Quantum computer reference? When did this happen? If I remember that episode correctly, the announcer says that the race was decided in a quantum finish , not a photo finish, hence the professor's comment.
I'm guessing that you don't have children. They start life as selfish, egocentric, manipulative beasts because it works for them. Eventually, they learn to be "good" as they come to grasp the benefits of living in a society (sharing resourced, mutual protection, affection, etc.), and learn the subtleties of good behavior.
But some never learn and remain selfish, egotistical bastards. We call those people "sociopaths" (e.g. criminals and some politicans). Having said that, I agree in that we should try to teach them to be good, but many are just not willing or don't care to learn. That's why they are criminals.
There was no Geneva convetion at the time. Could you please provide some specific support about the "rules of war" of that era, such as the equivalent of a Geneva convetion that most nations signed at the time?
If there wasn't something concrete regarding globally agreed-upon rules of war conduct, then there is no analogy to today. If there was, then please add it to substantiate your argument.
If I had mod points I'd give them to you. I have come to the conclusion that it boils down simply to faith. The tendency among the greats of history is that they believed in something larger than themselves, and thus reached out to understand something greater than themselves. If anything else, belief tends to give us the humility that we often require in order to make serious attempts at surpassing our own limitations. In this light, faith can be both convenient as well as practical.
If you have no faith, no amount of reason will convince you otherwise, because reason can be used to justify your lack of faith just as easily as it can be used to support faith. There is no sense in trying to believe unless you want to believe. Given that, what is so wrong with believing and getting the best of both approaches (reason and religion)?
If, when I die, I am wrong and there is no God, I would have lost nothing because I would have become nothing. If an atheist dies and he is wrong, he would have lost everything.
But then the question arises: What is this thing that you call a "moral compass?" What is morality then if there is no absolute standard from which to derive it? If morality is relative, then so is right and wrong.
Something that is good to you may not be necessarily what is good to the next person. If you are your own yardstick of morality, how can you say that something is inherently good or evil with any certainty or credibility to anyone but yourself?
If your moral compass says that religion is evil, then why should we care or listen to what you have to say? You may be right and wrong, but without absolute morality then your judgement, and indeed everyone's judgment becomes meaningless.
You can argue that something is "good" if it benefits the majority but then what is it about the majority that is especial if there is no fixed good/evil? Is there any immorality in killing your rich father and use your inheritance money to feed the hungry and house the homeless, especially if you can get away with it? It benefits the majority, doesn't it?
But then you'll say that killing is wrong because anybody has the right to live. But then, where does that right come from? Is it some unalienable right? How can a right be unalienable if it's not based on absolute good and an unchanging standard? Rights themselves become meaningless if good/evil are relative. That I believe, was the ultimate point of the parent.
Basically, it's tribalism. We criticize the Shiites, Kurds, and Sunni in Iraq, but we have our own version of that here in the US: Democrats vs. Republicans.
Though we may not be killing each other, I think that the tribalistic impulse is basically the same in the US as in Iraq, and it's too ingrained a part of human nature for many of us to see past that. The few of us who do see past that, are labeled traitors, hypocrites, etc.
I guess that the need to belong to a group is larger than the need to be intellectually honest and true to ourselves.
Try Catholicism. I know it has its problems (boy, does it ever!), but the one thing I've never heard from any priest is political rethoric.
Or are 99.99% of all churches out there headed by protestant ministers?
Mision Vieja (Mision Vieja if you use the proper punctuation). I guess that the extra 's' made it there when the name got bastardized into English.
It also should be 'Montevideo', not 'Montividieo'. Montevide is the capital of Argentina.
The founding fathers were not terrorists because terrorism is a relatively new concept which involves the indiscriminate targeting of CIVILIANS. That's the key difference between revolutionaries and terrorists.
Well then, this request shouldn't be a problem. Please provide factual support for the following points:
Fact 1: Thousands of Iraqis killed by US occupation. Please provide support. How about throwing in some facts about Saddam's mass graves while we are at it.
Fact 2: WMDs. Just because we can't find any now, doesn't mean that there weren't or aren't any. Bio seed stocks fit on a shirt pocket. Look at David Kay's testimony (Hint: He believes that the weapons existed even though we can't find any).
Fact 3: What's this with the FBI being invited to verify anything? Saddam remained defiant until the end.
Fact 4: Saddam's regime was known for its meticulous record-keeping (Hint: its necessary for centralized dictatorships obsessed with control). Yet there was no evidence of WMD descruction because Saddam couldn't provide evidence?
Fact 4: No terrorists. Yet there was evidence of terrorist camps even before we invaded. How did that happen?
Fact 5: World good will. As far as I can tell the only countries that have ill will against the US were those who opposed the war to begin with. I don't think that France, Germany and a few others which have always been historically anti-American comprise the entire world.
Yeah, some facts!
that's because real news sources find out if it's true first. which Drudge obviously didn't do.
They certainly didn't find out whether Dubya's AWOL situation really happened before reporting on it even though that was much more serious, because it involved potential criminal charges. The media reports only what serves their best interests. They are no less corrupt than the heads of the UN or the US.
Though there may be a tiny amount of truth in your post, I can't help but think that most of it is just inflamatory BS. Most of the people that come from corrupt systems such as Mexico already don't give a crap about voting because they come from a system where their vote doesn't count for much. It's difficult enough to get naturalized citizens to vote, let alone non-citizens who may lose their only shot at getting their status legalized by commiting fraud. You must think that illegals are idiots because they are willing to potentially throw their future away for practically no gain. Your condescending attitude betrays your xenophobia. I know many illegals, and trust me, they are far smarter than that. For starters, they are here and not starving back in their country, aren't they?
Several years ago an icumbent legislator lost a county-wide election here in Orange County, California. He cried foul and said that it was the illegal vote that made him lose the election. After a thorough investigation they found something in the order of 10 (yes, TEN) illegal aliens registered for that election.
I can't go to sleep instantly but when I do I can wake up at a predetermined time. I think that we all have a very accurate internal clock, but you need "program" your mind to use it.
It all started when I took up fishing as a hobby. I used to set my alarm clock when I needed to wake up early to go fishing, but I soon found out that I'd always beat the alarm and wake up within one minute of it ringing.
I don't use alarm clocks anymore, I just think about what time I need to wake up at just before going to sleep.
There is nothing, at least in the Judeo-Christian bible, that indicated that we are the only creatures on the Universe, and that God created the Universe for us. In fact, the Bible mentions that God created the Universe first, and humans long after. The exact passage escapes me at the moment, but I remember somewhere in the new testament Jesus mentioning that he had to attend to "other flocks."
And what is with this insistence from the atheist/agnostic camp that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive? Could it ever be possible that both the story of creation and the theory of evolution share some validity (divine design through evolution)?
In fact, as an official position, the Vatican accepts the theory of evolution as valid. Think of it this way: If God created everything, wouldn't that include evolution and its "ultimate" result (humans)?
Amen to that. What you have going on here on Slashdot is a debate that is based on the fallacy of the excluded middle. It's sad to see so many otherwise intelligent people argue a topic with such fervor that they fail to see the forest for the trees.
Slashdot Mirror
Peace through fear brought about by superior firepower. It worked against Lybia and its WMD's, and it kept the cold war from heating up.
Quantum computer reference? When did this happen? If I remember that episode correctly, the announcer says that the race was decided in a quantum finish , not a photo finish, hence the professor's comment.
But some never learn and remain selfish, egotistical bastards. We call those people "sociopaths" (e.g. criminals and some politicans). Having said that, I agree in that we should try to teach them to be good, but many are just not willing or don't care to learn. That's why they are criminals.
Or just add a few fish to the ponds.
There was no Geneva convetion at the time. Could you please provide some specific support about the "rules of war" of that era, such as the equivalent of a Geneva convetion that most nations signed at the time? If there wasn't something concrete regarding globally agreed-upon rules of war conduct, then there is no analogy to today. If there was, then please add it to substantiate your argument.
AFAIK, there was no Geneva convention during the Revolutionary war.
If you have no faith, no amount of reason will convince you otherwise, because reason can be used to justify your lack of faith just as easily as it can be used to support faith. There is no sense in trying to believe unless you want to believe. Given that, what is so wrong with believing and getting the best of both approaches (reason and religion)?
If, when I die, I am wrong and there is no God, I would have lost nothing because I would have become nothing. If an atheist dies and he is wrong, he would have lost everything.
Something that is good to you may not be necessarily what is good to the next person. If you are your own yardstick of morality, how can you say that something is inherently good or evil with any certainty or credibility to anyone but yourself?
If your moral compass says that religion is evil, then why should we care or listen to what you have to say? You may be right and wrong, but without absolute morality then your judgement, and indeed everyone's judgment becomes meaningless.
You can argue that something is "good" if it benefits the majority but then what is it about the majority that is especial if there is no fixed good/evil? Is there any immorality in killing your rich father and use your inheritance money to feed the hungry and house the homeless, especially if you can get away with it? It benefits the majority, doesn't it?
But then you'll say that killing is wrong because anybody has the right to live. But then, where does that right come from? Is it some unalienable right? How can a right be unalienable if it's not based on absolute good and an unchanging standard? Rights themselves become meaningless if good/evil are relative. That I believe, was the ultimate point of the parent.
Though we may not be killing each other, I think that the tribalistic impulse is basically the same in the US as in Iraq, and it's too ingrained a part of human nature for many of us to see past that. The few of us who do see past that, are labeled traitors, hypocrites, etc.
I guess that the need to belong to a group is larger than the need to be intellectually honest and true to ourselves.
Try Catholicism. I know it has its problems (boy, does it ever!), but the one thing I've never heard from any priest is political rethoric. Or are 99.99% of all churches out there headed by protestant ministers?
Mision Vieja (Mision Vieja if you use the proper punctuation). I guess that the extra 's' made it there when the name got bastardized into English. It also should be 'Montevideo', not 'Montividieo'. Montevide is the capital of Argentina.
The founding fathers were not terrorists because terrorism is a relatively new concept which involves the indiscriminate targeting of CIVILIANS. That's the key difference between revolutionaries and terrorists.
Well then, this request shouldn't be a problem. Please provide factual support for the following points: Fact 1: Thousands of Iraqis killed by US occupation. Please provide support. How about throwing in some facts about Saddam's mass graves while we are at it. Fact 2: WMDs. Just because we can't find any now, doesn't mean that there weren't or aren't any. Bio seed stocks fit on a shirt pocket. Look at David Kay's testimony (Hint: He believes that the weapons existed even though we can't find any). Fact 3: What's this with the FBI being invited to verify anything? Saddam remained defiant until the end. Fact 4: Saddam's regime was known for its meticulous record-keeping (Hint: its necessary for centralized dictatorships obsessed with control). Yet there was no evidence of WMD descruction because Saddam couldn't provide evidence? Fact 4: No terrorists. Yet there was evidence of terrorist camps even before we invaded. How did that happen? Fact 5: World good will. As far as I can tell the only countries that have ill will against the US were those who opposed the war to begin with. I don't think that France, Germany and a few others which have always been historically anti-American comprise the entire world. Yeah, some facts!
Bullshit.
Though there may be a tiny amount of truth in your post, I can't help but think that most of it is just inflamatory BS. Most of the people that come from corrupt systems such as Mexico already don't give a crap about voting because they come from a system where their vote doesn't count for much. It's difficult enough to get naturalized citizens to vote, let alone non-citizens who may lose their only shot at getting their status legalized by commiting fraud. You must think that illegals are idiots because they are willing to potentially throw their future away for practically no gain. Your condescending attitude betrays your xenophobia. I know many illegals, and trust me, they are far smarter than that. For starters, they are here and not starving back in their country, aren't they?
Several years ago an icumbent legislator lost a county-wide election here in Orange County, California. He cried foul and said that it was the illegal vote that made him lose the election. After a thorough investigation they found something in the order of 10 (yes, TEN) illegal aliens registered for that election.
I can't go to sleep instantly but when I do I can wake up at a predetermined time. I think that we all have a very accurate internal clock, but you need "program" your mind to use it. It all started when I took up fishing as a hobby. I used to set my alarm clock when I needed to wake up early to go fishing, but I soon found out that I'd always beat the alarm and wake up within one minute of it ringing. I don't use alarm clocks anymore, I just think about what time I need to wake up at just before going to sleep.
There is nothing, at least in the Judeo-Christian bible, that indicated that we are the only creatures on the Universe, and that God created the Universe for us. In fact, the Bible mentions that God created the Universe first, and humans long after. The exact passage escapes me at the moment, but I remember somewhere in the new testament Jesus mentioning that he had to attend to "other flocks."
And what is with this insistence from the atheist/agnostic camp that evolution and religion are mutually exclusive? Could it ever be possible that both the story of creation and the theory of evolution share some validity (divine design through evolution)?
In fact, as an official position, the Vatican accepts the theory of evolution as valid. Think of it this way: If God created everything, wouldn't that include evolution and its "ultimate" result (humans)?
Is it possible that you may have it backwards? Lower prices leading to a growth in consumer spending and all that?
Amen to that. What you have going on here on Slashdot is a debate that is based on the fallacy of the excluded middle. It's sad to see so many otherwise intelligent people argue a topic with such fervor that they fail to see the forest for the trees.