...is most frequently done whenever a LISP advocate opens his/her mouth. LISP advocates have been, in my limited and biased experience, some of the most arrogant and condescending bastards in the world. They think that LISP is God's gift to everything and that anyone who doesn't know it is an ignorant dolt. I know that is a harsh criticism of LISP advocates, but I think it's a well-placed criticism. I have heard more than one LISP advocate state such subjective comments as, "LISP is the most powerful and elegant programming language in the world" and expect such comments to be taken as objective truth. I have never heard a Java, C++, C, Perl, or Python advocate make the same claim about their own language of choice. I have heard such claims from Philip Greenspun (LISP and Emacs advocate), who also wrote (paraphrased) about Perl: "Perl has 1/10,000th the power of Common LISP, and 1/1,000th the power of FORTRAN."
This article by Pitman, however, is more level-headed, and I appreciate that. It's nice to hear a LISP advocate describe and defend rather than criticize and condemn. The main reason I have stayed away from LISP (and Emacs and OpenBSD, for that matter) is because I don't want to be associated with the people who support it. Someone may say I'm a moron for boycotting those things for such a "lame" reason, but, then again, is it really such a lame reason? What, exactly, am I missing out on by not participating in LISP, Emacs, and OpenBSD? I can tell you that I'm missing out on cavorting with condescending, arrogant pricks, for one thing. My computing needs are served quite adequately without those technologies.
I think it would be good for the LISP (and Emacs and OpenBSD) community to realize that they will win many more converts to their cause if they drop the arrogance.
I want to stress the point though, that if you want to know how reliable something is, you can't judge from one computer, or two, or ten. You need a couple thousand people, and you need them using it for different things.
This was a pretty good point to be made. Now, did you notice what CaptainSuperBoy heard and responded to? The only thing he/she noticed and cared to respond to was the fact that you were acting llike the world's biggest asshole. The signal-to-noise ratio of your posts is very, very close to zero.
If you were trying to make a point, then you totally failed. If you weren't trying to make a point, and, in fact, just wanted to be an asshole, then why did you write, "I want to stress the point though"?
You may have a million good points to be made, but none of them will be heard or believed as long as you continue to accompany your points with senseless invective.
Cute. Leftist == Communist == Pol Pot. Beautiful. Ad hominem, unjustified, unargued. But beautiful. Perhaps I should reach for Capitalist == Fascist == Augusto Pinochet. Thats bollocks too, but you started it.
You don't understand libertarianism very well. The differences between "communist" and "fascist" are very, very few. Both of them are huge, intrustive government. I reject both.
Your taxes are currently paying to drop bombs on the Taliban. I believe this act of self-defense is also a role of government. Do you? Would a pacifist have the freedom to not pay to support it.
Yes, the government should also defend the borders. Note that I do not support the U.S. being the policeman of the world. The U.S. should also stop supporting israel.
Thats a pretty big claim. I notice you haven't given a reference.
This was in response to my claim about the psychological fact that humans will do nothing unless there is personal gain. No, this is not a big claim at all. It is universally believed by almost every psychologist in the world. I dare and defy you to find a psychologist who disbelieves it. Furthermore, I dare and defy you to tell me something you have done which is altruistic.
Thats a pretty big claim. I notice you haven't given a reference.
This was in response to my statement that there will always be starving citizens. I don't think my claim is as big as your implication that there can be some kind of government which will eliminate all hunger. Perhaps you ought to back up *your* claim.
As much as they like. But they should be prepared to pay some of it in taxes in order to care for those who are not wealthy.
You dodged the question. That which is taxed is that which they are not allowed to accumulate. How much are citizens allowed to accumulate tax-free?
Some of them are, some of them aren't. Thats why I singled out those that were (Duh).
And how do you define "less fortunate"?
Again, what you wrote is not nearly as important as what you didn't write. Look at all the questions I asked and points that I made that you ignored:
I can always kill myself and absolve myself of responsibility for everyone, can't I?
And if I don't have the right to keep "all of my money," then do I have the right to keep my house? My car? My clothes? Any of my property?
Government mandated (read: forced) seizure of property is more akin to theft than it is to economics.
And who decides where the slide lies? How do you prevent government abuse?
Why not have the government seize it all and
be just like the ultra-successful Soviet Union?
Why are people poor?
Do you realize that morality is completely subjective?
Do you realize that you put yourself in the exact same boat that as the Religious Fundamentalists of the U.S.A., who want to impose the Christian religion on all people and totally ban abortion becuase it's a "moral" thing to do?
Maybe things are different in the ultra-classist British society, but here in the U.S., one's credit does NOT come from her/his parents. It comes solely from her/himself or possibly that person's spouse.
The Ricky Martin phenomenon is a multi-million dollar part of the entertainment industry, and the entire lot depends on one person: Ricky Martin. What do you think his cut should be? 25%? 10%?
I notice that you didn't mention lottery winners as those who didn't earn their money. Is this perhaps they usually come from the holy "working class"?
I never argued that low wage earners were lazy. Some of them work harder than I do. But I earn more than they do becuase there are fewer of me than there are of them.
No they don't, you simply don't understand the usage. If differing usage offends you, feel free to replace it with the synonymous "blue collar".
Yes, they do, for your implication was that your usage was "Standard British" usage (which everyone should know), and I should go look it up.
And as long as your child is OK, you're absolved of responsibility for any other member of humanity, right?
No, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I decide for myself who I am responsible for. I can always kill myself and absolve myself of responsibility for everyone, can't I?
Thats a nice elision you use, implicitly equating freedom of choice with the right to keep all your money. You're also fond that other elision -- playing on the double meaning of the word "earned" (as in "what you got paid" and "what you deserved")
How incredibly communist of you! Pol Pot would be proud. I don't just believe in freedom of choice. I believe in freedom, period. Freedom from government (which is force) intrusion. Freedom from government oversight. The government should exist to enforce the laws, and the only actions which should be illegal are those which deprive another individual of life, liberty, or property. And if I don't have the right to keep "all of my money," then do I have the right to keep my house? My car? My clothes? Any of my property? If I do, then what criteria do you use to differentiate, and how do you prevent government abuse? Furthermore, who decides who deserves what, since you seem to have a notion of people only keep what they "deserve."
Provide me with GDP, a histogram of earning distribution, costings for health care, and your best estimates of their trends, and I'll put a number on it. How simple do you believe economics to be?
As if this were a matter of economics! This is not economics, this is politics. Leftist politics. Government mandated (read: forced) seizure of property is more akin to theft than it is to economics.
Theres no need. Progressive taxation is a sliding scale.
And who decides where the slide lies? How do you prevent government abuse?
Says who? Ayn Rand? I am an altruist. Do I then not exist.
No, says psychology. Humans don't do things if there isn't personal gain involved. It's a psychological fact. You do exist, and you are not an altruist.
That I believe that the role of government is to redistribute wealth so that the richest countries in the world don't have any starving citizens.
You use the term "redistribute" becuase you do not think wealth is earned. You think it is distributed. You are wrong. You also fail to realize that countries will always have starving citizens, no matter what the private sector or governments do.
I believe in both of them. However, I don't hold the accumulation of property to be particularly meritricious, and I don't believe personal liberty absolves people from a moral responsibility to care for those less fortunate, and that one of the roles of government is to enforce this.
Once again, your statements only elicit more questions. You don't "hold the accumulation of property to be particularly meritricious." Fine... how much property are citizens allowed to accumulate? Why not have the government seize it all and be just like the ultra-successful Soviet Union? And your words, "less fortunate" imply that the poor are in their poor state through no fault of their own. You and I both know that this is false. Sometimes people are poor becuase of bad fortune, but most often they are not. Why don't you answer this question: Why are people poor? Last, you mention that it is the job of Government to enforce morality. Do you realize that morality is completely subjective? Do you realize that you put yourself in the exact same boat that as the Religious Fundamentalists of the U.S.A., who want to impose the Christian religion on all people and totally ban abortion becuase it's a "moral" thing to do.
Arguing with "libertarians" is hilarious, because they take the high moral line over ad hominem attacks, and then come out with stuff like that.
Touche. I notice you didn't dispute my statement that you use shaky evidence and flawed reasoning.
If I have good credit because my parents are rich (which isn't true, incidentally), why do you consider that I have earned it. Thats an accident of birth.
Maybe things are different in the ultra-classist British society, but here in the U.S., one's credit does NOT come from her/his parents. It comes solely from her/himself or possibly that person's spouse.
Some of them did. Some of them didn't. Lee Iaccoca(sp?) did, Ricky Martin, less so.
How did Ricky Martin not earn his money? Because you don't think he's talented? Who cares what you think! The Ricky Martin phenomenon is a multi-million dollar part of the entertainment industry, and the entire lot depends on one person: Ricky Martin. What do you think his cut should be? 25%? 10%?
I notice that you didn't mention lottery winners as those who didn't earn their money. Is this perhaps they usually come from the holy "working class"?
Well in the sense of how much they were paid, obviously. Did they work less hard? Some of them. Some rich people are lazy too (George W. Bush, prior to the presidency, had hardly done a hard days work in his life) And some people aren't lazy. I earn more than my sister-in-law, but she works much harder and for longer hours than I do.
Notice I never said "lazy." That was a word you introduced. I never argued that low wage earners were lazy. Some of them work harder than I do. But I earn more than they do becuase there are fewer of me than there are of them. Almost any able-bodied man can dig a ditch. How many ditchdiggers can write computer code? How simple do you believe economics to be?
My terminology is the standard British usage. Go look it up in the OED.
Your words lend credence to the stereotype that the British are elitist. Furthermore, it makes sense that such a concept would be "standard usage" in the ultra-classist British society.
Not that it takes away from my argument, though.
Bull. Most wealthy students inherited their money.
I think what you mean is that most wealthy students were given money by their wealthy parents. I think this is acceptable: if I earn a lot of money, then I maintain the right to provide for my child in the best way that I see fit. Likewise, if I don't earn enough money to provide for a child, then I should not have one.
Taxpayers. This is where we came in.
And here, what you wrote is not nearly as important as what you didn't write. I asked some questions in my last post that you ignored. I'll ask them again here. Maybe this time I'll get an answer:
How much of the high wage-earner's money should the government have the right to seize? What percentage is the right number?
Neither of us are right, you berk.
I don't remember claiming to be right. But I think the reason and the evidence behind my point of view has yet to be successfully challenged. Thank you very little for the ad hominem, though. If you had a decent argument, you probably wouldn't have to resort to invective.
I think the rich should subsidise the poor
Define "rich." Define "poor." And how much should be subsidized? What is the percentage?
you think they should fend for themselves.
Incorrect. I do not think that the government has the right to take property from one group of people and give it to another. I do not think people should (or, in many cases, could) "fend for themselves." Humans are social creatures.
You (possibly) call yourself a libertarian. I call you greedy and self-interested.
I do call myself a Libertarian. And generally I don't respond to ad hominems like these, but, in this case, they're telling about the mindset of a leftist. First, can you define "greedy"? Do you realize that I could very well call you "greedy" since you're not living in the squalor that the people (for whom I've built houses) in Juarez, Mexico live in? Second, all humans are "self-interested." It's a psychological fact. Humans do not do anything unless they get something out of it. I.e., altruism is a myth.
I say I believe in encouraging social equality
What does that mean?
you call me a bleeding heart liberal (or a leftist, a word which, incidentally, is almost unheard of outside America).
I called you a leftist, not a "bleeding heart liberal." I do not approve of using the term "liberal" for leftists, since leftists neither support nor believe in individual liberty.
You say "The rich should be allowed to keep their money." I disagree. It happens.
Since I rarely use the terms "rich" and "poor" (those words have awfully slippery definitions), you are attributing words to me which I did not write. I do believe in the right to life, liberty, and property. You obviously don't believe in the last two.
Now stop pretending you have a hot line to the truth.
Pot, kettle, black.
Over 170 million people have been killed by their own governments in the last 100 years. I don't understand why this fact doesn't disturb big-government leftists, who seem to be saying, "*This* time, we'll make huge government work right!"
Arguing with leftists is much like arguing with religious fundamentalists: they both ignore evidence, ignore questions, and employ horrible reasoning. Your argument is no exception. Here are some other points I made or questions I asked that you ignored:
I made a point that credit was earned, not distributed. I can see why you ignored it, though: unlike wealth, you cannot claim that people are "given" credit.
Did you consider that the wealthy earned their money and the poor earned less money?
What are the poor decisions that the poor make which keeps them poor?
Next time, I suggest you use more reason, more evidence, and less of everything else. I am not swayed by nor interested in your emotions.
Wow, that's a totally different problem. Though I don't understand what you're rambling on about: if you're just a number then you have your privacy!
I disagree. If I, as a company with a financial interest, know that "consumer #42834" lives at 243 Mockingbird Ln., is 42 years old, is divorced, drives a '94 Toyota Corolla, then how difficult is it to correllate that information with a name, or a social security number? Do you not realize that the business of selling personal information is a huge one, and that, with computing as cheap as it is, it is trivial to turn "random data" into information about someone that the victim might not want you to have?
There's no way of linking the sites you visit or the things you buy to who you are, so what's the problem?
Is there really no way of linking that kind of information? What kind of evidence do you offer to support that baseless statement? Do you doubt that there are parties who would find financial interest in doing just such a thing?
No privacy is being "taken" from you from "companies tryping to make money." It seems like you may have deeper social issues.
Unless you hold a Ph.D. in psychology and have years of experience in diagnosing socio-psychological issues in your patients, your statement is nothing more than an ad hominem. And if one company sells my personal information to another without my express permission, then my privacy is being taken.
Well nice idea, but those photos are already available online. Perhaps I could just send you the URL and save you the trouble?
Please do!
I'm hoping your next reply will contain more evidence, better reasoning, and less ad hominems than your previous reply.
You must really have a problem with the census, then
I do have a problem with the census. The Constitution does not approve that which the leftists have turned the census into.
and all the benefits that arise from it
What benefits?
other forms of social research.
What other forms of social research? As long as it is consensual, provides recognizable benefit to me, and protects my privacy, I'll probably agree with it.
Intelligent marketers want to achieve the same goals as with any social research project - learn as much as they can about target populations as accurately and efficiently as possible.
Totally wrong! The goal for marketers is to make money, and the goal of a non-profit basic social research project is variable. Garnering information about the target population is merely the means to the end.
The leap from statistical analysis of populations to the privacy concerns you voiced is a large one.
Since when did I indicate that I was concerned about "statistical analysys of populations"? It seems like you are beating up a strawman to me.
Why moderators continue to confuse slippery slope arguments with true insight is beyond me.
"Insightful" is a subjective term. You are not the judge of what is insightful and what is not.
Privacy advocates are up in arms about this kind of research, but these people have to get it through their heads that these companies don't give a fuck who you are. To them you're just a number.
And this is precisely why I am up in arms about that kind of research: because, to them, I am "just a number." Companies don't care that I am am human with notions of privacy and dignity. I'll take my privacy and dignity over someone else's notion of "what I might want to buy from them" every single time. To companies trying to make money, my privacy and dignity are barriers to their profit-making abilities. What gives them the right to take it?
And if you argue that people have no privacy, then I reserve the right to clandestinely take photographs of you masturbating and send those photos to everyone who knows you, including your employer, potential employers, and your extended family.
If you have bad credit, then what is the incentive for a private company to loan you money? Credit is earned, not distributed.
Like it or not, many people from working class backgrounds
"Working class"? I think what you mean is the low wage-earners. Your terminology implies that only the poor work, and everyone else gets a free ride. This is a very common concept in leftist ideology: the rich did not earn their money, they were given it. So the government has the right to take it away and give it to those who "work for a living."
Either way, they're seriously disadvantaged w.r.t. the independently wealthy.
So? Did you consider that the wealthy earned their money and the poor earned less money? What are the poor decisions that the poor make which keeps them poor? Leftists continually imply or state that the poor are in their bad situation through no fault of their own.
I also state here that I think people have no right to have children that they cannot afford to raise. Since you are a leftist, you'll probably unload on me with a boatload of ad hominems before you try and argue against that statement.
Call me a socialist if you must, but I think I high quality education should be available to everyone with the smarts to use it.
You're not a socialist, you are a leftist. And I agree that high quality education should be available to everyone, but the problem remains: who is going to pay for it? I think that the individual should pay for it, while you think that the poor have the right to use the government as an instrument of plunder. How much of the high wage-earner's money should the government have the right to seize? What percentage is the right number? That's not a rhetorical question: I really want you to try and answer it.
Which is the way you think it should be.
I'm still waiting for someone to provide me evidence and reason which refutes my point of view. I usually get maudlin whining about "the poor" and "the children," but very little valid argument.
Ah yes, "the people." Now, would you mind telling me which people? If you want to say "all the people," then I expect you to be able to tell me a way of finding out the opinion of all the people and then coming up with a single "will" which represents all of their desires and isn't unfair to anybody.
I'll point out here that the majority of "the people" in Nazi Germany agreed with what the Nazis did.
In a completely relativistic universe, nothing can be found to be absolutely right or wrong. So I can't argue with you if that's how you see things.
Unless you can point out which morality is the "correct" one, then you agree with me that we do, in fact, live in a completely relativistic universe.
But unless you're willing to say that there's nothing intrinsically bad about people committing crimes or living in poverty, then my point is still valid.
Your invalid point is made no more valid by the statements here. Instead, you have succeeded in raising more questions:
1. Is there anything intrinsically bad about people committing crimes? Well, that depends on which actions are determined to be "crimes," doesn't it? Some statist governments determined that owning property was a "crime." Are you implying that it is government who decides what morality is? Remember: everything that the Nazis and the Stalinists and the Khmer Rough did was legal.
2. Is there anything intrinsically bad about people living in poverty? Well, that depends on how "living in poverty" is defined, doesn't it? In the United States, I can live in a one million dollar house and still be legally "living in poverty."
Your points are based on very shaky foundations.
Myself, I belive that the only actions which should be illegal are those which deprive another individual of life, liberty, or property.
Correct. Many of us do not believe this to be a bad thing, since a reasonable, progressive taxation system results in the rich subsidising the poor.
"Reasonable"? Reasonable to whom? I assume it's reasonable to the "poor" you mention since they get to plunder the coffers of the "rich." How reasonable is it that the harder you work, the more you are penalized?
Not necessarily. What it should mean (modulo tax cuts for the rich, and the myth of trickle-down economics) is that this generation of students are subsidised by the previous generation of students, since they're now earning more than their "non-graduate" contemporaries.
Many students here take out loans to finance their education, and then pay back the loan when they graduate and get a job. This way, students are responsible for their own education, which is the way it should be.
Oh, and Cato Institute reports attacking government spending are not exactly impartial sources
And Tom Daschle isn't impartial, either. So what? You'd expect a person who is arguing their position to be partial to that position, wouldn't you? Impartiality is not important in this regard. What is important is whether or not the facts stated by the Cato institute are true, and wheter or not the reason they employ is valid. I notice that you chose to assail neither of those things.
The main flaw in this argument is that the "what's good for society" is *highly* subjective. Many people argue that the War on (Some) Drugs is "good for society," when there is a huge, massive pile of evidence that it does much more harm to individuals than it does good.
Who defines what is "good for society"? I claim that "that which is good for society" and "that which is moral" are almost exactly equivalent. The difference lies in that the former implies groupthink while the latter implies individual thought. And "moral" is also a highly subjective definition.
The only reason why ads have gotten so
fscking annoying is because the conventional style isn't working. Why isn't it working? Because people block it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
The reason that it (advertising) is not working is becuase advertising, in general, does not work. Think about how many ads you see every day, and then think about how many times you actually buy the product or visit the store. We Americans are bombarded with gazillions of ads every day, and I know that if I went out and "followed up" on every ad that I was subjected to, then I would have no time and no money.
Also, do you know those huge, full-page ads in the newspaper (and you had to pay for the newspaper!)? Does anyone know if someone views the ad and then that someone goes to Macy*s to examine or purchase the advertised product? Hell no! No one knows how effective that advertising is! So the idea is to just flood the world with more and more of it in an effort to increase profits.
Now, compare traditional advertising to the web advertising. In the world of the Internet, advertisers know to a much, much finer detail exactly how effective their advertising is. This was one of the draws of Internet advertising: we can track consumers!. Guess what? The draw turned out to be a liability, as it turns out that web advertising is not very effective. But this is not because the web is not an effective medium over which to advertise, but instead because all advertising is generally ineffective.
Because there is no way to track traditional advertising, advertisers will never know or admit how ineffective it is. They're shooting in the dark. On the web, they know exactly how bad their aim is.
I beg to differ on this one. It all depends on what your fundamentals are. Think about it.
First, we have a semantic disagreement. What does "Fundamentalist" mean? Apparently it means different things to you and to me.
Second, the phrase "think about it" is one of the most pointless and arrogant things one can write in a debate. It implies that I would come to your (correct) conclusions if I were to just "think" a little bit more, and thus I conclude from what you write that you believe I haven't thought about this very much. This ignores the fact that I most likely have different premises than you do, so who is to say that my thinking about anything in the way that you do will yield your conclusions? Did you consider the possibility that your premises are false?
But going from my view of the term "fundamentalist," my viewpoint stands. Religious Fundamentalists continually are the most arrogant and violent people in the world, second only to communists (see Stalin, Mau Tse Tung, Pol Pot).
If you asked "which country treats the population of the rest of the world like mongrel scum and commits horrendous atrocities on those people", many people would point to the US.
You're absolutely right: our "selective policeman of the world" policy has earned us the hatred of millions.
Maybe this will finally wake the people of the US up to the fact that even the most friendly neighbors (Canada and Mexico) are often pissed off at the way the US treats the rest of the world. "The American Way" is not the only way, and isn't the same as "the right way".
But you must admit that while many countries hate the American way, they also eat it up. The French are notorious for this: they claim to hate Levis and McDonalds and Coca-Cola, but they still consume it anyway. There are many reasons why people hate Americans, and not all of them are valid or justified.
Even the fact that you suggest that somehow the US might have the option of enforcing it's views on which religions are "A-OK" and which are "unamerican" shows the kind of arrogance the rest of the world can't stand.
Except that it wasn't arrogance which blew up the world trade center. It was terrorism. Terrorism that teaches people to maim and murder innocent civilians. It is not arrogant for me to say that a religion that teaches those things is evil. A person can't hide behind "religious tolerance" in order to kill innocent civilians, and it's insane to suggest I am "arrogant" for believing that.
The destruction of the WTC and the Pentagon were horrible tragedies, but they were the direct result of the US pushing the rest of the world around with its monetary and military might.
First, this is not true. The hatred comes from a combination of things, not just the actions of the US, and not the least of which is the belief in an evil, violent, murderous religion. Second, even if it were true, it would not justify the killing of thousands of innocent civilians. You act as if this is "eye for an eye," and it is not.
Instead of asking "who can we kill to avenge this?", maybe you should ask "why would someone hate us enough to do this?"
I never advocated killing anyone. I advocate the destruction of evil religion. And it is the evil religion that is advocating killing people, and innocent civilians at that.
Bye bye Karma, but this rant was necessary.
Perhaps you thought it was necessary, but your argument is largely centered around "You're an arrogant American asshole." That argument is getting very old, and very tired. Americans don't have a monopoly on arrogance. I do not excuse our meddling in the sovereignity of other countries for any reason except when they attack us. I am a Libertarian and I despise what the Republicrats did in Central America in the 1980s.
Muslim fundamentalists think Americans are literally from the Devil. They hate us and want to kill us. The hatred, violence, and murder comes from the religion, and that's why the religion needs to be destroyed. I don't think my argument is unfair or illogical. Please don't attack me; attack my argument. You will get much father with me that way!
Terrorists love Islam, because once you declare a jihad, it's very hard to take it back.
I agree: the source of the evil is the religion. This is why we need to discredit the religion. We did this to the Japanese and we need to do it to the Afghanis as well.
Christianity was much worse in terms of fanaticism. Remember the Crusades?
Of course I do! I don't mean to exonerate Christian fanatics by condemning Muslim fanatics. It just so happens that Muslim fanatics happened to just attack the US in the worst terrorist attack ever, so they're getting the brunt of my ire.
Do you really think that you can discredit Terrorist Islam?
Yes. That's what we did to the Japanese religion, and it worked. I don't think that the faith of Islamic terrorists is any stronger or weaker than the faith of the Japanese citizens. I think something about having your country owned by another is naturally faith-shattering, particularly when one's faith is joined at the hip with military might. That's something that Islamic terrorists have in common with the Japanese of WW2.
The Romans couldn't discredit Christianity, even when they used their followers as streetlamps and lion food.
Torturing followers will not work: religious extremists love to be persecuted. They feel like it makes them right! Go over to WorldNet Daily and view the daily links there which read, "Christian persectuion: Learn the TRUTH." But showing people that their religion is false will work. I'm not familiar enough with fundamentalist Islam to know how this is best done, but there must be a way.
We can't even discredit Scientology!
I don't think we've hardly tried! Remember, the discrediting of the Japanese religion was a military effort, and it worked. Let's not give up before we've tried. We've done it successfully before and I think we can do it again. The lives of innocent civilians depend on it.
In World War II, the Japanese culture and the Japanese religion were the same thing. The Japanese thought that they were the supreme race, and that their emporer was a god. They treated the rest of population of Asia like they were mongrel scum and committed horrendous atrocities to those people.
When the Japanese surrendered to the US, we (the US) basically rebuilt their country. Part of that involved discrediting their false and evil religion. We paraded their emporer around the country and allowed the citizens to touch him, proving that they could touch the emporer and survive.
I think it's time we do the same thing with these so-called "rogue nations." I'm not arguing that Islam is evil, but the type of "Islam" that these terrorists follow most certainly is. They are inspired and driven by their evil religion to murder and injure innocent civilians. I have no tolerance for any religion that teaches its followers to murder and maim innocent civilians.
If we want to stop Islamic terrorists, then we need to discredit their false and evil religion. I know this sounds like heavy flamebait, and before you moderate it as such, please attempt to understand my argument that the "Islam" that these terrorists follow is an evil and murderous religion. Thousands of innocent civilians are dead becuase of that religion. Islam is not inherently evil, but that does not mean that there aren't some sects of Islam that are. Just like there are some sects of almost any religion that are.
Actually, you were busy claiming that I was arguing against human contact. I saw no arguments about morals. That's the problem with you people - you focus way too much on the physical aspect of everything.
I never claimed that you were arguing against human contact. I claim that your logic can be used to argue against human contact. And you've also handed me a "you people" comment. Personal comments like these do not belong in this discussion.
Sure. I'll agree. However, I wasn't saying that all of those things always happened. I was saying that your chances of destroying families, ruining lives, and encouraging disloyalty, dysfunction, and distrust are significantly higher. In fact, the more you do it, the higher your probabilities climb towards 1.
You said no such things. Your exact quote was this: "Our 'sexual freedom' destroys families. It ruins lives. It transmits disease. It encourages disloyalty, dysfunction, and distrust." You never said that the chances were higher.
Furthermore, let's continue with your logic. The cahnces of destroying families, ruining lives, encouraging disloyalty, dysfunction, and distrust are all significantly higher with all human contact. Why do you not make that argument, too?
Nothing inherently morally wrong with consensual sex? Tell that to the little boy whose dad ditched him because he just wanted to have fun with his mom when they got all hot and heavy at the drive-in.
The sex is not the problem. The problem here is that the parent is not taking care of their kid. What if the parents had ditched their little boy because they wanted to go ride a roller coaster? Would you then argue that there was something wrong with riding roller coasters? Of course not. Sex is an activity like any other, and raising children takes precedence in importance over all other activities. There is still nothing inherently wrong with consensual sex, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with riding roller coasters.
Tell that to the guys who wish their wives could sex 'em up like so-and-so did.
Okay! "Hey 'guys who wish your wives could sex you up like so-and-so did': there is nothing inherently wrong with consensual sex."
I'm interested in knowing why you think there is something wrong with consensual sex. So far, you have not been very convincing.
Our "sexual freedom" destroys families. It ruins lives. It transmits disease. It encourages disloyalty, dysfunction, and distrust.
The big problem with people who think that STDs are good is this: ANY kind of human contact can transmit a disease. Touching, talking, kissing, sharing eating utensils... all of these can be potentially deadly actions.
So, using your logic, we can rewrite your argument like this:
Our "freedom in human contact" destroys families. It ruins lives. It transmits disease. It encourages disloyalty, disfunction, and distrust.
Furthermore, your argument is not unilaterally true. I can rewrite your statement like this, except this time the statement is true:
Our "sexual freedom" does not always destroy families. It does not always ruin lives. It does not always transmit disease. It does not always encourage disloyalty, nor disfunction, nor distrust.
Your argument is crap. I claim that there is nothing inherently morally wrong with consensual sex. If you disagree, then be prepared to show your evidence why.
They're solely in it for the money, not for more altruistic reasons.
No, they're not in it for the money. They're in it for the power. Microsoft already has more money than God. Remember, gobs of money is just a front-end to power. If you can skip the money part and just go for the power, then why not do that? (Just ask Microsoft, they should know!)
This is hardly a reply to my argument. I never wrote that corporations were good and right to hide behind their drive for profit. Neither did I write that corporations are people. I only said that the drive for profit is why corporations exist.
Nonetheless, your argument sucks.
Profit motive is not a defense for indefensible, immoral, anti-civic behavior.
First, of course profit motive cannot be a defense for the indefensible. If it's indefensible, then nothing is a defense!
Second, I agree that some actions of the individuals in corporations can be immoral. But whose morality are they being judged by? Yours? Mine? Pat Robertson's? Elton John's? You wrote earlier, "...they DO have a responsibility to act morally...." Maybe you think so, but that does not legally obligate them to do so. They can be nailed for illegal activites, but not just immoral activities. "Moral" is a really slippery definition.
Third, what does "anti-civic" mean? Does it mean "illegal"? If so, then I agree with you on that regard.
Apparently there is no moral limit to one's actions as long as "profit" is the ultimate motive.
You're absolutely right. Corporations, generally speaking, are not in the business of being moral. They are not aiming to be upstanding citizens. One would be hard-pressed to find a single corporation out there whose sole focus from its inception has been "To restore morality to the corporate landscape and to human society."
I don't think anyone was necessarily trying to defend it or excuse the actions of corporations by stating it. It's just a fact. The only reason companies don't sell crack cocaine is becuase of the War On (Some) Drugs.
There are, however, some folks who *do* make this argument to defend the actions of corporations. Many of these people often chirp in defense of Microsoft. "Microsoft is the single most sucessful company ever." This is obviously flawed, as it is an ad crumenam argument. It's no different than saying, "Whatever makes a lot of money is therefore good."
By that token, the Seven Dwarfs (CEOs of big tobacco) are all moral and good despite the fact that they lied under oath when all seven testified nicotine is not addictive. Sell an addictive, deadly product and lie about it? You're moral and good as long as you make money!
(I would have no problem with cigarette companies if they were up front about their deadly product.)
Slashdot Mirror
...is most frequently done whenever a LISP advocate opens his/her mouth. LISP advocates have been, in my limited and biased experience, some of the most arrogant and condescending bastards in the world. They think that LISP is God's gift to everything and that anyone who doesn't know it is an ignorant dolt. I know that is a harsh criticism of LISP advocates, but I think it's a well-placed criticism. I have heard more than one LISP advocate state such subjective comments as, "LISP is the most powerful and elegant programming language in the world" and expect such comments to be taken as objective truth. I have never heard a Java, C++, C, Perl, or Python advocate make the same claim about their own language of choice. I have heard such claims from Philip Greenspun (LISP and Emacs advocate), who also wrote (paraphrased) about Perl: "Perl has 1/10,000th the power of Common LISP, and 1/1,000th the power of FORTRAN."
This article by Pitman, however, is more level-headed, and I appreciate that. It's nice to hear a LISP advocate describe and defend rather than criticize and condemn. The main reason I have stayed away from LISP (and Emacs and OpenBSD, for that matter) is because I don't want to be associated with the people who support it. Someone may say I'm a moron for boycotting those things for such a "lame" reason, but, then again, is it really such a lame reason? What, exactly, am I missing out on by not participating in LISP, Emacs, and OpenBSD? I can tell you that I'm missing out on cavorting with condescending, arrogant pricks, for one thing. My computing needs are served quite adequately without those technologies.
I think it would be good for the LISP (and Emacs and OpenBSD) community to realize that they will win many more converts to their cause if they drop the arrogance.
I agree with most everything you wrote except this:
Personally, I'm all for the government stepping in and taking over airline security; I think that would be a good idea.
What evidence do you have that supports this statement?
In your original post, you wrote this:
I want to stress the point though, that if you want to know how reliable something is, you can't judge from one computer, or two, or ten. You need a couple thousand people, and you need them using it for different things.
This was a pretty good point to be made. Now, did you notice what CaptainSuperBoy heard and responded to? The only thing he/she noticed and cared to respond to was the fact that you were acting llike the world's biggest asshole. The signal-to-noise ratio of your posts is very, very close to zero.
If you were trying to make a point, then you totally failed. If you weren't trying to make a point, and, in fact, just wanted to be an asshole, then why did you write, "I want to stress the point though"?
You may have a million good points to be made, but none of them will be heard or believed as long as you continue to accompany your points with senseless invective.
You don't understand libertarianism very well. The differences between "communist" and "fascist" are very, very few. Both of them are huge, intrustive government. I reject both.
Your taxes are currently paying to drop bombs on the Taliban. I believe this act of self-defense is also a role of government. Do you? Would a pacifist have the freedom to not pay to support it.
Yes, the government should also defend the borders. Note that I do not support the U.S. being the policeman of the world. The U.S. should also stop supporting israel.
Thats a pretty big claim. I notice you haven't given a reference.
This was in response to my claim about the psychological fact that humans will do nothing unless there is personal gain. No, this is not a big claim at all. It is universally believed by almost every psychologist in the world. I dare and defy you to find a psychologist who disbelieves it. Furthermore, I dare and defy you to tell me something you have done which is altruistic.
Thats a pretty big claim. I notice you haven't given a reference.
This was in response to my statement that there will always be starving citizens. I don't think my claim is as big as your implication that there can be some kind of government which will eliminate all hunger. Perhaps you ought to back up *your* claim.
As much as they like. But they should be prepared to pay some of it in taxes in order to care for those who are not wealthy.
You dodged the question. That which is taxed is that which they are not allowed to accumulate. How much are citizens allowed to accumulate tax-free?
Some of them are, some of them aren't. Thats why I singled out those that were (Duh).
And how do you define "less fortunate"?
Again, what you wrote is not nearly as important as what you didn't write. Look at all the questions I asked and points that I made that you ignored:
be just like the ultra-successful Soviet Union?
No they don't, you simply don't understand the usage. If differing usage offends you, feel free to replace it with the synonymous "blue collar".
Yes, they do, for your implication was that your usage was "Standard British" usage (which everyone should know), and I should go look it up.
And as long as your child is OK, you're absolved of responsibility for any other member of humanity, right?
No, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. I decide for myself who I am responsible for. I can always kill myself and absolve myself of responsibility for everyone, can't I?
Thats a nice elision you use, implicitly equating freedom of choice with the right to keep all your money. You're also fond that other elision -- playing on the double meaning of the word "earned" (as in "what you got paid" and "what you deserved")
How incredibly communist of you! Pol Pot would be proud. I don't just believe in freedom of choice. I believe in freedom, period. Freedom from government (which is force) intrusion. Freedom from government oversight. The government should exist to enforce the laws, and the only actions which should be illegal are those which deprive another individual of life, liberty, or property. And if I don't have the right to keep "all of my money," then do I have the right to keep my house? My car? My clothes? Any of my property? If I do, then what criteria do you use to differentiate, and how do you prevent government abuse? Furthermore, who decides who deserves what, since you seem to have a notion of people only keep what they "deserve."
Provide me with GDP, a histogram of earning distribution, costings for health care, and your best estimates of their trends, and I'll put a number on it. How simple do you believe economics to be?
As if this were a matter of economics! This is not economics, this is politics. Leftist politics. Government mandated (read: forced) seizure of property is more akin to theft than it is to economics.
Theres no need. Progressive taxation is a sliding scale.
And who decides where the slide lies? How do you prevent government abuse?
Says who? Ayn Rand? I am an altruist. Do I then not exist.
No, says psychology. Humans don't do things if there isn't personal gain involved. It's a psychological fact. You do exist, and you are not an altruist.
That I believe that the role of government is to redistribute wealth so that the richest countries in the world don't have any starving citizens.
You use the term "redistribute" becuase you do not think wealth is earned. You think it is distributed. You are wrong. You also fail to realize that countries will always have starving citizens, no matter what the private sector or governments do.
I believe in both of them. However, I don't hold the accumulation of property to be particularly meritricious, and I don't believe personal liberty absolves people from a moral responsibility to care for those less fortunate, and that one of the roles of government is to enforce this.
Once again, your statements only elicit more questions. You don't "hold the accumulation of property to be particularly meritricious." Fine... how much property are citizens allowed to accumulate? Why not have the government seize it all and be just like the ultra-successful Soviet Union? And your words, "less fortunate" imply that the poor are in their poor state through no fault of their own. You and I both know that this is false. Sometimes people are poor becuase of bad fortune, but most often they are not. Why don't you answer this question: Why are people poor? Last, you mention that it is the job of Government to enforce morality. Do you realize that morality is completely subjective? Do you realize that you put yourself in the exact same boat that as the Religious Fundamentalists of the U.S.A., who want to impose the Christian religion on all people and totally ban abortion becuase it's a "moral" thing to do.
Arguing with "libertarians" is hilarious, because they take the high moral line over ad hominem attacks, and then come out with stuff like that.
Touche. I notice you didn't dispute my statement that you use shaky evidence and flawed reasoning.
If I have good credit because my parents are rich (which isn't true, incidentally), why do you consider that I have earned it. Thats an accident of birth.
Maybe things are different in the ultra-classist British society, but here in the U.S., one's credit does NOT come from her/his parents. It comes solely from her/himself or possibly that person's spouse.
Some of them did. Some of them didn't. Lee Iaccoca(sp?) did, Ricky Martin, less so.
How did Ricky Martin not earn his money? Because you don't think he's talented? Who cares what you think! The Ricky Martin phenomenon is a multi-million dollar part of the entertainment industry, and the entire lot depends on one person: Ricky Martin. What do you think his cut should be? 25%? 10%?
I notice that you didn't mention lottery winners as those who didn't earn their money. Is this perhaps they usually come from the holy "working class"?
Well in the sense of how much they were paid, obviously. Did they work less hard? Some of them. Some rich people are lazy too (George W. Bush, prior to the presidency, had hardly done a hard days work in his life) And some people aren't lazy. I earn more than my sister-in-law, but she works much harder and for longer hours than I do.
Notice I never said "lazy." That was a word you introduced. I never argued that low wage earners were lazy. Some of them work harder than I do. But I earn more than they do becuase there are fewer of me than there are of them. Almost any able-bodied man can dig a ditch. How many ditchdiggers can write computer code? How simple do you believe economics to be?
Your words lend credence to the stereotype that the British are elitist. Furthermore, it makes sense that such a concept would be "standard usage" in the ultra-classist British society.
Not that it takes away from my argument, though.
Bull. Most wealthy students inherited their money.
I think what you mean is that most wealthy students were given money by their wealthy parents. I think this is acceptable: if I earn a lot of money, then I maintain the right to provide for my child in the best way that I see fit. Likewise, if I don't earn enough money to provide for a child, then I should not have one.
Taxpayers. This is where we came in.
And here, what you wrote is not nearly as important as what you didn't write. I asked some questions in my last post that you ignored. I'll ask them again here. Maybe this time I'll get an answer:
How much of the high wage-earner's money should the government have the right to seize? What percentage is the right number?
Neither of us are right, you berk.
I don't remember claiming to be right. But I think the reason and the evidence behind my point of view has yet to be successfully challenged. Thank you very little for the ad hominem, though. If you had a decent argument, you probably wouldn't have to resort to invective.
I think the rich should subsidise the poor
Define "rich." Define "poor." And how much should be subsidized? What is the percentage?
you think they should fend for themselves.
Incorrect. I do not think that the government has the right to take property from one group of people and give it to another. I do not think people should (or, in many cases, could) "fend for themselves." Humans are social creatures.
You (possibly) call yourself a libertarian. I call you greedy and self-interested.
I do call myself a Libertarian. And generally I don't respond to ad hominems like these, but, in this case, they're telling about the mindset of a leftist. First, can you define "greedy"? Do you realize that I could very well call you "greedy" since you're not living in the squalor that the people (for whom I've built houses) in Juarez, Mexico live in? Second, all humans are "self-interested." It's a psychological fact. Humans do not do anything unless they get something out of it. I.e., altruism is a myth.
I say I believe in encouraging social equality
What does that mean?
you call me a bleeding heart liberal (or a leftist, a word which, incidentally, is almost unheard of outside America).
I called you a leftist, not a "bleeding heart liberal." I do not approve of using the term "liberal" for leftists, since leftists neither support nor believe in individual liberty.
You say "The rich should be allowed to keep their money." I disagree. It happens.
Since I rarely use the terms "rich" and "poor" (those words have awfully slippery definitions), you are attributing words to me which I did not write. I do believe in the right to life, liberty, and property. You obviously don't believe in the last two.
Now stop pretending you have a hot line to the truth.
Pot, kettle, black.
Over 170 million people have been killed by their own governments in the last 100 years. I don't understand why this fact doesn't disturb big-government leftists, who seem to be saying, "*This* time, we'll make huge government work right!"
Arguing with leftists is much like arguing with religious fundamentalists: they both ignore evidence, ignore questions, and employ horrible reasoning. Your argument is no exception. Here are some other points I made or questions I asked that you ignored:
Next time, I suggest you use more reason, more evidence, and less of everything else. I am not swayed by nor interested in your emotions.
Wow, that's a totally different problem. Though I don't understand what you're rambling on about: if you're just a number then you have your privacy!
I disagree. If I, as a company with a financial interest, know that "consumer #42834" lives at 243 Mockingbird Ln., is 42 years old, is divorced, drives a '94 Toyota Corolla, then how difficult is it to correllate that information with a name, or a social security number? Do you not realize that the business of selling personal information is a huge one, and that, with computing as cheap as it is, it is trivial to turn "random data" into information about someone that the victim might not want you to have?
There's no way of linking the sites you visit or the things you buy to who you are, so what's the problem?
Is there really no way of linking that kind of information? What kind of evidence do you offer to support that baseless statement? Do you doubt that there are parties who would find financial interest in doing just such a thing?
No privacy is being "taken" from you from "companies tryping to make money." It seems like you may have deeper social issues.
Unless you hold a Ph.D. in psychology and have years of experience in diagnosing socio-psychological issues in your patients, your statement is nothing more than an ad hominem. And if one company sells my personal information to another without my express permission, then my privacy is being taken.
Well nice idea, but those photos are already available online. Perhaps I could just send you the URL and save you the trouble?
Please do!
I'm hoping your next reply will contain more evidence, better reasoning, and less ad hominems than your previous reply.
You must really have a problem with the census, then
I do have a problem with the census. The Constitution does not approve that which the leftists have turned the census into.
and all the benefits that arise from it
What benefits?
other forms of social research.
What other forms of social research? As long as it is consensual, provides recognizable benefit to me, and protects my privacy, I'll probably agree with it.
Intelligent marketers want to achieve the same goals as with any social research project - learn as much as they can about target populations as accurately and efficiently as possible.
Totally wrong! The goal for marketers is to make money, and the goal of a non-profit basic social research project is variable. Garnering information about the target population is merely the means to the end.
The leap from statistical analysis of populations to the privacy concerns you voiced is a large one.
Since when did I indicate that I was concerned about "statistical analysys of populations"? It seems like you are beating up a strawman to me.
Why moderators continue to confuse slippery slope arguments with true insight is beyond me.
"Insightful" is a subjective term. You are not the judge of what is insightful and what is not.
Privacy advocates are up in arms about this kind of research, but these people have to get it through their heads that these companies don't give a fuck who you are. To them you're just a number.
And this is precisely why I am up in arms about that kind of research: because, to them, I am "just a number." Companies don't care that I am am human with notions of privacy and dignity. I'll take my privacy and dignity over someone else's notion of "what I might want to buy from them" every single time. To companies trying to make money, my privacy and dignity are barriers to their profit-making abilities. What gives them the right to take it?
And if you argue that people have no privacy, then I reserve the right to clandestinely take photographs of you masturbating and send those photos to everyone who knows you, including your employer, potential employers, and your extended family.
If their credit is good.
If you have bad credit, then what is the incentive for a private company to loan you money? Credit is earned, not distributed.
Like it or not, many people from working class backgrounds
"Working class"? I think what you mean is the low wage-earners. Your terminology implies that only the poor work, and everyone else gets a free ride. This is a very common concept in leftist ideology: the rich did not earn their money, they were given it. So the government has the right to take it away and give it to those who "work for a living."
Either way, they're seriously disadvantaged w.r.t. the independently wealthy.
So? Did you consider that the wealthy earned their money and the poor earned less money? What are the poor decisions that the poor make which keeps them poor? Leftists continually imply or state that the poor are in their bad situation through no fault of their own.
I also state here that I think people have no right to have children that they cannot afford to raise. Since you are a leftist, you'll probably unload on me with a boatload of ad hominems before you try and argue against that statement.
Call me a socialist if you must, but I think I high quality education should be available to everyone with the smarts to use it.
You're not a socialist, you are a leftist. And I agree that high quality education should be available to everyone, but the problem remains: who is going to pay for it? I think that the individual should pay for it, while you think that the poor have the right to use the government as an instrument of plunder. How much of the high wage-earner's money should the government have the right to seize? What percentage is the right number? That's not a rhetorical question: I really want you to try and answer it.
Which is the way you think it should be.
I'm still waiting for someone to provide me evidence and reason which refutes my point of view. I usually get maudlin whining about "the poor" and "the children," but very little valid argument.
The people - that's who.
Ah yes, "the people." Now, would you mind telling me which people? If you want to say "all the people," then I expect you to be able to tell me a way of finding out the opinion of all the people and then coming up with a single "will" which represents all of their desires and isn't unfair to anybody.
I'll point out here that the majority of "the people" in Nazi Germany agreed with what the Nazis did.
In a completely relativistic universe, nothing can be found to be absolutely right or wrong. So I can't argue with you if that's how you see things.
Unless you can point out which morality is the "correct" one, then you agree with me that we do, in fact, live in a completely relativistic universe.
But unless you're willing to say that there's nothing intrinsically bad about people committing crimes or living in poverty, then my point is still valid.
Your invalid point is made no more valid by the statements here. Instead, you have succeeded in raising more questions:
1. Is there anything intrinsically bad about people committing crimes? Well, that depends on which actions are determined to be "crimes," doesn't it? Some statist governments determined that owning property was a "crime." Are you implying that it is government who decides what morality is? Remember: everything that the Nazis and the Stalinists and the Khmer Rough did was legal.
2. Is there anything intrinsically bad about people living in poverty? Well, that depends on how "living in poverty" is defined, doesn't it? In the United States, I can live in a one million dollar house and still be legally "living in poverty."
Your points are based on very shaky foundations.
Myself, I belive that the only actions which should be illegal are those which deprive another individual of life, liberty, or property.
Correct. Many of us do not believe this to be a bad thing, since a reasonable, progressive taxation system results in the rich subsidising the poor.
"Reasonable"? Reasonable to whom? I assume it's reasonable to the "poor" you mention since they get to plunder the coffers of the "rich." How reasonable is it that the harder you work, the more you are penalized?
Not necessarily. What it should mean (modulo tax cuts for the rich, and the myth of trickle-down economics) is that this generation of students are subsidised by the previous generation of students, since they're now earning more than their "non-graduate" contemporaries.
Many students here take out loans to finance their education, and then pay back the loan when they graduate and get a job. This way, students are responsible for their own education, which is the way it should be.
Oh, and Cato Institute reports attacking government spending are not exactly impartial sources
And Tom Daschle isn't impartial, either. So what? You'd expect a person who is arguing their position to be partial to that position, wouldn't you? Impartiality is not important in this regard. What is important is whether or not the facts stated by the Cato institute are true, and wheter or not the reason they employ is valid. I notice that you chose to assail neither of those things.
Acutally, it is your logic that is flawed.
But if society benefits by educating its members,
The main flaw in this argument is that the "what's good for society" is *highly* subjective. Many people argue that the War on (Some) Drugs is "good for society," when there is a huge, massive pile of evidence that it does much more harm to individuals than it does good.
Who defines what is "good for society"? I claim that "that which is good for society" and "that which is moral" are almost exactly equivalent. The difference lies in that the former implies groupthink while the latter implies individual thought. And "moral" is also a highly subjective definition.
The only reason why ads have gotten so
fscking annoying is because the conventional style isn't working. Why isn't it working? Because people block it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!
The reason that it (advertising) is not working is becuase advertising, in general, does not work. Think about how many ads you see every day, and then think about how many times you actually buy the product or visit the store. We Americans are bombarded with gazillions of ads every day, and I know that if I went out and "followed up" on every ad that I was subjected to, then I would have no time and no money.
Also, do you know those huge, full-page ads in the newspaper (and you had to pay for the newspaper!)? Does anyone know if someone views the ad and then that someone goes to Macy*s to examine or purchase the advertised product? Hell no! No one knows how effective that advertising is! So the idea is to just flood the world with more and more of it in an effort to increase profits.
Now, compare traditional advertising to the web advertising. In the world of the Internet, advertisers know to a much, much finer detail exactly how effective their advertising is. This was one of the draws of Internet advertising: we can track consumers!. Guess what? The draw turned out to be a liability, as it turns out that web advertising is not very effective. But this is not because the web is not an effective medium over which to advertise, but instead because all advertising is generally ineffective.
Because there is no way to track traditional advertising, advertisers will never know or admit how ineffective it is. They're shooting in the dark. On the web, they know exactly how bad their aim is.
I beg to differ on this one. It all depends on what your fundamentals are. Think about it.
First, we have a semantic disagreement. What does "Fundamentalist" mean? Apparently it means different things to you and to me.
Second, the phrase "think about it" is one of the most pointless and arrogant things one can write in a debate. It implies that I would come to your (correct) conclusions if I were to just "think" a little bit more, and thus I conclude from what you write that you believe I haven't thought about this very much. This ignores the fact that I most likely have different premises than you do, so who is to say that my thinking about anything in the way that you do will yield your conclusions? Did you consider the possibility that your premises are false?
But going from my view of the term "fundamentalist," my viewpoint stands. Religious Fundamentalists continually are the most arrogant and violent people in the world, second only to communists (see Stalin, Mau Tse Tung, Pol Pot).
Christian fundamentalists have said:
"God made AIDS to rid the world of homosexuals."
Fundamentalism is as fundamentalism does. The underlying religion seems to make little difference.
If you asked "which country treats the population of the rest of the world like mongrel scum and commits horrendous atrocities on those people", many people would point to the US.
You're absolutely right: our "selective policeman of the world" policy has earned us the hatred of millions.
Maybe this will finally wake the people of the US up to the fact that even the most friendly neighbors (Canada and Mexico) are often pissed off at the way the US treats the rest of the world. "The American Way" is not the only way, and isn't the same as "the right way".
But you must admit that while many countries hate the American way, they also eat it up. The French are notorious for this: they claim to hate Levis and McDonalds and Coca-Cola, but they still consume it anyway. There are many reasons why people hate Americans, and not all of them are valid or justified.
Even the fact that you suggest that somehow the US might have the option of enforcing it's views on which religions are "A-OK" and which are "unamerican" shows the kind of arrogance the rest of the world can't stand.
Except that it wasn't arrogance which blew up the world trade center. It was terrorism. Terrorism that teaches people to maim and murder innocent civilians. It is not arrogant for me to say that a religion that teaches those things is evil. A person can't hide behind "religious tolerance" in order to kill innocent civilians, and it's insane to suggest I am "arrogant" for believing that.
The destruction of the WTC and the Pentagon were horrible tragedies, but they were the direct result of the US pushing the rest of the world around with its monetary and military might.
First, this is not true. The hatred comes from a combination of things, not just the actions of the US, and not the least of which is the belief in an evil, violent, murderous religion. Second, even if it were true, it would not justify the killing of thousands of innocent civilians. You act as if this is "eye for an eye," and it is not.
Instead of asking "who can we kill to avenge this?", maybe you should ask "why would someone hate us enough to do this?"
I never advocated killing anyone. I advocate the destruction of evil religion. And it is the evil religion that is advocating killing people, and innocent civilians at that.
Bye bye Karma, but this rant was necessary.
Perhaps you thought it was necessary, but your argument is largely centered around "You're an arrogant American asshole." That argument is getting very old, and very tired. Americans don't have a monopoly on arrogance. I do not excuse our meddling in the sovereignity of other countries for any reason except when they attack us. I am a Libertarian and I despise what the Republicrats did in Central America in the 1980s.
Muslim fundamentalists think Americans are literally from the Devil. They hate us and want to kill us. The hatred, violence, and murder comes from the religion, and that's why the religion needs to be destroyed. I don't think my argument is unfair or illogical. Please don't attack me; attack my argument. You will get much father with me that way!
Terrorists love Islam, because once you declare a jihad, it's very hard to take it back.
I agree: the source of the evil is the religion. This is why we need to discredit the religion. We did this to the Japanese and we need to do it to the Afghanis as well.
Christianity was much worse in terms of fanaticism. Remember the Crusades?
Of course I do! I don't mean to exonerate Christian fanatics by condemning Muslim fanatics. It just so happens that Muslim fanatics happened to just attack the US in the worst terrorist attack ever, so they're getting the brunt of my ire.
Do you really think that you can discredit Terrorist Islam?
Yes. That's what we did to the Japanese religion, and it worked. I don't think that the faith of Islamic terrorists is any stronger or weaker than the faith of the Japanese citizens. I think something about having your country owned by another is naturally faith-shattering, particularly when one's faith is joined at the hip with military might. That's something that Islamic terrorists have in common with the Japanese of WW2.
The Romans couldn't discredit Christianity, even when they used their followers as streetlamps and lion food.
Torturing followers will not work: religious extremists love to be persecuted. They feel like it makes them right! Go over to WorldNet Daily and view the daily links there which read, "Christian persectuion: Learn the TRUTH." But showing people that their religion is false will work. I'm not familiar enough with fundamentalist Islam to know how this is best done, but there must be a way.
We can't even discredit Scientology!
I don't think we've hardly tried! Remember, the discrediting of the Japanese religion was a military effort, and it worked. Let's not give up before we've tried. We've done it successfully before and I think we can do it again. The lives of innocent civilians depend on it.
In World War II, the Japanese culture and the Japanese religion were the same thing. The Japanese thought that they were the supreme race, and that their emporer was a god. They treated the rest of population of Asia like they were mongrel scum and committed horrendous atrocities to those people.
When the Japanese surrendered to the US, we (the US) basically rebuilt their country. Part of that involved discrediting their false and evil religion. We paraded their emporer around the country and allowed the citizens to touch him, proving that they could touch the emporer and survive.
I think it's time we do the same thing with these so-called "rogue nations." I'm not arguing that Islam is evil, but the type of "Islam" that these terrorists follow most certainly is. They are inspired and driven by their evil religion to murder and injure innocent civilians. I have no tolerance for any religion that teaches its followers to murder and maim innocent civilians.
If we want to stop Islamic terrorists, then we need to discredit their false and evil religion. I know this sounds like heavy flamebait, and before you moderate it as such, please attempt to understand my argument that the "Islam" that these terrorists follow is an evil and murderous religion. Thousands of innocent civilians are dead becuase of that religion. Islam is not inherently evil, but that does not mean that there aren't some sects of Islam that are. Just like there are some sects of almost any religion that are.
Actually, you were busy claiming that I was arguing against human contact. I saw no arguments about morals. That's the problem with you people - you focus way too much on the physical aspect of everything.
I never claimed that you were arguing against human contact. I claim that your logic can be used to argue against human contact. And you've also handed me a "you people" comment. Personal comments like these do not belong in this discussion.
Sure. I'll agree. However, I wasn't saying that all of those things always happened. I was saying that your chances of destroying families, ruining lives, and encouraging disloyalty, dysfunction, and distrust are significantly higher. In fact, the more you do it, the higher your probabilities climb towards 1.
You said no such things. Your exact quote was this: "Our 'sexual freedom' destroys families. It ruins lives. It transmits disease. It encourages disloyalty, dysfunction, and distrust." You never said that the chances were higher.
Furthermore, let's continue with your logic. The cahnces of destroying families, ruining lives, encouraging disloyalty, dysfunction, and distrust are all significantly higher with all human contact. Why do you not make that argument, too?
Nothing inherently morally wrong with consensual sex? Tell that to the little boy whose dad ditched him because he just wanted to have fun with his mom when they got all hot and heavy at the drive-in.
The sex is not the problem. The problem here is that the parent is not taking care of their kid. What if the parents had ditched their little boy because they wanted to go ride a roller coaster? Would you then argue that there was something wrong with riding roller coasters? Of course not. Sex is an activity like any other, and raising children takes precedence in importance over all other activities. There is still nothing inherently wrong with consensual sex, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with riding roller coasters.
Tell that to the guys who wish their wives could sex 'em up like so-and-so did.
Okay! "Hey 'guys who wish your wives could sex you up like so-and-so did': there is nothing inherently wrong with consensual sex."
I'm interested in knowing why you think there is something wrong with consensual sex. So far, you have not been very convincing.
Our "sexual freedom" destroys families. It ruins lives. It transmits disease. It encourages disloyalty, dysfunction, and distrust.
... all of these can be potentially deadly actions.
The big problem with people who think that STDs are good is this: ANY kind of human contact can transmit a disease. Touching, talking, kissing, sharing eating utensils
So, using your logic, we can rewrite your argument like this:
Our "freedom in human contact" destroys families. It ruins lives. It transmits disease. It encourages disloyalty, disfunction, and distrust.
Furthermore, your argument is not unilaterally true. I can rewrite your statement like this, except this time the statement is true:
Our "sexual freedom" does not always destroy families. It does not always ruin lives. It does not always transmit disease. It does not always encourage disloyalty, nor disfunction, nor distrust.
Your argument is crap. I claim that there is nothing inherently morally wrong with consensual sex. If you disagree, then be prepared to show your evidence why.
They're solely in it for the money, not for more altruistic reasons.
No, they're not in it for the money. They're in it for the power. Microsoft already has more money than God. Remember, gobs of money is just a front-end to power. If you can skip the money part and just go for the power, then why not do that? (Just ask Microsoft, they should know!)
This is hardly a reply to my argument. I never wrote that corporations were good and right to hide behind their drive for profit. Neither did I write that corporations are people. I only said that the drive for profit is why corporations exist.
Nonetheless, your argument sucks.
Profit motive is not a defense for indefensible, immoral, anti-civic behavior.
First, of course profit motive cannot be a defense for the indefensible. If it's indefensible, then nothing is a defense!
Second, I agree that some actions of the individuals in corporations can be immoral. But whose morality are they being judged by? Yours? Mine? Pat Robertson's? Elton John's? You wrote earlier, "...they DO have a responsibility to act morally...." Maybe you think so, but that does not legally obligate them to do so. They can be nailed for illegal activites, but not just immoral activities. "Moral" is a really slippery definition.
Third, what does "anti-civic" mean? Does it mean "illegal"? If so, then I agree with you on that regard.
Apparently there is no moral limit to one's actions as long as "profit" is the ultimate motive.
You're absolutely right. Corporations, generally speaking, are not in the business of being moral. They are not aiming to be upstanding citizens. One would be hard-pressed to find a single corporation out there whose sole focus from its inception has been "To restore morality to the corporate landscape and to human society."
I don't think anyone was necessarily trying to defend it or excuse the actions of corporations by stating it. It's just a fact. The only reason companies don't sell crack cocaine is becuase of the War On (Some) Drugs.
There are, however, some folks who *do* make this argument to defend the actions of corporations. Many of these people often chirp in defense of Microsoft. "Microsoft is the single most sucessful company ever." This is obviously flawed, as it is an ad crumenam argument. It's no different than saying, "Whatever makes a lot of money is therefore good."
By that token, the Seven Dwarfs (CEOs of big tobacco) are all moral and good despite the fact that they lied under oath when all seven testified nicotine is not addictive. Sell an addictive, deadly product and lie about it? You're moral and good as long as you make money!
(I would have no problem with cigarette companies if they were up front about their deadly product.)