There is no self. There is no hard and fast distinction between internal and external. The closer you look, the more holes and exceptions you will see. Without self, the concept of free will is moot.
Whereas I believe--more or less--that consciousness is all we have. We make of it what we will, but the sense of "self" we have is all that is truly real. Make of it what you will.
I'm sorry I've been trolling your religion so hard. I actually have real respect for people who truly try to follow the teachings of Jesus. I just want to shake things up and get people thinking, but making statements like I was making probably isn't the best way of doing that. More likely I will just piss them off and they will stop thinking.
That's the problem with debating religion...I don't think anybody ever changes their minds.
And FWIW, I don't mind at all... I like discussing things as well, and while I fully describe myself as a cultural Christian, I'm agnostic and completely non-practicing (and completely uninterested in practicing for that matter), so you're not hurting my feelings.
But, now I feel I have to back up those statements. Religion is damaging to the intellect and psyche insofar as it replaces the natural, internal moral sense with an arbitrary, external and rigid set of rules. People stop thinking for themselves, and they stop trusting their own situational sense of right and wrong. That is damaging.
I don't believe religion does that. I absolutely agree that *IF* people stop thinking for themselves that's a horrible thing. I just don't think religion is responsible for that.
I've spoken with many different denominations, I guess I'm one of the few who will speak with them when they come down my street, and many are willing to be moderate in their thoughts and beliefs. I have spoken to too many that take a 2000 year old book very literally. It is that which I find scary.
You are trying to use hearsay to slander Kucinich, while giving the impression that you are being reasonable. You aren't.
So quoting Kucinich's friend and noting that Kucinich never denied what she wrote, even when directly asked--that's slander? Noting that information about the Kucinich's UFO experience came not from any "right wing loon" but his friend--that's slander?
I've gone out of my way in this thread to avoid that, but I guess since what I've said--repeatedly--are exactly the facts of the case...facts that you don't like...I'm guilty of slander.
That's quite unpleasant. When all else fails, accuse your foes of slander and being loons...rarely fails.
Those are hypothetical situations, not real situations one can actually look at. There is not enough detail in any of them to make a moral decision.
Oh ok, so unlike your earlier proclamation that morality is simple and right and wrong are pretty obvious, you're now saying that decisions are difficult and nuanced?
I'll just go out on a limb and say freewill and human life clearly being the pinnacle of existence, it is always wrong to end another's life...nobody has the right to ever end another life. Abortion is always wrong. Capital punishment is always wrong. Self defense is always wrong. I believe this because life is all we truly have that is our own.
I'm guessing you don't agree with me. Heck, *I* don't agree with what I said, but I think I could argue the point ad infinitum.
Religion's role is to get people to shut off critical thinking by mixing some good, common sense morality with some utterly non-verifiable wackiness
Well, I actually agree with you to some degree here. The example I used in a different post was Thomas Jefferson's Red Letter Bible, in which he removed the God, the mysticism and miracles, the junk, and left the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus. The difference to me is that I don't view religion as inherently bad. That is, when you boil it down, the ethicla and moral teachings of Jesus are all Christianity is really about...they're the meat and potatoes if you will.
It's completely obvious that this interpretation is where the great mass of people have been moving for centuries as well.
Religion is horribly damaging to the human psyche, intellect, and to society as a whole.
What evidence do you have that religion is damaging to the psyche and intellect? I'd be interested in hearing that.
Heh? Kucinich explicitly denies the rest of the account when he states, "And the rest of the account. It was an unidentified flying object, OK? It's like, it's unidentified. I saw something."
KUCINICH:"Uh, I.. I did. And, uh, the rest of the account--...hold it, I.. I didn't.. I.. it was unidentified flying object, ok? It's like, it's unidentified. I saw something" (Kucinich then goes on to make jokes and mention how many other people have seen UFOs)
Pretty standard for how people actually talk (breaking up clauses, etc). I don't think it's at all obvious from actually watching and hearing him, that he's denying the rest of the account. I would have expected him to do so in much more clear terms if that was really his intent.
So, as before, we basically don't know... My point in all of this was just that, contrary to your claims that it was a conspiracy of "right wing loons" to slander Kucinich, that the most statements from anyone we have come from his daughter's godmother...
The only relevant part of the article I linked to (and indeed, the only part I mentioned) was the Shirley Maclaine part, which as you quote, was ALSO mentioned by Russert in the debate, and not at all denied by Kucinich.
Russert also points out that Maclaine is Kucinich's godmother.
I have no idea if she's reputable at all or not. Kucinch made her his child's godmother, so it would seem HE thought so. I also think his lack of denial of what she said is perhaps telling.
In any case, this just boils down to junk...neither of us know enough about the reality of the situation (not knowing Kucinich or Maclaine personally, nor having been there when the event happened) so it hardly seems important to keep discussing this.
I don't mean to make morality simple but to simply illustrate that to base ones moral compass solely on the threat of a supreme being is ludicrous at best.
Yes, and as I said, I don't think anybody in the world has a moral compass that is 100% from religious belief and 0% from their own personal thoughts. Again, if you can give me some examples of people who have no moral compass separate from religion, I'd be interested in seeing/reading about that...I just don't believe they exist.
In fact, the point you make in your first para--for instance, looking at morality of actions in Christian society's in the past offers a perfect example of this. SOME morality may derive from Christianity, but other does not. Other parts change.
I think any theologian today (and most in the past) would argue that the bible is not a book of rules. That's why christians don't keep kosher (and this was an "innovation" in morality VERY early on in the history of Christianity). The new testament is largely a group of moral teachings and lessons. Leave out the mystical crap like revelations (as Thomas Jefferson did in his red letter bible) and you have moral teachings that are standalone if you will. Actually, the Red Letter bible might be interesting to you (I mean interesting in the sense that it exists, not that you should read it and be enlightened:-P) -- Jefferson went through and got rid of the mystical junk, the miracles, even God, and what was left was the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus as a man.
Despite what many people in these comments have claimed, morality is NOT simple and it is NOT full of black and white simple decisions. We need all the help we can get...this, IMHO, is why we have philosophers and religions.
Real morality comes from examining the world: right and wrong are pretty obvious when you actually look
Right and wrong are pretty obvious when you actually look? I find that to be a very...childish...view for lack of a better term.
Is abortion right or wrong? Is the death penalty right or wrong? Is jailing somebody with a family right or wrong? Is jailing somebody at ALL right or wrong? Is drug usage right or wrong? Is preemptive warfare right or wrong? Is invading another country EVER right or wrong? Is it right or wrong to kill somebody who is attacking you?
Whichever answer you give for any one of these questions, there are many people that could argue with you forever and never once mention religion.
You stopped looking as soon as you heard that a sky daddy will spank the evildoers for all eternity. That's not morality, that's pathology.
That's really quite silly. If you can show me one person who doesn't think for themselves but runs every decision solely through what they think their religion says the answer should be, I'll reconsider. Otherwise your statement is simply ludicrous and shows a complete lack of understanding when it comes to religion and what role religion plays in most people's lives.
I find the thought that the only thing keeping everyone from murdering each other is a supreme being waving his finger at us from 2000 years ago saying "Do it and I'll spank you!" quite scary.
Nobody thinks that, and quite frankly I view it as ignorant to claim so. (ok I won't say NOBODY because there are people out there that believe literally anything...but next to nobody)
Look at many cultures around the world that believe in extreme (by my view) punishments such as gang-rape, murder. Many, MANY other cultures allow the virtual rape of children (through arranged child marriages). If morality was as simple as you make it out to be, shouldn't everyone in the world have arrived at similar conclusions eons ago?
People respond differently. Duh--this is as simple and obvious as it gets, so I don't know why I even wrote it:-)
An early Greek philosopher (I unfortunately don't remember which at the second...will try to find) divided people into groups based on what activities they found pleasureable. Those who found pleasuring from having, those who found pleasure from power, pleasure from sensual delight, pleasure from ethical action, etc.
In your own life, I'm sure you've run into plenty of people who don't think twice about breaking the law/rules/doing bad things if they think they won't get caught. And I'm sure you've run into people that are terrified of breaking rules.
I guess I view things through utilitarian bent. As long as the final outcome is good, who cares about the process (at least in this situation). If I do the right thing, who cares if I had to ponder it in my mind or did it reflexively...it was a good action and the outcome was good. If you do good things because you're afraid of being punished or if you do good things because it gives you pleasure, is one REALLY better than the other?
So? There is no evidence that there is. And if there is, there is no way we could know what "morality" he expects us to behave by. There is no reason that his standard of morality should match up with what we consider to be ethical.
Likewise, there is no evidence that there ISN'T.
I'm an agnostic. I don't know if there is, or isn't a god/God/whatever--and furthermore, I don't think that we CAN know that. I view devout atheists as I do devout evangelicals...they're basing it all on their feelings--they have no proof that there is no god...after all, what could possibly constitute such proof?
Secondly, IF you believe in a religion, then you typically believe in a founding member, or members who are divinely inspired to reveal what true morality is. Quite simple.
Look, I agree with you on some levels...but if creationism is saying that God happened to push the first strands of DNA together, if God happened to tweak the mutation that gave us speech, etc, if God DROVE human development over millenia, is it really contradicted?
Obviously this isn't Kucinich himself and has validity only as testimony, but, if the person who was with him when the "encounter" (or whatever) took place says this, it hardly seems fair to blame your political foes with "blowing it all out of proportion." Is Shirly Maclaine a "right wing loon" (I know nothing about her, other than she is the godmother of Kucinich's daughter)?
Watching the Kucinich answer (youtube), he doesn't deny the above account, and responds by saying how many others Americans (including Carter) have ALSO seen UFOs.
I know you like Kucinich and that's fine (though I disagree with him on almost everything, I strongly admire his principles), but you might want to be a tad more objective about this particular point.
Isn't it rather scary that while scientists are getting excited over this 47 million year old fossil that there are fossils in Congress who will swear on a stack of Bibles that the earth is only 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk.
Really? Which representative in congress believes the Earth is 6000 years old?
Just out of curiosity, would you say the same thing about physical attributes?
ie, are Asians and Europeans just as capable of certain African peoples of sprinting or long distance running?
have different levels of "intelligence" (a culturally defined and therefore biased concept)
Ridiculously silly.
For example, we saw the same abject poverty in Europe during the Middle Ages, for cultural reasons that are well known
I think you need to learn your history a little better. You're discussing myths and falsehoods, which makes whatever your beliefs about some "cultural" reasons utterly irrelevant.
Yep. Just like when economists describe the free market as 'self-correcting', they don't mean there's a Big, All-Powerful Entity controlling it from the shadows, it's just that the system is such that minor changes will be met by opposite changes so that, overall, the system isn't affected on a large scale.
But, what about the Invisible Hand?
All some people are saying is, that like economies the 'self-correcting' system doesn't work as well for very large changes so when a single entity is far more greedy than it should, the entire system could be brought down by it. And since there's no "humanity bailout", we ought to be more careful with it than we have with our own markets.
Thus bacteria, sheep, viruses, and alligators can be overly greedy? Sounds like you're athropomorphizing creatures / entities.
Modern man is the first species on earth to have the ability to dramatically alter the ecological equilibrium established before it, on a global scale. This makes the modern man unique.
I do not agree.
The self-correcting aspect of 'nature' is that in any ecosystem, predator and prey populations typically reach an equilibrium.
Until an evolutionary change, too much rain, too little rain, a disease, a hot summer, a cold winter, etc etc etc throws the "equilibrium" out of balance. There's no such thing.
The reasonable conclusion is our population will grow until we have consumed all the resources that allow us to feed ourselves.
I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion at all.
Nature, or mother nature is just another term for the global ecosystem. It's not alive, it has no morals, no ethics, no concept of right and wrong - only balance or imbalance.
Thus the anthropomorphication of nature.
Before modern man, equilibrium in any environment was reached over time and was thus self sustaining
Ok, show me where this sustained equilibrium has ever existed--where since time immemorial predator and prey have existed in a constant balance, unchanging and balanced. Here's a hint--it's never ever happened.
Humans are in a way self sustaining also, but the time period of our sustainability is going to be dramatically shorter than most species. Dinosaurs, as a collective survived for hundreds of millions of years. When measured against the time spans of previous dominant species, humans fall far short of any definition of sustainability.
I was with you until this. The current rate of extinction does seem to be much greater than usual, and much of it is directly attributable to the impact of man. (Though there's some uncertainty comparing "rates" of extinction, since looking back millions of years, it's hard to tell how long of a time the great extinctions dragged on, while the impact of man is, geologically speaking, very rapid.)
I think I pretty much agree with what you are saying. All I really meant was, yes, we are in the middle of a mass extinction right now, but mass extinctions are nothing unique in the history the life on earth.
It's possible that this one is occurring faster than any other (and it definitely IS attributable directly to humans) but other species have cause mass extinctions before (atmosphere) so it's not even entirely unique in that regards.
Right, I understand that (and almost didn't say what I did, how I did..) but then again, what is balance in nature--what does that mean?
I don't think there is any (forgive the term) "natural" state which is the proper and balanced state. Everything in nature is constantly in flux. Sure, to use the common example of the predator-prey equilibrium, that is sometimes the case. Sometimes the predators go extinct, sometimes prey go extinct, sometimes they both do.
It seems to me that it's far easier to look at life on Earth through the lens of evolutionary bubbles and crashes. It only seems self correcting because we want to apply some kind of order to it, when it reality, that's just the way the universe works. When a forest fire burns, it burns everything it can, until it's burned too much and dies out. That seems about the same level of self correcting to me.
It's hardly anthropomorphic to describe nature as self correcting. Life on earth survived for what, like a billion years without modern man fucking it up? Pretty much a model for sustainability if you ask me.
It's hardly anthropomorphic to describe nature as self correcting? Really? That implies that there is something to correct, which implies... . Not to mention describing some universal aspect of "Life" which the existence of an unbalanced humanity can "fuck up?" Sounds pretty anthropomorphized to me.
The crux of the matter seems to be, what do you mean by "self correcting?" I'm also unsure why you bring modern man into the equation. Surely you're aware of a multitude of previous mass extinctions? Surely you're aware of the extinction of not only species but of entire orders of life? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but when you say "without modern man fucking it" you make it sound like humans are something exceptional in terms of extinctions?
A balanced and closed ecosystem is naturally self correcting. Humans will prove no different. The available resources will be consumed, humans will die off in large numbers and a balance will be reached eventually where real sustainability can be achieved.
Ah yes, sustainability...the new holy grail.
The only thing "self correcting" or "sustainable" about life on earth is that there is life on earth.
The comment was to "make uninstall" (as I have seen in automake generated makefiles, or mentioned by you "make deinstall" in *BSD) bogosity.
Oh, I see what you are talking about.
No, "make deinstall" in the port directory is a PORT command. It uninstalls the port. It is not an application specific type "make uninstall" command that may or may not work.
Like pkg_delete, "make deinstall" removes the application according to the packing list and port specific instructions.
This is a really basic "RTFM." It's not "make uninstall" like you wrote in your post, but "make deinstall"
Alternatively, you use the "pkg_delete" or "pkg_deinstall" command to delete any installed package. (again, to find out potential options etc, RTFM)
Very simple.
One of the things I like about Debian source packages, is that they can be compiled, installed, played with, upgraded, etc and finally removed - all that without a hustle.
Yes, those would be fundamentals of any packaging systems.
Impression I had that ports is just a nice front-end for "./configure && make && make install". And as usually "make uninstall" is largely missing (as only few source packages provide the functionality).
Your impression is somewhat correct. Again, this is something expected of ANY source packaging system. I'm not sure how else you would want it to operate?
That means over time system gets loaded with orphaned files.
I may have missed something...why are files getting orphaned?
If you're confused about what files belong to what packages in FreeBSD, try the "pkg_which" command.
Actually the thing which impressed me most first time I installed the Debian was that during upgrades/install of custom packages, it can also remove conflicting packages. E.g. during library migration, Debian would properly install/remove library needed by particular package version. Apps like aptitude, which can also automatically remove unused automatically installed packages, saves heck a lot of time in long run.
Yes, this is a weakness of the base ports system. Fortunately pretty much everyone who runs FreeBSD runs either portupgrade or portmaster. These programs essentially take the place of apt, etc, and work completely within the structure of the ports system.
The biggest jump in improvement of the Apple platform I ever saw was during the brief period that Apple allowed clone makers.
Really? Such as?
I can't say I remember much of the clone period as I wasn't that into macs back then. Still have a SuperMac sitting around in a storage closet somewhere though... What changed?
Slashdot Mirror
There is no self. There is no hard and fast distinction between internal and external. The closer you look, the more holes and exceptions you will see. Without self, the concept of free will is moot.
Whereas I believe--more or less--that consciousness is all we have. We make of it what we will, but the sense of "self" we have is all that is truly real. Make of it what you will.
I'm sorry I've been trolling your religion so hard. I actually have real respect for people who truly try to follow the teachings of Jesus. I just want to shake things up and get people thinking, but making statements like I was making probably isn't the best way of doing that. More likely I will just piss them off and they will stop thinking.
That's the problem with debating religion...I don't think anybody ever changes their minds.
And FWIW, I don't mind at all... I like discussing things as well, and while I fully describe myself as a cultural Christian, I'm agnostic and completely non-practicing (and completely uninterested in practicing for that matter), so you're not hurting my feelings.
But, now I feel I have to back up those statements. Religion is damaging to the intellect and psyche insofar as it replaces the natural, internal moral sense with an arbitrary, external and rigid set of rules. People stop thinking for themselves, and they stop trusting their own situational sense of right and wrong. That is damaging.
I don't believe religion does that. I absolutely agree that *IF* people stop thinking for themselves that's a horrible thing. I just don't think religion is responsible for that.
I've spoken with many different denominations, I guess I'm one of the few who will speak with them when they come down my street, and many are willing to be moderate in their thoughts and beliefs. I have spoken to too many that take a 2000 year old book very literally. It is that which I find scary.
Ok, on that I can 100% agree with you :-)
You are trying to use hearsay to slander Kucinich, while giving the impression that you are being reasonable. You aren't.
So quoting Kucinich's friend and noting that Kucinich never denied what she wrote, even when directly asked--that's slander? Noting that information about the Kucinich's UFO experience came not from any "right wing loon" but his friend--that's slander?
I've gone out of my way in this thread to avoid that, but I guess since what I've said--repeatedly--are exactly the facts of the case...facts that you don't like...I'm guilty of slander.
That's quite unpleasant. When all else fails, accuse your foes of slander and being loons...rarely fails.
Those are hypothetical situations, not real situations one can actually look at. There is not enough detail in any of them to make a moral decision.
Oh ok, so unlike your earlier proclamation that morality is simple and right and wrong are pretty obvious, you're now saying that decisions are difficult and nuanced?
I'll just go out on a limb and say freewill and human life clearly being the pinnacle of existence, it is always wrong to end another's life...nobody has the right to ever end another life. Abortion is always wrong. Capital punishment is always wrong. Self defense is always wrong. I believe this because life is all we truly have that is our own.
I'm guessing you don't agree with me. Heck, *I* don't agree with what I said, but I think I could argue the point ad infinitum.
Religion's role is to get people to shut off critical thinking by mixing some good, common sense morality with some utterly non-verifiable wackiness
Well, I actually agree with you to some degree here. The example I used in a different post was Thomas Jefferson's Red Letter Bible, in which he removed the God, the mysticism and miracles, the junk, and left the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus. The difference to me is that I don't view religion as inherently bad. That is, when you boil it down, the ethicla and moral teachings of Jesus are all Christianity is really about...they're the meat and potatoes if you will.
It's completely obvious that this interpretation is where the great mass of people have been moving for centuries as well.
Religion is horribly damaging to the human psyche, intellect, and to society as a whole.
What evidence do you have that religion is damaging to the psyche and intellect? I'd be interested in hearing that.
Heh? Kucinich explicitly denies the rest of the account when he states, "And the rest of the account. It was an unidentified flying object, OK? It's like, it's unidentified. I saw something."
Watch the youtube video of what he actually says.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSRWRbuMqyc
He's how I would transcribe what he says:
RUSSERT: "... Did you see a UFO?"
KUCINICH:"Uh, I.. I did. And, uh, the rest of the account--...hold it, I.. I didn't.. I.. it was unidentified flying object, ok? It's like, it's unidentified. I saw something" (Kucinich then goes on to make jokes and mention how many other people have seen UFOs)
Pretty standard for how people actually talk (breaking up clauses, etc). I don't think it's at all obvious from actually watching and hearing him, that he's denying the rest of the account. I would have expected him to do so in much more clear terms if that was really his intent.
So, as before, we basically don't know... My point in all of this was just that, contrary to your claims that it was a conspiracy of "right wing loons" to slander Kucinich, that the most statements from anyone we have come from his daughter's godmother...
The only relevant part of the article I linked to (and indeed, the only part I mentioned) was the Shirley Maclaine part, which as you quote, was ALSO mentioned by Russert in the debate, and not at all denied by Kucinich.
Russert also points out that Maclaine is Kucinich's godmother.
I have no idea if she's reputable at all or not. Kucinch made her his child's godmother, so it would seem HE thought so. I also think his lack of denial of what she said is perhaps telling.
In any case, this just boils down to junk...neither of us know enough about the reality of the situation (not knowing Kucinich or Maclaine personally, nor having been there when the event happened) so it hardly seems important to keep discussing this.
Cheers.
I don't mean to make morality simple but to simply illustrate that to base ones moral compass solely on the threat of a supreme being is ludicrous at best.
Yes, and as I said, I don't think anybody in the world has a moral compass that is 100% from religious belief and 0% from their own personal thoughts. Again, if you can give me some examples of people who have no moral compass separate from religion, I'd be interested in seeing/reading about that...I just don't believe they exist.
In fact, the point you make in your first para--for instance, looking at morality of actions in Christian society's in the past offers a perfect example of this. SOME morality may derive from Christianity, but other does not. Other parts change.
I think any theologian today (and most in the past) would argue that the bible is not a book of rules. That's why christians don't keep kosher (and this was an "innovation" in morality VERY early on in the history of Christianity). The new testament is largely a group of moral teachings and lessons. Leave out the mystical crap like revelations (as Thomas Jefferson did in his red letter bible) and you have moral teachings that are standalone if you will. Actually, the Red Letter bible might be interesting to you (I mean interesting in the sense that it exists, not that you should read it and be enlightened :-P) -- Jefferson went through and got rid of the mystical junk, the miracles, even God, and what was left was the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus as a man.
Despite what many people in these comments have claimed, morality is NOT simple and it is NOT full of black and white simple decisions. We need all the help we can get...this, IMHO, is why we have philosophers and religions.
Modded troll? I see the PC brigade is out in force today...sheesh.
Real morality comes from examining the world: right and wrong are pretty obvious when you actually look
Right and wrong are pretty obvious when you actually look? I find that to be a very...childish...view for lack of a better term.
Is abortion right or wrong?
Is the death penalty right or wrong?
Is jailing somebody with a family right or wrong?
Is jailing somebody at ALL right or wrong?
Is drug usage right or wrong?
Is preemptive warfare right or wrong?
Is invading another country EVER right or wrong?
Is it right or wrong to kill somebody who is attacking you?
Whichever answer you give for any one of these questions, there are many people that could argue with you forever and never once mention religion.
You stopped looking as soon as you heard that a sky daddy will spank the evildoers for all eternity. That's not morality, that's pathology.
That's really quite silly. If you can show me one person who doesn't think for themselves but runs every decision solely through what they think their religion says the answer should be, I'll reconsider. Otherwise your statement is simply ludicrous and shows a complete lack of understanding when it comes to religion and what role religion plays in most people's lives.
I find the thought that the only thing keeping everyone from murdering each other is a supreme being waving his finger at us from 2000 years ago saying "Do it and I'll spank you!" quite scary.
Nobody thinks that, and quite frankly I view it as ignorant to claim so. (ok I won't say NOBODY because there are people out there that believe literally anything...but next to nobody)
Look at many cultures around the world that believe in extreme (by my view) punishments such as gang-rape, murder. Many, MANY other cultures allow the virtual rape of children (through arranged child marriages). If morality was as simple as you make it out to be, shouldn't everyone in the world have arrived at similar conclusions eons ago?
People respond differently. Duh--this is as simple and obvious as it gets, so I don't know why I even wrote it :-)
An early Greek philosopher (I unfortunately don't remember which at the second...will try to find) divided people into groups based on what activities they found pleasureable. Those who found pleasuring from having, those who found pleasure from power, pleasure from sensual delight, pleasure from ethical action, etc.
In your own life, I'm sure you've run into plenty of people who don't think twice about breaking the law/rules/doing bad things if they think they won't get caught. And I'm sure you've run into people that are terrified of breaking rules.
I guess I view things through utilitarian bent. As long as the final outcome is good, who cares about the process (at least in this situation). If I do the right thing, who cares if I had to ponder it in my mind or did it reflexively...it was a good action and the outcome was good. If you do good things because you're afraid of being punished or if you do good things because it gives you pleasure, is one REALLY better than the other?
I would say definitely not.
So? There is no evidence that there is. And if there is, there is no way we could know what "morality" he expects us to behave by. There is no reason that his standard of morality should match up with what we consider to be ethical.
Likewise, there is no evidence that there ISN'T.
I'm an agnostic. I don't know if there is, or isn't a god/God/whatever--and furthermore, I don't think that we CAN know that. I view devout atheists as I do devout evangelicals...they're basing it all on their feelings--they have no proof that there is no god...after all, what could possibly constitute such proof?
Secondly, IF you believe in a religion, then you typically believe in a founding member, or members who are divinely inspired to reveal what true morality is. Quite simple.
Look, I agree with you on some levels...but if creationism is saying that God happened to push the first strands of DNA together, if God happened to tweak the mutation that gave us speech, etc, if God DROVE human development over millenia, is it really contradicted?
http://www.exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-60.htm
Obviously this isn't Kucinich himself and has validity only as testimony, but, if the person who was with him when the "encounter" (or whatever) took place says this, it hardly seems fair to blame your political foes with "blowing it all out of proportion." Is Shirly Maclaine a "right wing loon" (I know nothing about her, other than she is the godmother of Kucinich's daughter)?
Watching the Kucinich answer (youtube), he doesn't deny the above account, and responds by saying how many others Americans (including Carter) have ALSO seen UFOs.
I know you like Kucinich and that's fine (though I disagree with him on almost everything, I strongly admire his principles), but you might want to be a tad more objective about this particular point.
Isn't it rather scary that while scientists are getting excited over this 47 million year old fossil that there are fossils in Congress who will swear on a stack of Bibles that the earth is only 6000 years old and that evolution is bunk.
Really? Which representative in congress believes the Earth is 6000 years old?
Just out of curiosity, would you say the same thing about physical attributes?
ie, are Asians and Europeans just as capable of certain African peoples of sprinting or long distance running?
have different levels of "intelligence" (a culturally defined and therefore biased concept)
Ridiculously silly.
For example, we saw the same abject poverty in Europe during the Middle Ages, for cultural reasons that are well known
I think you need to learn your history a little better. You're discussing myths and falsehoods, which makes whatever your beliefs about some "cultural" reasons utterly irrelevant.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that's new since Leopard (10.5).
If what you're talking about is the com.apple.quarantine file xattr that is set on safari downloaded files?
Yep. Just like when economists describe the free market as 'self-correcting', they don't mean there's a Big, All-Powerful Entity controlling it from the shadows, it's just that the system is such that minor changes will be met by opposite changes so that, overall, the system isn't affected on a large scale.
But, what about the Invisible Hand?
All some people are saying is, that like economies the 'self-correcting' system doesn't work as well for very large changes so when a single entity is far more greedy than it should, the entire system could be brought down by it. And since there's no "humanity bailout", we ought to be more careful with it than we have with our own markets.
Thus bacteria, sheep, viruses, and alligators can be overly greedy? Sounds like you're athropomorphizing creatures / entities.
Modern man is the first species on earth to have the ability to dramatically alter the ecological equilibrium established before it, on a global scale. This makes the modern man unique.
I do not agree.
The self-correcting aspect of 'nature' is that in any ecosystem, predator and prey populations typically reach an equilibrium.
Until an evolutionary change, too much rain, too little rain, a disease, a hot summer, a cold winter, etc etc etc throws the "equilibrium" out of balance. There's no such thing.
The reasonable conclusion is our population will grow until we have consumed all the resources that allow us to feed ourselves.
I don't think that's a reasonable conclusion at all.
Nature, or mother nature is just another term for the global ecosystem. It's not alive, it has no morals, no ethics, no concept of right and wrong - only balance or imbalance.
Thus the anthropomorphication of nature.
Before modern man, equilibrium in any environment was reached over time and was thus self sustaining
Ok, show me where this sustained equilibrium has ever existed--where since time immemorial predator and prey have existed in a constant balance, unchanging and balanced. Here's a hint--it's never ever happened.
Humans are in a way self sustaining also, but the time period of our sustainability is going to be dramatically shorter than most species. Dinosaurs, as a collective survived for hundreds of millions of years. When measured against the time spans of previous dominant species, humans fall far short of any definition of sustainability.
Way to write off the entire species!
I was with you until this. The current rate of extinction does seem to be much greater than usual, and much of it is directly attributable to the impact of man. (Though there's some uncertainty comparing "rates" of extinction, since looking back millions of years, it's hard to tell how long of a time the great extinctions dragged on, while the impact of man is, geologically speaking, very rapid.)
I think I pretty much agree with what you are saying. All I really meant was, yes, we are in the middle of a mass extinction right now, but mass extinctions are nothing unique in the history the life on earth.
It's possible that this one is occurring faster than any other (and it definitely IS attributable directly to humans) but other species have cause mass extinctions before (atmosphere) so it's not even entirely unique in that regards.
Right, I understand that (and almost didn't say what I did, how I did..) but then again, what is balance in nature--what does that mean?
I don't think there is any (forgive the term) "natural" state which is the proper and balanced state. Everything in nature is constantly in flux. Sure, to use the common example of the predator-prey equilibrium, that is sometimes the case. Sometimes the predators go extinct, sometimes prey go extinct, sometimes they both do.
It seems to me that it's far easier to look at life on Earth through the lens of evolutionary bubbles and crashes. It only seems self correcting because we want to apply some kind of order to it, when it reality, that's just the way the universe works. When a forest fire burns, it burns everything it can, until it's burned too much and dies out. That seems about the same level of self correcting to me.
It's hardly anthropomorphic to describe nature as self correcting. Life on earth survived for what, like a billion years without modern man fucking it up? Pretty much a model for sustainability if you ask me.
It's hardly anthropomorphic to describe nature as self correcting? Really? That implies that there is something to correct, which implies ... . Not to mention describing some universal aspect of "Life" which the existence of an unbalanced humanity can "fuck up?" Sounds pretty anthropomorphized to me.
The crux of the matter seems to be, what do you mean by "self correcting?" I'm also unsure why you bring modern man into the equation. Surely you're aware of a multitude of previous mass extinctions? Surely you're aware of the extinction of not only species but of entire orders of life? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but when you say "without modern man fucking it" you make it sound like humans are something exceptional in terms of extinctions?
A balanced and closed ecosystem is naturally self correcting. Humans will prove no different. The available resources will be consumed, humans will die off in large numbers and a balance will be reached eventually where real sustainability can be achieved.
Ah yes, sustainability...the new holy grail.
The only thing "self correcting" or "sustainable" about life on earth is that there is life on earth.
The comment was to "make uninstall" (as I have seen in automake generated makefiles, or mentioned by you "make deinstall" in *BSD) bogosity.
Oh, I see what you are talking about.
No, "make deinstall" in the port directory is a PORT command. It uninstalls the port. It is not an application specific type "make uninstall" command that may or may not work.
Like pkg_delete, "make deinstall" removes the application according to the packing list and port specific instructions.
What about removal of packages?
This is a really basic "RTFM." It's not "make uninstall" like you wrote in your post, but "make deinstall"
Alternatively, you use the "pkg_delete" or "pkg_deinstall" command to delete any installed package. (again, to find out potential options etc, RTFM)
Very simple.
One of the things I like about Debian source packages, is that they can be compiled, installed, played with, upgraded, etc and finally removed - all that without a hustle.
Yes, those would be fundamentals of any packaging systems.
Impression I had that ports is just a nice front-end for "./configure && make && make install". And as usually "make uninstall" is largely missing (as only few source packages provide the functionality).
Your impression is somewhat correct. Again, this is something expected of ANY source packaging system. I'm not sure how else you would want it to operate?
That means over time system gets loaded with orphaned files.
I may have missed something...why are files getting orphaned?
If you're confused about what files belong to what packages in FreeBSD, try the "pkg_which" command.
Actually the thing which impressed me most first time I installed the Debian was that during upgrades/install of custom packages, it can also remove conflicting packages. E.g. during library migration, Debian would properly install/remove library needed by particular package version. Apps like aptitude, which can also automatically remove unused automatically installed packages, saves heck a lot of time in long run.
Yes, this is a weakness of the base ports system. Fortunately pretty much everyone who runs FreeBSD runs either portupgrade or portmaster. These programs essentially take the place of apt, etc, and work completely within the structure of the ports system.
The biggest jump in improvement of the Apple platform I ever saw was during the brief period that Apple allowed clone makers.
Really? Such as?
I can't say I remember much of the clone period as I wasn't that into macs back then. Still have a SuperMac sitting around in a storage closet somewhere though... What changed?