Your description makes a great deal of sense. Indeed it is the very definition of "sensible". However, it seems that it is at odds with "Conservative" policy as practiced here in the United States. Where are you from?
For example, why is there such a strong link between modern forms of Christianity--one of the best possible examples of jumping to a conclusion without evidence--of and Conservatism? Why is it that the vast majority of scientists--people who carefully train for decades to understand how to interpret evidence--are Liberals? Why is it that Conservatives tend to support massive pesticide and fertiliser use despite ample evidence that these methods are extremely harmful, while Liberals are more likely to support older, proven "organic" agriculture? Why do Conservatives exploit every natural resource as fast as they possibly can, while Liberals try to study and understand the consequences of natural systems before fucking with them?
As an outsider (and, I suppose, something like a Liberal, although not by your definition), it appears that Conservatives tend to consider rights--especially the right to claim ownership of, exploit, and destroy, as long as it is profitable--while Liberals have a much deeper regard for for responsibilities. Obviously this is an oversimplification, but I claim that it is not wrong in the USA today.
Also, I am quite aware that I've described modern USA-Conservative policies, which sounds at best like a very remote cousin of what you describe. I assume you are more "conservative" with a lower-case "c"? Outside the political parties, I see how my definition ties into yours--simply a prior preference of liberals to be a little more experimental and less risk-averse than conservatives?
Now, if you want to find an open minded area, you need to find someplace centrist.
Bullshit. Just because a position is midway between two others does not mean it is openminded.
There are openminded people who call themselves liberals, and (far fewer, but they're out there; see below) openminded people who call themselves conservatives. There are people who will accuse you of not being openminded if you disagree with them. There are people who have looked at a situation from many angles and formed a very well-informed opinion based on much evidence, and who are accused of closedmindedness because they're not willing to give a second chance to old anecdotes that waeren't worth anything the first time either.
Openmindedness is a willingness to evaluate new evidence, or a willingness to consider different axioms, both of which are pretty much antithetical--by definition--to everything that conservatives stand for. It is not the willingness to humour stupid people.
If a journal is known for questionable results, why are grad students not flocking to duplicate the studies? The experiment is already designed, the products are probably in widespread use, and a negative result that contradicts a peer-reviewed positive result--or a valid criticism of a method--is very very publishable. It ought to be trivial to get dozens of quick publications for your CV.
Yes, field studies are expensive. But people do them all the time, and some people do little else.
Welllllll... there's "thin" in the sense of healthy athlete body, and there's "thin" in the sense of malnutrition. People can have remarkably little fat and still look amazing if they go about it in the right way.
Of course, we've designed a culture in which very few people get regular exercise in the course of a day. Going to a gym can produce gorgeous bodies too, but it's a huge PITA. If you want hot chycks, see what you can do to promote a society that doesn't depend on cars!
And a percentage drop in population corresponds to a very real percentage drop in total GDP. Fewer consumers, fewer producers, and slowed growth and achievement.
While that may be true, you forget the consequences. For centuries, economists have been arguing that a growing population is essential to a strong economy and culture. Well, that's as may be, but there's a limit to the number of people that the earth can support. Depending on behaviour, we are either fast approaching or have vastly exceeded this hard limit (where "hard limit" means not that the limit can't be moved, but that it exists and that when it's reached ecosystems (including people) start dying).
If a few billion people die off due to a pandemic, that would go a hell of a long way towards reducing, say, greenhouse gas emissions (especially if there are lots of deaths among the rich, unlikely though that may be). Global warming is projected to kill billions in the worst case, and even if global warming makes less trouble than our best scientists expect, what happens when there is no more clean surface water? Or when erosion due to deforestation washes a few more billions of cubic meters of topsoil out to sea? Or...
We seriously, urgently need an economy that is not based on growth. For a while, we need one that is based on a shrinking population, and then we need to transition towards one that is based on a roughly constant population. Economists don't like this, but it's a fact of life.
Of course, killing a few billion people will not help: we'll just keep reproducing. It would be pretty convenient if we first figured out how many people we should have on the planet, and then took steps to stabilise the population, and then a few billion died off to help us get there quickly. That's not what's happening here.
I've left compassion out of this argument. Of course compassion is important, but it does not provide any means for sidestepping the fact of limited carrying capacity. And the quicker we act, the more compassionately we will be able to act.
Kill the children, it's the only way for humanity to survive.
Nah. Older people who drive cars use far more resources, produce far more toxic byproducts, and have a much greater effect on the climate change that tends to be a driving factor for these pandemics. Humanity is much more likely to survive if we kill them (er, us) instead. Besides, older people have less to lose.
The first is "provide an opportunity for private corporations to make a profit."
The second is "provide people with the best possible internet connectivity", where "best" might include things like "fast" and "cheap".
The two are very much at odds. I don't really see how this debate can move forward until people recognise that these are conflicting objectives, and that they have to explicitly take sides.
Right, but those are steady, well established ways of dying.
True, but...
There isn't much more the government can do to dramatically change those death rates in a short period of time.
Banning SUVs (2 to 6 times as likely to kill someone in a crash, and more likely to be involved in a crash, than cars), lowering speed limits (which would also positively impact pollution, climate, and possibly the economy (by keeping more money around rather than sending it to the Middle East?) etc), would help with the first one. Large grants for public transportation infrastructure would help both, and quite dramatically. Luckily, we're finally starting to see at least the latter.
If someone in your family started to gamble compulsively, would you wait until they were spending more money than your mortgage?
You're quite right. But think of it this way: if the deaths due to this new flu level off at a couple of million per year, it will be no worse than obesity, and should receive no more attention. Do you think that that is likely?
Obviously, the number could level off much higher. We don't know, but I'm sure they are busily trying to bound the number. But if they end up taking stronger action than that which they take for some other risk, they really should have cause to believe that it is likely to be more catastrophic than the other risk.
What we have here is a government that has decided that certain deaths are an acceptable consequence of our way of life. If you know the numbers and you know the mechanism and know the trade-offs and you have the power to choose, the consequence of your choice is your intention.
This is ridiculous. We in the USA have 130 deaths per day due to car accidents alone, and the number of premature deaths due to obesity-related illnesses is roughly twenty times higher, and those are seldom mentioned, let alone addressed. Does this country exist solely to mock health?
I suspect that if everyone's most intimate thoughts were subject to public broadcasting, we might be a little slower to condemn the weird ideas of others. Hypocracy would become difficult.
The problem seems to be when some people have privacy and others don't. This is especially disturbing when the rich are allowed more privacy than the poor (say, through being able to cover things and to sue), and gaining secrets is a means for accruing power.
Traditionally poorer countries, in which people are forced to live in close-knit communities with less expectation of privacy, tend to be much more honest with themselves and each other about some things. Of course, they tend to be much more conformist, too... I'd love to see a real analysis of the societal benefits/drawbacks to varying levels and kinds of privacy. Anyone know of such a thing?
There are some areas where cars make biking unsafe, but overall biking is far safer than driving. There's a decent (but not perfect) analysis here. If you were hit that often, I must assume that either you have poor driving skills or you live in a particularly nasty area.
If cyclists are a visible part of the community, then the problems mostly disappear. If you're the lone cyclist, well, groups of humans seldom need a reason to bully anyone different from the group. It's truly a pity that the majority wins so often.
It makes it easier, but it's not necessary. Biking up a hill is still more efficient than walking, despite the extra 12kg or so of machinery. Again, we have racers to blame for some of this--a double front chainring is common amongst athletes who never slow down (because it saves about 100g over a triple), but quite stupid for general use.
If you have to slow down but can't slow down due to traffic, once again, bikes aren't the problem.
I'd argue that if city planners are doing a decent job, if you need a car to get around a small town, then the area should not be inhabited by humans. For larger areas, that's what regional public transportation (with stops every 15km or so) is for...
It would also be funny to have something like chairlifts/gondolas on long steep hills: give people a little boost of potential energy right where they need it, if that's what it takes to make biking feasible.
You get on a train in the suburbs (I'm guessing your wife drops you off, or you drive to train depot and park. Once you get to the 'city', how do you get to/from your work site?
As you've noted, that's a real problem in the USA. A few of our cities have decent public transportation, but few have really good setups.
Despite your objections, I'll begin by saying that my ideal answer is "the bicycle". First, the facts: it's by far the most efficient transportation ever invented in terms of passengers*distance/energy, speed/cost, speed/maintenance, etc., easy to carry on trains and buses, cheap enough (to buy and to store) to leave one at each end of your commute, very fast for distances under 10km or so, almost surreally safe (cyclist deaths are almost always due to cars, not bikes, and there are stunningly few of even those amongst commuters obeying traffic laws), very healthy, and wonderfully pleasant through a broader range of weather conditions than most people realise--it's no accident that it's frequently a form of recreation in this country. And while you can push and go 20mph for long periods, if you're hot you can cut back and go 10mph for 1/8 the power output, which is now far easier than walking but with better wind cooling. But (as you allude to) bicycle-commuting does require some good city planning--bike lanes, secure (and ideally sheltered) places to park (like cars, but much much cheaper), somewhere to change (and shower in warm, humid climates) when you get to a destination where you don't want to look like a bike commuter, and people who prefer not to be obese (these are in short supply here). And bikes aren't great on snowy or icy roads, although they're not as bad as many noncyclists would expect. Yes, it's impractical in much of the USA right now, but given the political will that could be changed.
Failing that, a local public transportation infrastructure that puts most popular targets within walking distance is quite feasible if there's sufficient demand. New York and Boston are decent in this respect. LA is miserable. It sounds like wherever you live is just as miserable. Change is required, for sure.
Another solution is to have transportation hubs with zipcars or carshare systems, etc., or taxis. With a bit of luck, autonomous cars are within 30 years--this would lower the cost of taxis significantly. But just the cost of parking is more than the cost of a short taxi ride or two every day; it's just that parking costs are frequently hidden or subsidised by businesses who pass the costs along to you.
If you try to walk..what happens when weather is bad?
You've got me there. I've been out in some weather that I'm glad not to have to bike through, but I have never had even a tiny bit of difficulty walking a mile. I think it's a Swedish saying: "There is no bad weather, only bad clothes." Perhaps you could describe the weather problems that make walking difficult? Is it just the humid heat? Or perhaps you live somewhere far more evil than my hometowns (Halifax, Boston, San Francisco, Boulder)?
a bicycle wouldn't cut it. What if you need to go to the gym or shop after work on the way home??
People have been doing this on bikes for a century. Racers spurn fenders and racks and panniers, and only racers are visible in this car-obsessed country. But a rack on your bike will let you carry easily 60 liters of groceries, or gym clothes, or a suit (wrinkle-free, even) without even noticing. Not that you'll need to go to the gym anymore unless you're doing specific training for some other sport.
I just have a hard time seeing how you do that and have any resemblance to a normal life and life schedule.
I suspect that the problem here may be that what we think of as "normal" is not. It's an artifact of a system that relies on heavily subsidised energy and infrastructure. Cars are not "normal"; they're just ubiquito
Interesting idea. Forget the Islamic extremists--we in the USA (and probably GB as well?) have a culture of fear and a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Islam, and reducing that might be a good thing. It is rare that anything good comes out of a name that inspires terror, whether or not the terror is justified.
Of course, making it illegal to criticise religion is just braindead. My ideal would be to have only negative messages about all faith--if you can't prove it, be skeptical! But opening a coherent, rational dialog is the first step. Killing off kneejerk reactions is the zeroth step, I guess?
You misunderstood me. I don't think I have a right to it. That doesn't mean I believe that it can't possibly cause any harm.
In some countries you don't have the right to criticise the government, or to marry whom you love, or to drink beverages that have been exposed to yeast for a while. Perhaps those don't worry you either?
If they chose, as a business, simply not to sell it, would that be censorship? If so, every bookstore that doesn't carry everything ever written is engaging in censorship.
Sort of, but there are other issues, such as striving to meet demand without overburdening the warehouse.
Sorry, but here in the real world, we have to take into consideration that sometimes not everything is appropriate for everyone to see, and being responsible people we make sure that there are proper safeguards to make sure everything works out properly.
Sorry, who is supposed to take this into consideration? The largest bookstore on the planet skews search results towards an approved reading list--and most people will never know--and you're not even a little worried? Amazon doesn't need the aforementioned warehouse (the fact that they have one for their more popular stuff is moot). But when a corporation hides material that some random group has deemed "offensive", I do not find it obvious that everything is OK. We progress by reading and evaluating the opinions of others, not by sticking our heads in the sand. This seems to be Amazon's tacit endorsement of the head-in-sand approach to acquiring knowledge. Not exactly censorship in the strictest sense, but not obviously "not outrageous" either. If there is material that is not appropriate for me to see, do you really think that Amazon is well-equipped to make that decision for me?
People who blow shit up are likely to be antisocial.
People on slashdot, 4chan, etc., are likely to be antisocial.
Therefore people who read slashdot are likely to blow shit up.
Can't blame them, really, given the quality of education we as a society have decided to give our citizens. Makes me so angry I want to blow some shit up. Who's with me?
If you keep dumping CO_2 into the air, then we can dump whatever we like into the air too.
Are there any international treaties anywhere about dumping shit into the atmosphere? Is even something as specific as the CFC ban a treaty? AFAICT, world leaders pretty much assume that any sovereign nation can do whatever the fuck it likes to the atmosphere, the ocean, etc...
But what if we come up with a countermeasure so successful that we no longer have to reduce our CO_2 output? What if there are long-term quality-of-life issues or ecosystem implications that don't affect classical economics? Does anyone believe that those will have a voice?
Mostly, I'm delighted: after only 110 years of knowing how global warming works, and 50 years of evidence, a handful of our least ignorant leaders already recognise that there's a problem. Go humans!
Slashdot Mirror
Your description makes a great deal of sense. Indeed it is the very definition of "sensible". However, it seems that it is at odds with "Conservative" policy as practiced here in the United States. Where are you from?
For example, why is there such a strong link between modern forms of Christianity--one of the best possible examples of jumping to a conclusion without evidence--of and Conservatism? Why is it that the vast majority of scientists--people who carefully train for decades to understand how to interpret evidence--are Liberals? Why is it that Conservatives tend to support massive pesticide and fertiliser use despite ample evidence that these methods are extremely harmful, while Liberals are more likely to support older, proven "organic" agriculture? Why do Conservatives exploit every natural resource as fast as they possibly can, while Liberals try to study and understand the consequences of natural systems before fucking with them?
As an outsider (and, I suppose, something like a Liberal, although not by your definition), it appears that Conservatives tend to consider rights--especially the right to claim ownership of, exploit, and destroy, as long as it is profitable--while Liberals have a much deeper regard for for responsibilities. Obviously this is an oversimplification, but I claim that it is not wrong in the USA today.
Also, I am quite aware that I've described modern USA-Conservative policies, which sounds at best like a very remote cousin of what you describe. I assume you are more "conservative" with a lower-case "c"? Outside the political parties, I see how my definition ties into yours--simply a prior preference of liberals to be a little more experimental and less risk-averse than conservatives?
Now, if you want to find an open minded area, you need to find someplace centrist.
Bullshit. Just because a position is midway between two others does not mean it is openminded.
There are openminded people who call themselves liberals, and (far fewer, but they're out there; see below) openminded people who call themselves conservatives. There are people who will accuse you of not being openminded if you disagree with them. There are people who have looked at a situation from many angles and formed a very well-informed opinion based on much evidence, and who are accused of closedmindedness because they're not willing to give a second chance to old anecdotes that waeren't worth anything the first time either.
Openmindedness is a willingness to evaluate new evidence, or a willingness to consider different axioms, both of which are pretty much antithetical--by definition--to everything that conservatives stand for. It is not the willingness to humour stupid people.
If a journal is known for questionable results, why are grad students not flocking to duplicate the studies? The experiment is already designed, the products are probably in widespread use, and a negative result that contradicts a peer-reviewed positive result--or a valid criticism of a method--is very very publishable. It ought to be trivial to get dozens of quick publications for your CV.
Yes, field studies are expensive. But people do them all the time, and some people do little else.
Welllllll... there's "thin" in the sense of healthy athlete body, and there's "thin" in the sense of malnutrition. People can have remarkably little fat and still look amazing if they go about it in the right way.
Of course, we've designed a culture in which very few people get regular exercise in the course of a day. Going to a gym can produce gorgeous bodies too, but it's a huge PITA. If you want hot chycks, see what you can do to promote a society that doesn't depend on cars!
And a percentage drop in population corresponds to a very real percentage drop in total GDP. Fewer consumers, fewer producers, and slowed growth and achievement.
While that may be true, you forget the consequences. For centuries, economists have been arguing that a growing population is essential to a strong economy and culture. Well, that's as may be, but there's a limit to the number of people that the earth can support. Depending on behaviour, we are either fast approaching or have vastly exceeded this hard limit (where "hard limit" means not that the limit can't be moved, but that it exists and that when it's reached ecosystems (including people) start dying).
If a few billion people die off due to a pandemic, that would go a hell of a long way towards reducing, say, greenhouse gas emissions (especially if there are lots of deaths among the rich, unlikely though that may be). Global warming is projected to kill billions in the worst case, and even if global warming makes less trouble than our best scientists expect, what happens when there is no more clean surface water? Or when erosion due to deforestation washes a few more billions of cubic meters of topsoil out to sea? Or ...
We seriously, urgently need an economy that is not based on growth. For a while, we need one that is based on a shrinking population, and then we need to transition towards one that is based on a roughly constant population. Economists don't like this, but it's a fact of life.
Of course, killing a few billion people will not help: we'll just keep reproducing. It would be pretty convenient if we first figured out how many people we should have on the planet, and then took steps to stabilise the population, and then a few billion died off to help us get there quickly. That's not what's happening here.
I've left compassion out of this argument. Of course compassion is important, but it does not provide any means for sidestepping the fact of limited carrying capacity. And the quicker we act, the more compassionately we will be able to act.
Kill the children, it's the only way for humanity to survive.
Nah. Older people who drive cars use far more resources, produce far more toxic byproducts, and have a much greater effect on the climate change that tends to be a driving factor for these pandemics. Humanity is much more likely to survive if we kill them (er, us) instead. Besides, older people have less to lose.
There seem to be two competing objectives here.
The first is "provide an opportunity for private corporations to make a profit."
The second is "provide people with the best possible internet connectivity", where "best" might include things like "fast" and "cheap".
The two are very much at odds. I don't really see how this debate can move forward until people recognise that these are conflicting objectives, and that they have to explicitly take sides.
Can the two objectives be united?
Right, but those are steady, well established ways of dying.
True, but...
There isn't much more the government can do to dramatically change those death rates in a short period of time.
Banning SUVs (2 to 6 times as likely to kill someone in a crash, and more likely to be involved in a crash, than cars), lowering speed limits (which would also positively impact pollution, climate, and possibly the economy (by keeping more money around rather than sending it to the Middle East?) etc), would help with the first one. Large grants for public transportation infrastructure would help both, and quite dramatically. Luckily, we're finally starting to see at least the latter.
If someone in your family started to gamble compulsively, would you wait until they were spending more money than your mortgage?
You're quite right. But think of it this way: if the deaths due to this new flu level off at a couple of million per year, it will be no worse than obesity, and should receive no more attention. Do you think that that is likely?
Obviously, the number could level off much higher. We don't know, but I'm sure they are busily trying to bound the number. But if they end up taking stronger action than that which they take for some other risk, they really should have cause to believe that it is likely to be more catastrophic than the other risk.
What we have here is a government that has decided that certain deaths are an acceptable consequence of our way of life. If you know the numbers and you know the mechanism and know the trade-offs and you have the power to choose, the consequence of your choice is your intention.
This is ridiculous. We in the USA have 130 deaths per day due to car accidents alone, and the number of premature deaths due to obesity-related illnesses is roughly twenty times higher, and those are seldom mentioned, let alone addressed. Does this country exist solely to mock health?
I suspect that if everyone's most intimate thoughts were subject to public broadcasting, we might be a little slower to condemn the weird ideas of others. Hypocracy would become difficult.
The problem seems to be when some people have privacy and others don't. This is especially disturbing when the rich are allowed more privacy than the poor (say, through being able to cover things and to sue), and gaining secrets is a means for accruing power.
Traditionally poorer countries, in which people are forced to live in close-knit communities with less expectation of privacy, tend to be much more honest with themselves and each other about some things. Of course, they tend to be much more conformist, too... I'd love to see a real analysis of the societal benefits/drawbacks to varying levels and kinds of privacy. Anyone know of such a thing?
There are some areas where cars make biking unsafe, but overall biking is far safer than driving. There's a decent (but not perfect) analysis here. If you were hit that often, I must assume that either you have poor driving skills or you live in a particularly nasty area.
If cyclists are a visible part of the community, then the problems mostly disappear. If you're the lone cyclist, well, groups of humans seldom need a reason to bully anyone different from the group. It's truly a pity that the majority wins so often.
It makes it easier, but it's not necessary. Biking up a hill is still more efficient than walking, despite the extra 12kg or so of machinery. Again, we have racers to blame for some of this--a double front chainring is common amongst athletes who never slow down (because it saves about 100g over a triple), but quite stupid for general use.
If you have to slow down but can't slow down due to traffic, once again, bikes aren't the problem.
I'd argue that if city planners are doing a decent job, if you need a car to get around a small town, then the area should not be inhabited by humans. For larger areas, that's what regional public transportation (with stops every 15km or so) is for...
It would also be funny to have something like chairlifts/gondolas on long steep hills: give people a little boost of potential energy right where they need it, if that's what it takes to make biking feasible.
That's strangely, frighteningly appropriate :)
Nonsense. There's Chuck Norris. I wonder if he'll fix this...
You get on a train in the suburbs (I'm guessing your wife drops you off, or you drive to train depot and park. Once you get to the 'city', how do you get to/from your work site?
As you've noted, that's a real problem in the USA. A few of our cities have decent public transportation, but few have really good setups.
Despite your objections, I'll begin by saying that my ideal answer is "the bicycle". First, the facts: it's by far the most efficient transportation ever invented in terms of passengers*distance/energy, speed/cost, speed/maintenance, etc., easy to carry on trains and buses, cheap enough (to buy and to store) to leave one at each end of your commute, very fast for distances under 10km or so, almost surreally safe (cyclist deaths are almost always due to cars, not bikes, and there are stunningly few of even those amongst commuters obeying traffic laws), very healthy, and wonderfully pleasant through a broader range of weather conditions than most people realise--it's no accident that it's frequently a form of recreation in this country. And while you can push and go 20mph for long periods, if you're hot you can cut back and go 10mph for 1/8 the power output, which is now far easier than walking but with better wind cooling. But (as you allude to) bicycle-commuting does require some good city planning--bike lanes, secure (and ideally sheltered) places to park (like cars, but much much cheaper), somewhere to change (and shower in warm, humid climates) when you get to a destination where you don't want to look like a bike commuter, and people who prefer not to be obese (these are in short supply here). And bikes aren't great on snowy or icy roads, although they're not as bad as many noncyclists would expect. Yes, it's impractical in much of the USA right now, but given the political will that could be changed.
Failing that, a local public transportation infrastructure that puts most popular targets within walking distance is quite feasible if there's sufficient demand. New York and Boston are decent in this respect. LA is miserable. It sounds like wherever you live is just as miserable. Change is required, for sure.
Another solution is to have transportation hubs with zipcars or carshare systems, etc., or taxis. With a bit of luck, autonomous cars are within 30 years--this would lower the cost of taxis significantly. But just the cost of parking is more than the cost of a short taxi ride or two every day; it's just that parking costs are frequently hidden or subsidised by businesses who pass the costs along to you.
If you try to walk..what happens when weather is bad?
You've got me there. I've been out in some weather that I'm glad not to have to bike through, but I have never had even a tiny bit of difficulty walking a mile. I think it's a Swedish saying: "There is no bad weather, only bad clothes." Perhaps you could describe the weather problems that make walking difficult? Is it just the humid heat? Or perhaps you live somewhere far more evil than my hometowns (Halifax, Boston, San Francisco, Boulder)?
a bicycle wouldn't cut it. What if you need to go to the gym or shop after work on the way home??
People have been doing this on bikes for a century. Racers spurn fenders and racks and panniers, and only racers are visible in this car-obsessed country. But a rack on your bike will let you carry easily 60 liters of groceries, or gym clothes, or a suit (wrinkle-free, even) without even noticing. Not that you'll need to go to the gym anymore unless you're doing specific training for some other sport.
I just have a hard time seeing how you do that and have any resemblance to a normal life and life schedule.
I suspect that the problem here may be that what we think of as "normal" is not. It's an artifact of a system that relies on heavily subsidised energy and infrastructure. Cars are not "normal"; they're just ubiquito
Interesting idea. Forget the Islamic extremists--we in the USA (and probably GB as well?) have a culture of fear and a knee-jerk reaction to any mention of Islam, and reducing that might be a good thing. It is rare that anything good comes out of a name that inspires terror, whether or not the terror is justified.
Of course, making it illegal to criticise religion is just braindead. My ideal would be to have only negative messages about all faith--if you can't prove it, be skeptical! But opening a coherent, rational dialog is the first step. Killing off kneejerk reactions is the zeroth step, I guess?
You misunderstood me. I don't think I have a right to it. That doesn't mean I believe that it can't possibly cause any harm.
In some countries you don't have the right to criticise the government, or to marry whom you love, or to drink beverages that have been exposed to yeast for a while. Perhaps those don't worry you either?
If they chose, as a business, simply not to sell it, would that be censorship? If so, every bookstore that doesn't carry everything ever written is engaging in censorship.
Sort of, but there are other issues, such as striving to meet demand without overburdening the warehouse.
Sorry, but here in the real world, we have to take into consideration that sometimes not everything is appropriate for everyone to see, and being responsible people we make sure that there are proper safeguards to make sure everything works out properly.
Sorry, who is supposed to take this into consideration? The largest bookstore on the planet skews search results towards an approved reading list--and most people will never know--and you're not even a little worried? Amazon doesn't need the aforementioned warehouse (the fact that they have one for their more popular stuff is moot). But when a corporation hides material that some random group has deemed "offensive", I do not find it obvious that everything is OK. We progress by reading and evaluating the opinions of others, not by sticking our heads in the sand. This seems to be Amazon's tacit endorsement of the head-in-sand approach to acquiring knowledge. Not exactly censorship in the strictest sense, but not obviously "not outrageous" either. If there is material that is not appropriate for me to see, do you really think that Amazon is well-equipped to make that decision for me?
You forgot
c) prefer to throw it at air circulation devices.
(you insensitive clod!)
You can't fit people inside any of those
Well, not if you forget to chop them up finely enough. Duh.
I'm betting it goes something like this:
People who blow shit up are likely to be antisocial.
People on slashdot, 4chan, etc., are likely to be antisocial.
Therefore people who read slashdot are likely to blow shit up.
Can't blame them, really, given the quality of education we as a society have decided to give our citizens. Makes me so angry I want to blow some shit up. Who's with me?
You got my attention. Care to educate me?
If you keep dumping CO_2 into the air, then we can dump whatever we like into the air too.
Are there any international treaties anywhere about dumping shit into the atmosphere? Is even something as specific as the CFC ban a treaty? AFAICT, world leaders pretty much assume that any sovereign nation can do whatever the fuck it likes to the atmosphere, the ocean, etc...
But what if we come up with a countermeasure so successful that we no longer have to reduce our CO_2 output? What if there are long-term quality-of-life issues or ecosystem implications that don't affect classical economics? Does anyone believe that those will have a voice?
Mostly, I'm delighted: after only 110 years of knowing how global warming works, and 50 years of evidence, a handful of our least ignorant leaders already recognise that there's a problem. Go humans!
Must be nice to be in a permanent state of denial.
It sure is! ...assuming that if someone tries to call you on it you happen to have a powerful army at your disposal...
Sort of like dropping a nuke on Denver in order to kill a few deer? Is it okay if I promise to eat everything I kill?