You know, I have for a long time agreed with you completely on that. But I have started to question myself on that belief as well.. these days, in most cases both parents have to work. Perhaps they have more of a reason to feel helpless regarding their own children than previous generations have?
I'm not sure myself. I know I am structuring a life so I don't have to make that kind of sacrifice. but I"m not in the same circumstance that most people are in, so I struggle with how much we can expect from average joe and jane blow... maybe they *do* need some help...
Given you are apparently from the previous generation, I'm curious what you might think. Does that change anything for you? Did both of your parents work? Mine did, but I lived in a rural area.. my biggest risk was burning the house down;)
you rock on with that ad hominem fixation, buddy. Certainly, why try to address the substance when you can much more easily focus on the superfluous? Your original statement was indefensible, ignorant and ridiculous. I think you're a moron for having said it. If you actually have an interesting rebuttal, I'm all ears, but it appears quite apparent you have nothing of substance to rebut with. It's easy enough to prove me wrong. If I am.
The case said if you get infected, you can sell that crop. But if you REPLANT SEED from that crop for the next year, knowing that you were infected, then you are liable for infringing the patent, because you do not have a license to plant the seed. As of this writing, there is no easy way to sort seed, so you'd either have to pony up the license fee, or scrap the seed and buy fresh seed. Even though you never wanted it in the first place.
They state clearly that it's irrelevant how it got on the farmer's property. whether he's liable for intentionally violating the patent or not with the initial planting, when he REPLANTED the seed knowing he was infected, that was a clear cut (to the court) violation of the patent. That is a disturbing precedent whether the farmer was initially guilty or not, because then it is not saying that because he did it intentionally in the first place, he's guilty, it's saying that regardless of how it initially happened, if he doesn't trash all his seed for the next year, then he'd be liable in any case. The originally infected crops are safe from prosecution. The seeds from those crops are not.
The court, by the way, ruled that the dairy farm cannot make any claims about bovine growth hormone not being in their milk. That's the "court sorting it out for you".
NOT "you can't say that bovine growth hormone is bad" NOT "you can't say that your milk is better because it doesn't have bovine growth hormone in it" but "You can't say that you milk doesn't have bovine growth hormone in it at all, because the FDA has not ruled it as a hazard, and mentioning it insinuates that it is".
there you go. But really, it's just horrible that people like me actually get mad about companies trying to keep consumers in the dark because it hurts their bottom line. I'm not even saying bovine growth hormone is bad... but whether it's bad or not, I have a right to decide, for myself, what I do and do not want to put into my body. Period. And they wish to keep me from making informed choices that they disagree with.
I appreciate your very substantive response to the question at hand. Now, any interesting tidbits on how you could possibly overlook the FBI's track record on this, or do you have any more witty zingers to toss around first?
So let me get this straight.. you're saying that the crop will obey property lines? That the only lawsuits on this are against those dastardly farmers, mixing a pesticide resistant strain with their non pesticide resistant strain to gain some benefit... not sure what, since they can't very well just go spray like crazy or they will kill their own non-GM stock, and it's not even legal to keep seed from year to year (assuming you have a non-terminator variety) so It's not like they get to suddenly have a full crop of these GM plants without paying and claim it was "drift".
The case YOU are referring to did have some questions involved with it. But it's not the case that is the problem, it's the decision resultant from it. Specifically, that the court decided it didn't matter how it got on to his land. He saved the seed and regrew it, knowing it was "contaminated" with the roundup ready gene.
That's a problem. That says if you do legitimately get hit with a cross pollinating breeze, if you find out, you can't save your seed for the next year. That means you have to go buy seed. Through no fault of your own. I'm sure though that "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" right? I'm sure pollen is very respectful of boundary lines.
Now, I know you and all your apparently rich american farmers might shrug at this, but elsewhere in the world especially having to suddenly buy seed could very easily drive a small farmer out of business.
Of course, there are some other enhancements on the way that will alleviate this situation. But it certainly is not a "shrug and move on" situation. Monsanto needs to be watched carefully as this is a very abusable position, at the very least, that it is in. If you choose to be very charitable indeed and assume that somehow, Monsanto is not already abusing this position. Such as by, I don't know, suing Oakhurst dairy here in Maine over telling people their milk doesn't have bovine growth hormone in it. Because we don't have a right to make a decision on that, because it has been cleared by the FDA, so obviously it shouldn't be allowed in ads, right? Sure, these are great guys, we should definitely trust them.
You are talking about small farmers who used to save seed.. that is, it was free. If they buy seed, expecting greater yields to justify this expenditure, and it doesn't deliver.. exactly what do you think might happen in that case?
that's true, but once they have gotten sold the seed, switching back out is hard... they don't have a seed stock anymore, and they have a mutant strain of plant pollen running wild, overriding their crops and proving to be a ticket to litigation if monsanto's agents find their corn growing in your field.
Not quite as simple as "stopping". It's doable, but it has some issues.
And it's up to the people themselves to decide IF they wish to fight and die for that freedom.
None of us are freedom, it's all a question of degrees. Who the fuck are you to tell an Iraq "die for freedom" because YOU don't like their system.
If they had a revolution, and we helped out, I *might* buy the arguement (if we hadn't supported the dictator first, perhaps). But just deciding to "bring democracy" to another country that is not in a civil war... well, that's just a *bit* presumptuous.
What if there were a truly free country out there that said "hey, you guys shouldn't have to pay involuntary taxes and you should be able to put whatever you want in your bodies at any time", and decided to invade us to bring us freedom?
Would you thank them?
For the people in Iraq who just wanted to live their lives and not cause trouble, that's the equivalent to what we did.
I'm sure they will thank us shortly though. Just hold on a bit longer....
You say that like bedlam and fracture are entirely bad things;)
I am a one issue voter these days. Electoral reform, specifically voting methodology.
This means i can only vote third party, as neither major party will support this, and any major party people who have (Dean, McCain, Kucinich, I believe have all made statements in favor of it) get squashed or subverted by their own parties (I'm looking at YOU dean and mccain!).
It also means that democrat and republican are functionally equivalent to me, (re the other post) as neither will lead us to a system more apt to elect leaders than middle managers.
It's very simple. I can be quite sure that my representatives and/or their party as a whole will, in general, favor the interests that get them paid (corporate and wealthy) to the exclusion of my interests, whenever the issue matters enough to their corporate and wealthy benefactors.
Everything else may be important as well, but not quite as important as who is ultimately in charge of our very wealthy and very powerful government with great capacity to commit violence on a large scale.
Dismissing it by saying "money is a serious corrupting influence" and then ignoring what that corruption allows an interested party to DO with its corrupt influence is likewise a betrayal of a rather dim understanding of the world you live in.
But if the voting method allows for more proportional representation, and more than two parties, the end result is much more representative of the people than the current duopolistic method is. it also provides for more checks to power.
I think you really need to draw the line between "speech" and "threats". "Threats" are a credible expression of possible violence or harm. "Speech" is not a threat.
I see no probablem with my description if you simply make such a distinction. Of course it is rational to have a reaction against someone threatening you. It is not rational to have a reaction against someone who is simply describing an act in passing, in jokes, etc. Certainly not rational enough to warrant a taboo, IMO.
Look, I understand that words can hurt you in an abusive context, but someone talking about peeing in the street does not hurt you, nor does someone yelling "fuck this"!! Maybe you, for some reason, have been conditioned to think "fuck this" is bad and so you have a bad feeling in your gut when it's said. Maybe you actually picture the guy fucking the thing, which is weird, but hey, I could see why that would be disturbing if you do. I would, however, suggest counselling if you find yourself taking that literally every time it's said, because you obviously have some sexual problems or obsessions if that is the case.
But, understandable or not, it does not mean that it's rational for you to feel that way. It might have a rational explanation, but that doesn't make it, itself, rational. It's not rational to have an aversion to discussion or lanugage at all, because by itself, unless it's a threat or an attack, it can't hurt you. You might not like thinking about something because it calls up some emotional response.. but again, that's not rational. It's normal, sure, but it's not rational. And I don't think it's ok for you to advocate for muzzling everyone for some irrational response you have, even if lots of other people agree with you, because frankly lots of people have lots of different irrational problems and if we accomodate them all no one can do anything.
And obviously shit, or poop, is not so taboo that you would avoid having it in your nickname;) So... rational?
Never mind that shit and poop are exactly the same thing. But I say "poop", that's ok. If I say "shit", it's not and it's taboo. Rational?
You're missing the whole point. It is arbitrary to have a taboo EXTEND TO LANGUAGE. It's taboo to actually pee in the street or shit on someone's table for very good reason. It's not, however, taboo to talk about such things for any reason other than it makes you feel uncomfortable. You are in no danger by my bringing it up, you are just reminded of a situation where there may be some danger or unpleasantness.
That's not a rational response. I likewise, have some irrational responses myself, to racist or violent language towards women. But that, likewise, isn't really rational unless I have some reason to think that a person is serious about committing or condoning such acts. And so unless I do think there is some REAL taboo.. that against violence actually being committed.. about to be breached, then it would be ridiculous of me to make everyone else censor their behaviour for my own irrational knee-jerk bullshit.
Just because a lot of people happen to share some of those irrational knee-jerk reactions to LANGUAGE that is simply ASSOCIATED with bad things doesn't make it any more rational or any more morally defensible. It's just as ridiculous, it's just common AND ridiculous.
Words can't hurt you.. even five year olds repeat that mantra. You'd think by adulthood people would have enough awareness to understand that it's true. Worry about sticks and stones.
And taboo subjects, likewise, are only taboo because people have decided it was so. There is a very big difference between peeing in the street and talking about peeing in the street. There is no reason why talking about it should be "bad". Many people act like that is true, but there is no reason why it must be true on its own.
If you cannot differentiate between the two things, and the "inherent badness" between them, then you simply are one step away from advocating for thought police.
Taboo subjects are really nothing more than inhibitions and neurotic reactions to unpleasant topics. The sooner we dispense with the knee-jerk "That made me feel bad, so you're bad for saying it", the better. And that's what it boils down to. Personally, it makes ME feel bad when people talk about shooting "towelheads", and I would consider such language taboo in my household, for instance. But that doesn't make it right for me to make it illegal to say such things on TV or in public conversation. Even if most of america agrees with me.
At best, you can make an arguement that using such language is likely to cause someone else discomfort and is therefor rude. Then the question becomes, how far do you bend to accomodate neurotic people's tendencies to be easily offended? That's not so cut and dry.
I think the previous poster expects that you have the same context the rest of us do... we're alive, we can read, and we're not morons.
If you really think you can trust a government, given its behaviour since... I don't know, the beginning of time... with this kind of power, hidden from view in most cases, then there really is nothing more to say. You are very gullible. Government has repeatedly proven very little other than it cannot be trusted.
The FBI in particular has a very spotty history. Of course you know this. The question is whether you think things are "different" now than they used to be. So while they may not ALWAYS act like total bastards, the fact that they can drop a trojan into computers whenever they like... AND that they often are known to do things they are not supposed to do "because the president said so"... is cause for concern for any person who is not convinced that government is always trustworthy... which is to say, any thinking person who can read. To think otherwise strains all credibility, and would require a damn good counter arguement in my mind, since history is littered with lots of examples to the contrary such as COINTELPRO, Gitmo, Iran Contra, Watergate, black listing/red scare tactics, drug experiments, Tuskeegee, school of the americas, i mean really... that's just the last 75 years or so, mostly 50 or less.
that's very educational. But I have to point out that if the grammatical constructs are not intuitive enough to be grasped without intense study, then they are useless for normal conversation.
I actually prefer the parenthetical method the GP used; it's much clearer and more intuitive in a written mode.
Just musing. I think most of the rules regarding "proper" language usage are just as arbitrary as common usage patterns are. I am further musing that a superior language construction, regardless of what is "right", is one that is less ambiguous and more clear, intuitively. Less chance for misunderstanding, as this post shows: the OP was written grammatically correctly for one given meaning, but unless you assume that the person is speaking queen's english, you are not sure of what the intended meaning.
Since you obviously know more about the "proper" constructions.. I'm curious what you think about this series of statements (grammatical or spelling errors aside:D)? I suspect you might have an opposing view?
wouldn't it eventually breed out depression if you did just let anyone who wanted to commit suicide do it? Or would you say it's entirely environmental.
The only people screaming "why didn't you prevent this" are the same ones who support the policies that encourage radical terrorist attacks. Also the same ones who make arguements that are variants of the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about" arguement.
As others have said, the problem isn't that I want to do wrong things.. the problem is, the government gets to decide what is wrong, and change that, whenever they like.
I hate to break this to you, but in any other business, it's the job of the business to figure out what people want and give it to them. People have lives to live, it's not their job to tell you how to do yours. If they don't like what you offer, they go elsewhere.
That's how people are. That's what makes business challenging; you have to see a need that others are not seeing, and/or a way to fill a need in a way that others are not filling it.
People's needs are changing. so change with it, or die. Here's a hint that I hope you find useful though: it's hard to change while you're busy pointing fingers.
I disagree. it means he has a vested interested in making sure the company stays around long enough to keep paying him his deferred salary. Say, if someone else were to bid against haliburton on some big, important projects... like, I don't know, rebuilding a country let's say? Any they lost. would that put his deferred salary at risk?
Furthermore, beyond simple financial incentive I don't really care if you sever ALL fiscal ties with the company, you don't hand gigantic no-bid... that's no-bid, free money, here you go, don't worry about competing for it contracts to ANYONE... much less a bunch of your buddies. Maybe, if it's a private project and it's your private money. But you don't do it with taxpayer money, when you are the vice fucking president of the united states!!!!
as it stands now, agreed... there is currently a power differential in the ability to be informed and connected. So they can isolate me and do whatever they like. Because, in part, I have privacy from everyone else but not them. That's no good at all.
But what if I didn't have any privacy at all... and neither did anyone else? Or at the very least, what if we can all easily choose to record and/or broadcast anything we see or hear at any time? How would "big brother" have any advantage there that is not outweighed by the collective strength of the people?
In that world.. not this one... but in that one (which I would argue is coming as technology gets cheaper, smaller, wireless and more prevalent), there can be no big brother. It is only the differential in power that makes them more power, relatively, than us the people directly. They have organization and information. We don't... yet.
If the government cannot have privacy, then it too cannot wage war effectively. what you are fearing is a power differential caused by one side or the other having DIFFERRING privacy rights.
You could "keep it honest" either by both (government and people) having privacy... hmmm, doesn't seem to keep things all that equal these days, does it.... or NEITHER having privacy.
Frankly, I think the latter is the only possibility, looking ahead at the future in my own lifetime. With storage, WiFI coverage, and technological progress shrinking technology and making it more and more powerful, a vast number of people who want to be could be walking, talking, broadcasting video/audio feeds to the rest of the world, with a practically eternal memory of every moment ever seen by such human eyes...
Big Brother might be watching. But there are a lot more of us, and we have a lot more eyes. As long as we can watch back, I'm not at all afraid of big brother.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, I have for a long time agreed with you completely on that. But I have started to question myself on that belief as well.. these days, in most cases both parents have to work. Perhaps they have more of a reason to feel helpless regarding their own children than previous generations have?
;)
I'm not sure myself. I know I am structuring a life so I don't have to make that kind of sacrifice. but I"m not in the same circumstance that most people are in, so I struggle with how much we can expect from average joe and jane blow... maybe they *do* need some help...
Given you are apparently from the previous generation, I'm curious what you might think. Does that change anything for you? Did both of your parents work? Mine did, but I lived in a rural area.. my biggest risk was burning the house down
you rock on with that ad hominem fixation, buddy. Certainly, why try to address the substance when you can much more easily focus on the superfluous? Your original statement was indefensible, ignorant and ridiculous. I think you're a moron for having said it. If you actually have an interesting rebuttal, I'm all ears, but it appears quite apparent you have nothing of substance to rebut with. It's easy enough to prove me wrong. If I am.
The case said if you get infected, you can sell that crop. But if you REPLANT SEED from that crop for the next year, knowing that you were infected, then you are liable for infringing the patent, because you do not have a license to plant the seed. As of this writing, there is no easy way to sort seed, so you'd either have to pony up the license fee, or scrap the seed and buy fresh seed. Even though you never wanted it in the first place.
y Inc.Filing.html
read it for yourself: http://www.reason.com/news/show/34793.html
They state clearly that it's irrelevant how it got on the farmer's property. whether he's liable for intentionally violating the patent or not with the initial planting, when he REPLANTED the seed knowing he was infected, that was a clear cut (to the court) violation of the patent. That is a disturbing precedent whether the farmer was initially guilty or not, because then it is not saying that because he did it intentionally in the first place, he's guilty, it's saying that regardless of how it initially happened, if he doesn't trash all his seed for the next year, then he'd be liable in any case. The originally infected crops are safe from prosecution. The seeds from those crops are not.
The court, by the way, ruled that the dairy farm cannot make any claims about bovine growth hormone not being in their milk. That's the "court sorting it out for you".
NOT "you can't say that bovine growth hormone is bad"
NOT "you can't say that your milk is better because it doesn't have bovine growth hormone in it"
but "You can't say that you milk doesn't have bovine growth hormone in it at all, because the FDA has not ruled it as a hazard, and mentioning it insinuates that it is".
http://www.monsantodairy.com/updates/OakhurstDair
there you go. But really, it's just horrible that people like me actually get mad about companies trying to keep consumers in the dark because it hurts their bottom line. I'm not even saying bovine growth hormone is bad... but whether it's bad or not, I have a right to decide, for myself, what I do and do not want to put into my body. Period. And they wish to keep me from making informed choices that they disagree with.
I appreciate your very substantive response to the question at hand. Now, any interesting tidbits on how you could possibly overlook the FBI's track record on this, or do you have any more witty zingers to toss around first?
So let me get this straight.. you're saying that the crop will obey property lines? That the only lawsuits on this are against those dastardly farmers, mixing a pesticide resistant strain with their non pesticide resistant strain to gain some benefit... not sure what, since they can't very well just go spray like crazy or they will kill their own non-GM stock, and it's not even legal to keep seed from year to year (assuming you have a non-terminator variety) so It's not like they get to suddenly have a full crop of these GM plants without paying and claim it was "drift".
The case YOU are referring to did have some questions involved with it. But it's not the case that is the problem, it's the decision resultant from it. Specifically, that the court decided it didn't matter how it got on to his land. He saved the seed and regrew it, knowing it was "contaminated" with the roundup ready gene.
That's a problem. That says if you do legitimately get hit with a cross pollinating breeze, if you find out, you can't save your seed for the next year. That means you have to go buy seed. Through no fault of your own. I'm sure though that "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" right? I'm sure pollen is very respectful of boundary lines.
Now, I know you and all your apparently rich american farmers might shrug at this, but elsewhere in the world especially having to suddenly buy seed could very easily drive a small farmer out of business.
Of course, there are some other enhancements on the way that will alleviate this situation. But it certainly is not a "shrug and move on" situation. Monsanto needs to be watched carefully as this is a very abusable position, at the very least, that it is in. If you choose to be very charitable indeed and assume that somehow, Monsanto is not already abusing this position. Such as by, I don't know, suing Oakhurst dairy here in Maine over telling people their milk doesn't have bovine growth hormone in it. Because we don't have a right to make a decision on that, because it has been cleared by the FDA, so obviously it shouldn't be allowed in ads, right? Sure, these are great guys, we should definitely trust them.
Really, there was only one case?
r mersreport.cfm
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfa
just a whole bunch of pirates?
You are talking about small farmers who used to save seed.. that is, it was free. If they buy seed, expecting greater yields to justify this expenditure, and it doesn't deliver.. exactly what do you think might happen in that case?
that's true, but once they have gotten sold the seed, switching back out is hard... they don't have a seed stock anymore, and they have a mutant strain of plant pollen running wild, overriding their crops and proving to be a ticket to litigation if monsanto's agents find their corn growing in your field.
Not quite as simple as "stopping". It's doable, but it has some issues.
You're absolutely right.
And it's up to the people themselves to decide IF they wish to fight and die for that freedom.
None of us are freedom, it's all a question of degrees. Who the fuck are you to tell an Iraq "die for freedom" because YOU don't like their system.
If they had a revolution, and we helped out, I *might* buy the arguement (if we hadn't supported the dictator first, perhaps). But just deciding to "bring democracy" to another country that is not in a civil war... well, that's just a *bit* presumptuous.
What if there were a truly free country out there that said "hey, you guys shouldn't have to pay involuntary taxes and you should be able to put whatever you want in your bodies at any time", and decided to invade us to bring us freedom?
Would you thank them?
For the people in Iraq who just wanted to live their lives and not cause trouble, that's the equivalent to what we did.
I'm sure they will thank us shortly though. Just hold on a bit longer....
Is that true, or is that Just what Monsanto says?
= 914
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID
There seems to be a disconnect..
You say that like bedlam and fracture are entirely bad things ;)
I am a one issue voter these days. Electoral reform, specifically voting methodology.
This means i can only vote third party, as neither major party will support this, and any major party people who have (Dean, McCain, Kucinich, I believe have all made statements in favor of it) get squashed or subverted by their own parties (I'm looking at YOU dean and mccain!).
It also means that democrat and republican are functionally equivalent to me, (re the other post) as neither will lead us to a system more apt to elect leaders than middle managers.
I cross horns with you now and then, but I just wanted to say, this is a most excellent post, lots of good meat to chew on. well done.
How anyone could arrive at that conclusion?
It's very simple. I can be quite sure that my representatives and/or their party as a whole will, in general, favor the interests that get them paid (corporate and wealthy) to the exclusion of my interests, whenever the issue matters enough to their corporate and wealthy benefactors.
Everything else may be important as well, but not quite as important as who is ultimately in charge of our very wealthy and very powerful government with great capacity to commit violence on a large scale.
Dismissing it by saying "money is a serious corrupting influence" and then ignoring what that corruption allows an interested party to DO with its corrupt influence is likewise a betrayal of a rather dim understanding of the world you live in.
as long as the voting method doesn't change, yes.
But if the voting method allows for more proportional representation, and more than two parties, the end result is much more representative of the people than the current duopolistic method is. it also provides for more checks to power.
I think you really need to draw the line between "speech" and "threats". "Threats" are a credible expression of possible violence or harm. "Speech" is not a threat.
I see no probablem with my description if you simply make such a distinction. Of course it is rational to have a reaction against someone threatening you. It is not rational to have a reaction against someone who is simply describing an act in passing, in jokes, etc. Certainly not rational enough to warrant a taboo, IMO.
Look, I understand that words can hurt you in an abusive context, but someone talking about peeing in the street does not hurt you, nor does someone yelling "fuck this"!! Maybe you, for some reason, have been conditioned to think "fuck this" is bad and so you have a bad feeling in your gut when it's said. Maybe you actually picture the guy fucking the thing, which is weird, but hey, I could see why that would be disturbing if you do. I would, however, suggest counselling if you find yourself taking that literally every time it's said, because you obviously have some sexual problems or obsessions if that is the case.
;) So... rational?
But, understandable or not, it does not mean that it's rational for you to feel that way. It might have a rational explanation, but that doesn't make it, itself, rational. It's not rational to have an aversion to discussion or lanugage at all, because by itself, unless it's a threat or an attack, it can't hurt you. You might not like thinking about something because it calls up some emotional response.. but again, that's not rational. It's normal, sure, but it's not rational. And I don't think it's ok for you to advocate for muzzling everyone for some irrational response you have, even if lots of other people agree with you, because frankly lots of people have lots of different irrational problems and if we accomodate them all no one can do anything.
And obviously shit, or poop, is not so taboo that you would avoid having it in your nickname
Never mind that shit and poop are exactly the same thing. But I say "poop", that's ok. If I say "shit", it's not and it's taboo. Rational?
You're missing the whole point. It is arbitrary to have a taboo EXTEND TO LANGUAGE. It's taboo to actually pee in the street or shit on someone's table for very good reason. It's not, however, taboo to talk about such things for any reason other than it makes you feel uncomfortable. You are in no danger by my bringing it up, you are just reminded of a situation where there may be some danger or unpleasantness.
That's not a rational response. I likewise, have some irrational responses myself, to racist or violent language towards women. But that, likewise, isn't really rational unless I have some reason to think that a person is serious about committing or condoning such acts. And so unless I do think there is some REAL taboo.. that against violence actually being committed.. about to be breached, then it would be ridiculous of me to make everyone else censor their behaviour for my own irrational knee-jerk bullshit.
Just because a lot of people happen to share some of those irrational knee-jerk reactions to LANGUAGE that is simply ASSOCIATED with bad things doesn't make it any more rational or any more morally defensible. It's just as ridiculous, it's just common AND ridiculous.
Words can't hurt you.. even five year olds repeat that mantra. You'd think by adulthood people would have enough awareness to understand that it's true. Worry about sticks and stones.
And taboo subjects, likewise, are only taboo because people have decided it was so. There is a very big difference between peeing in the street and talking about peeing in the street. There is no reason why talking about it should be "bad". Many people act like that is true, but there is no reason why it must be true on its own.
If you cannot differentiate between the two things, and the "inherent badness" between them, then you simply are one step away from advocating for thought police.
Taboo subjects are really nothing more than inhibitions and neurotic reactions to unpleasant topics. The sooner we dispense with the knee-jerk "That made me feel bad, so you're bad for saying it", the better. And that's what it boils down to. Personally, it makes ME feel bad when people talk about shooting "towelheads", and I would consider such language taboo in my household, for instance. But that doesn't make it right for me to make it illegal to say such things on TV or in public conversation. Even if most of america agrees with me.
At best, you can make an arguement that using such language is likely to cause someone else discomfort and is therefor rude. Then the question becomes, how far do you bend to accomodate neurotic people's tendencies to be easily offended? That's not so cut and dry.
I think the previous poster expects that you have the same context the rest of us do... we're alive, we can read, and we're not morons.
If you really think you can trust a government, given its behaviour since... I don't know, the beginning of time... with this kind of power, hidden from view in most cases, then there really is nothing more to say. You are very gullible. Government has repeatedly proven very little other than it cannot be trusted.
The FBI in particular has a very spotty history. Of course you know this. The question is whether you think things are "different" now than they used to be. So while they may not ALWAYS act like total bastards, the fact that they can drop a trojan into computers whenever they like... AND that they often are known to do things they are not supposed to do "because the president said so"... is cause for concern for any person who is not convinced that government is always trustworthy... which is to say, any thinking person who can read. To think otherwise strains all credibility, and would require a damn good counter arguement in my mind, since history is littered with lots of examples to the contrary such as COINTELPRO, Gitmo, Iran Contra, Watergate, black listing/red scare tactics, drug experiments, Tuskeegee, school of the americas, i mean really... that's just the last 75 years or so, mostly 50 or less.
that's very educational. But I have to point out that if the grammatical constructs are not intuitive enough to be grasped without intense study, then they are useless for normal conversation.
:D)? I suspect you might have an opposing view?
I actually prefer the parenthetical method the GP used; it's much clearer and more intuitive in a written mode.
Just musing. I think most of the rules regarding "proper" language usage are just as arbitrary as common usage patterns are. I am further musing that a superior language construction, regardless of what is "right", is one that is less ambiguous and more clear, intuitively. Less chance for misunderstanding, as this post shows: the OP was written grammatically correctly for one given meaning, but unless you assume that the person is speaking queen's english, you are not sure of what the intended meaning.
Since you obviously know more about the "proper" constructions.. I'm curious what you think about this series of statements (grammatical or spelling errors aside
wouldn't it eventually breed out depression if you did just let anyone who wanted to commit suicide do it? Or would you say it's entirely environmental.
The only people screaming "why didn't you prevent this" are the same ones who support the policies that encourage radical terrorist attacks. Also the same ones who make arguements that are variants of the "if you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about" arguement.
As others have said, the problem isn't that I want to do wrong things.. the problem is, the government gets to decide what is wrong, and change that, whenever they like.
I hate to break this to you, but in any other business, it's the job of the business to figure out what people want and give it to them. People have lives to live, it's not their job to tell you how to do yours. If they don't like what you offer, they go elsewhere.
That's how people are. That's what makes business challenging; you have to see a need that others are not seeing, and/or a way to fill a need in a way that others are not filling it.
People's needs are changing. so change with it, or die. Here's a hint that I hope you find useful though: it's hard to change while you're busy pointing fingers.
I disagree. it means he has a vested interested in making sure the company stays around long enough to keep paying him his deferred salary. Say, if someone else were to bid against haliburton on some big, important projects... like, I don't know, rebuilding a country let's say? Any they lost. would that put his deferred salary at risk?
Furthermore, beyond simple financial incentive I don't really care if you sever ALL fiscal ties with the company, you don't hand gigantic no-bid... that's no-bid, free money, here you go, don't worry about competing for it contracts to ANYONE... much less a bunch of your buddies. Maybe, if it's a private project and it's your private money. But you don't do it with taxpayer money, when you are the vice fucking president of the united states!!!!
theory in progress warning...
as it stands now, agreed... there is currently a power differential in the ability to be informed and connected. So they can isolate me and do whatever they like. Because, in part, I have privacy from everyone else but not them. That's no good at all.
But what if I didn't have any privacy at all... and neither did anyone else? Or at the very least, what if we can all easily choose to record and/or broadcast anything we see or hear at any time? How would "big brother" have any advantage there that is not outweighed by the collective strength of the people?
In that world.. not this one... but in that one (which I would argue is coming as technology gets cheaper, smaller, wireless and more prevalent), there can be no big brother. It is only the differential in power that makes them more power, relatively, than us the people directly. They have organization and information. We don't... yet.
If the government cannot have privacy, then it too cannot wage war effectively. what you are fearing is a power differential caused by one side or the other having DIFFERRING privacy rights.
You could "keep it honest" either by both (government and people) having privacy... hmmm, doesn't seem to keep things all that equal these days, does it.... or NEITHER having privacy.
Frankly, I think the latter is the only possibility, looking ahead at the future in my own lifetime. With storage, WiFI coverage, and technological progress shrinking technology and making it more and more powerful, a vast number of people who want to be could be walking, talking, broadcasting video/audio feeds to the rest of the world, with a practically eternal memory of every moment ever seen by such human eyes...
Big Brother might be watching. But there are a lot more of us, and we have a lot more eyes. As long as we can watch back, I'm not at all afraid of big brother.