If any of you actually visited the pro-life site in question, you will notice that it doesn't advocate violence against anyone, it merely states that abortion is immoral and against God's law.
And where, exactly, is the scripture that states that abortion is against God's law? I doubt that it's possible to use scipture to show that a fetus is a human before the sixth month of pregnancy. Dennis Mckinsey has a great writeup on this in Biblical Errancy (do a find for "abortion" to page down to the discussion). Now, before you go off and assault Dennis Mckinsey, first respond to what he wrote on the subject.
How much money am I allowed to make or want to make before I'm "greedy"? If you ask 1,000 people, you'll get 1,000 different answers.
If USians didn't feel that the only way to prove their status in society was to amass a huge pile of money then this wouldn't have happened.
And what if I want to amass a huge pile of money for a reason other than to prove my status in society? Is it still "greedy"?
I mean you can't really argue that a personal fortune of more than, say, a hundred million is actually going to help you live a happier life.
I disagree. Each person creates the standards for her/his own happiness. If a person decides that $100M is the one and only thing which will bring a happier life, then what can anyone argue to dissuade them from that belief? People constantly attach "happiness" to all sorts of external objects.
Your story is yet another of the scores of examples which contradict the long-touted "feature" of (NT|2k|XP) that it is "easy to administer." If it was truly easy to administer, then the administration would not need to be done by competent administration; i.e., anyone should be able to do it.
I maintain that (NT|2k|XP) is equally difficult to administer as *nix and has always been. One may be better than the other for certain tasks, but effective administration for both has been and still is difficult and requires highly skilled professionals to do it right.
I think that my biggest problems with NT systems was the outright deceit which pervaded the marketing surrounding said systems. (See also: "NT Workstation and NT Server are completely different operating systems. Really. I mean it. Pay no attention to the identical kernels.")
No, I don't care about swaying you to my point of view. In all honesty, I think you are either an idiot, or someone who has great difficulty in authoring clear debate articles.
If your argument didn't suck so bad, you wouldn't have to be so defensive like this. Your opinion of me is of no consequence. I don't see how you claim that my debate articles are not clear when yours are riddled with unanswered questions, unsupported claims, and unnecessary personal attacks.
First, you ignored my original case statements.
There was nothing to ignore. You wrote, "Go read case studies books, and come talk to me." Well, which ones was I supposed to read? Furthermore, I asked you why your reccomendation should carry any weight with me.
Second, you challenged my authority to have an opinion on the subject.
You are most welcome to your opinion. So is the 19-year-old college punk who slept through two psychology classes and skimmed two case studies books which were required reading. What I was saying is that your opinion didn't impress me because I had no reason to think that you weren't the college punk that I described. I've seen plenty of college kids get on an intellectual high horse after taking a single psychology class (as if college kids weren't already the smartest and coolest people on the planet).
Third, you brought neurology into it, which even with my brain-related paragraph, has nothing to do with it really.
I disagree. Neurology and psychology are quite related.
Fourth, you did not say, "I don't believe it; what is the evidence?"
In message 4205718 I wrote, "You are making brash statements about human psychology but have no evidence to back it up." At this point you could have written, "Oh, yes I do! And here is the evidence...." Instead of that, you started getting personal. What does that look like? It looks like you had no evidence and starting to get mad that you weren't getting your way.
what possible reason do I have to say such an opinion which boils down to one sentence which you seem to have personal issues with.
That's one hell of a run-on sentence! Anyways, you seem awfully interested in talking about my personal issues. I'm much more interested in getting you to defend your argument, which you have done an awful job of doing thus far.
No, I wasn't attempting to belittle your knowledge. I was telling you that saying such things as, "So you admit you have no degree..." and "...you are neither a degreed expert or professional" is stupid, when talking about knowledege.
In message 4207303 you wrote, "It is a laymans description, because not many people here are versed in psychology. Are you? Have you ever sat in on a University lecture? Much less taken classes from known researchers?" This is what I was referring to when I wrote that you were attempting to belittle my knowledge, and this happened before I wrote, "You are admitting that you are neither a degreed psychologist nor a degreed neurologist."
I don't have a P.h.D. but I've met tons I know more about CS than, does that mean since they have a higher degree they win an argument even when their wrong?
You're still missing the point.
Fine, since you actually managed to post a related question instead of going into the neurology of it, which has absolutely nothing to do with it I'll provide some backing.
Yay! I *finally* get an answer out of you! Next time, skip all the personal attacks and just provide the evidence for your claims.
If you are familiar with Greek philosophy...
And you accuse me of digressing!
As through the time, since the late 1800's when psychology was starting to become a real science, the main pursuit was to try to understand human memory, and also relate it to our behaviors. This is the reason as to why many obese people belong into the habitual over-eaters [google.com] category. In most cases, this stems from a developmental disorder early on in life. Freudian psychology would trace this back to the oral developmental phase, but I believe rarely that is actually the case.
What does this have to do with the qualifications of the "areas"?
Many people suffer from this eating disorder. They find solace and comfort in eating, only to do it again when the self destructive cycle repeats itself. If you look at over-eater groups, you will see that they deal with finding the cause, and breaking the habit. They don't put people on strict calorie counting diets. It's a psychological help group. Unfortunately, more people need the outside assistance instead of isolating their own issues and helping themselves. As long as they get help, they are on the right step.
More layman's terminology. Again, what does this have to do with the qualification of the "areas"?
The weakness comes from the lack of insight and strength to look into their inner mind, and attempt to find why they overeat, and what they hope to accomplish.
So now the "areas" have become something having to do with looking into one's "inner mind," whatever that is.
That is why they are too weak, not because they are weak individuals. Because they do not have the strength to break the cycle, and help themselves obtain a happier life.
And now the "areas" have something to do with breaking a cycle.
This does not match all cases, there is the obseity gene which, unfortunately, means no matter how strong the person is, life dealt them a bad hand.
If this is true (and I've seen no evidence that it is), then it works against, not for, your argument.
However, a simple glance and at American Vs. Asian or European population will show that Americans are largely overweight in comparison.
And why is this? According to you, it is because obese people are "weak in some areas." I think the causes are more complex than that, and weakness is a grossly inadequate term to try and describe them. What is the difference between emotional strength and emotional intelligence? I see no reason to treat them as separate or different things.
In conclusion, purely judging a person on their weight is foolish.
In conclusion, there are no discrete qualifications for these "areas" you speak of and are central to your argument. I think your argument comes off as one that is manufactured by an arrogant, know-it-all college kid, not one based on sound research and solid evidence. The fact that you had to sink to invective when your claims were challenged supports this.
I don't think you're an idiot. At this point, I have no confidence that you can generate anything which will support your argument.
Good that you think that, but in reality you are wrong. Even a rudimentary understanding of English can yield the logic that proves it.
Here's the first of many ad hominems that you now begin to spout off. It does not bode well for your argument.
I didn't describe the stone as weak, only a diamond is tough enough to cut through it. Does it mean the stone is soft? Softer than the diamond, yes, but not soft. Same thing.
I see your attempt to draw an analogy, but I don't see what the diamond is supposed to represent.
If I'm snide, it means that I'm discounting everything you say because it's largely irrelevant.
This is false. If you're snide, it's because you feel the need to make matters personal by "scoring points." It means you are losing the argument.
If you perceived my side note as a jab, than you are obviously too sensitive because it was meant as a sincere request for you to attempt to keep the discussion on topic.
Yet another ad hominem. Perhaps you should have focused on your crappy argument rather than on me. You certainly would have had a better chance of swaying me to your point of view had you done that.
Your entire comment thread has been completely and totally off-subject and largely pointless
This, too, is false. You tried to pull this in your last response, and I offered a prime counterexample which you ignored. I'll ask it again, because it is completely relevant:
1. Your claim is that people are obese because they are weak in some areas. 2. I asked you if these areas had discrete qualifications. 3. You swept this question under the "irrelevant" rug.
What are the discrete qualifications for the alleged "areas" that are central to your argument? This is not irrelevant. It may be uncomfortable to you (if no such qualifications exist), but it is not irrelevant.
Feel free to think I'm an elitist, I just have my opinions and stick by them. Seldom to people understand the difference between confidence and elitism, but there is a huge difference.
I agree. Your behavior falls under the category of elitist. If you had the evidence to back up your claims, then perhaps I would read your behavior as confidence. But you have no evidence. All you have is arrogant claims and ad hominems.
If you presented a valid argument that was concise, easy to follow, and made sense I would consider it.
Let's see if I can make it any more consise and easy-to-follow than this: What are the discrete qualifications for the alleged "areas" that you speak of and are central to your argument?
However, the responses you have formulated have been less than logical and are laced with stupid.
And yet you fail to produce a single example of this. Thus, it's merely another ad hominem.
Prime example, you dismiss ones knowledge because they have not obtained a degree. That's just plain stupid.
I did not dismiss your knowledge. You apparently failed to see what I was trying to show. I'll spell it out for you now so that there will be no confusion.
You were attempting to belittle my knowledge by showing that you had attended more classes in psychology and read more case studies books than I had done. I was showing you that, since you were not a degreed professional, you really had no more right to speak on this topic than a 19-year-old punk in the middle of a liberal arts education who has just happened to have mostly-slept-through two psychology classes and scanned two case studies books that were required reading for those two classes. Who knows, maybe this description fits you perfectly. Since I don't know you, I have no way of knowing otherwise.
Keep in mind that I have never pretended to be a professional in any of these arenas. I have posited skepticism, not belief. I'm sorry that "I don't believe it; what is the evidence?" was not consise enough for you to follow. It has made debating with you a chore.
I have nothing more to say on that matter, or the discussion because it's not the discussion I entered, nor am I interested in carrying it on with you.
With your tail between your legs you flee from the discussion. As usual, what you say is not nearly as important as what you didn't say. You have failed to show that obesity is caused by weakness in some "areas" because you cannot define what those "areas" are.
Instead of trying to prove your point, you've spent a lot more time attacking me personally through condescending, snide, and insulting language. What do your psychology classes and case studies books tell you about this behavior?
And if I'm really as stupid, hypersensitive, and illogical as you imply, then why have you wasted so much time talking to me? What do your psychology classes tell you about this behavior?
Not degreed, no, but I have significant University-level psychology education under my belt. Thanks for asking. It is a laymans description, because not many people here are versed in psychology. Are you? Have you ever sat in on a University lecture? Much less taken classes from known researchers?
You are admitting that you are neither a degreed psychologist nor a degreed neurologist.
That's absolutely wrong. Go read case studies books, and come talk to me.
I notice you fail to cite any relevant case study books. How do we know that the occipital lobe does what it does? How do we know what the corpus colostrum does? In both cases, it was from studying those who had brain damage. Scores of similar examples follow.
As for the rest of your comment, it was completely and totally insubstantial. You raised no points, or counters to any arguments I made.
Your criticism much better applied to your previous argument, where you stated, "If you disassemble a brain, and put it back together...." How can we imagine disassembling and reassambling a brain when we only have the vaguest of notions of how the brain is interconnected in the first place?
Furthermore, I raised one question which, counter to your dismissal, is completely relevant to the discussion. You stated that some people were too weak in some areas (to give up "comfort habits"), and I asked if there were discrete qualifications for those areas. Your entire argument is based around the notion that people are obese because they are "weak in some areas." Well, what are the areas? In your answer, are you going to give me some more layman's terms, or are you going to show me some evidence this time? I am not your enemy: I will believe everything you write provided that you can show me evidence behind what you claim.
Might I suggest going and picking up "The Mind's I" as well as some case study books to broaden your knowledge.
You are neither an expert nor a professional in this subject matter. The fact that you have attended some psychology classes does not impress me. Why should I be interested in your recommendations?
As for "Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." I'm really not even sure what the hell you were attempting to imply
"I didn't describe the person as weak....I said they were too weak to break the habit."
I think these two statements mean the same thing. This is what I was trying to imply. And yes, it was childish of me to do the "walks like a duck" thing. I'll try to be more direct in the future.
Off the wall statements tend not to bode well in debate, just a side note.
Nor does the snide and elitist attitude which has pervaded much of you've typed, including your "...just a side note" final jab. How can you expect me to be receptive to your message when you continue to condescend to me? You are going to have to become more humble and engaging if you want to convince me.
If it really was "simple" then you wouldn't need to label it as such. Your argument should speak for itself....which can go pretty far into Freudian psychology.
Are you a degreed psychologist? Your description sounds like a layman's description.
I didn't describe the person as weak. Go back and read what I wrote. I said they were too weak to break the habit.
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Weak is a relative term, it does not imply the person is weak, just too weak in that area to sacrifice the short term gain for the long term.
But weak in what "areas"? Are there discrete, qualitified, scientific desciptions for these "areas"? I don't think there is.
Many lessor known psychologists have excellent ideas regarding intelligence and basic smarts.
I'm glad you said "ideas." Maybe "vague notions" would be more accurate. Almost everything we know about neurology is based on doing studies on people who have brain damage.
If you disassemble a brain, and put it back together is it still the same brain with the same connections and would it detect something different? Brains are funnier things, emotions are even more funny. Intelligence being altered by emotion is even more so.
Was this intended to be convincing?
You are making brash statements about human psychology but have no evidence to back it up.
Learning how to break a comfort-habit is hard, but it takes a lot of will power. Comfort habits are typically dangerous to your person as well.
There is a big problem I see with your take on this issue (and this really goes for everything you've written about it thus far).
What exactly is a "comfort habit"? It sounds to me like a layman's description of why a person does a repetitive action. I think the reasons why a person overeats can be many, can be complex, can be different from person to person, and, almost always, come from years and years of psychological training. How "strong" does one have to be to be able to break that training? How does one measure the "strength" required to be able to do so? For some people, I think it may be a simple matter of willpower. For others, I don't think there is any amount of willpower which will allow them to overcome their "comfort habit," as you call it.
I think the problem boils down to this: we don't understand well why some people overeat, and we barely understand how to measure human intelligence at all. I think it's unkind and inaccurate to label these people as "weak." I think "stupid," or "crazy" would be more accurate (but no less kind).
In the future, we will have discrete quantifiers for all kinds of human intelligence and behaviors. It's a shame that with our astounding knowledge of physics and technology that we really are so bone-headedly ignorant of neurology and psychology.
Don't be content to be a fat fuck, and don't let yourself off with "Gee, I'm just too busy to exercise" or "Exercise is for stupid jocks" excuse. There are better ways to flirt with death than to sit on your ass 18 hours a day chugging Dew and eating Ho Hos.
It sounds like you suffer from the false belief that obesity is simply a matter of laziness. Trust me, there are plenty of lazy people who are not obese.
The rise of obesity in American society has many factors, and I think that laziness is a very small one. A much more important factor would be the insane number of carbohydrates that we consume now as opposed to one hundred years ago. Do you know how many millions of gallons of soft drinks (50 grams of carbs per can) people go through in a year? To put it in the proper perspective, consider that humans used to drink exactly zero gallons of soft drinks in a year. And add to that the fact that soft drink manufacturers continue to raise the portion size of their products. Notice that snack makers (carb factories) and restaurants (carb factories) are doing the same thing. It's merely pandering to the "get more for your money" desire which is almost inextricable from the American psyche.
Also, 99% of diets will fail (read: make the dieter gain more weight, not less) if the dieter is already over 100 pounds overweight. Telling these people, "Get off your ass you fat fuck!" does not help. In fact, I think it exacerbates the problem that you deplore.
New balance sucks. Ecco rules the universe! Then again, I'm biased: I value my knees too much to be a runner.;)
Please. These Indians have been vegetarians for millenia. Their ancient holy books (3000+ years old) tout the advantages of being vegetarian.
Neither of these points have anything to do with whether or not humans are physiologically omnivores.
Are you saying that their ancestors of 2000+ years ago were more separated from nature than today's typical Western meat eater?
I didn't think she/he was saying that. I was thinking that she/he said that humans are vesitile and resilient and will proceed to do many things (such as circumcision, homosexuality, and vegetarianism) that their bodies were not physiologically intended for.
I'm gay, by the way.
Just because you're a vegetarian it doesn't mean that any damn plant matter is digestible by you! There are lots of plants out there that no herbivore will touch.
And there are also lots of plants (such as the stalks of various grasses) which are the pricipal diet of hundreds of species of herbivores (which do not include humans) that are completely and totally undigestable by humans (which are omnivores). You can talk about morals and ethics all you want, but you can't deny physiology. I think this represents a flaw in vegetarian philosophy.
This is the problem with you meat-minded people:
This is "all of you suck!" Phrases like this build walls, not bridges. You're not going to convert anyone to vegetarianism by telling them what their problems are.
you think that all plants are the same, just because all meat looks the same! They are not.
This is a blanket statement, but I think it does represent a healthy majority of the mindset of non-vegetarians.
I was a vegetarian by choice for several years. I think most vegetarians come off like bible-beating Christians: arrogant, rude, self-aggrandizing, patronizing, and negative. Many of your words make you come off this way, too. Why do vegetarians behave in this way? (Please don't reply by starting with, "Because meat-eaters . . ..")
I really appreciate the improved tenor of this most recent post: I feel like you're really starting to discuss with me and explain your point of view in a fair and informative manner. Thank you.
(yes, in broad terms...if I could do this in detail sufficient to satisfy your demands, I'd be a PhD economist instead of an engineering student)
Hehehe!:) I know I'm coming off as a stickler and an asshole. I don't think my demands have been unfair.
1) Those who have power must be responsible to those over whom the power is wielded.
This is a good philosophical question. It hinges, of course, on the definition of "power." Given your anti-corporate stance (which isn't bad or wrong, in and of itself, given what some corporations get away with nowadays), I think you would likely believe that employers have power over those they employ. This can be true, and I think the converse is also true. Suppose a corporation depends on a single employee who has skills or information for its most siginifant income center. In that case, the employee has power over her/his employer. As a less hypothetical question, trade unions today weild tremendous power over many huge corporations (such as Ford and AT&T) in various different markets. In those cases, would you agree that the employees are responsible for their employers, since the employees are in a position of power? Should the employees be barred from quitting and punished by law for poor performance? Please don't play with the definition of the word "power" by starting to talk about "true power."
2) Legitimate power derives only from the will of the citizenry.
I have big problems with this statement. In the 1930s, many Germans agreed with the aryan supremacist message of the Third Reich. Many Americans agreed with it as well, which was one of the reasons that it took America so long to enter the war. The Ku Klux Klan also enjoyed broad popularity across much of the United States in the earlier part of the 20th century. Were the Third Reich and the Ku Klux Klan thus legitimate leaders because they represented the will of the citizenry? Please don't play with the definition of the word "will" by starting to talk about "legitimate will."
I see you refuting my position. I would be interested to see you take a position of your own.
There should be no action lawful to an individual that does not deprive another individual of life, liberty, or property; all other actions should be legal. Government does most everything poorly and its influence should be drastically reduced in the aspects of individuals' lives. Corporations should not be full rights that individuals have. (What rights they should be granted is still up for debate, and I think that they have too many rights today.) Class envy and intellectual arrogance are the ever-present driving forces behind Leftist ideology. I don't even know what "right-wing" or "conservative" mean anymore; I think most people who label themselves as much are assholes anyway. You can pick on any part that you want.
It always interests me how much laissez-faire capitalists depend on the government to protect their little fiefdoms.
Then they're not really laissez-faire corporations at all. They're laissez-faire until the corporate welfare bandwagon comes rolling by.
I'd be totally happy with a government that did not involve itself in matters of commerce.
Me too!
but the corps would never accept that.
This statement depends on the truth of the statement "corporations are all the same." I don't buy it.
I guess I'm also wondering if you think there are ANY laws that should be applied to corporations?
Did you conclude that I believed such a thing as "corporations should be exempt from all laws" on the basis that I disagreed with other parts of your beliefs? The lack of said belief and the mentioned disagreement can, and do, exist independently of each other.
Is it OK for corps to pollute? (Gosh, there I go sounding like a wacko environmentalist. What HAS gotten into me?)
Of course not! The problem is, of course, what defines "pollution"? That definition is awfully slippery and therefore has quickly fallen under the shadow of political corruption. And no, I didn't think that your question was wacko.
Is it OK for corps to maintain and extend monopolies, destroying the free market?
I differ from most Libertarians in that I think it is a legitimate function of government to insist that free markets occur. It's easy to see how this can quickly become a matter of political corruption. Furthermore, some markets don't lend themselves as well as others do to free markets. Take utilities, for example.
Is it OK for corps to defraud stockholders?
I'll take it you're using the legal definition of the word "fraud." The answer is a resounding "hell no."
Is it OK for government to defraud its citizens? How about violate the 4th amendment? Did you know that in 80% of drug seizures (which can include things such as vehicles, houses, and arbitrary amounts of cash) the victim is never charged with a crime? You have mentioned the Constitutional Convention several times. Why would you be so pissed off about the actions of a few of many, many thousads upon thousands of corporations when the government routinely wipes its ass with the 4th (and 5th -- have you seen or filed a U.S. tax return before) amendments?
Perhaps I should mention now that I am an executive in a very small (2-person) corporation. My position does give me an unusual perspective on the issue.:)
How will a society "charter itself toward this idea of "socio-economic justice"? Well, the Constitutional Convention did a damn good job, if you ask me.
But the change didn't really happen with the Constitutional Convention. The Federalists had a hard job of convincing the States to ratify the constitution.
I would very much like to see a similar evaluation of the needs of our country...although I do not belive that it would be possible to accomplish today.
I have a feeling you'd like to see the government come in and just FORCE everyone to adopt your ideals.
Not on Earth, anyhow. I have high hopes for colonization of other places, as this process will provide the geographical and economic isolation required to really invent new ways of setting up societies, just as occurred in America over the last 300 years.
And what's going to keep that society from just turning to crap like this one has? Do you suppose that the heinous behavior of corporations and government can be attributed to human nature? If so, then I don't have high hopes for any space colonies that humans create.
I concede that my debate coach would HATE me for presenting an argument I am not wise enough to nail down completely. I'm trying to have a discussion here, not dictate my terms.
I'll take your sarcasm as your admission that your argument is poorly-reasoned. And I'm not asking you to dictate your terms. I'm telling you that your position is not convincing without sound reasoning and sufficient evidence.
The purpose of my post was to illustrate a central problem I see with current corporate charters: The corporation is not responsible to anybody. The laws are obviously not effective.
I disagree. Worldcom's brass is getting their balls busted under current law.
The current system does not exercise sufficient sanction against a corporation that breaks the law.
Agreed!
You lump me in with authoritarian anti-capitalists. Well, you're entitled to your assumptions, but that has nothing to do with my position.
That remains to be seen. The members of the Green party deny being communists in spite of the fact that most of their platform mirrors that of the communists precisely. I am apt to label you anti-capitalist because of your implication that corporations should be punished for something as subjective (not to mention jealous) as "greed." The charge of "greed" is one oft-repeated by leftists and environmentalists.
I don't feel like any central authority has the flexibility or wisdom to dictate economic policy.
In the previous paragraph you wrote, "The laws are obviously not effective." Who besides a central authority is going to replace those ineffective laws with new, effective ones?
However, that sort of system is exactly what we're seeing in various markets now. The most powerful player moves to dominate, not by providing superior products and technology, but by influencing legislation and excluding competition.
To varying degres I think this is true.
Do you think the status quo is optimal? Is your contention that nothing is wrong, and we should just keep going the way we are?
These are pointless questions to ask anybody. I mean, would anyone honestly answer that question with, "Yes, nothing at all is wrong. In fact, society is perfect!"?
Are you unwilling to consider the possibility that a society can charter itself to hew closer to a shared idea of "justice", both socially and economically?
You sound like a big free-market-hating socialist now. How exactly do you intend that society will "charter" itself toward this idea of "socio-economic justice"? Through the shared goodwill of society? Or through government force? My guess is that you favor the government force method, especially since you mentioned the word "justice," and providing justice under the law is a legitimate function of government.
The answer to your question, by the way, is "probably not." Can you define "social justice" and "economic justice"? (Should I brace myself for more emotionally-charged glittering generalities?)
You may consider mine to be a failure of intellect, but if that is your position I believe you have a failure of vision.
I think I have had bible-thumping Christians tell me that exact same thing in the exact same spirit. Their version sounds somewhat like this: "The reason that you claim that the Holy Bible is inconsistent with itself is because you refuse to see the truth in the Lord Jesus Christ."
I've maintained to both leftists and Christians that both of them spout an arrogant, illogical, and poorly-researched mantra and resort to personal attacks when someone points out the flaws in their position. I've always been dissatisfied that these two groups were only dismissively embarrassed by how much they share in common.
Yeah. You start with ideals, you proceed to policy. What order of operations do YOU suggest?
I suggest starting with evidence and proceeding to policy. A good illustration of why I think starting with ideals, instead of evidence, is flawed is shown in the so-called "environmentalist" movement. Their ideal is to "protect the earth," but they routinely ignore evidence that happens to go against their ideals.
"Go from there" means "Have a debate in a public forum and refine the concepts". Unless you think, say, the Constitutional Convention was "arbitrarily making the rest up as we go along", your point doesn't have a lot of relevance.
There is a vast difference between elected officials having a public debate and an oppressive regime laying down edicts. This is what I was getting at. Anti-capitalists generally don't like open debate; they generally prefer the government to just force their view of morality on the public with an iron fist.
You seem to be a lot more concerned about pointing out the fact that my statements were vague rather than discussing whether the principles are valid. I, on the other hand, wish to start with an internally consistent philosophy and develop a set of rules that by and large encourage a pre-defined set of morals. We've already established that my system is not yet complete.
I think your statements are vague becuase your principles are invalid.
I infer that you think I do not have an internally consistent philosophy from which I base my ethics and decisions.
What does "develop a set of rules that by and large encourage a pre-defined set of morals" mean? Is it part of "laying down a foundation for a moral society"?
With your last statement, you're being aggressively stupid.
I can tell that you're getting frustrated with me. I don't accept your point of view, and I think your apologetic is poor. This does not mean you or I are stupid, and it's certainly not an excuse for you to stoop to name-calling.
A "moral society" is one that attempts to hew to the moral codes espoused by its members.
Trying to get you to give a concrete definition is like trying to nail jello to the wall. "Attempts"? How hard? And what percentage of the codes have to be "hewed"? And to what degree? And which codes that are "espoused by its members" get to be "hew-worthy"?
I would be willing to wager that if you picked a random ten dozen people from around the country and talked with them, you'd find a hell of a lot of moral statements that they'd agree with.
And you'd also find a hell of a lot of moral statements about which they disagreed wildly. Take "Abortion should be legal" for instance.
If you were to sample a similar number of corporations, you would never ever find them (honestly) advocating the same behavior. They have only one imperative, and it is not conducive to behavior that the rest of the society terms "moral".
This is opinion, not fact.
Too vague? Tough.
Yes, too vague, and no I don't accept it. I think you're an intelligent person who has put a lot of thought into this matter. Why, then, can you not provide a well-reasoned and well-supported argument for your position?
Do some thinking on your own and see what YOU come up with, and then we might be able to have a productive converstation.
The burden of proof lies on she or he who alleges. If you are going to make statements then you'd better be equipped to defend them. Unfortunately for you, your defense (thus far) is comprised completely of glittering generalities and vague notions.
I've pointed this out to you, and you responded thusly:
"You're stupid." "You're not thinking."
"Oh yeah? Let's see YOU do better!"
Both of these responses show how weak your argument is. First, your falling back on ad hominem when you can't defend your own positions without resorting to nebulous talk of ideals and morals shows that is you, not I, that has some thinking to do. You're not going to convince me to accept your point of view without a sound argument based on reason and evidence. I don't think you have that, yet. Second, You opened this can of worms with your decision to posit your positions. Showing you "my way" isn't going to change your mind as long as you believe that "your way" is still the right way. That statement is always true, regardless of what "my way" and "your way" might be.
Ahh, ideals. The devil, of course, is in the details.
What defines property? Something that can provide a unique benefit to a limited number of persons. What defines hurt? We'll start with deprivation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and go from there.
How does "...and go from there" differ from "...and we'll arbitrarily make the rest up as we go along"? They sound functionally equivalent to me.
I think your definitions of "property" and "hurt" are far too vague. Since it is your goal to create legislation (which carries with it the threat of force) based on these concepts, don't you think it's a good idea to have definite definitions for these concepts?
My point was not to lay down a foundation for a moral society
Yet it seems you want to legislate so that corporations behave morally. Perhaps this is permissible in your desire to not lay down a foundation for a moral society.
Then again, what the hell does "laying down a foundation for a moral society" mean anyway? It's so nebulous that it could mean practically anything.
only to demonstrate that corporations as they are currently chartered are hostile to any moral society.
Your demonstration is logically flawed. You have not shown what a "moral society" is, so how can you conclude that corporations are hostile to it?
Now I'd like to see you try and define "moral society." You jumped out of the frying pan, squirmed out of the fire, and now you're dancing on hot coals becuase "moral," like "greed" and "hurting another person," is also a subjective concept.
Dude, at one point you just gotta land the boat and decide something is true in your life.
There's no way you could have landed upon this nebulous judgement of my character based on a few posts on slashdot. It's much more likely that you felt upset by what I wrote, and now you're lashing out in anger.
Are you a teenager? Your use of the word "dude" certainly makes you look like one. That and your unbecoming, know-it-all attitude.
Debating the meaning of words and staring at the shapes of letters become the same real quick.
What a nice opinion! Naturally, I have a different one.
If you have no idea what you personally think is right and wrong and least a general idea how you want your actions to reflect your moral ideals -- you may want to get started on that.
I have a good idea of right and wrong and how my actions reflect my concept of morality, and I'm certainly not going to follow the unsolicited and juvenile personal advice of some Anonymous Coward on Slashdot who addresses me as "dude."
There IS something wrong with hurting other people in order to get "stuff", and that's what capitalism has so far failed to address.
Out of the frying pan and into the fire with you. Here we find that the definition of "hurting other people," like the definition of "greed," is also subjective. What actions, precisely, does "hurting" another person include? Just physical pain? What about mental pain? What about defamation of character? What about loss of image? Anyone can claim that any of these can "hurt another person."
How about loss of property? Then again, what defines "property"? Just physical property? What about intellecutal property? And how about emotional property ("You stole my boyfriend!") Anyone can claim that any of these "hurt another person."
You claim that capitalism has failed to address a problem, but it seems to me that the problem is one of your own invention.
Any network OS connected to a network is inherently insecure! The only sure-fire way to secure it is to unplug it from the network. Better yet, unplug it from its power source.
I feel like I've asked the same question multiple times now. I am going to ask it again. It is not rhetorical; I want you to answer it:
Considering that experts who know much more about the translation of Hebrew than you or I disagree on the proper translation of Ex 20:13, how can you be so sure that [God's word in Ex 20:13] says "murder" instead of "kill"?
In my mind, accusing the translators of the RSV and NRSV of having a political agenda is at least as much of an accusation of their integrity as one of incompetence.
I have no problem attacking the integrity of the translators of the RSV and the NRSV. They are fallible, after all. Given that not "any old joe shmoe Hebrew scholor" would be selected from the extremely important task of translating the scriptures, I think it would be their integrity which would crumple long before their competence in translation would.
I'll have to consult my copy of Fox this evening and see if the footnotes shed any light on the passage we're discussing.
While you're at it, why don't you look at the following passages as well:
1 Sam 6:19 Isa 7:14 1 Tim 6:10 Mk 16:9-20
I am not familiar with the Fox translation, and I'm curious as to how it handles these verses.
I agree: this discussion is getting off-topic, and I would like to continue. Please feel free to send me your response in e-mail.
I agree: its meaning has become awfully muddied with the hundreds of different "Christian" sects. I tried to frame the question in a way that would allow potential respondants to be free to interpret what "Christian" meant and decide whether or not it applied to them.
At least "Christian" does not have the stigma that "atheist" has in the USA.;)
I don't know how well we could determine if an alien were sentient or not, though.
We would determine it by using the same criteria by which we determine that humans are sentient. Whether or not an alien has a soul will be left up to whim, though, since there is no evidence for souls.
I have access a couple of Bible translations and the one that I trust the most, the NRSV, as well as the RSV, which I trust a little less, use 'commit murder' rather than 'kill'.
I already know what the NRSV and the RSV say on the issue. You are proving my point: experts disagree on the translation of Exodus 20:13. How then can you be so sure that it says "murder" instead of "kill"?
Another source, Fox's translation of the Pentateuch which is a lot closer to the sense of the original Hebrew than any of the Christian translations, uses a similar concept.
How do you know that Fox's translation of the Pentateuch is "a lot closer to the sense of the original Hebrew"? Are you a Hebrew scholar? Are you more qualified to translate the OT than those who translated the NKJV which says "kill"?
I'm not suggesting that the translators were incompetent, but I am suffesting that they are fallible. Translation is not a mechanical process in which words in one language are mapped one-to-one into words from another language. Nuances of meaning will be expressed differently by different translators.
As someone who has functioned as a translator before, I am well-familiar with the difference between translation and transliteration. The difference between "to kill" and "to murder" is most definately NOT a "nuance of meaning." They both have specific definitions and one is a subset of another. Furthermore, you are most definately charging the translators of the NKJV et al with incompetence. It is their job as translators to come up with an accurate translation, and that includes knowing the difference between "to kill" and "to murder" and which Hebrew words and phrases express which. If they cannot do that, then they cannot do their job and are, by definition, incompetent. Do you realize that your charge of fallibility also applies to those who translated the NRSV and the RSV? Answer me this, how can you be sure that the scripture truly does say "to kill" and the translators didn't decide to translate it as "to murder" for political expediency?
If an alien dosn't have a soul, then it's called 'meat' and it's not a sin to kill it if you put it to good purpose.
Precisely my point. And who decides whether or not aliens have souls? Considering that there is no evidence for the existence souls (and, in fact, there is evidence *against* the existence souls), my guess is that religious leaders will base their decision on whim.
The Ten Commandments talk about murder, wrongfully causing a death, not killing.
Bible Gateway is your friend (and your enemy). Your assertion that The Ten Commandments (I'll assume that you're discussing the first set of "the" Ten Commandments) talk about "murder" instead of killing is not supported by the translators of the KJV, NKJV, ASV, KJ21, and DARBY translations of the scriptures. Are you suggesting that those translators were incompetent and did not know the difference between "to kill" and "to murder"? I suggest you try and garner some consensus among Christians as to what Exodus 20:13 means before you claim that it discusses "murder" as if the issue had been conclusively decided. It seems to me that the jury is still out! I agree that translating "to kill" as "to murder" avoids a lot of potential problems, but since when did human expediency govern the will of God?
Whether or not they are out there is not going to affect me, my salvation, and my personal goals here on Earth.
"Me, my salvation, my personal goals." It sounds a bit self-centered, don't you think?
So I'm not going to get into a debate that will go nowhere.
My question made you feel like getting into a debate? Why are you so defensive?
I just saw your post and thought that site might be helpful.
I think this statement really demonstrates the flaw in your thinking. I'm not looking for "the answer" and I certainly don't think it's going to be found in the bible. I can argue capably and scripturally that the bible raises many more questions than it answers. What I was asking for were opinions from Christians, not answers. You don't have "the truth" and you are not obligated to give "God's answer" any time a question comes up. All I really wanted was opinions.
Unlike many atheists you may have met, I respect the dignity, inherent worth, and thoughts of Christians. I believe it's called, "Hate the Christianity, love the Christian.";)
Slashdot Mirror
If any of you actually visited the pro-life site in question, you will notice that it doesn't advocate violence against anyone, it merely states that abortion is immoral and against God's law.
And where, exactly, is the scripture that states that abortion is against God's law? I doubt that it's possible to use scipture to show that a fetus is a human before the sixth month of pregnancy. Dennis Mckinsey has a great writeup on this in Biblical Errancy (do a find for "abortion" to page down to the discussion). Now, before you go off and assault Dennis Mckinsey, first respond to what he wrote on the subject.
...is that it is subjective.
;)
How much money am I allowed to make or want to make before I'm "greedy"? If you ask 1,000 people, you'll get 1,000 different answers.
If USians didn't feel that the only way to prove their status in society was to amass a huge pile of money then this wouldn't have happened.
And what if I want to amass a huge pile of money for a reason other than to prove my status in society? Is it still "greedy"?
I mean you can't really argue that a personal fortune of more than, say, a hundred million is actually going to help you live a happier life.
I disagree. Each person creates the standards for her/his own happiness. If a person decides that $100M is the one and only thing which will bring a happier life, then what can anyone argue to dissuade them from that belief? People constantly attach "happiness" to all sorts of external objects.
But now I'm getting a bit too Buddhist.
Console mods don't cheat anyone out of possible income to cover costs.
No one in the USA has any right whatsoever to "possible income." Property rights? Yes! "Possible income" rights? No.
It's about competent administration.
Your story is yet another of the scores of examples which contradict the long-touted "feature" of (NT|2k|XP) that it is "easy to administer." If it was truly easy to administer, then the administration would not need to be done by competent administration; i.e., anyone should be able to do it.
I maintain that (NT|2k|XP) is equally difficult to administer as *nix and has always been. One may be better than the other for certain tasks, but effective administration for both has been and still is difficult and requires highly skilled professionals to do it right.
I think that my biggest problems with NT systems was the outright deceit which pervaded the marketing surrounding said systems. (See also: "NT Workstation and NT Server are completely different operating systems. Really. I mean it. Pay no attention to the identical kernels.")
No, I don't care about swaying you to my point of view. In all honesty, I think you are either an idiot, or someone who has great difficulty in authoring clear debate articles.
If your argument didn't suck so bad, you wouldn't have to be so defensive like this. Your opinion of me is of no consequence. I don't see how you claim that my debate articles are not clear when yours are riddled with unanswered questions, unsupported claims, and unnecessary personal attacks.
First, you ignored my original case statements.
There was nothing to ignore. You wrote, "Go read case studies books, and come talk to me." Well, which ones was I supposed to read? Furthermore, I asked you why your reccomendation should carry any weight with me.
Second, you challenged my authority to have an opinion on the subject.
You are most welcome to your opinion. So is the 19-year-old college punk who slept through two psychology classes and skimmed two case studies books which were required reading. What I was saying is that your opinion didn't impress me because I had no reason to think that you weren't the college punk that I described. I've seen plenty of college kids get on an intellectual high horse after taking a single psychology class (as if college kids weren't already the smartest and coolest people on the planet).
Third, you brought neurology into it, which even with my brain-related paragraph, has nothing to do with it really.
I disagree. Neurology and psychology are quite related.
Fourth, you did not say, "I don't believe it; what is the evidence?"
In message 4205718 I wrote, "You are making brash statements about human psychology but have no evidence to back it up." At this point you could have written, "Oh, yes I do! And here is the evidence...." Instead of that, you started getting personal. What does that look like? It looks like you had no evidence and starting to get mad that you weren't getting your way.
what possible reason do I have to say such an opinion which boils down to one sentence which you seem to have personal issues with.
That's one hell of a run-on sentence! Anyways, you seem awfully interested in talking about my personal issues. I'm much more interested in getting you to defend your argument, which you have done an awful job of doing thus far.
No, I wasn't attempting to belittle your knowledge. I was telling you that saying such things as, "So you admit you have no degree..." and "...you are neither a degreed expert or professional" is stupid, when talking about knowledege.
In message 4207303 you wrote, "It is a laymans description, because not many people here are versed in psychology. Are you? Have you ever sat in on a University lecture? Much less taken classes from known researchers?" This is what I was referring to when I wrote that you were attempting to belittle my knowledge, and this happened before I wrote, "You are admitting that you are neither a degreed psychologist nor a degreed neurologist."
I don't have a P.h.D. but I've met tons I know more about CS than, does that mean since they have a higher degree they win an argument even when their wrong?
You're still missing the point.
Fine, since you actually managed to post a related question instead of going into the neurology of it, which has absolutely nothing to do with it I'll provide some backing.
Yay! I *finally* get an answer out of you! Next time, skip all the personal attacks and just provide the evidence for your claims.
If you are familiar with Greek philosophy...
And you accuse me of digressing!
As through the time, since the late 1800's when psychology was starting to become a real science, the main pursuit was to try to understand human memory, and also relate it to our behaviors. This is the reason as to why many obese people belong into the habitual over-eaters [google.com] category. In most cases, this stems from a developmental disorder early on in life. Freudian psychology would trace this back to the oral developmental phase, but I believe rarely that is actually the case.
What does this have to do with the qualifications of the "areas"?
Many people suffer from this eating disorder. They find solace and comfort in eating, only to do it again when the self destructive cycle repeats itself. If you look at over-eater groups, you will see that they deal with finding the cause, and breaking the habit. They don't put people on strict calorie counting diets. It's a psychological help group. Unfortunately, more people need the outside assistance instead of isolating their own issues and helping themselves. As long as they get help, they are on the right step.
More layman's terminology. Again, what does this have to do with the qualification of the "areas"?
The weakness comes from the lack of insight and strength to look into their inner mind, and attempt to find why they overeat, and what they hope to accomplish.
So now the "areas" have become something having to do with looking into one's "inner mind," whatever that is.
That is why they are too weak, not because they are weak individuals. Because they do not have the strength to break the cycle, and help themselves obtain a happier life.
And now the "areas" have something to do with breaking a cycle.
This does not match all cases, there is the obseity gene which, unfortunately, means no matter how strong the person is, life dealt them a bad hand.
If this is true (and I've seen no evidence that it is), then it works against, not for, your argument.
However, a simple glance and at American Vs. Asian or European population will show that Americans are largely overweight in comparison.
And why is this? According to you, it is because obese people are "weak in some areas." I think the causes are more complex than that, and weakness is a grossly inadequate term to try and describe them. What is the difference between emotional strength and emotional intelligence? I see no reason to treat them as separate or different things.
In conclusion, purely judging a person on their weight is foolish.
In conclusion, there are no discrete qualifications for these "areas" you speak of and are central to your argument. I think your argument comes off as one that is manufactured by an arrogant, know-it-all college kid, not one based on sound research and solid evidence. The fact that you had to sink to invective when your claims were challenged supports this.
I don't think you're an idiot. At this point, I have no confidence that you can generate anything which will support your argument.
Good that you think that, but in reality you are wrong. Even a rudimentary understanding of English can yield the logic that proves it.
Here's the first of many ad hominems that you now begin to spout off. It does not bode well for your argument.
I didn't describe the stone as weak, only a diamond is tough enough to cut through it. Does it mean the stone is soft? Softer than the diamond, yes, but not soft. Same thing.
I see your attempt to draw an analogy, but I don't see what the diamond is supposed to represent.
If I'm snide, it means that I'm discounting everything you say because it's largely irrelevant.
This is false. If you're snide, it's because you feel the need to make matters personal by "scoring points." It means you are losing the argument.
If you perceived my side note as a jab, than you are obviously too sensitive because it was meant as a sincere request for you to attempt to keep the discussion on topic.
Yet another ad hominem. Perhaps you should have focused on your crappy argument rather than on me. You certainly would have had a better chance of swaying me to your point of view had you done that.
Your entire comment thread has been completely and totally off-subject and largely pointless
This, too, is false. You tried to pull this in your last response, and I offered a prime counterexample which you ignored. I'll ask it again, because it is completely relevant:
1. Your claim is that people are obese because they are weak in some areas.
2. I asked you if these areas had discrete qualifications.
3. You swept this question under the "irrelevant" rug.
What are the discrete qualifications for the alleged "areas" that are central to your argument? This is not irrelevant. It may be uncomfortable to you (if no such qualifications exist), but it is not irrelevant.
Feel free to think I'm an elitist, I just have my opinions and stick by them. Seldom to people understand the difference between confidence and elitism, but there is a huge difference.
I agree. Your behavior falls under the category of elitist. If you had the evidence to back up your claims, then perhaps I would read your behavior as confidence. But you have no evidence. All you have is arrogant claims and ad hominems.
If you presented a valid argument that was concise, easy to follow, and made sense I would consider it.
Let's see if I can make it any more consise and easy-to-follow than this: What are the discrete qualifications for the alleged "areas" that you speak of and are central to your argument?
However, the responses you have formulated have been less than logical and are laced with stupid.
And yet you fail to produce a single example of this. Thus, it's merely another ad hominem.
Prime example, you dismiss ones knowledge because they have not obtained a degree. That's just plain stupid.
I did not dismiss your knowledge. You apparently failed to see what I was trying to show. I'll spell it out for you now so that there will be no confusion.
You were attempting to belittle my knowledge by showing that you had attended more classes in psychology and read more case studies books than I had done. I was showing you that, since you were not a degreed professional, you really had no more right to speak on this topic than a 19-year-old punk in the middle of a liberal arts education who has just happened to have mostly-slept-through two psychology classes and scanned two case studies books that were required reading for those two classes. Who knows, maybe this description fits you perfectly. Since I don't know you, I have no way of knowing otherwise.
Keep in mind that I have never pretended to be a professional in any of these arenas. I have posited skepticism, not belief. I'm sorry that "I don't believe it; what is the evidence?" was not consise enough for you to follow. It has made debating with you a chore.
I have nothing more to say on that matter, or the discussion because it's not the discussion I entered, nor am I interested in carrying it on with you.
With your tail between your legs you flee from the discussion. As usual, what you say is not nearly as important as what you didn't say. You have failed to show that obesity is caused by weakness in some "areas" because you cannot define what those "areas" are.
Instead of trying to prove your point, you've spent a lot more time attacking me personally through condescending, snide, and insulting language. What do your psychology classes and case studies books tell you about this behavior?
And if I'm really as stupid, hypersensitive, and illogical as you imply, then why have you wasted so much time talking to me? What do your psychology classes tell you about this behavior?
Not degreed, no, but I have significant University-level psychology education under my belt. Thanks for asking. It is a laymans description, because not many people here are versed in psychology. Are you? Have you ever sat in on a University lecture? Much less taken classes from known researchers?
You are admitting that you are neither a degreed psychologist nor a degreed neurologist.
That's absolutely wrong. Go read case studies books, and come talk to me.
I notice you fail to cite any relevant case study books. How do we know that the occipital lobe does what it does? How do we know what the corpus colostrum does? In both cases, it was from studying those who had brain damage. Scores of similar examples follow.
As for the rest of your comment, it was completely and totally insubstantial. You raised no points, or counters to any arguments I made.
Your criticism much better applied to your previous argument, where you stated, "If you disassemble a brain, and put it back together...." How can we imagine disassembling and reassambling a brain when we only have the vaguest of notions of how the brain is interconnected in the first place?
Furthermore, I raised one question which, counter to your dismissal, is completely relevant to the discussion. You stated that some people were too weak in some areas (to give up "comfort habits"), and I asked if there were discrete qualifications for those areas. Your entire argument is based around the notion that people are obese because they are "weak in some areas." Well, what are the areas? In your answer, are you going to give me some more layman's terms, or are you going to show me some evidence this time? I am not your enemy: I will believe everything you write provided that you can show me evidence behind what you claim.
Might I suggest going and picking up "The Mind's I" as well as some case study books to broaden your knowledge.
You are neither an expert nor a professional in this subject matter. The fact that you have attended some psychology classes does not impress me. Why should I be interested in your recommendations?
As for "Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." I'm really not even sure what the hell you were attempting to imply
"I didn't describe the person as weak....I said they were too weak to break the habit."
I think these two statements mean the same thing. This is what I was trying to imply. And yes, it was childish of me to do the "walks like a duck" thing. I'll try to be more direct in the future.
Off the wall statements tend not to bode well in debate, just a side note.
Nor does the snide and elitist attitude which has pervaded much of you've typed, including your "...just a side note" final jab. How can you expect me to be receptive to your message when you continue to condescend to me? You are going to have to become more humble and engaging if you want to convince me.
Simple,
...which can go pretty far into Freudian psychology.
If it really was "simple" then you wouldn't need to label it as such. Your argument should speak for itself.
Are you a degreed psychologist? Your description sounds like a layman's description.
I didn't describe the person as weak. Go back and read what I wrote. I said they were too weak to break the habit.
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
Weak is a relative term, it does not imply the person is weak, just too weak in that area to sacrifice the short term gain for the long term.
But weak in what "areas"? Are there discrete, qualitified, scientific desciptions for these "areas"? I don't think there is.
Many lessor known psychologists have excellent ideas regarding intelligence and basic smarts.
I'm glad you said "ideas." Maybe "vague notions" would be more accurate. Almost everything we know about neurology is based on doing studies on people who have brain damage.
If you disassemble a brain, and put it back together is it still the same brain with the same connections and would it detect something different? Brains are funnier things, emotions are even more funny. Intelligence being altered by emotion is even more so.
Was this intended to be convincing?
You are making brash statements about human psychology but have no evidence to back it up.
Learning how to break a comfort-habit is hard, but it takes a lot of will power. Comfort habits are typically dangerous to your person as well.
There is a big problem I see with your take on this issue (and this really goes for everything you've written about it thus far).
What exactly is a "comfort habit"? It sounds to me like a layman's description of why a person does a repetitive action. I think the reasons why a person overeats can be many, can be complex, can be different from person to person, and, almost always, come from years and years of psychological training. How "strong" does one have to be to be able to break that training? How does one measure the "strength" required to be able to do so? For some people, I think it may be a simple matter of willpower. For others, I don't think there is any amount of willpower which will allow them to overcome their "comfort habit," as you call it.
I think the problem boils down to this: we don't understand well why some people overeat, and we barely understand how to measure human intelligence at all. I think it's unkind and inaccurate to label these people as "weak." I think "stupid," or "crazy" would be more accurate (but no less kind).
In the future, we will have discrete quantifiers for all kinds of human intelligence and behaviors. It's a shame that with our astounding knowledge of physics and technology that we really are so bone-headedly ignorant of neurology and psychology.
Don't be content to be a fat fuck, and don't let yourself off with "Gee, I'm just too busy to exercise" or "Exercise is for stupid jocks" excuse. There are better ways to flirt with death than to sit on your ass 18 hours a day chugging Dew and eating Ho Hos.
;)
It sounds like you suffer from the false belief that obesity is simply a matter of laziness. Trust me, there are plenty of lazy people who are not obese.
The rise of obesity in American society has many factors, and I think that laziness is a very small one. A much more important factor would be the insane number of carbohydrates that we consume now as opposed to one hundred years ago. Do you know how many millions of gallons of soft drinks (50 grams of carbs per can) people go through in a year? To put it in the proper perspective, consider that humans used to drink exactly zero gallons of soft drinks in a year. And add to that the fact that soft drink manufacturers continue to raise the portion size of their products. Notice that snack makers (carb factories) and restaurants (carb factories) are doing the same thing. It's merely pandering to the "get more for your money" desire which is almost inextricable from the American psyche.
Also, 99% of diets will fail (read: make the dieter gain more weight, not less) if the dieter is already over 100 pounds overweight. Telling these people, "Get off your ass you fat fuck!" does not help. In fact, I think it exacerbates the problem that you deplore.
New balance sucks. Ecco rules the universe! Then again, I'm biased: I value my knees too much to be a runner.
Yes, heaven forbid something produced by Microsoft actually be useful and/or well written.
That doesn't address his point in the slightest. Your sarcasm doesn't help, either.
Please. These Indians have been vegetarians for millenia. Their ancient holy books (3000+ years old) tout the advantages of being vegetarian.
.")
Neither of these points have anything to do with whether or not humans are physiologically omnivores.
Are you saying that their ancestors of 2000+ years ago were more separated from nature than today's typical Western meat eater?
I didn't think she/he was saying that. I was thinking that she/he said that humans are vesitile and resilient and will proceed to do many things (such as circumcision, homosexuality, and vegetarianism) that their bodies were not physiologically intended for.
I'm gay, by the way.
Just because you're a vegetarian it doesn't mean that any damn plant matter is digestible by you! There are lots of plants out there that no herbivore will touch.
And there are also lots of plants (such as the stalks of various grasses) which are the pricipal diet of hundreds of species of herbivores (which do not include humans) that are completely and totally undigestable by humans (which are omnivores). You can talk about morals and ethics all you want, but you can't deny physiology. I think this represents a flaw in vegetarian philosophy.
This is the problem with you meat-minded people:
This is "all of you suck!" Phrases like this build walls, not bridges. You're not going to convert anyone to vegetarianism by telling them what their problems are.
you think that all plants are the same, just because all meat looks the same! They are not.
This is a blanket statement, but I think it does represent a healthy majority of the mindset of non-vegetarians.
I was a vegetarian by choice for several years. I think most vegetarians come off like bible-beating Christians: arrogant, rude, self-aggrandizing, patronizing, and negative. Many of your words make you come off this way, too. Why do vegetarians behave in this way? (Please don't reply by starting with, "Because meat-eaters . . .
I really appreciate the improved tenor of this most recent post: I feel like you're really starting to discuss with me and explain your point of view in a fair and informative manner. Thank you.
:) I know I'm coming off as a stickler and an asshole. I don't think my demands have been unfair.
:)
(yes, in broad terms...if I could do this in detail sufficient to satisfy your demands, I'd be a PhD economist instead of an engineering student)
Hehehe!
1) Those who have power must be responsible to those over whom the power is wielded.
This is a good philosophical question. It hinges, of course, on the definition of "power." Given your anti-corporate stance (which isn't bad or wrong, in and of itself, given what some corporations get away with nowadays), I think you would likely believe that employers have power over those they employ. This can be true, and I think the converse is also true. Suppose a corporation depends on a single employee who has skills or information for its most siginifant income center. In that case, the employee has power over her/his employer. As a less hypothetical question, trade unions today weild tremendous power over many huge corporations (such as Ford and AT&T) in various different markets. In those cases, would you agree that the employees are responsible for their employers, since the employees are in a position of power? Should the employees be barred from quitting and punished by law for poor performance? Please don't play with the definition of the word "power" by starting to talk about "true power."
2) Legitimate power derives only from the will of the citizenry.
I have big problems with this statement. In the 1930s, many Germans agreed with the aryan supremacist message of the Third Reich. Many Americans agreed with it as well, which was one of the reasons that it took America so long to enter the war. The Ku Klux Klan also enjoyed broad popularity across much of the United States in the earlier part of the 20th century. Were the Third Reich and the Ku Klux Klan thus legitimate leaders because they represented the will of the citizenry? Please don't play with the definition of the word "will" by starting to talk about "legitimate will."
I see you refuting my position. I would be interested to see you take a position of your own.
There should be no action lawful to an individual that does not deprive another individual of life, liberty, or property; all other actions should be legal. Government does most everything poorly and its influence should be drastically reduced in the aspects of individuals' lives. Corporations should not be full rights that individuals have. (What rights they should be granted is still up for debate, and I think that they have too many rights today.) Class envy and intellectual arrogance are the ever-present driving forces behind Leftist ideology. I don't even know what "right-wing" or "conservative" mean anymore; I think most people who label themselves as much are assholes anyway. You can pick on any part that you want.
It always interests me how much laissez-faire capitalists depend on the government to protect their little fiefdoms.
Then they're not really laissez-faire corporations at all. They're laissez-faire until the corporate welfare bandwagon comes rolling by.
I'd be totally happy with a government that did not involve itself in matters of commerce.
Me too!
but the corps would never accept that.
This statement depends on the truth of the statement "corporations are all the same." I don't buy it.
I guess I'm also wondering if you think there are ANY laws that should be applied to corporations?
Did you conclude that I believed such a thing as "corporations should be exempt from all laws" on the basis that I disagreed with other parts of your beliefs? The lack of said belief and the mentioned disagreement can, and do, exist independently of each other.
Is it OK for corps to pollute? (Gosh, there I go sounding like a wacko environmentalist. What HAS gotten into me?)
Of course not! The problem is, of course, what defines "pollution"? That definition is awfully slippery and therefore has quickly fallen under the shadow of political corruption. And no, I didn't think that your question was wacko.
Is it OK for corps to maintain and extend monopolies, destroying the free market?
I differ from most Libertarians in that I think it is a legitimate function of government to insist that free markets occur. It's easy to see how this can quickly become a matter of political corruption. Furthermore, some markets don't lend themselves as well as others do to free markets. Take utilities, for example.
Is it OK for corps to defraud stockholders?
I'll take it you're using the legal definition of the word "fraud." The answer is a resounding "hell no."
Is it OK for government to defraud its citizens? How about violate the 4th amendment? Did you know that in 80% of drug seizures (which can include things such as vehicles, houses, and arbitrary amounts of cash) the victim is never charged with a crime? You have mentioned the Constitutional Convention several times. Why would you be so pissed off about the actions of a few of many, many thousads upon thousands of corporations when the government routinely wipes its ass with the 4th (and 5th -- have you seen or filed a U.S. tax return before) amendments?
Perhaps I should mention now that I am an executive in a very small (2-person) corporation. My position does give me an unusual perspective on the issue.
How will a society "charter itself toward this idea of "socio-economic justice"? Well, the Constitutional Convention did a damn good job, if you ask me.
But the change didn't really happen with the Constitutional Convention. The Federalists had a hard job of convincing the States to ratify the constitution.
I would very much like to see a similar evaluation of the needs of our country...although I do not belive that it would be possible to accomplish today.
I have a feeling you'd like to see the government come in and just FORCE everyone to adopt your ideals.
Not on Earth, anyhow. I have high hopes for colonization of other places, as this process will provide the geographical and economic isolation required to really invent new ways of setting up societies, just as occurred in America over the last 300 years.
And what's going to keep that society from just turning to crap like this one has? Do you suppose that the heinous behavior of corporations and government can be attributed to human nature? If so, then I don't have high hopes for any space colonies that humans create.
I concede that my debate coach would HATE me for presenting an argument I am not wise enough to nail down completely. I'm trying to have a discussion here, not dictate my terms.
I'll take your sarcasm as your admission that your argument is poorly-reasoned. And I'm not asking you to dictate your terms. I'm telling you that your position is not convincing without sound reasoning and sufficient evidence.
The purpose of my post was to illustrate a central problem I see with current corporate charters: The corporation is not responsible to anybody. The laws are obviously not effective.
I disagree. Worldcom's brass is getting their balls busted under current law.
The current system does not exercise sufficient sanction against a corporation that breaks the law.
Agreed!
You lump me in with authoritarian anti-capitalists. Well, you're entitled to your assumptions, but that has nothing to do with my position.
That remains to be seen. The members of the Green party deny being communists in spite of the fact that most of their platform mirrors that of the communists precisely. I am apt to label you anti-capitalist because of your implication that corporations should be punished for something as subjective (not to mention jealous) as "greed." The charge of "greed" is one oft-repeated by leftists and environmentalists.
I don't feel like any central authority has the flexibility or wisdom to dictate economic policy.
In the previous paragraph you wrote, "The laws are obviously not effective." Who besides a central authority is going to replace those ineffective laws with new, effective ones?
However, that sort of system is exactly what we're seeing in various markets now. The most powerful player moves to dominate, not by providing superior products and technology, but by influencing legislation and excluding competition.
To varying degres I think this is true.
Do you think the status quo is optimal? Is your contention that nothing is wrong, and we should just keep going the way we are?
These are pointless questions to ask anybody. I mean, would anyone honestly answer that question with, "Yes, nothing at all is wrong. In fact, society is perfect!"?
Are you unwilling to consider the possibility that a society can charter itself to hew closer to a shared idea of "justice", both socially and economically?
You sound like a big free-market-hating socialist now. How exactly do you intend that society will "charter" itself toward this idea of "socio-economic justice"? Through the shared goodwill of society? Or through government force? My guess is that you favor the government force method, especially since you mentioned the word "justice," and providing justice under the law is a legitimate function of government.
The answer to your question, by the way, is "probably not." Can you define "social justice" and "economic justice"? (Should I brace myself for more emotionally-charged glittering generalities?)
You may consider mine to be a failure of intellect, but if that is your position I believe you have a failure of vision.
I think I have had bible-thumping Christians tell me that exact same thing in the exact same spirit. Their version sounds somewhat like this: "The reason that you claim that the Holy Bible is inconsistent with itself is because you refuse to see the truth in the Lord Jesus Christ."
I've maintained to both leftists and Christians that both of them spout an arrogant, illogical, and poorly-researched mantra and resort to personal attacks when someone points out the flaws in their position. I've always been dissatisfied that these two groups were only dismissively embarrassed by how much they share in common.
I suggest starting with evidence and proceeding to policy. A good illustration of why I think starting with ideals, instead of evidence, is flawed is shown in the so-called "environmentalist" movement. Their ideal is to "protect the earth," but they routinely ignore evidence that happens to go against their ideals.
"Go from there" means "Have a debate in a public forum and refine the concepts". Unless you think, say, the Constitutional Convention was "arbitrarily making the rest up as we go along", your point doesn't have a lot of relevance.
There is a vast difference between elected officials having a public debate and an oppressive regime laying down edicts. This is what I was getting at. Anti-capitalists generally don't like open debate; they generally prefer the government to just force their view of morality on the public with an iron fist.
You seem to be a lot more concerned about pointing out the fact that my statements were vague rather than discussing whether the principles are valid. I, on the other hand, wish to start with an internally consistent philosophy and develop a set of rules that by and large encourage a pre-defined set of morals. We've already established that my system is not yet complete.
With your last statement, you're being aggressively stupid.
I can tell that you're getting frustrated with me. I don't accept your point of view, and I think your apologetic is poor. This does not mean you or I are stupid, and it's certainly not an excuse for you to stoop to name-calling.
A "moral society" is one that attempts to hew to the moral codes espoused by its members.
Trying to get you to give a concrete definition is like trying to nail jello to the wall. "Attempts"? How hard? And what percentage of the codes have to be "hewed"? And to what degree? And which codes that are "espoused by its members" get to be "hew-worthy"?
I would be willing to wager that if you picked a random ten dozen people from around the country and talked with them, you'd find a hell of a lot of moral statements that they'd agree with.
And you'd also find a hell of a lot of moral statements about which they disagreed wildly. Take "Abortion should be legal" for instance.
If you were to sample a similar number of corporations, you would never ever find them (honestly) advocating the same behavior. They have only one imperative, and it is not conducive to behavior that the rest of the society terms "moral".
This is opinion, not fact.
Too vague? Tough.
Yes, too vague, and no I don't accept it. I think you're an intelligent person who has put a lot of thought into this matter. Why, then, can you not provide a well-reasoned and well-supported argument for your position?
Do some thinking on your own and see what YOU come up with, and then we might be able to have a productive converstation.
The burden of proof lies on she or he who alleges. If you are going to make statements then you'd better be equipped to defend them. Unfortunately for you, your defense (thus far) is comprised completely of glittering generalities and vague notions.
I've pointed this out to you, and you responded thusly:
Both of these responses show how weak your argument is. First, your falling back on ad hominem when you can't defend your own positions without resorting to nebulous talk of ideals and morals shows that is you, not I, that has some thinking to do. You're not going to convince me to accept your point of view without a sound argument based on reason and evidence. I don't think you have that, yet. Second, You opened this can of worms with your decision to posit your positions. Showing you "my way" isn't going to change your mind as long as you believe that "your way" is still the right way. That statement is always true, regardless of what "my way" and "your way" might be.
I was attempting to make a broad point.
Ahh, ideals. The devil, of course, is in the details.
What defines property? Something that can provide a unique benefit to a limited number of persons. What defines hurt? We'll start with deprivation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and go from there.
How does "...and go from there" differ from "...and we'll arbitrarily make the rest up as we go along"? They sound functionally equivalent to me.
I think your definitions of "property" and "hurt" are far too vague. Since it is your goal to create legislation (which carries with it the threat of force) based on these concepts, don't you think it's a good idea to have definite definitions for these concepts?
My point was not to lay down a foundation for a moral society
Yet it seems you want to legislate so that corporations behave morally. Perhaps this is permissible in your desire to not lay down a foundation for a moral society.
Then again, what the hell does "laying down a foundation for a moral society" mean anyway? It's so nebulous that it could mean practically anything.
only to demonstrate that corporations as they are currently chartered are hostile to any moral society.
Your demonstration is logically flawed. You have not shown what a "moral society" is, so how can you conclude that corporations are hostile to it?
Now I'd like to see you try and define "moral society." You jumped out of the frying pan, squirmed out of the fire, and now you're dancing on hot coals becuase "moral," like "greed" and "hurting another person," is also a subjective concept.
Dude, at one point you just gotta land the boat and decide something is true in your life.
There's no way you could have landed upon this nebulous judgement of my character based on a few posts on slashdot. It's much more likely that you felt upset by what I wrote, and now you're lashing out in anger.
Are you a teenager? Your use of the word "dude" certainly makes you look like one. That and your unbecoming, know-it-all attitude.
Debating the meaning of words and staring at the shapes of letters become the same real quick.
What a nice opinion! Naturally, I have a different one.
If you have no idea what you personally think is right and wrong and least a general idea how you want your actions to reflect your moral ideals -- you may want to get started on that.
I have a good idea of right and wrong and how my actions reflect my concept of morality, and I'm certainly not going to follow the unsolicited and juvenile personal advice of some Anonymous Coward on Slashdot who addresses me as "dude."
There IS something wrong with hurting other people in order to get "stuff", and that's what capitalism has so far failed to address.
Out of the frying pan and into the fire with you. Here we find that the definition of "hurting other people," like the definition of "greed," is also subjective. What actions, precisely, does "hurting" another person include? Just physical pain? What about mental pain? What about defamation of character? What about loss of image? Anyone can claim that any of these can "hurt another person."
How about loss of property? Then again, what defines "property"? Just physical property? What about intellecutal property? And how about emotional property ("You stole my boyfriend!") Anyone can claim that any of these "hurt another person."
You claim that capitalism has failed to address a problem, but it seems to me that the problem is one of your own invention.
The "greed is good" ethic needs to be erradicated.
The problem is that the definition of "greed" is entirely subjective. How much property can I desire before I am deemed "greedy"?
Isn't this inherently insecure?
Any network OS connected to a network is inherently insecure! The only sure-fire way to secure it is to unplug it from the network. Better yet, unplug it from its power source.
I feel like I've asked the same question multiple times now. I am going to ask it again. It is not rhetorical; I want you to answer it:
Considering that experts who know much more about the translation of Hebrew than you or I disagree on the proper translation of Ex 20:13, how can you be so sure that [God's word in Ex 20:13] says "murder" instead of "kill"?
In my mind, accusing the translators of the RSV and NRSV of having a political agenda is at least as much of an accusation of their integrity as one of incompetence.
I have no problem attacking the integrity of the translators of the RSV and the NRSV. They are fallible, after all. Given that not "any old joe shmoe Hebrew scholor" would be selected from the extremely important task of translating the scriptures, I think it would be their integrity which would crumple long before their competence in translation would.
I'll have to consult my copy of Fox this evening and see if the footnotes shed any light on the passage we're discussing.
While you're at it, why don't you look at the following passages as well:
1 Sam 6:19
Isa 7:14
1 Tim 6:10
Mk 16:9-20
I am not familiar with the Fox translation, and I'm curious as to how it handles these verses.
I agree: this discussion is getting off-topic, and I would like to continue. Please feel free to send me your response in e-mail.
Please be careful with the term "Christian".
;)
I agree: its meaning has become awfully muddied with the hundreds of different "Christian" sects. I tried to frame the question in a way that would allow potential respondants to be free to interpret what "Christian" meant and decide whether or not it applied to them.
At least "Christian" does not have the stigma that "atheist" has in the USA.
I don't know how well we could determine if an alien were sentient or not, though.
We would determine it by using the same criteria by which we determine that humans are sentient. Whether or not an alien has a soul will be left up to whim, though, since there is no evidence for souls.
I have access a couple of Bible translations and the one that I trust the most, the NRSV, as well as the RSV, which I trust a little less, use 'commit murder' rather than 'kill'.
I already know what the NRSV and the RSV say on the issue. You are proving my point: experts disagree on the translation of Exodus 20:13. How then can you be so sure that it says "murder" instead of "kill"?
Another source, Fox's translation of the Pentateuch which is a lot closer to the sense of the original Hebrew than any of the Christian translations, uses a similar concept.
How do you know that Fox's translation of the Pentateuch is "a lot closer to the sense of the original Hebrew"? Are you a Hebrew scholar? Are you more qualified to translate the OT than those who translated the NKJV which says "kill"?
I'm not suggesting that the translators were incompetent, but I am suffesting that they are fallible. Translation is not a mechanical process in which words in one language are mapped one-to-one into words from another language. Nuances of meaning will be expressed differently by different translators.
As someone who has functioned as a translator before, I am well-familiar with the difference between translation and transliteration. The difference between "to kill" and "to murder" is most definately NOT a "nuance of meaning." They both have specific definitions and one is a subset of another. Furthermore, you are most definately charging the translators of the NKJV et al with incompetence. It is their job as translators to come up with an accurate translation, and that includes knowing the difference between "to kill" and "to murder" and which Hebrew words and phrases express which. If they cannot do that, then they cannot do their job and are, by definition, incompetent. Do you realize that your charge of fallibility also applies to those who translated the NRSV and the RSV? Answer me this, how can you be sure that the scripture truly does say "to kill" and the translators didn't decide to translate it as "to murder" for political expediency?
If an alien dosn't have a soul, then it's called 'meat' and it's not a sin to kill it if you put it to good purpose.
Precisely my point. And who decides whether or not aliens have souls? Considering that there is no evidence for the existence souls (and, in fact, there is evidence *against* the existence souls), my guess is that religious leaders will base their decision on whim.
The Ten Commandments talk about murder, wrongfully causing a death, not killing.
Bible Gateway is your friend (and your enemy). Your assertion that The Ten Commandments (I'll assume that you're discussing the first set of "the" Ten Commandments) talk about "murder" instead of killing is not supported by the translators of the KJV, NKJV, ASV, KJ21, and DARBY translations of the scriptures. Are you suggesting that those translators were incompetent and did not know the difference between "to kill" and "to murder"? I suggest you try and garner some consensus among Christians as to what Exodus 20:13 means before you claim that it discusses "murder" as if the issue had been conclusively decided. It seems to me that the jury is still out! I agree that translating "to kill" as "to murder" avoids a lot of potential problems, but since when did human expediency govern the will of God?
Whether or not they are out there is not going to affect me, my salvation, and my personal goals here on Earth.
;)
"Me, my salvation, my personal goals." It sounds a bit self-centered, don't you think?
So I'm not going to get into a debate that will go nowhere.
My question made you feel like getting into a debate? Why are you so defensive?
I just saw your post and thought that site might be helpful.
I think this statement really demonstrates the flaw in your thinking. I'm not looking for "the answer" and I certainly don't think it's going to be found in the bible. I can argue capably and scripturally that the bible raises many more questions than it answers. What I was asking for were opinions from Christians, not answers. You don't have "the truth" and you are not obligated to give "God's answer" any time a question comes up. All I really wanted was opinions.
Unlike many atheists you may have met, I respect the dignity, inherent worth, and thoughts of Christians. I believe it's called, "Hate the Christianity, love the Christian."