Let's get together and make tons of new cryptographic systems. We'll keep selling out and weakening them until the NSA hits budget limits. We get rich; the NSA won't have money to continue spying. Win; win.
Sure. You've just gotta come out of the shadows, get a UID, and join the club. You'll have all the details once you reach Level Five Laser Lotus. You didn't think the karma system was just a mutual admiration club, did you?
-- This message brought to you by the friendly people at the McDonald's (c). McDonald's (c): Keeping Life Too Short to Fix Food You'll Enjoy.
It's in all facets of life now. You can't even find a guy with good karma on an online forum who won't leverage it for some cash on the side.
--
This message brought to you by the friendly people at Starbucks (TM). Starbucks (TM): Because Caffeine's the Only Addictive Psychoactive Stimulant You're Allowed at Work.
Smuggling is a better analogy. Piracy involves the theft of good from another by force. Theft here should be understood to indicate that the victim is no longer has his property. Smuggling involves the circumvention of government enforced artificial scarcity. The victim of smuggling is often a government backed monopolist (though, sometimes it's the exchequer given how often smugglers circumvent tariffs) and will resist the end of lucrative scarcity.
I say therefore that those who now claim the title "pirate" would better serve their cause by using the term "smuggler." Besides better reflecting their views, it'd be good p.r. After all, would you rather be compared to the Somali guys who went after Tom Hanks in "Captain Philips" or would you rather be compared to Han Solo?
I respond only reluctantly. But you seem to ask an honest question and I should thus offer an honest answer. My entry to this question was prompted only by what I regarded as a cavalier disregard for human suffering growing from partisanship. For me to say very much more would be to risk presumption. I would like to be careful to avoid either a callous disregard human suffering on the one hand or the offer of some armchair judgement of what people in this situation ought to do on the other. This is not to say that I don't have a few ideas that don't involve dropping bombs among dense civilian populations. It is to say that, at least in this instance, I'm acutely aware of being just some guy who ought to know when to keep his mouth shut.
In short, how the Israelis ought to protect their people from extremists acts from the tactical perspective is a topic on which I've little to offer.
On the broader question, I can only say this much: you point to two options. I suspect there are more. One of these--and this needn't be exclusive of others--is to consider more than just tactical questions. Neither option you suggest actually addresses the deeper problems involved. Bomb or be bombed; so long as injustice and its festering memory remain, the conflict will continue. No tactic is likely to succeed so long as the underlying problem remains.
The way this question is framed is a problem, perhaps the problem. Palestinians are humans; so are Israelis. Neither ought to be deprived of life, liberty or property unjustly. But when I say this of Palestinians, for you to respond with "bombed by them," as though all Palestinians share the guilt of actions by the few, this is to commit an error. This error is the same in spirit, if not in degree, as the one that would bomb Israelis indiscriminately simply because they are Israelis.
I said no human ought to be deprived unjustly. There is no justice in corporate guilt.
I'm gonna go read your link now, as I suspect it can't be a bad read.
Of that work, Voltaire said:
No one will ever write anything more wise, more true, or more useful. From now on, those whose ambition it is to give men instruction, to provide them with precepts, will be charlatans if they want to rise above [it], or will all be [its] imitators.
The Perseus version of de Officiis (On Duties) was merely convenient. Loeb has a more recent translation, and Loebs strive for readability. The older 1913 Loeb edition may be found here for free. Book III discusses the relationship between advantage and the good, but the whole is worth reading, which is to say it is worth reading more than once. I hope you enjoy it.
[...] both the Occupy Wall Street crowd and the victimhood identity politics left that regard Islamists and Palestinians as protected species.
I'm not an OWS guy (though I do have sympathy for some of their complaints), I'm decidedly on the traditionalist right (hence my agreement with OWS that something should be done about the accumulated and centralized power of banks), and I'm no fan of Islamic fundamentalism. That being said, I do think humans ought to be a protected species. At the very least, humans ought not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property unjustly. Of course, I'm sure you regard Palestinians as human.
So you're saying that realpolitik is the only way of seeing things [...]
No, I'm saying that most people in the modern world when speaking of international relations operate from assumptions which can be traced to Machiavelli. To persuade such a person of a particular policy, it may be more effective to understand their position and, rather than accusing them of sociopathy, show them that the policy you would promote works to their benefit.
[...] and that alternative approaches to international relations have no merit?
Hardly.
And I'm the one that's naive?
Notice the word "refreshing". The point there was that if more actually thought with the moral categories you were using, then it would be as a breath of fresh air. Your response to GP seemed to be innocent of the fact that others do not think in these categories. Take it as a compliment.
Also, please point out my "surprise" at this viewpoint.
A frequent use of rhetorical questions is an indicator of incredulity. (As in, "Do you really mean to say [...]?") You use a similarly incredulous tone in your response to me. Perhaps it's just your style. But in any case it's certainly an unusual response to GP's very standard answer.
[...] my opposition to your preferred school of thought [...]
And what school of thought is that, pray tell? I only mentioned two things approvingly: your apparent moralism and the ancient views of "saner men." The latter referred to a passage from de Officiis, where Cicero praises the agreement of Socrates, the Stoics, and the Peripatetics on the principle, "advantage can never conflict with right." Given the context, it looks like you believe I subscribe to Realpolitik, but this cannot be deduced from anything I said. If you followed the link to the Cicero passage (though I know that might be asking too much), you would realize that my preferences are for something rather different.
Of course, if you were in any way familiar with the idea of rational logic, you'd understand that questioning the very premises of an internally-consistent argument is the only way to demonstrate its lack of logical soundness despite logical validity.
I'm perfectly familiar with logic. You ought not so quickly to assume otherwise. But logic is not our subject; rhetoric is. I did not speak of how to undermine GP's argument logically, because your response was not itself a logical argument. Rather I spoke of how to persuade, and this is different art of which logical argumentation is only a component. I did this because your reply to GP was itself rhetorical and I was advising a more effective rhetorical approach.
I hope you do not bristle at my claim that your reply was rhetorical. This is no insult. It is good to persuade people, at least of the good. But that is what your reply was. If you do not recognize it, let's consider. Your first line is a rhetorical question, implying to the reader that GP's argument is not consistent but not showing how. Your second line, also a rhetorical question, is critical of GP based on standards to which he does not subscribe and for which you do not actually argue. Your third consists chiefly of authoritative maxims. While this is an effective rhetorical technique, it is not an argument. Your final line begins with a non-sequitur (GP may have a great deal of empathy, but also genuinely believe people are better off in the long run if all countries do what he advises). It then moves from that non-sequitur into a potentially insulting accusation.
This is not a logical argument, but a retort. Since I do not think asking a series of rhetorical questions and implying the interlocutor is a sociopath a very effective approach, from a rhetorical perspective, I advised a different one: i.e. to show the interlocutor that your preferred policy (not spying on foreigners) will fulfill his desire (the good of his people).
I think I'll suggest something else now. If you wish to talk of international relations, you might first learn to avoid friendly fire.
It's perfectly consistent. He's not approaching it as a moral question, but as a legal and practical question. The NSA is in violation of our laws and its practical purpose was to spy on other people.
This indicates a lack of empathy, and suggests that you may be on the autism spectrum or suffering from sociopathy.
Your naiveté is refreshing. International relations is not governed by empathy. It's governed by the quest to secure national interests. Sometimes that quest means interests coincide and nations can cooperate. Often, however, relationships are more complicated. To this end, in any case, nations create agencies which do many immoral things the citizenry would not like to know about. Ostensibly, they do these things so that the citizenry can sleep, safe and secure. They do them in secret so the citizenry can actually sleep at night.
We are all ruled by Machiavelli. Your surprise indicates you haven't read the Prince or that you haven't realized it's the basic rule book for governance in the modern age. I commend it to you. Old Nick is one of the defining teachers of the modern age.
So, if you'd like to object to what our friend is saying above, I'd recommend you do so on his terms. Do not argue that it is bad to spy on citizens of other countries, but that it is disadvantageous. After all, how badly have the NSA revelations damaged our reputation and relationships? It is harder to cooperate toward common goals when allies are suspicious and enemies feel justified. If you've empathy for others, let it inspire and define your goals. And then show how goodness and reciprocity is advantageous (as saner men have always held). Thus you will be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove.
The very definition of "breaking the law" means doing something against what is written in the US Legal Code within the interpretations of the courts. By that definition, they are have not broken any law.
Quiz time:
1) What laws do the U.S. Code and the courts depend on for their claim to legitimacy?
2) What would it mean if the courts ruled in violation of those laws?
Irregardless of what you say, "should of" works for all intensive purposes. Pacifically when writing informally, anyways. What else is one suppose to do in this case and point?
I understand the difficulty of typing on a mobile phone. But you need to make no apology for that. Notice that I also make fun of myself. You stress that we oughtn't to take the less important things too seriously. I, that we oughtn't to take ourselves too seriously when it comes to unimportant things. Perhaps that might amount to the same thing.
As for your students, I would say this: remember that they are young. If they seem to have a need to show off, to flaunt what little knowledge they have, it is because they take themselves too seriously. If they take themselves too seriously, it is because they are insecure. This is a weakness of youth, though some never grow out of it. They are afraid to admit their own failings; they do not laugh at themselves. If you would have them leave such behind, two things must be done. First, without denigrating the lesser, they must be taught the greater skills. This will give them something worthwhile to focus on and to have confidence in. Second, they must be taught not to take themselves so seriously. This is chiefly accomplished through modeling. Once they see in their elders the kind of confidence built on real knowledge and a willingness to learn rather than self-importance, they'll then have a goal to work toward. Just a thought.
Agreed. So, for example, Slashdot posts are really not that important in the grand scheme of things. I try to communicate clearly, but I'm sure a review would show that I do not proofread as I would for a published texts. Though the posts are recorded, the discussion is almost as ephemeral as real conversation and should be approached accordingly. But suppose you're going to write a Slashdot post where you dismiss the value of English courses (or at least a key exercise used to demonstrate you've learned something in an English course). In that context, the irony of obvious solecisms would be a bit too much.
I don't normally do this, but in this case I can't resist:
And there was no boring memorization/regurgitation/essay BS like history, English, or a ton of other subjectively marked courses where the prof's favorites got the best marks.
That's minus two points. I could mark off a few more for poor style, but you seem like a nice kid so I'll let it slide.
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding. I feel like I've just been visited by the Ghost of GeoCities Past.
Let's get together and make tons of new cryptographic systems. We'll keep selling out and weakening them until the NSA hits budget limits. We get rich; the NSA won't have money to continue spying. Win; win.
with, "if you've nothing to hide," I hope this will make you consider how much privacy has to do with simple human dignity.
14) The Technodrome.
Sure. You've just gotta come out of the shadows, get a UID, and join the club. You'll have all the details once you reach Level Five Laser Lotus. You didn't think the karma system was just a mutual admiration club, did you?
--
This message brought to you by the friendly people at the McDonald's (c). McDonald's (c): Keeping Life Too Short to Fix Food You'll Enjoy.
It's in all facets of life now. You can't even find a guy with good karma on an online forum who won't leverage it for some cash on the side.
--
This message brought to you by the friendly people at Starbucks (TM). Starbucks (TM): Because Caffeine's the Only Addictive Psychoactive Stimulant You're Allowed at Work.
the inconvenience of getting a new credit card is karma from making Target employees work on Thanksgiving and Black Friday.
Smuggling is a better analogy. Piracy involves the theft of good from another by force. Theft here should be understood to indicate that the victim is no longer has his property. Smuggling involves the circumvention of government enforced artificial scarcity. The victim of smuggling is often a government backed monopolist (though, sometimes it's the exchequer given how often smugglers circumvent tariffs) and will resist the end of lucrative scarcity.
I say therefore that those who now claim the title "pirate" would better serve their cause by using the term "smuggler." Besides better reflecting their views, it'd be good p.r. After all, would you rather be compared to the Somali guys who went after Tom Hanks in "Captain Philips" or would you rather be compared to Han Solo?
I respond only reluctantly. But you seem to ask an honest question and I should thus offer an honest answer. My entry to this question was prompted only by what I regarded as a cavalier disregard for human suffering growing from partisanship. For me to say very much more would be to risk presumption. I would like to be careful to avoid either a callous disregard human suffering on the one hand or the offer of some armchair judgement of what people in this situation ought to do on the other. This is not to say that I don't have a few ideas that don't involve dropping bombs among dense civilian populations. It is to say that, at least in this instance, I'm acutely aware of being just some guy who ought to know when to keep his mouth shut.
In short, how the Israelis ought to protect their people from extremists acts from the tactical perspective is a topic on which I've little to offer.
On the broader question, I can only say this much: you point to two options. I suspect there are more. One of these--and this needn't be exclusive of others--is to consider more than just tactical questions. Neither option you suggest actually addresses the deeper problems involved. Bomb or be bombed; so long as injustice and its festering memory remain, the conflict will continue. No tactic is likely to succeed so long as the underlying problem remains.
The way this question is framed is a problem, perhaps the problem. Palestinians are humans; so are Israelis. Neither ought to be deprived of life, liberty or property unjustly. But when I say this of Palestinians, for you to respond with "bombed by them," as though all Palestinians share the guilt of actions by the few, this is to commit an error. This error is the same in spirit, if not in degree, as the one that would bomb Israelis indiscriminately simply because they are Israelis.
I said no human ought to be deprived unjustly. There is no justice in corporate guilt.
You've returned the favor.
Of that work, Voltaire said:
The Perseus version of de Officiis (On Duties) was merely convenient. Loeb has a more recent translation, and Loebs strive for readability. The older 1913 Loeb edition may be found here for free. Book III discusses the relationship between advantage and the good, but the whole is worth reading, which is to say it is worth reading more than once. I hope you enjoy it.
I'm not an OWS guy (though I do have sympathy for some of their complaints), I'm decidedly on the traditionalist right (hence my agreement with OWS that something should be done about the accumulated and centralized power of banks), and I'm no fan of Islamic fundamentalism. That being said, I do think humans ought to be a protected species. At the very least, humans ought not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property unjustly. Of course, I'm sure you regard Palestinians as human.
No, I'm saying that most people in the modern world when speaking of international relations operate from assumptions which can be traced to Machiavelli. To persuade such a person of a particular policy, it may be more effective to understand their position and, rather than accusing them of sociopathy, show them that the policy you would promote works to their benefit.
Hardly.
Notice the word "refreshing". The point there was that if more actually thought with the moral categories you were using, then it would be as a breath of fresh air. Your response to GP seemed to be innocent of the fact that others do not think in these categories. Take it as a compliment.
A frequent use of rhetorical questions is an indicator of incredulity. (As in, "Do you really mean to say [...]?") You use a similarly incredulous tone in your response to me. Perhaps it's just your style. But in any case it's certainly an unusual response to GP's very standard answer.
And what school of thought is that, pray tell? I only mentioned two things approvingly: your apparent moralism and the ancient views of "saner men." The latter referred to a passage from de Officiis, where Cicero praises the agreement of Socrates, the Stoics, and the Peripatetics on the principle, "advantage can never conflict with right." Given the context, it looks like you believe I subscribe to Realpolitik, but this cannot be deduced from anything I said. If you followed the link to the Cicero passage (though I know that might be asking too much), you would realize that my preferences are for something rather different.
I'm perfectly familiar with logic. You ought not so quickly to assume otherwise. But logic is not our subject; rhetoric is. I did not speak of how to undermine GP's argument logically, because your response was not itself a logical argument. Rather I spoke of how to persuade, and this is different art of which logical argumentation is only a component. I did this because your reply to GP was itself rhetorical and I was advising a more effective rhetorical approach.
I hope you do not bristle at my claim that your reply was rhetorical. This is no insult. It is good to persuade people, at least of the good. But that is what your reply was. If you do not recognize it, let's consider. Your first line is a rhetorical question, implying to the reader that GP's argument is not consistent but not showing how. Your second line, also a rhetorical question, is critical of GP based on standards to which he does not subscribe and for which you do not actually argue. Your third consists chiefly of authoritative maxims. While this is an effective rhetorical technique, it is not an argument. Your final line begins with a non-sequitur (GP may have a great deal of empathy, but also genuinely believe people are better off in the long run if all countries do what he advises). It then moves from that non-sequitur into a potentially insulting accusation.
This is not a logical argument, but a retort. Since I do not think asking a series of rhetorical questions and implying the interlocutor is a sociopath a very effective approach, from a rhetorical perspective, I advised a different one: i.e. to show the interlocutor that your preferred policy (not spying on foreigners) will fulfill his desire (the good of his people).
I think I'll suggest something else now. If you wish to talk of international relations, you might first learn to avoid friendly fire.
It's perfectly consistent. He's not approaching it as a moral question, but as a legal and practical question. The NSA is in violation of our laws and its practical purpose was to spy on other people.
Your naiveté is refreshing. International relations is not governed by empathy. It's governed by the quest to secure national interests. Sometimes that quest means interests coincide and nations can cooperate. Often, however, relationships are more complicated. To this end, in any case, nations create agencies which do many immoral things the citizenry would not like to know about. Ostensibly, they do these things so that the citizenry can sleep, safe and secure. They do them in secret so the citizenry can actually sleep at night.
We are all ruled by Machiavelli. Your surprise indicates you haven't read the Prince or that you haven't realized it's the basic rule book for governance in the modern age. I commend it to you. Old Nick is one of the defining teachers of the modern age.
So, if you'd like to object to what our friend is saying above, I'd recommend you do so on his terms. Do not argue that it is bad to spy on citizens of other countries, but that it is disadvantageous. After all, how badly have the NSA revelations damaged our reputation and relationships? It is harder to cooperate toward common goals when allies are suspicious and enemies feel justified. If you've empathy for others, let it inspire and define your goals. And then show how goodness and reciprocity is advantageous (as saner men have always held). Thus you will be as wise as a serpent and as harmless as a dove.
Quiz time:
1) What laws do the U.S. Code and the courts depend on for their claim to legitimacy?
2) What would it mean if the courts ruled in violation of those laws?
3) Have courts ever ruled incorrectly?
Irregardless of what you say, "should of" works for all intensive purposes. Pacifically when writing informally, anyways. What else is one suppose to do in this case and point?
Because if we wanted to nuke the hell outta someone, we wouldn't need Russian uranium to do it.
I think you're confusing irony with tragedy.
No Surveillance! I'm having Nunavut!
When asked about collaboration with the National Security Agency, the PM responded with a puzzled, "NS eh?"
I understand the difficulty of typing on a mobile phone. But you need to make no apology for that. Notice that I also make fun of myself. You stress that we oughtn't to take the less important things too seriously. I, that we oughtn't to take ourselves too seriously when it comes to unimportant things. Perhaps that might amount to the same thing.
As for your students, I would say this: remember that they are young. If they seem to have a need to show off, to flaunt what little knowledge they have, it is because they take themselves too seriously. If they take themselves too seriously, it is because they are insecure. This is a weakness of youth, though some never grow out of it. They are afraid to admit their own failings; they do not laugh at themselves. If you would have them leave such behind, two things must be done. First, without denigrating the lesser, they must be taught the greater skills. This will give them something worthwhile to focus on and to have confidence in. Second, they must be taught not to take themselves so seriously. This is chiefly accomplished through modeling. Once they see in their elders the kind of confidence built on real knowledge and a willingness to learn rather than self-importance, they'll then have a goal to work toward. Just a thought.
FTFM. What an illiterate ass. Doesn't even bother to proofread.
Agreed. So, for example, Slashdot posts are really not that important in the grand scheme of things. I try to communicate clearly, but I'm sure a review would show that I do not proofread as I would for a published texts. Though the posts are recorded, the discussion is almost as ephemeral as real conversation and should be approached accordingly. But suppose you're going to write a Slashdot post where you dismiss the value of English courses (or at least a key exercise used to demonstrate you've learned something in an English course). In that context, the irony of obvious solecisms would be a bit too much.
That's minus two points. I could mark off a few more for poor style, but you seem like a nice kid so I'll let it slide.
Consider the interests of the would-be reformer.