It gives the president an unopposed propaganda mouthpiece to a captive audience with no context, perspective, or chance for independent verification of what is said.
Not saying I agree with our friend O'Reilly, but there is one condition where his point could be considered valid:
Presidential speeches broadcast live, on all networks, every time.
Such live broadcasting gives the president a direct-to-the-home propaganda line, completely sine criticism or fact-checking. Given that a significant portion of viewers may not stay tuned for the after-event punditry, if there even is any, we've basically gotta take it on faith that people understand enough about the issues to judge the factuality of such a presentation, especially when said president has been known to... misrepresent the truth.
That may be 'free' speech in the same way that unregulated capitalism is a 'free' market, but like the latter, the former doesn't serve to create a world I'd want to live in.
It won't work because the internet can't be policed, and those who would self-police aren't the problem anyway.
As an aside, while the writer in your link has a good point, he could have made it in a paragraph. Stretching it out for three pages is sheer pedantry.
There's a part of our psyches whose power can be harnessed through non-substantative belief in ideas and principles. There's no shame in admitting that. The best kept secret is that this part of our minds does not require religion to function. Anything will do.
For me, it's the fallen glory of a united world with a single, near-universal language. For others it might be the purity of the dawn's light, or some shit like that. It's all fine.
Wouldn't that solve your problem? I've been wanting this, or something like it, since 2003. Suggested it many times, yet they won't add it. The mod system hasn't changed since 1999, I fucking swear, and to the detriment of all.
Also, I don't think that pictures are much different from written information, since reading words and interpreting a graph both require processing visual information. Graphs and diagrams are also useless without legends and axis labels written out in words, so you can't avoid the written word by just showing graphs and diagrams on slides.
When people read, they sound out the words to themselves in their head. Humans can only pay active attention to a single stream of words, be it aural or visual. While they're reading text, they will 'queue' spoken words up in their head, but this queue is volatile and short-term.
Basically, if they're just reading an axis label, they'll pick right back up again, but if they're reading long amounts of text, they're going to miss huge portions of what you're saying.
The human mind is the software, not the hardware. You are not the same person you were ten years ago. We lose ourselves to slow changes over time.
I believe a slow, incremental transfer would preserve the essence of "self". It's not where the instructions are being executed, it's what they're doing.
I agree that there's no real reason to abuse a cow if you can avoid it, and that for beef farmers mistreating your livestock carries a serious economic disadvantage. That's motive enough to avoid having them "suffer".
I take issue with any argument against animal "suffering" that has, at its base, the rationale of "no other being should be forced to suffer!", or some suitably quasi-religious belief. Using that as a basis to end animal suffering means we are all going to end up vegans. Carried to its extreme, it doesn't just ban animal cruelty, it bans doing anything to animals that might "hurt" them, including eat them.
I can't accept killing an entire sector of the food market because some people can't tell animals from people.
We should never think of killing another human because "that's wrong" but at the same time we rarely think twice about killing hundreds of animals for the sake of cheap wood or because some stupid reason like "I hate bugs".
No strawmen here good sir, my extrapolation is a logical conclusion to his argument.
That's a lot of anthropomorphism there. You're projecting human values onto animals, the assumption being that we all think the same and so the projection would be valid. That's not true at all.
I agree with your post up to this point. I have some nitpicks for you.
First, what is a "being"? A semantic definition based on your personal preferences?
Second, what denotes "suffering"? Do you assume "pain" is exactly the same across all species?
Third, what is "necessary"?
I don't ask these questions to be pedantic, and you needn't answer them if you don't want to, but I asked them to point out a fact.
Our aversion to "suffering" originates in the empathy centres of our brain, and evolved to be applied to other people. Animals are not people. Their brains are different from ours. Non-mammalian brains are barely comparable. The brains of birds, for example, are quite different from ours. I think applying this human-oriented empathy to other animals is anthropomorphism at its finest, and needs to either be justified by hard evidence, or dismissed.
Logically they should also argue stupid people should NOT have human rights. Unborn children, those in persistent vegetative states are also arguably not worthy of human rights either.
Perhaps even babies aren't smart enough to have human rights either.
Your past point is interesting, because if we were to take a step outside our species for a second, by a standard of rational thought an intelligence, there's no reason to value a human baby over that of a chimp unless we bet on its presumed, but unknown, future potential.
It's quite possible that a proper definition of what a human being "is" would disqualify fetuses and some babies. I don't think fear of that should necessarily stop us from defining it anyway. We can find other reasons to keep our kids around, like, say, because we love them.
Slashdot Mirror
Owned = black gangsta rap slang for "owning hoes", as in, women. It's fucking sexist.
Mine doesn't. Using an Arris TM502G Cable/Telephony modem with Videotron VOIP.
Well, neither is life.
Only if it's assumed (and legally able to be assumed) that they've compiled and run the program in the course of developing it.
They are, and it's bad.
It gives the president an unopposed propaganda mouthpiece to a captive audience with no context, perspective, or chance for independent verification of what is said.
Not saying I agree with our friend O'Reilly, but there is one condition where his point could be considered valid:
Presidential speeches broadcast live, on all networks, every time.
Such live broadcasting gives the president a direct-to-the-home propaganda line, completely sine criticism or fact-checking. Given that a significant portion of viewers may not stay tuned for the after-event punditry, if there even is any, we've basically gotta take it on faith that people understand enough about the issues to judge the factuality of such a presentation, especially when said president has been known to... misrepresent the truth.
That may be 'free' speech in the same way that unregulated capitalism is a 'free' market, but like the latter, the former doesn't serve to create a world I'd want to live in.
Coles Notes Summary:
It won't work because the internet can't be policed, and those who would self-police aren't the problem anyway.
As an aside, while the writer in your link has a good point, he could have made it in a paragraph. Stretching it out for three pages is sheer pedantry.
There's a part of our psyches whose power can be harnessed through non-substantative belief in ideas and principles. There's no shame in admitting that. The best kept secret is that this part of our minds does not require religion to function. Anything will do.
For me, it's the fallen glory of a united world with a single, near-universal language. For others it might be the purity of the dawn's light, or some shit like that. It's all fine.
So, "spiritualize" on, my friend.
That's a fucking cop-out and you know it. You just have no way to back up your position.
Fixed that for you. Morals involve relations among people, by their very definition.
"-1 Factually Wrong"
Wouldn't that solve your problem? I've been wanting this, or something like it, since 2003. Suggested it many times, yet they won't add it. The mod system hasn't changed since 1999, I fucking swear, and to the detriment of all.
Someone's bitter!
Why do we require the "right" to do anything? Do we have a "right" to breathe? According to whom? You'll get nowhere with this logic.
When people read, they sound out the words to themselves in their head. Humans can only pay active attention to a single stream of words, be it aural or visual. While they're reading text, they will 'queue' spoken words up in their head, but this queue is volatile and short-term.
Basically, if they're just reading an axis label, they'll pick right back up again, but if they're reading long amounts of text, they're going to miss huge portions of what you're saying.
The human mind is the software, not the hardware. You are not the same person you were ten years ago. We lose ourselves to slow changes over time.
I believe a slow, incremental transfer would preserve the essence of "self". It's not where the instructions are being executed, it's what they're doing.
I agree that there's no real reason to abuse a cow if you can avoid it, and that for beef farmers mistreating your livestock carries a serious economic disadvantage. That's motive enough to avoid having them "suffer".
I take issue with any argument against animal "suffering" that has, at its base, the rationale of "no other being should be forced to suffer!", or some suitably quasi-religious belief. Using that as a basis to end animal suffering means we are all going to end up vegans. Carried to its extreme, it doesn't just ban animal cruelty, it bans doing anything to animals that might "hurt" them, including eat them.
I can't accept killing an entire sector of the food market because some people can't tell animals from people.
You've got to be joking. This thread has dragged up the very bottom of the looney bin.
Well, if it excludes Chimps, and they deserve rights close to ours, maybe not.
No strawmen here good sir, my extrapolation is a logical conclusion to his argument.
So, it evolved to die to suitably fit predators. It's still prey.
That's a lot of anthropomorphism there. You're projecting human values onto animals, the assumption being that we all think the same and so the projection would be valid. That's not true at all.
Cows evolved to die. They're prey...
I agree with your post up to this point. I have some nitpicks for you.
First, what is a "being"? A semantic definition based on your personal preferences?
Second, what denotes "suffering"? Do you assume "pain" is exactly the same across all species?
Third, what is "necessary"?
I don't ask these questions to be pedantic, and you needn't answer them if you don't want to, but I asked them to point out a fact.
Our aversion to "suffering" originates in the empathy centres of our brain, and evolved to be applied to other people. Animals are not people. Their brains are different from ours. Non-mammalian brains are barely comparable. The brains of birds, for example, are quite different from ours. I think applying this human-oriented empathy to other animals is anthropomorphism at its finest, and needs to either be justified by hard evidence, or dismissed.
Your past point is interesting, because if we were to take a step outside our species for a second, by a standard of rational thought an intelligence, there's no reason to value a human baby over that of a chimp unless we bet on its presumed, but unknown, future potential.
It's quite possible that a proper definition of what a human being "is" would disqualify fetuses and some babies. I don't think fear of that should necessarily stop us from defining it anyway. We can find other reasons to keep our kids around, like, say, because we love them.
That excuse, to me, always sounded like a cop-out.
"No, wait, don't make that tough decision, because we might get it wrong, and look what would happen!"
Now, more than ever, a good definition of what it means to be a human being is needed.
So you're putting the life of a dung beetle on the same level as the life of a human being. Right. Will the insanity never stop?