Well, gee. So making Raymond pay some extra taxes on his precious income is equivalent to murdering 10.5 million innocent people? Really. What an interesting notion.
I think you're terribly confused. Some socialist countries may have high taxes, and some communists may have murdered 10.5 million innocent people. I would hope that you don't mean to characterize those respective schools of political thought on the basis of context-free historical events.
Neither Israel nor the U.S. resembled "neutral parties" at the times you mention. Consider that the U.S. conducted embargoes against the Axis Powers prior to its military involvement in World War II, and it was actively involved in the intelligence community on behalf of the Allies.
You might as well argue that the Japanese strike at Pearl Harbor was its own version of the pre-emptive strike, since it could expect an American version eventually, anyway. The winners write the history books, but we got involved in a war that was none of our business, period.
Using the Civil War as an example of a justified war is in poor taste, indeed. That war was about little more than a demonstration of governmental power and its legitimization through the use of overwhelming force. After the Revolutionary War, it was probably the most important political lesson of the 19th century. Unfortunately, it told the opposite story.
It certainly can be moral to kill: in defense of one's family, one's home, and one's country, in that order.
I can't believe I had to read this far down before I found anyone who saw how funny this is. It's especially funny after reading that "Intel finally did something right..."
Some people are just gluttons for punishment. Unbelievable.
The comment about telephone infrastructure goes right to the heart of the debate about networks. For critical thinking about the idea of "smart networks" and "network intelligence", see Charles Isenberg's excellent page: http://www.isen.com MJP
You're the one spreading FUD. Intel was _overwhelmingly_ lobbied by chipset makers, PC manufacturers, and motherboard manufacturers _not_ to include Firewire in the JX spec because of the additional cost. Intel does not make decisions in a vacuum, so all of the conspiracy theorists can go home, now. MJP
Time to get a new/. userid Russ - your current one is directly and irrevocably associated with stupidity.
Whereas you, on condition of anonymity, associate yourself with cowardice. Perhaps Mr. Nelson doesn't feel as cavalier about obfuscating his identity as you obviously do.
If your opinions are worth something, stand by them and put your name to them.
Disagree if you like, but if you want to discredit him, grant him the courtesy of posting your identity. It's funny that you go out of your way to post a jeer but don't have the courage to name yourself.
It is absolutely true that object code will not take advantage of AltiVec until it is rewritten and recompiled. As of yet, I know of no AltiVec-ready QuickTime, because it needs to be rewritten.
Photoshop is one example of a program that does _not_ depend on QuickTime for its functionality. Warnock has made it clear that Adobe takes great pride in the fact that the Photoshop engine is homemade as a portable, in-house platform for graphics.
The AltiVec situation has been hyped more than enough. Application developers are currently performing updates to make use of AltiVec; we'll soon see the actual performance benefits it provides. Until then, it will only be more nauseating to hear so much unfounded speculation.
The best indicator of AltiVec's impact comes from the strategies of Motorola and IBM. The former has shifted PowerPC focus to embedded uses (where AltiVec will be more than marginally useful) and IBM all but ignored the technology for the sake of higher clock speeds, which it says will have a more cost-effective impact than AltiVec at lower clocks.
The significance of putting geometry acceleration on the GPU is complex, certainly more complex than you've made it out to be. Without it, geometry data is retained in system memory and processed by the CPU -- all vertex data is transformed, culled, scaled, rotated, etc. by the processor before being sent to the card for rasterization/fill. With full geometry acceleration, the GPU handles all of those tasks, meaning that the data sent to the card is often redundant and can be easily cached, and that the CPU no longer performs those tasks (and will instead be freed to perform software tasks like scene assembly and AI).
As far as proprietary natures go, your post gets _way_ ahead of itself. The GeForce 256 will be accessible via OpenGL and DX7. Important extensions to API functionality are performed via review by the ARB and by Microsoft DX version revs. There is no indication that NVidia will deal with the additional capabilities of this chipset in a manner any different from the way multitexturing extensions were handled.
In any case, "how you operate this geometry stuff" is via the OpenGL API, which has been "operating this geometry stuff" in higher-end equipment for some years now. The ability to render high-polygon models in real-time is truly a revolution; not only are texture-mapped low-poly models unsuitable for a wide rage of visualization tasks, they are simply inferior to high-poly models in terms of realism, flexibility, and reusability. From a development perspective, it has little or nothing in common with GIF patent/licensing issues.
One last note: if this "reeks of demo", there's a very good reason for it. It _is_ a demo, designed to demonstrate the capabilities of the chipset. It is neither a benchmark nor a source-level example of _precisely_ how the card behaves. You'll likely have to wait for the silicon to ship before you have either. Whether or not "vanilla OpenGL" was used for the demo is irrelevant, since OpenGL is an API and does not specify a particular software implementation. Implementation is the purpose of _drivers_.
To continue to place emphasis on the correlation between economic disadvantage and minority racial status is to encourage the problem. Those who've said that our society is becoming more colorblind are exactly right; how ironic, then, that there are activists who continue to beat the drum of racial divide-and-conquer!
The activists' attempts at "helping" racial minorities have resulted, simply, in more inequality and more divisiveness. Economic disparity won't change overnight, but it will take much longer if we persist in preying upon color of skin as a political weapon.
> Nowadays, we're happy if kids can read the street signs.
I know all the different definitions for "affect" and "effect" (I think) but I'm no super-smart super-learner. The only reason I can tell the differences is because I read so much. Repetition of correct application -- in context -- is my best tool for learning.
I think that most people suck at grammar, spelling, and conversational English because they simply haven't paid any attention to good examples of same. (Maybe they're just reading Jon Katz, or something).
> On a similar note, how many times per day do you see somebody write that something is "definate"?
Threatening a public backlash? Are you stupid? How could he threaten a public backlash? Does he pull the strings of public opinion?
Public opinion simply _is_. The poster was correct to note that Apple's behavior in this instance will affect public opinion of Apple, period. Perhaps you don't like that; that would simply indicate that you're incapable of dealing with social interaction with your peers.
I think the modern church has done a very poor job of developing what MacDonald calls "the Christian Mind". The jokes about the church one sees on the Simpsons, etc. -- while terribly offensive -- often have a ring of truth. I say, "All the more reason for clear-headed Christians to be examples". Christ wasn't stupid and he wasn't foolish. It's our responsibility to demonstrate to each other that allegiance to Christ demands wisdom, not sheep-like behavior. MJP
As has been pointed out countless times, it's not very difficult to find your way out of a small woods when you have a major geographical feature -- like a stream, for God's sake -- to follow.
Even schoolchildren up north can navigate the woods by using the sun, the stars, and the light pollution at night from nearby towns and cities.
The prospect of adults getting lost for almost a week in the woods around residential communities, in this day and age, is patently ridiculous. It's just not scary. It's like a movie about big hairy monsters coming out of my closet and eating three adults in the middle of the night.
And all you can say is "haven't you ever heard of suspension of disbelief?" Okay, but suspension of laughter? Please...
MJP
Took the freakin' words outta my mouth...
on
Lo-Tech Cinema
·
· Score: 1
Can't say anymore, you already said it.
MJP
More Fascinating Katz Stuff
on
Lo-Tech Cinema
·
· Score: 1
Come, read, watch Katz pillory the media while covering the big-media issues. Like Star Wars. And Littleton. And The Blair Witch Project. Such a media rebel... truly a revolutionary. He doesn't even waste his time by drawing attention to worthwhile subjects; instead, he draws our attention to the shows we've already been watching. Keep an eye on this rising star. A man who can sell you things you already own... he's going places. MJP
It was too expensive to operate in that capacity. Remember how often those transports were in refit? It was said that Mars experienced economic depressions every time one of them went in for service.
It would just be a disaster. We'd have to start a colony on Titan, and police it with Battleroids, and then all hell would break loose when the next wandering spacefaring, slave-trading race popped in for a look.
Who said anything about showmanship? The point wouldn't be showmanship, the point would be to illustrate that not everyone shares those extreme views.
It has nothing to do with extreme, and everything to do with _mistaken_. Unfortunately, debate is lost when it comes to soundbites and television teasers. Would you be more impressed by and endless back-and-forth between Christian leaders? Should public spectacle be the arena within which differences are resolved?
Hank Hanegraaff, for instance, opts for private conciliation and discussion before publishing doctrinal criticism. It's important, to him, to correct what can be widespread theological mistakes, but he's also sensitive to the importance of private discourse.
Yes, yes, I know that's not the political way. That's the point.
Why would I give someone any credit when he has no problem basing entire books on such straw men?
I have no idea what you mean, and I've begun to doubt whether you know what a "strawman" is. Hanegraaff believes that "what one believes about one's origins determines how one lives his life". If one believes that he is the accidental product of biological processes, don't you think that that will impact his worldview?
Perhaps you don't. It's water, to a fish.
Is that an illustration of the "rebuke each other in love through Christ" which you previously mentioned?
It's a service to the Christian community, taken after steps toward reconciliation have failed. It is of great importance to rebuke a false teacher but it is of greater importance to correct the falsehood. Correction doesn't require character assassination, and Hank Hanegraaff doesn't engage in baseless slander.
Being not created by god, but decended from other animals?
Ah, so you do see the importance of one's origins in the determination of one's worldview.
In any case, beliefs about one's origins have nothing to do with "superiority" or "humility". They're the basis of a search for truth, for Christians. I don't really understand how non-Christians can claim they are little more than organic by-products and claim that this demonstrates "humility".
Do you actually believe that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old?
No. Archaeology and origins have not been my field of study. I defer to wiser, more experienced heads in that arena, and accept their suggestions of a "young earth" theory. I don't presuppose any such thing (presuppositions being the basis of "belief").
I don't know what you think I believe, but I believe that the public education ideal is bankrupt. I don't think you should have to send your children to a school where they're forced to listen to Christian preaching.
Not that it happens, anyway. Instead, Christian children in public schools are forced to listen to all kinds of objectionable preaching, including the "sexual education" I, myself, had to endure.
Private schooling and homeschooling are the only choices I could possibly entertain for my children, and from the look of your posting, it would appear that we agree. Evangelism is the domain of private interaction, not state-sponsored education.
I didn't want to make a semantic issue, and frankly, I don't know why I made such a fuss about it. You're right; "moral" is the right word for it. I believe that everything has moral consequences, and there's nothing that we do that escapes the moral realm. "Best" must be measured by morality.
I think I just got taken off-guard; most people don't hold to that viewpoint, preferring instead to assign moral ambiguity to "everyday" decisions, but you're perceptive to point it out.
> never once have I heard a large christian > organization, church, or group in the mainstream > denounce people like Pat Robertson or Jerry > Falwell
What are you looking for? A press conference? Or perhaps just a Web page full of backlash and contempt?
Such denunciations would be rather ignorant and embarrassing, in themselves. Christians are to rebuke each other in love through Christ; public displays of showmanship are not part of the routine.
If you're interested in serious, Christian criticism of unBiblical and dishonest practices within the Body, I suggest you check out http://www.equip.org, which is the Web site of the Christian Research Institute. Its president, Hank Hanegraaff, has devoted his life to the defense of orthodoxy and the exposure of false teachings. In particular, he is quick to point out false prophets, to whom you allude (false prophecy was punishable by death at the time of the early church).
> I do dislike superior attitudes, especially > based on what I believe to be ignorance.
Christianity is not founded upon superiority, but upon humility. It is the unfortunate truth that some people consider their salvation to be predicated upon some virtue or fortitude within themselves, when in fact grace is a gift of God that has nothing to do with the prior condition of a man's good works (Ephesians 2:8). As Alistair Begg says, the question is not "Oh God, what did you see in me that you saved me?", but rather, "Since there is nothing in me worth saving, what a great mystery it is that you chose to extend your mercy!"
As for ignorance, none can claim to be guiltless. All I can say is that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be wise and full of knowledge; many do not care, and it shames the Body.
> One is teaching an academic subject, part of the > role of a school, and the other is NOT.
In your school, fine. If you believe that knowledge has no moral consequences, fine. You may say that Rome conquered Carthage, and it makes no difference that Christ died for the sins of men. You might say that knowledge is knowledge, with or without God.
I say that Christ died for the sins of men, and it means everything to everything. There is no facet of history, of science, or even of mathematics that can hide from the presence of God. I live in the pursuit of truth, and God is not simply a _part_ of that, He is the author of it.
> note that in appealing to the idea that > governmental interference always makes things > worse assumes some principles or other about > what things are better and worse, and that's a > moral principle.
No, not necessarily. It may be that the "problem" was defined as such before Libertarian political policy was applied. For instance, if "the drug problem" is how the discussion frames drug abuse, and drug abuse in the years following institution of a "drug war" sees dramatic increase, the numbers speak for themselves, no? And the "problem", itself, was defined in the discussion.
It's true, all the same, that Libertarianism _does_ define "problems", but to say that any such definition is a "moral" decision is -- while technically true -- stretching the terms of discussion out of conventional form.
Anyway, if you take that tack, can we say that all decisions are moral decisions? Or at least that all decisions have moral consequences?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, gee. So making Raymond pay some extra taxes on his precious income is equivalent to murdering 10.5 million innocent people? Really. What an interesting notion.
I think you're terribly confused. Some socialist countries may have high taxes, and some communists may have murdered 10.5 million innocent people. I would hope that you don't mean to characterize those respective schools of political thought on the basis of context-free historical events.
Because that would just be silly...
MJP
Neither Israel nor the U.S. resembled "neutral parties" at the times you mention. Consider that the U.S. conducted embargoes against the Axis Powers prior to its military involvement in World War II, and it was actively involved in the intelligence community on behalf of the Allies.
You might as well argue that the Japanese strike at Pearl Harbor was its own version of the pre-emptive strike, since it could expect an American version eventually, anyway. The winners write the history books, but we got involved in a war that was none of our business, period.
Using the Civil War as an example of a justified war is in poor taste, indeed. That war was about little more than a demonstration of governmental power and its legitimization through the use of overwhelming force. After the Revolutionary War, it was probably the most important political lesson of the 19th century. Unfortunately, it told the opposite story.
It certainly can be moral to kill: in defense of one's family, one's home, and one's country, in that order.
MJP
I can't believe I had to read this far down before I found anyone who saw how funny this is. It's especially funny after reading that "Intel finally did something right..."
Some people are just gluttons for punishment. Unbelievable.
MJP
Eh... perhaps you hadn't noticed, but Uncle Sam created NSI's monopoly in the first place. That's the way it usually happens.
MJP
The comment about telephone infrastructure goes right to the heart of the debate about networks. For critical thinking about the idea of "smart networks" and "network intelligence", see Charles Isenberg's excellent page: http://www.isen.com MJP
You're the one spreading FUD. Intel was _overwhelmingly_ lobbied by chipset makers, PC manufacturers, and motherboard manufacturers _not_ to include Firewire in the JX spec because of the additional cost. Intel does not make decisions in a vacuum, so all of the conspiracy theorists can go home, now. MJP
Time to get a new /. userid Russ - your current one is directly and irrevocably associated with stupidity.
Whereas you, on condition of anonymity, associate yourself with cowardice. Perhaps Mr. Nelson doesn't feel as cavalier about obfuscating his identity as you obviously do.
If your opinions are worth something, stand by them and put your name to them.
MJP
Disagree if you like, but if you want to discredit him, grant him the courtesy of posting your identity. It's funny that you go out of your way to post a jeer but don't have the courage to name yourself.
You're a jackass.
MJP
It is absolutely true that object code will not take advantage of AltiVec until it is rewritten and recompiled. As of yet, I know of no AltiVec-ready QuickTime, because it needs to be rewritten.
Photoshop is one example of a program that does _not_ depend on QuickTime for its functionality. Warnock has made it clear that Adobe takes great pride in the fact that the Photoshop engine is homemade as a portable, in-house platform for graphics.
The AltiVec situation has been hyped more than enough. Application developers are currently performing updates to make use of AltiVec; we'll soon see the actual performance benefits it provides. Until then, it will only be more nauseating to hear so much unfounded speculation.
The best indicator of AltiVec's impact comes from the strategies of Motorola and IBM. The former has shifted PowerPC focus to embedded uses (where AltiVec will be more than marginally useful) and IBM all but ignored the technology for the sake of higher clock speeds, which it says will have a more cost-effective impact than AltiVec at lower clocks.
MJP
The significance of putting geometry acceleration on the GPU is complex, certainly more complex than you've made it out to be. Without it, geometry data is retained in system memory and processed by the CPU -- all vertex data is transformed, culled, scaled, rotated, etc. by the processor before being sent to the card for rasterization/fill. With full geometry acceleration, the GPU handles all of those tasks, meaning that the data sent to the card is often redundant and can be easily cached, and that the CPU no longer performs those tasks (and will instead be freed to perform software tasks like scene assembly and AI).
As far as proprietary natures go, your post gets _way_ ahead of itself. The GeForce 256 will be accessible via OpenGL and DX7. Important extensions to API functionality are performed via review by the ARB and by Microsoft DX version revs. There is no indication that NVidia will deal with the additional capabilities of this chipset in a manner any different from the way multitexturing extensions were handled.
In any case, "how you operate this geometry stuff" is via the OpenGL API, which has been "operating this geometry stuff" in higher-end equipment for some years now. The ability to render high-polygon models in real-time is truly a revolution; not only are texture-mapped low-poly models unsuitable for a wide rage of visualization tasks, they are simply inferior to high-poly models in terms of realism, flexibility, and reusability. From a development perspective, it has little or nothing in common with GIF patent/licensing issues.
One last note: if this "reeks of demo", there's a very good reason for it. It _is_ a demo, designed to demonstrate the capabilities of the chipset. It is neither a benchmark nor a source-level example of _precisely_ how the card behaves. You'll likely have to wait for the silicon to ship before you have either. Whether or not "vanilla OpenGL" was used for the demo is irrelevant, since OpenGL is an API and does not specify a particular software implementation. Implementation is the purpose of _drivers_.
MJP
To continue to place emphasis on the correlation between economic disadvantage and minority racial status is to encourage the problem. Those who've said that our society is becoming more colorblind are exactly right; how ironic, then, that there are activists who continue to beat the drum of racial divide-and-conquer!
The activists' attempts at "helping" racial minorities have resulted, simply, in more inequality and more divisiveness. Economic disparity won't change overnight, but it will take much longer if we persist in preying upon color of skin as a political weapon.
MJP
> Nowadays, we're happy if kids can read the street signs.
I know all the different definitions for "affect" and "effect" (I think) but I'm no super-smart super-learner. The only reason I can tell the differences is because I read so much. Repetition of correct application -- in context -- is my best tool for learning.
I think that most people suck at grammar, spelling, and conversational English because they simply haven't paid any attention to good examples of same. (Maybe they're just reading Jon Katz, or something).
> On a similar note, how many times per day do you see somebody write that something is "definate"?
Or "seperate"? Or "rediculous"?
MJP
Threatening a public backlash? Are you stupid? How could he threaten a public backlash? Does he pull the strings of public opinion?
Public opinion simply _is_. The poster was correct to note that Apple's behavior in this instance will affect public opinion of Apple, period. Perhaps you don't like that; that would simply indicate that you're incapable of dealing with social interaction with your peers.
MJP
I think the modern church has done a very poor job of developing what MacDonald calls "the Christian Mind". The jokes about the church one sees on the Simpsons, etc. -- while terribly offensive -- often have a ring of truth. I say, "All the more reason for clear-headed Christians to be examples". Christ wasn't stupid and he wasn't foolish. It's our responsibility to demonstrate to each other that allegiance to Christ demands wisdom, not sheep-like behavior. MJP
Katz is lame and so is BWP. How about suggestions for alternatives?
I suggest "Das Boot" for those interested in the real meaning of fear and realism in cinema.
MJP
As has been pointed out countless times, it's not very difficult to find your way out of a small woods when you have a major geographical feature -- like a stream, for God's sake -- to follow.
Even schoolchildren up north can navigate the woods by using the sun, the stars, and the light pollution at night from nearby towns and cities.
The prospect of adults getting lost for almost a week in the woods around residential communities, in this day and age, is patently ridiculous. It's just not scary. It's like a movie about big hairy monsters coming out of my closet and eating three adults in the middle of the night.
And all you can say is "haven't you ever heard of suspension of disbelief?" Okay, but suspension of laughter? Please...
MJP
Can't say anymore, you already said it.
MJP
Come, read, watch Katz pillory the media while covering the big-media issues. Like Star Wars. And Littleton. And The Blair Witch Project. Such a media rebel... truly a revolutionary. He doesn't even waste his time by drawing attention to worthwhile subjects; instead, he draws our attention to the shows we've already been watching. Keep an eye on this rising star. A man who can sell you things you already own... he's going places. MJP
It was too expensive to operate in that capacity. Remember how often those transports were in refit? It was said that Mars experienced economic depressions every time one of them went in for service.
It would just be a disaster. We'd have to start a colony on Titan, and police it with Battleroids, and then all hell would break loose when the next wandering spacefaring, slave-trading race popped in for a look.
Better to just leave it alone.
MJP
Who said anything about showmanship? The point wouldn't be showmanship, the point would be to illustrate that not everyone shares those extreme views.
It has nothing to do with extreme, and everything to do with _mistaken_. Unfortunately, debate is lost when it comes to soundbites and television teasers. Would you be more impressed by and endless back-and-forth between Christian leaders? Should public spectacle be the arena within which differences are resolved?
Hank Hanegraaff, for instance, opts for private conciliation and discussion before publishing doctrinal criticism. It's important, to him, to correct what can be widespread theological mistakes, but he's also sensitive to the importance of private discourse.
Yes, yes, I know that's not the political way. That's the point.
Why would I give someone any credit when he has no problem basing entire books on such straw men?
I have no idea what you mean, and I've begun to doubt whether you know what a "strawman" is. Hanegraaff believes that "what one believes about one's origins determines how one lives his life". If one believes that he is the accidental product of biological processes, don't you think that that will impact his worldview?
Perhaps you don't. It's water, to a fish.
Is that an illustration of the "rebuke each other in love through Christ" which you previously mentioned?
It's a service to the Christian community, taken after steps toward reconciliation have failed. It is of great importance to rebuke a false teacher but it is of greater importance to correct the falsehood. Correction doesn't require character assassination, and Hank Hanegraaff doesn't engage in baseless slander.
Being not created by god, but decended from other animals?
Ah, so you do see the importance of one's origins in the determination of one's worldview.
In any case, beliefs about one's origins have nothing to do with "superiority" or "humility". They're the basis of a search for truth, for Christians. I don't really understand how non-Christians can claim they are little more than organic by-products and claim that this demonstrates "humility".
Do you actually believe that the earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old?
No. Archaeology and origins have not been my field of study. I defer to wiser, more experienced heads in that arena, and accept their suggestions of a "young earth" theory. I don't presuppose any such thing (presuppositions being the basis of "belief").
MJP
I don't know what you think I believe, but I believe that the public education ideal is bankrupt. I don't think you should have to send your children to a school where they're forced to listen to Christian preaching.
Not that it happens, anyway. Instead, Christian children in public schools are forced to listen to all kinds of objectionable preaching, including the "sexual education" I, myself, had to endure.
Private schooling and homeschooling are the only choices I could possibly entertain for my children, and from the look of your posting, it would appear that we agree. Evangelism is the domain of private interaction, not state-sponsored education.
MJP
I didn't want to make a semantic issue, and frankly, I don't know why I made such a fuss about it. You're right; "moral" is the right word for it. I believe that everything has moral consequences, and there's nothing that we do that escapes the moral realm. "Best" must be measured by morality.
I think I just got taken off-guard; most people don't hold to that viewpoint, preferring instead to assign moral ambiguity to "everyday" decisions, but you're perceptive to point it out.
MJP
> never once have I heard a large christian
> organization, church, or group in the mainstream
> denounce people like Pat Robertson or Jerry
> Falwell
What are you looking for? A press conference? Or perhaps just a Web page full of backlash and contempt?
Such denunciations would be rather ignorant and embarrassing, in themselves. Christians are to rebuke each other in love through Christ; public displays of showmanship are not part of the routine.
If you're interested in serious, Christian criticism of unBiblical and dishonest practices within the Body, I suggest you check out http://www.equip.org, which is the Web site of the Christian Research Institute. Its president, Hank Hanegraaff, has devoted his life to the defense of orthodoxy and the exposure of false teachings. In particular, he is quick to point out false prophets, to whom you allude (false prophecy was punishable by death at the time of the early church).
> I do dislike superior attitudes, especially
> based on what I believe to be ignorance.
Christianity is not founded upon superiority, but upon humility. It is the unfortunate truth that some people consider their salvation to be predicated upon some virtue or fortitude within themselves, when in fact grace is a gift of God that has nothing to do with the prior condition of a man's good works (Ephesians 2:8). As Alistair Begg says, the question is not "Oh God, what did you see in me that you saved me?", but rather, "Since there is nothing in me worth saving, what a great mystery it is that you chose to extend your mercy!"
As for ignorance, none can claim to be guiltless. All I can say is that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be wise and full of knowledge; many do not care, and it shames the Body.
MJP
> One is teaching an academic subject, part of the
> role of a school, and the other is NOT.
In your school, fine. If you believe that knowledge has no moral consequences, fine. You may say that Rome conquered Carthage, and it makes no difference that Christ died for the sins of men. You might say that knowledge is knowledge, with or without God.
I say that Christ died for the sins of men, and it means everything to everything. There is no facet of history, of science, or even of mathematics that can hide from the presence of God. I live in the pursuit of truth, and God is not simply a _part_ of that, He is the author of it.
MJP
> note that in appealing to the idea that
> governmental interference always makes things
> worse assumes some principles or other about
> what things are better and worse, and that's a
> moral principle.
No, not necessarily. It may be that the "problem" was defined as such before Libertarian political policy was applied. For instance, if "the drug problem" is how the discussion frames drug abuse, and drug abuse in the years following institution of a "drug war" sees dramatic increase, the numbers speak for themselves, no? And the "problem", itself, was defined in the discussion.
It's true, all the same, that Libertarianism _does_ define "problems", but to say that any such definition is a "moral" decision is -- while technically true -- stretching the terms of discussion out of conventional form.
Anyway, if you take that tack, can we say that all decisions are moral decisions? Or at least that all decisions have moral consequences?
MJP