoft about it nonetheless.
Actually, there is file transfer support. I think you need to be using TOC to get it, though. It is not easy to send files, but you can definitely receive them.
what does that mean?
Democracy = "rule by the mob"
It's the way we balance your rights as an individual with mine. Like, my right not to be trampled to death when you yell "theatre" in a crowded fire. You really are an alarmist here. Your right to shout "faggot" versus my right to not be called "faggot" in my workplace. How much simpler can this be?
According to WHOM.
Well, Gaim sucks at IRC. I use it for some of the other protocols though. Mostly it's good at Aim, and good enough for the other protocols that I can talk to people who use them in a pinch.
My position is that politics falls squarely into the realm of opinion. That is to say, we can evaluate various policies, but that does not imply that there is an objective "best" policy for every situation.
Most interesting scientific truths are also relative in this way; there are several correct ways of viewing them. Weight, speed, length, are all relative. This is a consequence of Relativity (which you clearly do not understand.)
I'm not a relativist; I consider myself sympathetic to utilitarian principles, although there are certainly some principles I would not bend. Your delusion that someone must be either an absolutist or a total moral relativist is revealing. I think both moral relatavists and absolutists will run into problems when they attempt to deal with the real world.
As for the irrationality of "objectivists," I remember having an argument with some at my school. They were willing to benefit from the student activities fee, which they feel is a form of taxation. That was a lost cause, perhaps. But they also refused to acknowledge that you need information to make a free decision. I tried to point out that a society in which people do not have at least a basic level of education cannot be a free one.
In general, absolutists are dangerous and can be easily painted into logical corners. They refuse to bend a principle, leading to interesting contradictions (like not accepting the loss of "freedom" in taxation for public schools although it provides the greater good of actually allowing capitalism to work better, reward talent, and lead to less self-perpetuating power structures).
Obviously the mentioning of Atlas Shrugged was only meant to inflame. It added nothing useful, and was very un-editorial. I can't think of any more vitriol inducing novel, excluding perhaps Mein Kamf. Seriously, it's time to fire Timothy. This isn't his first troll. Look here. Add your own examples of editors behaving badly here, which is starting to become a collection of reasons for firing the dumb sod. Mod me as flamebait if you like, but realize that nothing I have said is false. I'm just a bearer of bad news.
Just like the argument for bayesian analysis of SPAM, reason-based analyis of trolls is fundamentally flawed, as can be seen by the broken "lameness" filters. A neural network/bayesian approach would probably work much better at finding the features trolls have in common. Slashdot could mark likely trolls automatically after they are analyzed by the system, and users could filter "likely troll" in their user preferences page. But mostly, this would be a cool project to do, and I wish CmdrTaco would be more willing to allow direct database access for academic projects. Screen-scraping is not an attractive prospect.
He's a damn Objectivist.
I complained to my online banking institution, and they fixed the problem.
That's actually a very modern view and not necessarily supported by the evidence. Who cares about "freedom" if you can't enjoy it? Do you feel freer in a society that has police to keep you safe, one with traffic laws to protect you when you cross the street, one where people don't feel "free" to kill you if they don't like your face? You can talk all that you want about "freedom" as an abstract principle, but before you do so, you need to understand the consequence of your principles. People do not regulate themselves; as libertarians note, people are basically selfish. The free market does not work without regulation, as has been admirably demostrated by recent events.
Freedom to me, and to most people, is the ability to lead their life in peace and pursue happiness in their own way. That means some amount of restrictions. The question should not be "should we live without any restrictions or should we live in a totalitarian society?" The important question is the appropriate level of restrictions. I think we can agree that some restrictions, notably those that prevent the infringement of the rights of others, are important. Within that morass there are plenty of remaining questions for debate, but libertarians have jumped right over the debate into the realm of the ridiculous.