education? healthcare? if someone is poor, what then? "sucks to be you, hope that arm heals on it's own." "sucks for your kids, hope they learns gooder on teevee."
what kind of society does that result in?
"Making more money and making happy customers go hand in hand"
yeah, douchebag, in magic fairy free market land. in REALITY, the big guys collude, create an oligarchy, and dictate the terms to you, and you shut up and accept them, no choice. unless YOUR GOVERNMENT can step in and break up the racket...and then there is more WHARGARBBBLE in which you blame the sickness on the patient, and say we should just kill the patient and hand ourselves over to the sickness
insanity!
when does economic history ever inform your beliefs, rather than quasi-religious faith in ideas that never have worked?
everything and everyone in existence is corruptible, always, forever. all you can hope to do is constantly exert effort and keep the corruption at a minimum. that's the best you can do
the difference is the government is suppose to be accountable to you and take your rights into account, while a corporation most emphatically cares about nothing except making more money, be damned your rights
and you wish to replace the only thing that exists to protect you, however imperfectly: your government, and shift all power to the entities actually infecting your government and taking away your rights, the oligarchy?
wtf?
the solution to thieves creeping in a broken window is not to fix the window, but swing the door wide open?
the solution to termites infesting the table leg is take off the legs and give the table over to the termites, rather than replace the leg?
you would rather kill the patient and reward the disease, rather than cure the patient?
if the government is corrupted by the oligarchy, well then it is up to you to vote and agitate and keep the corruption at a minimum
is that hard? yes!
welcome to real life, moron: true freedom requires constant vigilance and effort, you don't put it on autopilot and forget about it. the document begins "we the people", not "we the rich people and corporations." what does it take to get the meaning back to the original intent? YOU! and lots of others, and a lot of time, and a lot of hard work
or throw up your hands and give up like a spineless douchebag. then you get the corporate fascism you deserve
it will be a lot easier for women to build mechanical sperm machines, maybe personal size, all carrying the X chromosome of course, than it will be to build artificial wombs
men will be otherwise be replaced with fancy dildos
science is pretty much at the point where us males are irrelevant and unnecessary, we're not yet at the point where females are
LvM and other free market advocates depend upon human beings behaving like human beings have never behaved, in any time or culture before. and people never will behave in the way LvM and free market advocates requiring them to behave in order for their sophomoric fantasies to exist
ergo, the grandfather post to this hits the nail dead on the head: we need a strong central government and strongly regulated markets in order for them to be truly free. free as in fair and just, as in the big guys and the little guys acting with equal potential, as in the big guys not colluding and taking advantage of the little guys, which is what would actually transpire, and has always transpired, in truly "free", as in natural and unregulated, markets
if you talk up the mythology enough, your mind's eye won't notice how the ideal has never been met by any living person
i'm not talking about your quote specifically. i'm talking about free market fundamentalist fools in general who attribute mythological qualities to capitalism and free markets that have never existed and never will. for example: that they self-regulate. that they are egalitarian. that they are fair. no, no, and no: they need a strong central government, to regulate them and keep them fair and just. otherwise, naturally, the large abuse the weak, and much money is lost in natural inefficiencies and unfairness
no. my position is you should evaluate iran's actions according to your moral principles. and you should evaluate the usa's actions according to your moral principles. one doesn't have anything to do with the other, no matter how many straw men you construct
if a corporation is large enough to serve a major social function of my culture, it is open season to insist it abide by social norms. again, of course, the legal status is that a corporation is not a government entity, and therefore not bound by public demands. this is a nice sentiment in a world where adequate alternative choices exist. but we're not talking about a free market situation, we're talking about a oligarchy, domination by a handful. in such a corporate oligarchy, the corporations have taken over major government functions and therefore, morally, if not legally, are rightfully bound to work for the people (to the extent that any society dominated by corporations and not the people works for the people, but this gets right back to the problem with intellectual property laws in the first place)
i heard you pushed a kid in the lunch line when you were in 4th grade
for this grave in justice, you have forfeited your right to criticize anyone else the entirety of your life
deal with the mote in my eye as soon as you take this plank out of yours
friend, the only straw men being demolished here are yours, in how you think about international affairs and ANY nation involved in them. all you see are straw men! your entire argument is one giant straw man fest between nations and their ability/ inability to criticize each other based on these fake props: "the USA did {XYZ}. therefore, the USA can't say anything about Iran doing {ABC}, it's a hypocrite." straw men galore!
1. i get it. if a guy stabs a woman in the street in front of you, you're not saying anything, you don't know him. but if your brother jaywalks, you will read him the riot act and rain high holy indignation on him. because you know him. so your "morality" isn't actually dictated by right and wrong, it is dictated by affiliation and proximity
2. hypocrisy: every single nation that ever existed and ever will exist will commit wrongs. therefore, inaction is always justified, because you can always point to a wrong a country has done, and therefore declare it is not capable of criticizing anyone else based on that, it is a hypocrite
the other problem is that we aren't really talking about hypocrisy. every action a nation does is under it's own unique set of conditions. it is not comparable to any other nation's actions, taken under another unique set of conditions. meaning, morally speaking, you must condemn a nation base don its actions uniquely, irregardless of what any other nation has done. this realization leads you to the mindblowing conclusion you can criticize the USA and Iran at the same time, without any conflict or hypocrisy, unbridled by the completely bullshit premise that the wrongs of one nation binds you in your ability to comment on any other's
Youtube is accusing me of plagiarizing, because i put a PUBLIC DOMAIN audio track of "The Star Spangled Banner" in the video. Their automatic software however has decided this is false positive enough with someone else's recording of OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM (!?) to block my video. I disputed the claim, linked to the public domain audio source, and now I have until July 18 to twiddle my thumbs while Youtube placates the copyright trolls.
Our intellectual property system is an absurdity that hinders creativity, I want to live in a just and sane society. Our intellectual property system is incompatible with being fixed, and any move to a more sane status quo requires that it be made abundantly clear to everyone that laws put on the books in the days of cassette tapes do not work in a world of TCP/IP.
I support anything and everything that directly undermines the enforcement of intellectual property laws. Civil Disobedience is what is needed, civil disobedience here in this context is any and all actions that are sane and reasonable consumer actions of YOUR CULTURE but obviously not in line with intellectual property letter of the law. Supporting artists does not mean supporting the parasitical corporations and laws that merely operate on a rent seeking basis, and add no value to our culture or our creativity.
so apparently, you think, when commenting on international affairs, that:
1. you can only talk about the actions of the USA. it's not your right to question anyone else. syria can machete women and children, but the usa is bad too, so you can't hazard an opinion on those actions, it's not your right. your nationality is more important to you than your humanity 2. that how others nations behave is simply a reflection of how the USA behaves. other nations aren't made of living breathing people, they are just cardboard cut out character reflections of what the USA does. iran doesn't have it's own thoughts or agenda, it's just a mirror of the USA
1. makes you blind, 2. makes you condescending
why do you even bother commenting in international affairs? you've utterly hobbled your mind and heart to do or say anything useful
oh, the ol' "i'm against nukes but since the usa has them, everyone else deserves to have them with my blessings" routine
awesome
what an ignoramus
if you were honestly against nukes, you would be loudly denouncing iran getting them AND insisting the usa get rid of them
but apparently, you are happy just to say the usa should get rid of them and then iran will happily follow along because iran is made of cotton candy and kisses
which is fine, everyone deserves to be stupid. just please be logically consistent and stop saying you don't trust anyone with nukes. you apparently trust iran with them. otherwise, you'd be decrying them getting them
The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:
1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands; 2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws; 3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God; 4.the justice of God in creation and legislation; 5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
it is a THEOCRACY. a bunch of grumpy old men, who believe they have a monopoly on the word of god... with nukes?
no fucking way
it's not about islam, i'd feel the same way if it were a jewish or christian theocracy
and no, israel and the usa are not the same. even if the leader is devout and religious, the only valid parallel is if the pope decided on who could run in us elections and retained final authority on all us govt matters
i don't trust a theocracy with nukes. you may, but as far as i am concerned you are a deluded naive fool in your approach to world affairs
"oh, loving Iran won't hurt me, all I have to do is get rid of my entire nuclear stockpile, then perfectly trsutworthy perfectly well intending Iran will happily not build nukes. and rainbows and flowers and unicorns"
reality
^ | V
you
not quite working in unison huh?
i think you need to base foreign policy decision on something other than wishful thinking. sorry for that slight problem
that's fine. so focus on the usa, that's your choice, i respect it
now never comment on international issues ever again
because of YOUR choice
you can't have it both ways. either you limit yourself to domestic criticism, or you engage in international commentary. you can't intelligently comment on international affairs if you are going to limit yourself to criticizing only one player. you understand that, right?
"In a way, as citizens, out greatest ally is people on the outside who counter our government because we generally do not have the leverage to do so."
you are saying that you have an international viewpoint that is different than your own governments. what makes your individual point of view more valid that the government's? because you say so?
what if my individual point of view is that the usa should attack iran (it's not, just an example). the government if israel agrees with me. but the us govt won't attack. so i say
"In a way, as citizens, out greatest ally is people on the outside who counter our government because we generally do not have the leverage to do so."
micromanage the usa's outrageous use of stuxnet, before we can, for example, talk about mass murder in syria
how about we criticize ALL governments in proportion to their individual crimes?
i am not defending the usa, go ahead and criticize it, the usa does plenty wrong in the world. but have you notices what some other fuckers are doing? i am saying that the criticism of the usa should be proportional to what the other governments are doing. take stock of that, and the usa is down your list of concerns
there is only one defensible moral position: a global perspective. all other local positions are parochial and flawed
so no, you don't single out the usa for criticism, unless you wish to have a point of view that is useless on the world stage. because you aren't concerned with the world stage. you're concerned with mocormanaging the usa's moral image and keeping your criticisms at home
good for you
now never talk about international affairs again. that's by your choice. you have chosen to have an imbalanced point of view. therefore, you cease to matter, by what you have chosen to focus on: the usa, rather than world
you consider hostile foreign powers as an effective power counterbalance in domestic politics?
do i laugh that you believe this or cry?
in point of fact actually, there is the circle the wagons effect. foreign threats are used by extemist demagogues domestically to fire up their base. this is true in iran, china, russia, all countries... and the usa. in point of fact, this idiotic nonsense:
"In a way, as citizens, out greatest ally is people on the outside who counter our government because we generally do not have the leverage to do so."
i just understand, unlike yourself, that there is a difference between capitalism and corporate oligarchy, which is exactly what you play into with your thinking
i also know that a strong central government is the only thing that actually makes a free market (as in fair market) work
and finally, and most importantly, i understand the difference between what the government is supposed to do, and the corruption of our government by special interests
you see the sickness, and you blame the patient, rather than the virus. and your solution is apparently to give the corruptors exactly what they want: less influence over their oligarchy, less recourse for the little guy
the problem is free speech fundamentalism, which is an entirely different enchilada
you are confusing two entirely different concepts
free speech fundamentalism is the idea that speech needs no limits, and ANY limits are therefore as bad and the same as THE WORST KIND of limits
we're talking about people, for example, who equate china squashing all political expression, with the west squashing kiddie porn. they obviously are not the same. but to a free speech fundamentalism, it's the same, it's just all censorship, regardless of the subject matter
nonsense
free speech has it's limits: i can't shout fire in a crowded theatre, i can't threaten to kill someone, i can't incite people to kill someone (these terrorist videos), i can't secretly record you having sex with your wife then put it on a billboard next to the highway: free speech has its limits in a free society. and SOME forms of speech are not free, and should not be allowed: those that cause real harm to individuals. you can say that, and you can still say you support free speech passionately. you just have to have to be wise enough to know that real life is more complicated than ham fisted oversimplifications
Slashdot Mirror
education? healthcare? if someone is poor, what then? "sucks to be you, hope that arm heals on it's own." "sucks for your kids, hope they learns gooder on teevee."
what kind of society does that result in?
"Making more money and making happy customers go hand in hand"
yeah, douchebag, in magic fairy free market land. in REALITY, the big guys collude, create an oligarchy, and dictate the terms to you, and you shut up and accept them, no choice. unless YOUR GOVERNMENT can step in and break up the racket ...and then there is more WHARGARBBBLE in which you blame the sickness on the patient, and say we should just kill the patient and hand ourselves over to the sickness
insanity!
when does economic history ever inform your beliefs, rather than quasi-religious faith in ideas that never have worked?
Do some good. Load those low orbit ion cannons, ddos the Syrian Govt's capacity.
moron:
everything and everyone in existence is corruptible, always, forever. all you can hope to do is constantly exert effort and keep the corruption at a minimum. that's the best you can do
the difference is the government is suppose to be accountable to you and take your rights into account, while a corporation most emphatically cares about nothing except making more money, be damned your rights
and you wish to replace the only thing that exists to protect you, however imperfectly: your government, and shift all power to the entities actually infecting your government and taking away your rights, the oligarchy?
wtf?
the solution to thieves creeping in a broken window is not to fix the window, but swing the door wide open?
the solution to termites infesting the table leg is take off the legs and give the table over to the termites, rather than replace the leg?
you would rather kill the patient and reward the disease, rather than cure the patient?
if the government is corrupted by the oligarchy, well then it is up to you to vote and agitate and keep the corruption at a minimum
is that hard? yes!
welcome to real life, moron: true freedom requires constant vigilance and effort, you don't put it on autopilot and forget about it. the document begins "we the people", not "we the rich people and corporations." what does it take to get the meaning back to the original intent? YOU! and lots of others, and a lot of time, and a lot of hard work
or throw up your hands and give up like a spineless douchebag. then you get the corporate fascism you deserve
welcome to reality
it will be a lot easier for women to build mechanical sperm machines, maybe personal size, all carrying the X chromosome of course, than it will be to build artificial wombs
men will be otherwise be replaced with fancy dildos
science is pretty much at the point where us males are irrelevant and unnecessary, we're not yet at the point where females are
LvM and other free market advocates depend upon human beings behaving like human beings have never behaved, in any time or culture before. and people never will behave in the way LvM and free market advocates requiring them to behave in order for their sophomoric fantasies to exist
ergo, the grandfather post to this hits the nail dead on the head: we need a strong central government and strongly regulated markets in order for them to be truly free. free as in fair and just, as in the big guys and the little guys acting with equal potential, as in the big guys not colluding and taking advantage of the little guys, which is what would actually transpire, and has always transpired, in truly "free", as in natural and unregulated, markets
that was beautiful
you're a moron
you believe the only choices are the extremes?
how about capitalism with social safety nets?
how about socialism with a capitalist engine?
moderation, the middle way, is true wisdom
but don't let that stop you from painting me as another extreme just because i stand against your extreme
if you talk up the mythology enough, your mind's eye won't notice how the ideal has never been met by any living person
i'm not talking about your quote specifically. i'm talking about free market fundamentalist fools in general who attribute mythological qualities to capitalism and free markets that have never existed and never will. for example: that they self-regulate. that they are egalitarian. that they are fair. no, no, and no: they need a strong central government, to regulate them and keep them fair and just. otherwise, naturally, the large abuse the weak, and much money is lost in natural inefficiencies and unfairness
reality sucks when compared to myth, doesn't it?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2925479&cid=40370389
no. my position is you should evaluate iran's actions according to your moral principles. and you should evaluate the usa's actions according to your moral principles. one doesn't have anything to do with the other, no matter how many straw men you construct
if a corporation is large enough to serve a major social function of my culture, it is open season to insist it abide by social norms. again, of course, the legal status is that a corporation is not a government entity, and therefore not bound by public demands. this is a nice sentiment in a world where adequate alternative choices exist. but we're not talking about a free market situation, we're talking about a oligarchy, domination by a handful. in such a corporate oligarchy, the corporations have taken over major government functions and therefore, morally, if not legally, are rightfully bound to work for the people (to the extent that any society dominated by corporations and not the people works for the people, but this gets right back to the problem with intellectual property laws in the first place)
i heard you pushed a kid in the lunch line when you were in 4th grade
for this grave in justice, you have forfeited your right to criticize anyone else the entirety of your life
deal with the mote in my eye as soon as you take this plank out of yours
friend, the only straw men being demolished here are yours, in how you think about international affairs and ANY nation involved in them. all you see are straw men! your entire argument is one giant straw man fest between nations and their ability/ inability to criticize each other based on these fake props: "the USA did {XYZ}. therefore, the USA can't say anything about Iran doing {ABC}, it's a hypocrite." straw men galore!
1. i get it. if a guy stabs a woman in the street in front of you, you're not saying anything, you don't know him. but if your brother jaywalks, you will read him the riot act and rain high holy indignation on him. because you know him. so your "morality" isn't actually dictated by right and wrong, it is dictated by affiliation and proximity
2. hypocrisy: every single nation that ever existed and ever will exist will commit wrongs. therefore, inaction is always justified, because you can always point to a wrong a country has done, and therefore declare it is not capable of criticizing anyone else based on that, it is a hypocrite
the other problem is that we aren't really talking about hypocrisy. every action a nation does is under it's own unique set of conditions. it is not comparable to any other nation's actions, taken under another unique set of conditions. meaning, morally speaking, you must condemn a nation base don its actions uniquely, irregardless of what any other nation has done. this realization leads you to the mindblowing conclusion you can criticize the USA and Iran at the same time, without any conflict or hypocrisy, unbridled by the completely bullshit premise that the wrongs of one nation binds you in your ability to comment on any other's
Youtube is accusing me of plagiarizing, because i put a PUBLIC DOMAIN audio track of "The Star Spangled Banner" in the video. Their automatic software however has decided this is false positive enough with someone else's recording of OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM (!?) to block my video. I disputed the claim, linked to the public domain audio source, and now I have until July 18 to twiddle my thumbs while Youtube placates the copyright trolls.
Our intellectual property system is an absurdity that hinders creativity, I want to live in a just and sane society. Our intellectual property system is incompatible with being fixed, and any move to a more sane status quo requires that it be made abundantly clear to everyone that laws put on the books in the days of cassette tapes do not work in a world of TCP/IP.
I support anything and everything that directly undermines the enforcement of intellectual property laws. Civil Disobedience is what is needed, civil disobedience here in this context is any and all actions that are sane and reasonable consumer actions of YOUR CULTURE but obviously not in line with intellectual property letter of the law. Supporting artists does not mean supporting the parasitical corporations and laws that merely operate on a rent seeking basis, and add no value to our culture or our creativity.
so apparently, you think, when commenting on international affairs, that:
1. you can only talk about the actions of the USA. it's not your right to question anyone else. syria can machete women and children, but the usa is bad too, so you can't hazard an opinion on those actions, it's not your right. your nationality is more important to you than your humanity
2. that how others nations behave is simply a reflection of how the USA behaves. other nations aren't made of living breathing people, they are just cardboard cut out character reflections of what the USA does. iran doesn't have it's own thoughts or agenda, it's just a mirror of the USA
1. makes you blind, 2. makes you condescending
why do you even bother commenting in international affairs? you've utterly hobbled your mind and heart to do or say anything useful
oh, the ol' "i'm against nukes but since the usa has them, everyone else deserves to have them with my blessings" routine
awesome
what an ignoramus
if you were honestly against nukes, you would be loudly denouncing iran getting them AND insisting the usa get rid of them
but apparently, you are happy just to say the usa should get rid of them and then iran will happily follow along because iran is made of cotton candy and kisses
which is fine, everyone deserves to be stupid. just please be logically consistent and stop saying you don't trust anyone with nukes. you apparently trust iran with them. otherwise, you'd be decrying them getting them
this is the country you want to play nice with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests
and this:
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution-1.html
it is a THEOCRACY. a bunch of grumpy old men, who believe they have a monopoly on the word of god... with nukes?
no fucking way
it's not about islam, i'd feel the same way if it were a jewish or christian theocracy
and no, israel and the usa are not the same. even if the leader is devout and religious, the only valid parallel is if the pope decided on who could run in us elections and retained final authority on all us govt matters
i don't trust a theocracy with nukes. you may, but as far as i am concerned you are a deluded naive fool in your approach to world affairs
"oh, loving Iran won't hurt me, all I have to do is get rid of my entire nuclear stockpile, then perfectly trsutworthy perfectly well intending Iran will happily not build nukes. and rainbows and flowers and unicorns"
reality
^
|
V
you
not quite working in unison huh?
i think you need to base foreign policy decision on something other than wishful thinking. sorry for that slight problem
that's fine. so focus on the usa, that's your choice, i respect it
now never comment on international issues ever again
because of YOUR choice
you can't have it both ways. either you limit yourself to domestic criticism, or you engage in international commentary. you can't intelligently comment on international affairs if you are going to limit yourself to criticizing only one player. you understand that, right?
"In a way, as citizens, out greatest ally is people on the outside who counter our government because we generally do not have the leverage to do so."
you are saying that you have an international viewpoint that is different than your own governments. what makes your individual point of view more valid that the government's? because you say so?
what if my individual point of view is that the usa should attack iran (it's not, just an example). the government if israel agrees with me. but the us govt won't attack. so i say
"In a way, as citizens, out greatest ally is people on the outside who counter our government because we generally do not have the leverage to do so."
what an ignorant clusterfuck
excellent
micromanage the usa's outrageous use of stuxnet, before we can, for example, talk about mass murder in syria
how about we criticize ALL governments in proportion to their individual crimes?
i am not defending the usa, go ahead and criticize it, the usa does plenty wrong in the world. but have you notices what some other fuckers are doing? i am saying that the criticism of the usa should be proportional to what the other governments are doing. take stock of that, and the usa is down your list of concerns
there is only one defensible moral position: a global perspective. all other local positions are parochial and flawed
so no, you don't single out the usa for criticism, unless you wish to have a point of view that is useless on the world stage. because you aren't concerned with the world stage. you're concerned with mocormanaging the usa's moral image and keeping your criticisms at home
good for you
now never talk about international affairs again. that's by your choice. you have chosen to have an imbalanced point of view. therefore, you cease to matter, by what you have chosen to focus on: the usa, rather than world
wtf?
you consider hostile foreign powers as an effective power counterbalance in domestic politics?
do i laugh that you believe this or cry?
in point of fact actually, there is the circle the wagons effect. foreign threats are used by extemist demagogues domestically to fire up their base. this is true in iran, china, russia, all countries... and the usa. in point of fact, this idiotic nonsense:
"In a way, as citizens, out greatest ally is people on the outside who counter our government because we generally do not have the leverage to do so."
reveals you to be quite utterly clueless
all countries are doing this, and have been doing this, for years
i never understood this "single out the USA for what everyone does" nonsense
it seems like a defect in one's ability to keep perspective to me
i'm a committed capitalist
i just understand, unlike yourself, that there is a difference between capitalism and corporate oligarchy, which is exactly what you play into with your thinking
i also know that a strong central government is the only thing that actually makes a free market (as in fair market) work
and finally, and most importantly, i understand the difference between what the government is supposed to do, and the corruption of our government by special interests
you see the sickness, and you blame the patient, rather than the virus. and your solution is apparently to give the corruptors exactly what they want: less influence over their oligarchy, less recourse for the little guy
you really are a giant fool
no. free speech is important, i support it
the problem is free speech fundamentalism, which is an entirely different enchilada
you are confusing two entirely different concepts
free speech fundamentalism is the idea that speech needs no limits, and ANY limits are therefore as bad and the same as THE WORST KIND of limits
we're talking about people, for example, who equate china squashing all political expression, with the west squashing kiddie porn. they obviously are not the same. but to a free speech fundamentalism, it's the same, it's just all censorship, regardless of the subject matter
nonsense
free speech has it's limits: i can't shout fire in a crowded theatre, i can't threaten to kill someone, i can't incite people to kill someone (these terrorist videos), i can't secretly record you having sex with your wife then put it on a billboard next to the highway: free speech has its limits in a free society. and SOME forms of speech are not free, and should not be allowed: those that cause real harm to individuals. you can say that, and you can still say you support free speech passionately. you just have to have to be wise enough to know that real life is more complicated than ham fisted oversimplifications