Some are going to blame the shooting in Colorado on the Batman movie.
There are sick people in this world. If the Batman movie didn’t set them off, the barking dog next door would. Meaning: the movie isn’t the problem, it is the person who is sick in the head, you can’t blame videogames or movies or books.
The problem with my country, that I love but otherwise has some serious deep flaws: easy access to guns.
So thank you NRA, for another sale for the industry you lobby for.
And gun lovers, as far as I am concerned, this is blood on your hands.
A well-armed populace does not result in crazy people and gang bangers and hot heads being stopped. It just means more senseless death. You can't protect against a crazy person randomly and without warning firing on you. You aren't superhuman.
Giffords in gun happy Tucson was surrounded by well-armed people. So why wasn't she protected? Because you don't have omniscient powers and hair trigger reaction times and eyes in the back of your head: a crazy person is a complete surprise. Please drop the ridiculous myth that a gun is protection from these scenarios.
In another few months we will hear about this sort of thing again.
And occurrences like this are a lot rarer in other industrialized countries. Because they have sensible gun control laws.
Weep for my country, that is held hostage by gun lovers. And therefore so many innocents must die on a regular basis due their foolish and ignorant attitude towards easy access to guns.
"how to define them in a way that respects individuals, as well as cultures and localities"
you only respect individuals. that is the only moral baseline possible
to respect some artificial agglomeration: a religion or a country say, is just a means to introduce respect for a value system and command and control structure that is imperfect and arbitrary
of course, these cultures and localities will exert inertial resistance, and atrocities will still occur in their name. are we supposed to respect that inertia?
and i didn't say HOW we get everyone operating under universal morality, i simply said that we are able to apply universal moral judgments. so if culture A kills homosexuals, i have no idea how to get them to stop. but it won't stop me from saying, in universal terms of human dignity, that killing someone because they are homosexual is wrong. i am applying a universal judgment
"After all, the imposition of 'universal' morals is a very damaging act in itself. "
no it's not. i can't see how you can possibly say this.
example: "nowhere is it ok to kill homosexuals just for being homosexual"
that's an imposition of a universal moral. how is this damaging? it is preventing damage
it's pretty weird to describe the opposition to immorality as an act of immorality itself
are we toddlers? we play with the packaging instead of the toy?
packaging is intended to get an object form point A to point B without damage. everything else is incidental and pointless. we live in a world where people get distracted by this nonsense?
no there is only a universal morality. because we're all human beings. i don't cross the rio grand or the straights of bosporus and suddenly magic happens and changes the parameters of human interaction. this is a baseline: human morality. nothing logically invalidates it or transgresses against it
homosexuality is universally ok. societies that consider it wrong are engaging in violating the human rights of the individual. why are you so spineless about this? make the logic and reason on the question of consent and personal freedom, and arrive at the logical conclusion
of course our culture is just as valid to be judged as any other. that's the whole point: no culture is so holy and sacred that anyone with a sense of logic and reason can't criticize it. in fact, a child born into a culture, any culture, is a blank slate. as they apply their own logic and reason to the culture they are being assimilated into, that they might see, for example, the treatment of homosexuals to be wrong, is just as valid as an outsider of that culture saying the treatment of homosexuals is wrong. also, all cultures change over time, with every new generation. they naturally seed and pollinate with other cultures. there is no unmoving, unquestionable concept in any culture that is permanent or unchanging. in the past, there was no internet or jet air travel. very different cultures sprung up in mostly isolated human populations. but we are in a global world now
logic and reason flattens all cultural relativity. no culture is a white elephant beyond criticism. to say it is is a kind of moral cowardice that in fact helps evil in this world
when a native English speaker learns a computer language, you might have to learn a function like, say for example, concat()
array1.concat(array2,array3,...,arrayX)
ok, I get it that concat is from the word concatenate. but concatenate, in English, can have all sorts of meanings, and in the context of javascript, that the meaning of the word concatenate should lend itself ONLY to the scenario of arrays, and ONLY to the meaning of joining arrays together... this is rather arbitrary
such that knowledge of English doesn't really advance your learning of the computer language. in fact, weighted down with assumptions from the human language, you might think a function does something else than what it really does
so we all start with a clean slate, from any language background
the point is, you have to learn a computer language means you have to learn a computer language. and knowledge of the human language that some of the functions have cutesy relationships with words from the human language, doesn't really mean much in the end. in fact, it might work against you if you make bad assumptions
you have to learn what? a "vocabulary" of 40-50 "words" to get 99% of the functionality of a computer language? this is beyond the ability of anyone intelligent enough to be engaged in the effort of programming, from any language background?
so i don't really get this exercise. i guess it is good for school kids, but it kind of adds an extra unnecessary layer of incomprehensibility for anyone seriously engaged in programming, beginner or expert
in some societies, you sacrifice a goat for weddings, in others you break a wine glass
but murder is wrong in all societies
the point is: cultural relativity does not neutralize or surpass universal HUMAN values, cultural values are SECONDARY to universal human morality
the next valid question is to ask which is cultural and which is universal, and there are gray areas here. but the existence of those gray areas still does not nullify universal morality. for example, find me a society where cannibalism is acceptable, and i will say this society should be condemned
i never understood this wishy washy spineless attitude that cultural relativity means we cannot judge other societies. of course we can judge other societies, and they can judge us as well. we live in an age of internet and jet travel, the cute cultural silos of the past do not matter anymore, and always were a cheat. we are one species, and only one universal judgment matters on important moral issues. this doesn't mean everyone should go shopping in malls and eat mcdonalds, it means murder is wrong, everywhere, period, and bullshit contrived appeals to cultural relativity to accept horrible atrocities is completely wrong, lame, and spinelessness
The idea of athletic competition is to hone the mind and body to win. Yes, there are genetic aberrations, but this natural and normal.
But when you make the competition about the tech, there is no human element in the drama. The human does not even matter. Only the tech does.
Except for the fact that you are talking about horrible consequences for the human lab rat in the equation with any cutting edge biotech.
So you have:
1. no human drama. it's about the tech. race robots or cars or boats instead 2. destroyed human bodies. the price is too high
Are we going back to the gladiator days of Rome next? Why don't we do that? Because in modern civilization we are suppose to have some morality and decency about what we consider fair game for spectacle.
The Olympics is primarily entertainment. Nothing justifies a Hunger Games disregard for the health of the competitors in an effort to create diversion. To cram cutting edge biotech into the human body, with unknown consequences is a dystopian, amoral, and frankly, evil suggestion.
So we will simply have to safeguard against human biotech mods in normal Olympics competition forever. It won't be easy, there will be cheats that get through against all best possible effort. And this is as good as it can or should ever get.
To cross that threshold into accepting body mods is to accept destroyed human bodies for the sake of entertainment. Not going to happen in a moral world.
you want them furiously attacking you, with words. you, an anonymous troll on the internet
rather than bombing people in the real world
keep them occupied and wasting their time on the Internet by pointing the object of their rage at trollish subjects and ideas rather than real people and places
would you like to talk about any other country besides switzerland. say, all modern industrial nations and their gun control laws and their gun death rates?
People are finally understanding they can do everything Facebook does for them without feeding an advertising and spying machine in other venues.
Not that Google is an improvement in that department, but eventually Fabebook's crass manipulation and even Google' subtle manipulation will make way to the realization: you own your data, and you control your data, and it's time everyone woke up and realized what they were giving away for free and what it was doing to their privacy and their integrity.
Slashdot Mirror
easy access to it means more deaths
it's that simple
i don't understand why our freedom depends upon this tool
i thought it depended upon civil discourse. a gun has no place in civil society
he was trying to terrorize people
what other description of the event applies? what other definition of terrorism applies?
only the USA makes this person have easy access to a gun
so yeah: EASY ACCESS to the tool is the problem
would you like to add data points from a dozen other industrialized nations now?
thanks
Some are going to blame the shooting in Colorado on the Batman movie.
There are sick people in this world. If the Batman movie didn’t set them off, the barking dog next door would. Meaning: the movie isn’t the problem, it is the person who is sick in the head, you can’t blame videogames or movies or books.
The problem with my country, that I love but otherwise has some serious deep flaws: easy access to guns.
So thank you NRA, for another sale for the industry you lobby for.
And gun lovers, as far as I am concerned, this is blood on your hands.
A well-armed populace does not result in crazy people and gang bangers and hot heads being stopped. It just means more senseless death. You can't protect against a crazy person randomly and without warning firing on you. You aren't superhuman.
Giffords in gun happy Tucson was surrounded by well-armed people. So why wasn't she protected? Because you don't have omniscient powers and hair trigger reaction times and eyes in the back of your head: a crazy person is a complete surprise. Please drop the ridiculous myth that a gun is protection from these scenarios.
In another few months we will hear about this sort of thing again.
And occurrences like this are a lot rarer in other industrialized countries. Because they have sensible gun control laws.
Weep for my country, that is held hostage by gun lovers. And therefore so many innocents must die on a regular basis due their foolish and ignorant attitude towards easy access to guns.
"how to define them in a way that respects individuals, as well as cultures and localities"
you only respect individuals. that is the only moral baseline possible
to respect some artificial agglomeration: a religion or a country say, is just a means to introduce respect for a value system and command and control structure that is imperfect and arbitrary
of course, these cultures and localities will exert inertial resistance, and atrocities will still occur in their name. are we supposed to respect that inertia?
and i didn't say HOW we get everyone operating under universal morality, i simply said that we are able to apply universal moral judgments. so if culture A kills homosexuals, i have no idea how to get them to stop. but it won't stop me from saying, in universal terms of human dignity, that killing someone because they are homosexual is wrong. i am applying a universal judgment
"After all, the imposition of 'universal' morals is a very damaging act in itself. "
no it's not. i can't see how you can possibly say this.
example: "nowhere is it ok to kill homosexuals just for being homosexual"
that's an imposition of a universal moral. how is this damaging? it is preventing damage
it's pretty weird to describe the opposition to immorality as an act of immorality itself
i'm trying to understand the implications of your position
if culture A considers homosexuality immoral, is this status quo acceptable to you?
are we toddlers? we play with the packaging instead of the toy?
packaging is intended to get an object form point A to point B without damage. everything else is incidental and pointless. we live in a world where people get distracted by this nonsense?
so, are you suggesting that immorality is acceptable somewhere due to some arbitrary considerations?
otherwise you agree with me
consider a culture. call it culture A. is culture A unyeilding? is it unmoving? is it unquestionable? is it perfect?
no?
then you agree with me
as long as we are all human beings, only one universal morality applies. everything else is inertia
no there is only a universal morality. because we're all human beings. i don't cross the rio grand or the straights of bosporus and suddenly magic happens and changes the parameters of human interaction. this is a baseline: human morality. nothing logically invalidates it or transgresses against it
homosexuality is universally ok. societies that consider it wrong are engaging in violating the human rights of the individual. why are you so spineless about this? make the logic and reason on the question of consent and personal freedom, and arrive at the logical conclusion
of course our culture is just as valid to be judged as any other. that's the whole point: no culture is so holy and sacred that anyone with a sense of logic and reason can't criticize it. in fact, a child born into a culture, any culture, is a blank slate. as they apply their own logic and reason to the culture they are being assimilated into, that they might see, for example, the treatment of homosexuals to be wrong, is just as valid as an outsider of that culture saying the treatment of homosexuals is wrong. also, all cultures change over time, with every new generation. they naturally seed and pollinate with other cultures. there is no unmoving, unquestionable concept in any culture that is permanent or unchanging. in the past, there was no internet or jet air travel. very different cultures sprung up in mostly isolated human populations. but we are in a global world now
logic and reason flattens all cultural relativity. no culture is a white elephant beyond criticism. to say it is is a kind of moral cowardice that in fact helps evil in this world
when a native English speaker learns a computer language, you might have to learn a function like, say for example, concat()
array1.concat(array2,array3,...,arrayX)
ok, I get it that concat is from the word concatenate. but concatenate, in English, can have all sorts of meanings, and in the context of javascript, that the meaning of the word concatenate should lend itself ONLY to the scenario of arrays, and ONLY to the meaning of joining arrays together... this is rather arbitrary
such that knowledge of English doesn't really advance your learning of the computer language. in fact, weighted down with assumptions from the human language, you might think a function does something else than what it really does
so we all start with a clean slate, from any language background
the point is, you have to learn a computer language means you have to learn a computer language. and knowledge of the human language that some of the functions have cutesy relationships with words from the human language, doesn't really mean much in the end. in fact, it might work against you if you make bad assumptions
you have to learn what? a "vocabulary" of 40-50 "words" to get 99% of the functionality of a computer language? this is beyond the ability of anyone intelligent enough to be engaged in the effort of programming, from any language background?
so i don't really get this exercise. i guess it is good for school kids, but it kind of adds an extra unnecessary layer of incomprehensibility for anyone seriously engaged in programming, beginner or expert
in some societies, you sacrifice a goat for weddings, in others you break a wine glass
but murder is wrong in all societies
the point is: cultural relativity does not neutralize or surpass universal HUMAN values, cultural values are SECONDARY to universal human morality
the next valid question is to ask which is cultural and which is universal, and there are gray areas here. but the existence of those gray areas still does not nullify universal morality. for example, find me a society where cannibalism is acceptable, and i will say this society should be condemned
i never understood this wishy washy spineless attitude that cultural relativity means we cannot judge other societies. of course we can judge other societies, and they can judge us as well. we live in an age of internet and jet travel, the cute cultural silos of the past do not matter anymore, and always were a cheat. we are one species, and only one universal judgment matters on important moral issues. this doesn't mean everyone should go shopping in malls and eat mcdonalds, it means murder is wrong, everywhere, period, and bullshit contrived appeals to cultural relativity to accept horrible atrocities is completely wrong, lame, and spinelessness
The idea of athletic competition is to hone the mind and body to win. Yes, there are genetic aberrations, but this natural and normal.
But when you make the competition about the tech, there is no human element in the drama. The human does not even matter. Only the tech does.
Except for the fact that you are talking about horrible consequences for the human lab rat in the equation with any cutting edge biotech.
So you have:
1. no human drama. it's about the tech. race robots or cars or boats instead
2. destroyed human bodies. the price is too high
Are we going back to the gladiator days of Rome next? Why don't we do that? Because in modern civilization we are suppose to have some morality and decency about what we consider fair game for spectacle.
The Olympics is primarily entertainment. Nothing justifies a Hunger Games disregard for the health of the competitors in an effort to create diversion. To cram cutting edge biotech into the human body, with unknown consequences is a dystopian, amoral, and frankly, evil suggestion.
So we will simply have to safeguard against human biotech mods in normal Olympics competition forever. It won't be easy, there will be cheats that get through against all best possible effort. And this is as good as it can or should ever get.
To cross that threshold into accepting body mods is to accept destroyed human bodies for the sake of entertainment. Not going to happen in a moral world.
is our children learnings? is our children learnings?!
i thought so not so much
the poor deserve to have stupid children, as god intended
keep your cyberspace out of my meatspace! (shakes cane)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8yjNbcKkNY
how old school
what a luddite
for epic lulz instead of epic tragedies
proper internet meme usage:
Nut On, Apply Directly to the Nuts
Nut On, Apply Directly to the Nuts
Nut On, Apply Directly to the Nuts
without the theepeat, the meme is deficiently applied
you want them furiously attacking you, with words. you, an anonymous troll on the internet
rather than bombing people in the real world
keep them occupied and wasting their time on the Internet by pointing the object of their rage at trollish subjects and ideas rather than real people and places
thanks for consulting the nra playbook
would you like to talk about any other country besides switzerland. say, all modern industrial nations and their gun control laws and their gun death rates?
we haven't tried it here
we never remotely tried real gun control in the usa
I never will
For that, I was a smelly old geeky kook before.
But now, I am smelly old PRESCIENT geeky kook.
Yeah!
People are finally understanding they can do everything Facebook does for them without feeding an advertising and spying machine in other venues.
Not that Google is an improvement in that department, but eventually Fabebook's crass manipulation and even Google' subtle manipulation will make way to the realization: you own your data, and you control your data, and it's time everyone woke up and realized what they were giving away for free and what it was doing to their privacy and their integrity.
So what's the next hub? Diaspora?