(Thanks for fixing the post. I'll respond here, where most of the content is.)
nor strictly "populist", as in being driven purely by emotion and media
That emotion is the cynical manipulation of populist leaders, who fan fear and anger in order to manipulate their followers under the cover story of being a grassroots movement. The leaders' tactics, rhetoric, and the current response are right out of the playbook, and the angry mob are just people to be used and then abandoned when they are no longer useful.
I do think that our government's authority is too great in many areas, some are issues of principle (e.g., seatbelt laws) and some are very consequential (e.g., warrantless searches). As another example, I think the healthcare mandate is a tax and I'm uncomfortable with the idea of government claiming the authority to enforce it otherwise.
But look at it from an outsider's perspective: Every time you express more fear and anger you (and your movement) further persuade me that you can't exist without them, that you have little else to offer on these important issues. The Tea Party dialog you wrote may seem persuasive, but to an outsider it makes the movement look naive, ignorant and dogmatic; not people with ideas to contribute. If you look for someone to talk to, learn from and work with, you don't choose the angry, intransigent person who is ranting about the issue.
More and more, I think the difference between people who do good and those who do evil is mostly arrogance and humility. It's arrogance to believe you are wise enough to sacrifice lives and welfare for your cause. It's the radicals -- Bolsheviks, fascists, religious fanatics -- whose followers were uncompromising and angry. Good people are humble in their opinions, write calm reasoned arguments (the Declaration of Independence), listen and compromise with each other (the Constitution), limit their own power and use it as a last resort (which dovetails with limited government).
Anyway, I don't know that we are have much more to say in one of the longest (temporally) Slashdot discussions ever. I'll keep your ideas in the back of my mind, and I hope you will do the same. Have a good day!
I seem to love quotes these last few days. Hardly an authority, but they witnessed an earlier popular movement and its aftermath (slightly abridged):
We'll be fighting in the streets With our children at our feet And the morals that they worship will be gone And the men who spurred us on Sit in judgment of all wrong They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around me Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday And I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again Don't get fooled again
Change it had to come We knew it all along We were liberated from the fall that's all But the world looks just the same And history ain't changed 'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war
There's nothing in the street Looks any different to me And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye And the parting on the left Is now the parting on the right And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution Take a bow for the new revolution Smile and grin at the change all around me Pick up my guitar and play Just like yesterday Then I'll get on my knees and pray We don't get fooled again Don't get fooled again No, no!
Most of your characterization of scientists' opinions doesn't match what the scientists say. The second paragraph very strongly disagrees. Which returns us to the question...
So who do you trust on this issue? Where do you get your information? Why do you choose trust them and not the thousands of climate scientists?
The USA has started on a downward spiral into a totalitarian regime with no regard whatsoever for human rights or life. I am not sure whether they are past the point of no return
I feel your response is unnecessarily hostile, zealotous, and an "I got you back" clause
I'm sorry you feel that way. While I was making a point that challenged your position, I didn't meant to do it in a way that fits the description above.
(In fact, I wonder if you responded to the right message. I didn't mention vegetarianism at all. I was talking about a new 'political correctness':)
The funny thing is that statements like yours are the obligatory ones these days (just look at your statement and the responses). Your statement, attacking a position that nobody has taken, is the new political correctness.
Still, regarding the remainder of your comment: I'm not vegetarian and rarely discuss the subject with anyone. I didn't mention vegetarianism in my post. What I am interested in is the odd culture on the Internet (and talk radio, and the TV equivalent) that accepts anger as rational and acceptable discourse. And then look at how you responded; I said nothing at all about vegetarian, and you projected your anger onto my statement, making it "hostile" and "zealotous" advocacy of vegetarianism and writing a six paragraph argument against something I never said.
How can this culture work? How can people discuss something if we don't listen to each other and talk respectfully and rationally (i.e, calmly)?
I'm not at all. I'm sure you're right about some things and wrong about others, like everyone else. I'm more concerned with the angry populist culture that's become so widespread in our society...
Why is it so vital to you to attempt to cause me to doubt what I've spent most of a lifetime learning and came to know to be true?
A good question. Reasoned people are standing aside, out of politeness or lack of motivation, while those with anger (which blocks any reason) dominate our public discourse and decision-making. It's undemocratic, because most opinions are sidelined, leaves no room for discussion, and anger leads to bad decisions. I've decided to engage, politely.
You are an engaged person; how do you see this working? We all have our opinions; what if we all follow your example. If everyone is so angry and certain, how will any decision be made? Sometimes we all are wrong; how can people so angry and certain learn from each other? How do you foresee this working as a society?
I hold nothing but skepticism for the people who say "scientific consensus!"
OK. Where do you get your information? Who do you trust?
Just like De-Stalinization, his own kind reject him now. So excuse me while I say, Lovelock, you son of a b****! Go to hell.
You see this anger and paranoia among so many populist causes, such as climate change deniers. It's an old populist tactic; get people angry and they won't listen or think; it provokes them to action and insulates them against reason.
What pisses me off are the people who think that wealth redistribution in the form of carbon-credit trading will do anything to solve the problem
It pisses you off? Should that persuade me, or think you are just angry and ranting?
It's no coincidence that the angry people are the climate change deniers and the anti-tax Birch Society. It's just old-fashioned populist manipulation; they are being used.
if global catastrophe is such a big deal e.g. An asteroid is headed directly for Earth, every person is going to be affected in the same way therefore every person is equally responsible for dealing with it. There will be no "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" here. So, by that logic, nobody gets a pass on carbon emissions.
* Those who emit carbon should be responsible for cleaning up their own mess, not redistribute the costs to everyone else. That includes industries (e.g., oil) and countries (e.g., the United States, by far the largest emitter over history). Why should I pay for someone else's carbon emissions?
* The wealthy can contribute much more easily than the poor. The billionaire can contribute $10,000 more easily than the person with $20,000; the person earning $1 million/year can contribute 10% of their income much more easily than the person earning $1,000/yr. To ask the same amounts or rates of all is unequal, as is obvious.
Even Moses and Jesus had doubts. Even Goethe and the founders of our nation. Are you wiser?
If Keynes, who began writing a century ago, is the closest you get to modern economics, you are missing almost all of it. If you are limited to the rhetoric you keep repeating, you are missing most of the ideas of history and politics. Listing facts is a master of some data, but not wisdom or understanding.
The arguments seem like they are Scripture to be memorized, employed against infidels (as is often true for this political niche). If you are going to truly question, then question everything, including your scripture; above all, question yourself. As another very wise person, Richard Feynman once said,
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool."
(And if you really want to learn, don't go to school on Internet forums or think you can be wise without learning from others; take a course from a real professor!)
The problem is people who attack innocents; bigoted, ignorant, angry people, like those who attack the schools. Angry people can't think clearly and don't listen to others; that's why leaders like Bin Laden rouse anger in their followers -- because only the ignorant will follow them.
In the Gospels, Jesus says,
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.... Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Hatred is an evil fruit. Those who have seeded hatred in you -- you should know them.
Your posts don't leave much room for you and I to discuss or to learn from each other. Where is your doubt?
If you have clear answers, something is wrong. Learn for yourself; I've heard what you say from a million others: Read a real, serious (not politicized) history of the Constitution -- it's complicated. Take a course in real, modern economics. Yes, it's boring, but that's a good sign.
As Goethe said: We know certainly only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases.
If you are angry, you won't think clearly. If people are getting you riled up, they are manipulating you. It's an old tactic: If people are angry, they won't listen to anyone and reason is defeated; it's a good way to manipulate masses of people -- get them pissed at your enemy.
That, I believe, is the cause of the problem, "In Nothing We Trust."
I was trying to address a point of politics, not economics and history:
Where did you learn these ideas? I mean, literally, where did you read them? And where did those people get them?
As we both know, these are ideas of a group pushing a political agenda. What are their motives? It's not for your sake or for society's sake; they have their own agenda. What is it?
I have friends who work in Dubhai, and I've grown up with muslim people, and they seem a bit misogynist to me, especially the whole deal about women not being allowed into the mosque because they'll profane it, and the whole "honour killing" crap. What kind of religion/culture gives a man the idea that he can totally kill his sister if she "embarrasses" the family by getting raped? That's right, Arabic Islam, as it is practiced wherever there is sharia law. I realize that there are millions of "moderate" or "safe" or "whatever term you want to use" muslims out there, like in Indonesia, but seriously, can you honestly say that the crazy sharia-law pushing, adultress-stoning, women-not-allowed-to-drive law passing bullshit is NOT supported by their Quran, and thus is not merely taking what is written to their logical extremes? Y'know, like the Westboro Baptists, except with way more money and power?
Well, it is taken to an extreme in some places, like the Westboro Baptists with way more power and money. That is, it's not reflective of Muslims in general but a small powerful minority; these are dictatorships -- was everyone in the Soviet Union a Bolshevik? Is everyone in China now a Communist?. But that's politics and not religion. Here are my thoughts...
There is far too much oppression of women by anyone, and especially in many Arab countries. But it is not a consequence of Islam:
* First, those horrors and oppression correlate with of the level of advancement (wealth, education, etc.) of a society, not with Islam. Similar horrors happen in poor countries all over the world, Muslim or not. In parts of Africa (and my apologies to Africans for lumping them all together, but in my ignorance I don't remember which part), there were recent trends of raping virgins because people thought it prevented AIDS, and murdering albinos and taking their organs for medical use.
* Second, it's not supported by the Quran or no more than other ancient scriptures. There is plenty of grisly, medieval (well, earlier actually) justice in the Judeo-Christian bible; it's a product of the times when they were written; the West was butchering people until at least the 19th century (want to go to a hanging? hang-draw-and-quartering? burning at the stake?). In the Old Testament people are butchered for not being circumcised. In Acts, someone is disemboweled for withholding part of a donation to the church, and there are many more examples (don't quote me exactly on those, but those stories are pretty close to the originals). Imagine what the Palestinians in Jericho would think of us lionizing Joshua for conquering their city and driving them off! If someone objected to these things, we'd laugh and say that nobody takes them seriously except a few wackos. In every religion, people use it to justify what they want to do. Islam is no different, nor is Christianity.
* Third, it's perception. We do the same horrors, but human nature is to see what happens in Our culture as aberration and crimes, and in Other cultures as endemic and universal (due to ignorance and the resulting fear of the unknown). For one thing, look at these statements:
I've grown up with muslim people, and they seem a bit misogynist to me... ... it is practiced wherever there is sharia law
Could you make such a sweeping statement about all Christians in the world (to pick a religion you're probably familiar with)? People who follow Islam are just people; their opinions, behavior, vary just as much as you, me, and someone in the Philippines (as a random example). The same goes for Sharia; do we really know anything about what it is, how it is interpreted or practiced? Are people just falling for rumors yet again; another 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'?
Also, Judeo-Christian westerners we have no less propensity for oppression and violence: Remember what most Western nations did in their colonies,
Certainly the pill was a revolution because women could take it without a man even knowing, but it wasn't the first safe, effective contraception. That would be the condom, which has a LONG history.
Agreed, that's what I meant by it being the first one that women controlled. With the pill, women can choose whether or not they conceive; before that they needed the man's cooperation.
Housing, food, health care and education are basic human rights, so yes it's a responsibility that all of us have to share.
Well, that sounds great. It's a lot easier than working. Let's all just give up struggling to work or create a business to make a living, and we can all just sit back and post on/. all day.
We can all see around us societies where government provides services and people continue to work -- all of the most prosperous, productive societies in the history of the world.
The question is, why push propaganda like that? It doesn't address any substantive, real question; it just obstructs us from addressing the real issues, how to provide those services efficiently and effectively. What do you gain from doing it?
Do you realize how ironic it is for you to post your cynicism in this discussion? I think a big problem is just that the Internet gives many people a broader voice, and they still haven't learned that cynicism is a meaningless, easy refuge.
Anyone can find problems with anything; the challenge is saying and doing constructive things.
It also serves to kick islam (as currently practiced) square in the nuts!
There is a long history in humanity of religious bigotry. It always turns out to be ignorant and it is perhaps the most destructive problem in human history. Why repeat it? Why show yourself to be ignorant and hateful (in a permanent record that you can never erase)? I know it's trendy to be loud and outrageous; people feel like they are bold, breaking taboos, but consider the consequences. Consider why those taboos are there.
There many people out there, Muslim and otherwise, who trust each other and people of other religions. Imagine what they feel when they read your comments. You justify the words of people like Bin Laden, who say that westerners hate other religions, that our freedom, openness and tolerance is a sham. Your their best recruiting tool.
Learn something real about Islam instead of just believing what you read on the Internet. Visit a mosque; take a course. There is everything to gain.
My girlfriend is Chinese. Never been to the west, doesn't speak English, in every way a normal Chinese person. She and none of the other Chinese people I know think that way.
I would also point out that Western companies do the same thing when it profits them. Capitalism is amoral.
I suspect that the proportion of racist people in China isn't much different than other people in the same circumstances, and that making a generalization about people in China is as silly as making one about any large group of people.
We had effective contraception and abortion LONG before the 60s.
IIRC, the innovation of the 1960s was the pill, which was safe, effective contraception that women controlled. It gave women the control over whether they conceived, a revolution in human history.
Also, one of the bigger factors in development and reducing birthrates is educating girls. There is a lot of research and practice behind it; it's widely accepted to work.
I don't know the exact reason, but I suspect that making half your population more productive would be a big help and empowering girls to control their lives also gives them power over their own reproductive systems.
Slashdot Mirror
(Thanks for fixing the post. I'll respond here, where most of the content is.)
nor strictly "populist", as in being driven purely by emotion and media
That emotion is the cynical manipulation of populist leaders, who fan fear and anger in order to manipulate their followers under the cover story of being a grassroots movement. The leaders' tactics, rhetoric, and the current response are right out of the playbook, and the angry mob are just people to be used and then abandoned when they are no longer useful.
I do think that our government's authority is too great in many areas, some are issues of principle (e.g., seatbelt laws) and some are very consequential (e.g., warrantless searches). As another example, I think the healthcare mandate is a tax and I'm uncomfortable with the idea of government claiming the authority to enforce it otherwise.
But look at it from an outsider's perspective: Every time you express more fear and anger you (and your movement) further persuade me that you can't exist without them, that you have little else to offer on these important issues. The Tea Party dialog you wrote may seem persuasive, but to an outsider it makes the movement look naive, ignorant and dogmatic; not people with ideas to contribute. If you look for someone to talk to, learn from and work with, you don't choose the angry, intransigent person who is ranting about the issue.
More and more, I think the difference between people who do good and those who do evil is mostly arrogance and humility. It's arrogance to believe you are wise enough to sacrifice lives and welfare for your cause. It's the radicals -- Bolsheviks, fascists, religious fanatics -- whose followers were uncompromising and angry. Good people are humble in their opinions, write calm reasoned arguments (the Declaration of Independence), listen and compromise with each other (the Constitution), limit their own power and use it as a last resort (which dovetails with limited government).
Anyway, I don't know that we are have much more to say in one of the longest (temporally) Slashdot discussions ever. I'll keep your ideas in the back of my mind, and I hope you will do the same. Have a good day!
I seem to love quotes these last few days. Hardly an authority, but they witnessed an earlier popular movement and its aftermath (slightly abridged):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SHhrZgojY1Q
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgment of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
And I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
Change it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fall that's all
But the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Most of your characterization of scientists' opinions doesn't match what the scientists say. The second paragraph very strongly disagrees. Which returns us to the question ...
So who do you trust on this issue? Where do you get your information? Why do you choose trust them and not the thousands of climate scientists?
The USA has started on a downward spiral into a totalitarian regime with no regard whatsoever for human rights or life. I am not sure whether they are past the point of no return
This was modded "Insightful"?
I feel your response is unnecessarily hostile, zealotous, and an "I got you back" clause
I'm sorry you feel that way. While I was making a point that challenged your position, I didn't meant to do it in a way that fits the description above.
(In fact, I wonder if you responded to the right message. I didn't mention vegetarianism at all. I was talking about a new 'political correctness':)
The funny thing is that statements like yours are the obligatory ones these days (just look at your statement and the responses). Your statement, attacking a position that nobody has taken, is the new political correctness.
Still, regarding the remainder of your comment: I'm not vegetarian and rarely discuss the subject with anyone. I didn't mention vegetarianism in my post. What I am interested in is the odd culture on the Internet (and talk radio, and the TV equivalent) that accepts anger as rational and acceptable discourse. And then look at how you responded; I said nothing at all about vegetarian, and you projected your anger onto my statement, making it "hostile" and "zealotous" advocacy of vegetarianism and writing a six paragraph argument against something I never said.
How can this culture work? How can people discuss something if we don't listen to each other and talk respectfully and rationally (i.e, calmly)?
what makes you so certain that I am wrong
I'm not at all. I'm sure you're right about some things and wrong about others, like everyone else. I'm more concerned with the angry populist culture that's become so widespread in our society ...
Why is it so vital to you to attempt to cause me to doubt what I've spent most of a lifetime learning and came to know to be true?
A good question. Reasoned people are standing aside, out of politeness or lack of motivation, while those with anger (which blocks any reason) dominate our public discourse and decision-making. It's undemocratic, because most opinions are sidelined, leaves no room for discussion, and anger leads to bad decisions. I've decided to engage, politely.
You are an engaged person; how do you see this working? We all have our opinions; what if we all follow your example. If everyone is so angry and certain, how will any decision be made? Sometimes we all are wrong; how can people so angry and certain learn from each other? How do you foresee this working as a society?
There is a lot of research on this issue going back decades.
Again, why are deniers so angry all the time? It's a very old trick. Don't they know populist manipulation when they see it?
I hold nothing but skepticism for the people who say "scientific consensus!"
OK. Where do you get your information? Who do you trust?
Just like De-Stalinization, his own kind reject him now. So excuse me while I say, Lovelock, you son of a b****! Go to hell.
You see this anger and paranoia among so many populist causes, such as climate change deniers. It's an old populist tactic; get people angry and they won't listen or think; it provokes them to action and insulates them against reason.
So who do you trust on this issue? Where do you get your information? Why do you choose trust them and not the thousands of climate scientists?
Both sides make mistakes, and for both sides have potential ulterior motives. How do you choose one or the other?
I just wish people were even half as interested in calling out the alarmists as are the 'deniers'.
If you read this thread, or most discussions on the Internet, your wish was granted long ago.
What pisses me off are the people who think that wealth redistribution in the form of carbon-credit trading will do anything to solve the problem
It pisses you off? Should that persuade me, or think you are just angry and ranting?
It's no coincidence that the angry people are the climate change deniers and the anti-tax Birch Society. It's just old-fashioned populist manipulation; they are being used.
if global catastrophe is such a big deal e.g. An asteroid is headed directly for Earth, every person is going to be affected in the same way therefore every person is equally responsible for dealing with it. There will be no "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" here. So, by that logic, nobody gets a pass on carbon emissions.
* Those who emit carbon should be responsible for cleaning up their own mess, not redistribute the costs to everyone else. That includes industries (e.g., oil) and countries (e.g., the United States, by far the largest emitter over history). Why should I pay for someone else's carbon emissions?
* The wealthy can contribute much more easily than the poor. The billionaire can contribute $10,000 more easily than the person with $20,000; the person earning $1 million/year can contribute 10% of their income much more easily than the person earning $1,000/yr. To ask the same amounts or rates of all is unequal, as is obvious.
Even Moses and Jesus had doubts. Even Goethe and the founders of our nation. Are you wiser?
If Keynes, who began writing a century ago, is the closest you get to modern economics, you are missing almost all of it. If you are limited to the rhetoric you keep repeating, you are missing most of the ideas of history and politics. Listing facts is a master of some data, but not wisdom or understanding.
The arguments seem like they are Scripture to be memorized, employed against infidels (as is often true for this political niche). If you are going to truly question, then question everything, including your scripture; above all, question yourself. As another very wise person, Richard Feynman once said,
(And if you really want to learn, don't go to school on Internet forums or think you can be wise without learning from others; take a course from a real professor!)
The problem is people who attack innocents; bigoted, ignorant, angry people, like those who attack the schools. Angry people can't think clearly and don't listen to others; that's why leaders like Bin Laden rouse anger in their followers -- because only the ignorant will follow them.
In the Gospels, Jesus says,
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. ...
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Hatred is an evil fruit. Those who have seeded hatred in you -- you should know them.
Your posts don't leave much room for you and I to discuss or to learn from each other. Where is your doubt?
If you have clear answers, something is wrong. Learn for yourself; I've heard what you say from a million others: Read a real, serious (not politicized) history of the Constitution -- it's complicated. Take a course in real, modern economics. Yes, it's boring, but that's a good sign.
As Goethe said: We know certainly only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases.
If you are angry, you won't think clearly. If people are getting you riled up, they are manipulating you. It's an old tactic: If people are angry, they won't listen to anyone and reason is defeated; it's a good way to manipulate masses of people -- get them pissed at your enemy.
That, I believe, is the cause of the problem, "In Nothing We Trust."
I was trying to address a point of politics, not economics and history:
Where did you learn these ideas? I mean, literally, where did you read them? And where did those people get them?
As we both know, these are ideas of a group pushing a political agenda. What are their motives? It's not for your sake or for society's sake; they have their own agenda. What is it?
That is the most important issue.
I have friends who work in Dubhai, and I've grown up with muslim people, and they seem a bit misogynist to me, especially the whole deal about women not being allowed into the mosque because they'll profane it, and the whole "honour killing" crap. What kind of religion/culture gives a man the idea that he can totally kill his sister if she "embarrasses" the family by getting raped? That's right, Arabic Islam, as it is practiced wherever there is sharia law. I realize that there are millions of "moderate" or "safe" or "whatever term you want to use" muslims out there, like in Indonesia, but seriously, can you honestly say that the crazy sharia-law pushing, adultress-stoning, women-not-allowed-to-drive law passing bullshit is NOT supported by their Quran, and thus is not merely taking what is written to their logical extremes? Y'know, like the Westboro Baptists, except with way more money and power?
Well, it is taken to an extreme in some places, like the Westboro Baptists with way more power and money. That is, it's not reflective of Muslims in general but a small powerful minority; these are dictatorships -- was everyone in the Soviet Union a Bolshevik? Is everyone in China now a Communist?. But that's politics and not religion. Here are my thoughts ...
There is far too much oppression of women by anyone, and especially in many Arab countries. But it is not a consequence of Islam:
* First, those horrors and oppression correlate with of the level of advancement (wealth, education, etc.) of a society, not with Islam. Similar horrors happen in poor countries all over the world, Muslim or not. In parts of Africa (and my apologies to Africans for lumping them all together, but in my ignorance I don't remember which part), there were recent trends of raping virgins because people thought it prevented AIDS, and murdering albinos and taking their organs for medical use.
* Second, it's not supported by the Quran or no more than other ancient scriptures. There is plenty of grisly, medieval (well, earlier actually) justice in the Judeo-Christian bible; it's a product of the times when they were written; the West was butchering people until at least the 19th century (want to go to a hanging? hang-draw-and-quartering? burning at the stake?). In the Old Testament people are butchered for not being circumcised. In Acts, someone is disemboweled for withholding part of a donation to the church, and there are many more examples (don't quote me exactly on those, but those stories are pretty close to the originals). Imagine what the Palestinians in Jericho would think of us lionizing Joshua for conquering their city and driving them off! If someone objected to these things, we'd laugh and say that nobody takes them seriously except a few wackos. In every religion, people use it to justify what they want to do. Islam is no different, nor is Christianity.
* Third, it's perception. We do the same horrors, but human nature is to see what happens in Our culture as aberration and crimes, and in Other cultures as endemic and universal (due to ignorance and the resulting fear of the unknown). For one thing, look at these statements:
I've grown up with muslim people, and they seem a bit misogynist to me ...
... it is practiced wherever there is sharia law
Could you make such a sweeping statement about all Christians in the world (to pick a religion you're probably familiar with)? People who follow Islam are just people; their opinions, behavior, vary just as much as you, me, and someone in the Philippines (as a random example). The same goes for Sharia; do we really know anything about what it is, how it is interpreted or practiced? Are people just falling for rumors yet again; another 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'?
Also, Judeo-Christian westerners we have no less propensity for oppression and violence: Remember what most Western nations did in their colonies,
Certainly the pill was a revolution because women could take it without a man even knowing, but it wasn't the first safe, effective contraception. That would be the condom, which has a LONG history.
Agreed, that's what I meant by it being the first one that women controlled. With the pill, women can choose whether or not they conceive; before that they needed the man's cooperation.
Housing, food, health care and education are basic human rights, so yes it's a responsibility that all of us have to share.
Well, that sounds great. It's a lot easier than working. Let's all just give up struggling to work or create a business to make a living, and we can all just sit back and post on /. all day.
We can all see around us societies where government provides services and people continue to work -- all of the most prosperous, productive societies in the history of the world.
The question is, why push propaganda like that? It doesn't address any substantive, real question; it just obstructs us from addressing the real issues, how to provide those services efficiently and effectively. What do you gain from doing it?
Do you realize how ironic it is for you to post your cynicism in this discussion? I think a big problem is just that the Internet gives many people a broader voice, and they still haven't learned that cynicism is a meaningless, easy refuge.
Anyone can find problems with anything; the challenge is saying and doing constructive things.
Where did all these bigoted AC's come from? Will someone explain?
It also serves to kick islam (as currently practiced) square in the nuts!
There is a long history in humanity of religious bigotry. It always turns out to be ignorant and it is perhaps the most destructive problem in human history. Why repeat it? Why show yourself to be ignorant and hateful (in a permanent record that you can never erase)? I know it's trendy to be loud and outrageous; people feel like they are bold, breaking taboos, but consider the consequences. Consider why those taboos are there.
There many people out there, Muslim and otherwise, who trust each other and people of other religions. Imagine what they feel when they read your comments. You justify the words of people like Bin Laden, who say that westerners hate other religions, that our freedom, openness and tolerance is a sham. Your their best recruiting tool.
Learn something real about Islam instead of just believing what you read on the Internet. Visit a mosque; take a course. There is everything to gain.
Wow, and you are accusing /them/ of being racist.
My girlfriend is Chinese. Never been to the west, doesn't speak English, in every way a normal Chinese person. She and none of the other Chinese people I know think that way.
I would also point out that Western companies do the same thing when it profits them. Capitalism is amoral.
I suspect that the proportion of racist people in China isn't much different than other people in the same circumstances, and that making a generalization about people in China is as silly as making one about any large group of people.
Reality? Fact?
Random unsupported speculation and fabrication?
We had effective contraception and abortion LONG before the 60s.
IIRC, the innovation of the 1960s was the pill, which was safe, effective contraception that women controlled. It gave women the control over whether they conceived, a revolution in human history.
Also, one of the bigger factors in development and reducing birthrates is educating girls. There is a lot of research and practice behind it; it's widely accepted to work.
I don't know the exact reason, but I suspect that making half your population more productive would be a big help and empowering girls to control their lives also gives them power over their own reproductive systems.
When did angry, reactionary claims with no basis become popular on Slashdot. What has happened to our community?
Even today, children of vegans still die occasionally due to malnutrition.
Can you point to any examples of this?
Man was never made to be vegan and, judging from our closest relatives the Chimps, probably not vegetarian either.
Man wasn't made to use the Internet either.