Its not that I disagree with everything he says, I just think he is an asshole. This was one of the most self indulgent childish screeds I have ever read.
He doesn't say anything new or particularly interesting, he just drones on.
Israel pulled out of the west bank entirely in 2008. Hamas brought in a bunch of weapons and attacked Israel, so Israel put in place a blockade.
The West Bank has no blockade, because they don't attack Israel. They also have freedom of movement and travel and a growing economy. The settlements are provocations, that the government often bulldozes. Its not government policy.
If Hamas committed to stopping attacks and recognizing Israel's right to exist, they would get a two state solution with East Jerusalem as the capital, just like Israel had offered at Camp David. However Hamas and their backers have no interest in that. They don't want permanent peace, they want nothing less then the complete destruction of Israel.
Thats what I don't get. Who can look at Hamas's charter and who's backing them and honestly conclude that they are the slightest bit interested in peace. They are indiscriminate butchers, not just of Israelis but of Palestinians too. Who on earth would consider entrenching their power to be a good thing for anyone in the region. Israel is no saint, but they would gladly trade land for peace if it actually meant peace.
A psychotic threat is an indirect harm, and the bar would have to be pretty high to justify banning something on that basis. It would have to be at least as likely and damaging as alcoholism.
"or if this will prevent other people with out the drugs from competing and thus forcing everyone to experience the negative effects (which could cause significant damage to society)"
No. We should never ever consider this. We should never prevent an individual (not talking about corps/trusts) from being successful in life because it would be unfair to other people. We need the hyper successful outliers taking risks and driving society further.
By your logic we should criminalize internet connections faster then the slowest commonly available.
Why should they be banned? Why can't you simply make the information available and allow individuals decide what is best for them? Why does anyone get to dictate to anyone else what they can put in their bodies?
Stop moralizing over non issues. Simple criteria. If someones decision to do something with their own body does not cause significant DIRECT harm to another person, then it is only up to the individual in question to decide. The consequences of the choice are theirs as well.
Everyone would get along so much better id we all just learned to mind our own business.
Of course its not unethical. Its your body, you have the right to do what you want to it.
Steroids in sports aren't unethical either. Lying about using them in order to game the system is what makes steroids an ethical issue, not their consumption. People need to stop telling other people what to do with their own bodies and mind their own fucking business.
All men are born evil eh? K. Sorry I do not share your beliefs in original sin. All men have ability to make choices, some choose to do evil often. Stop trying to put this off on your mythical sky bitch.
I love it when people bring up Hinduism as a counter point. Go research the Partition of India. 500k-1million dead, probably an even split for Hindus and Islamists.
Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion. There is no faith in a supreme omnipotent being Buddhism.
Religion is not the sole source of evil. There are many other sources, all man made. Religion is just one of the most obvious examples. An undeniable cause of poverty, racism and war. Sure these things will continue to exist if we get rid of religion or limit the influence of the religious, however there will be much less.
Eliminating religion won't lead to some great perfect utopia, but its a start.
Yes it is their station. However the airways are owned by the commons and are licensed to them by the public. The license mandates that the stations provide equal access to political candidates.
From the Communications Act:
"If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any political office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station."
There is nothing anti-libertarian about insisting they live up to their contractual obligations.
I'm sorry, but you are either deluded or engaged in a white lie for the sake of atheist PR.
"I only ask the same courtesy to be returned and for you not to demand I believe in your deity".
Nice fantasy world, but there are additional requirements. I also ask that you not act on or promulgate a belief system that causes poverty while encouraging slavery, racism, child abuse and war. Unfortunately this is the implied mandate of the major religions. Christianity/Islam/Most Religions are not compatible with modern standards of decency. We can't honestly say that we are okay with people quietly living as Christians or Islamics so long as they leave others alone, because their core belief system is antithetical to just that. Branches of these beliefs that manage to temporarily achieve this are rare as ultimately it all comes back to their texts and their texts are quite clearly templates for violence.
There is a moral imperative to advocate against religion and to call it what it is. Evil.
Currently Islam is more of a threat to civilization then Christianity. This hasn't always been the case, and I'm sure it could flip again. There is nothing inherently less evil or dangerous about Christianity then Islam though and ultimately we wont be safe until all religions are a thing of the past.
Spot on. All of this could very well be attempts at misdirection. The leaks come out just as talks are starting to fail, so it could also just be an attempt to ratchet up the pressure and force them back to the table.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not that I disagree with everything he says, I just think he is an asshole. This was one of the most self indulgent childish screeds I have ever read.
He doesn't say anything new or particularly interesting, he just drones on.
Can I charge .25 bitcoins? If not isn't the max of 21million coins a problem?
Israel pulled out of the west bank entirely in 2008. Hamas brought in a bunch of weapons and attacked Israel, so Israel put in place a blockade.
The West Bank has no blockade, because they don't attack Israel. They also have freedom of movement and travel and a growing economy. The settlements are provocations, that the government often bulldozes. Its not government policy.
If Hamas committed to stopping attacks and recognizing Israel's right to exist, they would get a two state solution with East Jerusalem as the capital, just like Israel had offered at Camp David. However Hamas and their backers have no interest in that. They don't want permanent peace, they want nothing less then the complete destruction of Israel.
Thats what I don't get. Who can look at Hamas's charter and who's backing them and honestly conclude that they are the slightest bit interested in peace. They are indiscriminate butchers, not just of Israelis but of Palestinians too. Who on earth would consider entrenching their power to be a good thing for anyone in the region. Israel is no saint, but they would gladly trade land for peace if it actually meant peace.
Those negotiations never had a representative of the Israeli government present. It was a 3rd party, not authorized to negotiate.
All very true.
A psychotic threat is an indirect harm, and the bar would have to be pretty high to justify banning something on that basis. It would have to be at least as likely and damaging as alcoholism.
"or if this will prevent other people with out the drugs from competing and thus forcing everyone to experience the negative effects (which could cause significant damage to society)"
No. We should never ever consider this. We should never prevent an individual (not talking about corps/trusts) from being successful in life because it would be unfair to other people. We need the hyper successful outliers taking risks and driving society further.
By your logic we should criminalize internet connections faster then the slowest commonly available.
"Others say that people shouldn't be using these drugs because they're designed for people with serious problems who really need help."
How is this a reason to ban usage? The intent of the designers should govern individual usage? How is this even relevant to the question?
Only one way to find out though.
Then don't take the drugs. The fact that some people have different priorities is no reason to limit another person's freedom.
Why should they be banned? Why can't you simply make the information available and allow individuals decide what is best for them? Why does anyone get to dictate to anyone else what they can put in their bodies?
Stop moralizing over non issues. Simple criteria. If someones decision to do something with their own body does not cause significant DIRECT harm to another person, then it is only up to the individual in question to decide. The consequences of the choice are theirs as well.
Everyone would get along so much better id we all just learned to mind our own business.
Of course its not unethical. Its your body, you have the right to do what you want to it.
Steroids in sports aren't unethical either. Lying about using them in order to game the system is what makes steroids an ethical issue, not their consumption. People need to stop telling other people what to do with their own bodies and mind their own fucking business.
Easy.
If a jury decides you were pursuing a patent claim in bad faith, the defendant gets your company and you go to jail.
I run OSX because I couldn't do my job without a *nix system and OSX is far more pleasant then any Unix UI I have seen.
Visual Studio aside, what sort of work requires software that only Windows can run?
All men are born evil eh? K. Sorry I do not share your beliefs in original sin. All men have ability to make choices, some choose to do evil often. Stop trying to put this off on your mythical sky bitch.
That is not an equal opportunity. Also you know damn well that if it was an R or D with less then 50k they would be in.
If they are on the ballot they should get equal access. If the stations don't like it then they can give back the spectrum.
Many men are evil. Religion makes many more men do more evil. If we have less religion, there will still be evil, just much less.
I love it when people bring up Hinduism as a counter point. Go research the Partition of India. 500k-1million dead, probably an even split for Hindus and Islamists.
Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion. There is no faith in a supreme omnipotent being Buddhism.
Religion is not the sole source of evil. There are many other sources, all man made. Religion is just one of the most obvious examples. An undeniable cause of poverty, racism and war. Sure these things will continue to exist if we get rid of religion or limit the influence of the religious, however there will be much less.
Eliminating religion won't lead to some great perfect utopia, but its a start.
Yes it is their station. However the airways are owned by the commons and are licensed to them by the public. The license mandates that the stations provide equal access to political candidates.
From the Communications Act:
"If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any political office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station."
There is nothing anti-libertarian about insisting they live up to their contractual obligations.
All Religion==evil.
All religions eventually devolve into violence and racism. All religious people directly encourage the existence of religion.
Thats cool. Now lets talk about Nasa's new 90% tax on commercial docking commercial flights to ISS...
I'm sorry, but you are either deluded or engaged in a white lie for the sake of atheist PR.
"I only ask the same courtesy to be returned and for you not to demand I believe in your deity".
Nice fantasy world, but there are additional requirements. I also ask that you not act on or promulgate a belief system that causes poverty while encouraging slavery, racism, child abuse and war. Unfortunately this is the implied mandate of the major religions. Christianity/Islam/Most Religions are not compatible with modern standards of decency. We can't honestly say that we are okay with people quietly living as Christians or Islamics so long as they leave others alone, because their core belief system is antithetical to just that. Branches of these beliefs that manage to temporarily achieve this are rare as ultimately it all comes back to their texts and their texts are quite clearly templates for violence.
There is a moral imperative to advocate against religion and to call it what it is. Evil.
Religion is the real problem though.
Currently Islam is more of a threat to civilization then Christianity. This hasn't always been the case, and I'm sure it could flip again. There is nothing inherently less evil or dangerous about Christianity then Islam though and ultimately we wont be safe until all religions are a thing of the past.
If only I had some mod points.
Its still a troll, as odds are you know damn well that the definition is bullshit.
Spot on. All of this could very well be attempts at misdirection. The leaks come out just as talks are starting to fail, so it could also just be an attempt to ratchet up the pressure and force them back to the table.