explaining how or why someone thinks or acts a certain way does not remove them from accountability or responsibility
"well see, he is a drug addict, so when he mowed down the family with his car, this is why it is not his fault"
this is obviously tangential, but i want to make sure people understand: there is nothing wrong with explaining why people behave a certain way or say a certain thing. but explaining why they do something doesn't mean they are removed from responsibility or accountability for their actions
i see this kind of thinking about responsibility like in the summary all the time, and it bothers me, as various neurobiological investigations EXPLAIN someone's behavior but it doesn't EXCUSE someone's behavior
some people think explaining=excusing. no: without personal accountability in this world, all sense of morality is destroyed. if it comes out of your mouth or your hands, YOU are responsible for it. no explanation nullfies that. please understand that
turned into byzantine obsession is a sign of a person who will do nothing but bring grief to anyone who ever touches his or her life
if you ever meet this type, back off slowly smiling, then run like hell
their feeling of disempowerment and helplessness (self-learned) and the eternal fight against that (fruitlessly projected outwards) is all they know, it defines their entire existence
well, there is the energy consideration, which is what's driving the politics here. halogens do have savings compared to incandescent. but they have that transformer that's alway eating electrons, even when the power is off
with LED, you remove all problems anyone could have with switching to newer tech bulbs, and save MORE energy than CFL. of course, there is that small eensy teensy detail of price
CFLs have the mercury issue and the dimness period before full power. The energy savings, of course, are nice.
But LEDs are solid state, instant on, you can use a dimmer switch with them. They last longer than CFL and they save more energy to. Best of all, they mimic natural daylight the best. Fluorescent is too harsh and incandescent is too hot.
But of course, still a little too pricey. Whoever gets LED Bulbs to the magic price point will reap my gratitude (and a lot of purchases)
"Technology and Moral Outrage" should be the title of this story
some will blame technology, rather than murdoch thugs
don't believe me? just watch. "the devil made me do it" is the oldest defense in the book. where "the devil" = "backwards lyrics on beatle albums" / "videogames" / "dungeons and dragons" / whatever
anything to avoid personal accountability when it comes to punishment, anything to embrace personal accountability when it comes to reward
an invasion of privacy invokes the ancient primate evolutionary panic of some other male inseminating the female you are paired with, which means you are stuck devoting all of your time and resources raising some other man's child
so yes, the battlefield is the woman's body when it comes to fear of the unknown, and especially something that is sticking tendrils into your house or creeping out over the ether and grabbing and inseminating YOUR WOMAN
i'm asking certain blind fools to recognize they have certain RESPONSIBILITIES in civil society
if you don't want those responsibilities, you are declaring your freedom from society, which is fine: THEN GET THE FUCK OUT AND STOP ENJOYING THE BENEFITS YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR, you ignorant irresponsible asshole
i do think the TSA is overreacting, but we really do live in a world where people will stick bombs up their ass
most of the derision in the posts here really should be in the form of depression that we have to worry about this kind of thing in the world. not worry about to the extent the TSA is, they are overreacting, but anal cavity bombers are a genuine threat to high profile targets
i don't understand how you can think the observation is true about terrorism but not about communism. it's the same form of trumped up threat. you swallow the koolaid about communism, but not terrorism. so you're half redeemed
the damage done to the usa by communist infiltrators was less than that by the hystertical overreacting nitwits
the damage done to the usa by terorrism today is less than that by the hystertical overreacting nitwits
the usa isn't weak. why do you think it is so fragile? it isn't. YOU are. stop projecting your pantywaist fears, asshole. YOU and your kind do more damage to this great country than it's genuine enemies. at least this country's enemies intend malice. you damage the country in the name of helping it, but you're too fucking stupid to understand why your low iq panty waist fear and paranoia hurts more than it helps
fuck off ashole. you're no patriot. you're just a tool
but, when the conspiracy is shown to be real, i have nothing but venom and hate for the power abusing assholes who think they can get away with it
hoover was a cross-dressing pinhead (not that there's anything wrong with cross-dressing, but there's plenty wrong with hypocrisy). the fbi under him was an extension of mccarthy era hysteria and witch hunts. so fuck you hoover, thanks for contributing to the destruction of the composure of a great man and a great writer
those who seek to protect us, in the name of hypocritical assumptions about what we need protection from, are the real enemies of the usa
all of your complaints are government are real and valid. all of those problems are evil
and yet, without government, every problem you describe only gets much much worse
do you understand that?
"I'm just saying we'd be better off letting charities and the places we work voluntarily provide such things"
this argument always made me laugh
people who argue emphatically for how wrong it is to help poor people, are going to help poor people generously on their own. you realize what a pile of steaming shit that is, right?
the fact is, people DO need help, and you realize that. you just don't want to help them. that's fine
so get the fuck out
you want the BENEFITS of society, without paying for the COSTS of society. you are full of shit, or you don't realize how helpiong people pays DIVIDENDS in YOUR life: lower crime, better safety, etc. you'd rather the usa become like haiti or somalia. that's what the usa will become if we followed your philosophy
so fuck you and your "charity will take care of it." that's a nice cheat to make your philosophy work (in other words, it is not a complete philosophy)
no charity won't work in a society full of blindly self-concerned assholes like you: there won't BE any charity, because you advocate for a society without concern or care for those less well off. it's a contradiction you won't admit. because you're blind and selfish. and people like me, people who can think, won't lett assholes like you destroy this great country with your idiotic lack of understanding of how you benefit for what you don't want to pay for
for example, they destroyed the french monarchy, and the russian monarchy
some guys with wacky ideas came and told them they were entitled to more in life than to barely scrape by without any hope, and they believed it
those crazy poor people
the point is, if your society does not have a path for self-improvement, if it doesn't educate regardless of economic condition, if it doesn't provide for health regardless of econmic condition, if the door is closed to the possibility of a better life by a self-serving classist structure, revolution is the ultimate end point. inevitably
so you keep saying "let them eat cake"
it probably wont' hurt you. but like most self-contented rich assholes, you don't care about anything except yourself, even if it means your children or grandchildren will have to be the ones who have to deal the mess your mean-spirited "i got mine, fuck you" attitude creates in society. who cares what your offspring have to deal with, you got yours, right?
the point is not that the poor deserve anything. the point is what the poor will do, justly or unjustly, if you close the door on them
or: you just keep imagining they'll meekly accept their stagnant lot in life. can't hurt you, right?
if you have 100 applicants, all mostly equally qualified, and one says "i'll work for free", you hire him or her
it's a way for the rich to destroy the meritocracy: they have the benefit of not needing money to survive, and they can use this to extend an unfair competitive advantage over equally qualified or even more qualified poorer candidates
free market fundamentalists need to understand that you need government regulating society to counteract the force of gravity that is money. money attracts more money, and this is a force of injustice that NATURALLY develops. without government controls counteracting this, society inevitably stratifies into classes, with the rich having all the money, and the poor leading miserable lives they can't escape
it is not possible to believe in a meritocracy and a free market at the same time. the two concepts are mutually exclusive
it doesn't mean we should be communist societies. it means that pure capitalist societies are just as evil as communist ones
the answer?:
balance, in all things: a capitalist society with socialist safety nets. the only society with true justice and maximized happiness and a rich vibrant middle class
the worst is abuse is of the word "libertarianism"
libertarianism, historically, and in areas outside the usa, means pretty much NOTHING like it does in the usa today
in the 1970s conservative free market fundamentalists hijacked and rewrote the term, and now, those in the orbit of ron paul, and those in the orbit of europe, can talk about libertarianism and mean completely different things: emphasis on the economic, and emphasis on the social
the real reason for the economic disparity between whites and blacks in the usa is because of economics, and that IS a historical hangover from institutional, governmental, and ad hoc societal favoritism towards WHITES since, well, since before this country was founded
in fact, affirmative action should exist forever, but again, based on income, not race. there is no reason why a rich black son should get preferential treatment over a poor white son, but there IS a reason for a poor child, of any race, to get preferential treatment over a rich child, of any race
simply because without the counteracting force of government policy, nepotism and cronyism will inevitably concentrate power and wealth with a few. governmental policy HAS to counteract this, in any society, for all time. or injustice, based on economic class, inevitably develops
a true meritocracy is NOT the default status of human society. money INEVITABLY concentrates power, which leads to cronyism and nepotism: the useless son of the rich guy getting the good high ranking job, rather than the guy who busted his ass for 20 years in the company and who really deserves
therefore, society MUST counteract nepotism and croyism and favoritism based on class, wealth, and family connections by promoting poor but brilliant children to the front of the line, forever. the free market does not sovle this problem, it CREATES this problem
a free market will DESTROY a true meritocracy based society because of cronyism and nepotism
that is, belief in a self-regulating society, and belief in a meritocracy, are mutually exclusive beliefs. to believe in meritocracy, you must believe in government regulation and programs LIKE affirmative action (but not EXACTLY like affirmative action), and you must understand that a self-regulating society will inevitbly lead to a regimented stratified calss based society where power and wealth concentrate with a few: money attracts more money, and that's the way it's always been. a just society MUST constantly counteract this natural gravity
Slashdot Mirror
yes, absolutely
but we mustn't forget the assholes who think explaining behavior biologically actually excuses people from the consequences of their actions
such assholes are real. mainly, the people committing various crimes
explaining how or why someone thinks or acts a certain way does not remove them from accountability or responsibility
"well see, he is a drug addict, so when he mowed down the family with his car, this is why it is not his fault"
this is obviously tangential, but i want to make sure people understand: there is nothing wrong with explaining why people behave a certain way or say a certain thing. but explaining why they do something doesn't mean they are removed from responsibility or accountability for their actions
i see this kind of thinking about responsibility like in the summary all the time, and it bothers me, as various neurobiological investigations EXPLAIN someone's behavior but it doesn't EXCUSE someone's behavior
some people think explaining=excusing. no: without personal accountability in this world, all sense of morality is destroyed. if it comes out of your mouth or your hands, YOU are responsible for it. no explanation nullfies that. please understand that
only on slashdot do orbital dynamics and social dynamics converge on the same subject matter ;-)
that is the grim calculus isn't it?
there is no easy answer here
turned into byzantine obsession is a sign of a person who will do nothing but bring grief to anyone who ever touches his or her life
if you ever meet this type, back off slowly smiling, then run like hell
their feeling of disempowerment and helplessness (self-learned) and the eternal fight against that (fruitlessly projected outwards) is all they know, it defines their entire existence
LOL
well, there is the energy consideration, which is what's driving the politics here. halogens do have savings compared to incandescent. but they have that transformer that's alway eating electrons, even when the power is off
with LED, you remove all problems anyone could have with switching to newer tech bulbs, and save MORE energy than CFL. of course, there is that small eensy teensy detail of price
When they do, it's a no brainer.
CFLs have the mercury issue and the dimness period before full power. The energy savings, of course, are nice.
But LEDs are solid state, instant on, you can use a dimmer switch with them. They last longer than CFL and they save more energy to. Best of all, they mimic natural daylight the best. Fluorescent is too harsh and incandescent is too hot.
But of course, still a little too pricey. Whoever gets LED Bulbs to the magic price point will reap my gratitude (and a lot of purchases)
"Technology and Moral Outrage" should be the title of this story
some will blame technology, rather than murdoch thugs
don't believe me? just watch. "the devil made me do it" is the oldest defense in the book. where "the devil" = "backwards lyrics on beatle albums" / "videogames" / "dungeons and dragons" / whatever
anything to avoid personal accountability when it comes to punishment, anything to embrace personal accountability when it comes to reward
can be viewed as an invasion of privacy
an invasion of privacy invokes the ancient primate evolutionary panic of some other male inseminating the female you are paired with, which means you are stuck devoting all of your time and resources raising some other man's child
so yes, the battlefield is the woman's body when it comes to fear of the unknown, and especially something that is sticking tendrils into your house or creeping out over the ether and grabbing and inseminating YOUR WOMAN
AAAAAAAHHHHH
i'm not asking anyone to do anything for me
i'm asking certain blind fools to recognize they have certain RESPONSIBILITIES in civil society
if you don't want those responsibilities, you are declaring your freedom from society, which is fine: THEN GET THE FUCK OUT AND STOP ENJOYING THE BENEFITS YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR, you ignorant irresponsible asshole
LOL
i love you man!
my very own stalker
i feel so loved
*sniff*
my point was more that it is depressing that we live in a world where someone will voluntarily stick a bomb up their ass, for whatever cause
this is not a lame movie plot rip off from "the dark knight" or "total recall"
this is real:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_al-Asiri
i do think the TSA is overreacting, but we really do live in a world where people will stick bombs up their ass
most of the derision in the posts here really should be in the form of depression that we have to worry about this kind of thing in the world. not worry about to the extent the TSA is, they are overreacting, but anal cavity bombers are a genuine threat to high profile targets
round them all up and give them all the harshest penalty under law
i don't understand how you can think the observation is true about terrorism but not about communism. it's the same form of trumped up threat. you swallow the koolaid about communism, but not terrorism. so you're half redeemed
the damage done to the usa by communist infiltrators was less than that by the hystertical overreacting nitwits
the damage done to the usa by terorrism today is less than that by the hystertical overreacting nitwits
the usa isn't weak. why do you think it is so fragile? it isn't. YOU are. stop projecting your pantywaist fears, asshole. YOU and your kind do more damage to this great country than it's genuine enemies. at least this country's enemies intend malice. you damage the country in the name of helping it, but you're too fucking stupid to understand why your low iq panty waist fear and paranoia hurts more than it helps
fuck off ashole. you're no patriot. you're just a tool
maybe if you finished reading the words you cut off mid sentence you would have your answer? sorry if that's a strange idea
but, when the conspiracy is shown to be real, i have nothing but venom and hate for the power abusing assholes who think they can get away with it
hoover was a cross-dressing pinhead (not that there's anything wrong with cross-dressing, but there's plenty wrong with hypocrisy). the fbi under him was an extension of mccarthy era hysteria and witch hunts. so fuck you hoover, thanks for contributing to the destruction of the composure of a great man and a great writer
those who seek to protect us, in the name of hypocritical assumptions about what we need protection from, are the real enemies of the usa
down with them all
it's very simple:
all of your complaints are government are real and valid. all of those problems are evil
and yet, without government, every problem you describe only gets much much worse
do you understand that?
"I'm just saying we'd be better off letting charities and the places we work voluntarily provide such things"
this argument always made me laugh
people who argue emphatically for how wrong it is to help poor people, are going to help poor people generously on their own. you realize what a pile of steaming shit that is, right?
the fact is, people DO need help, and you realize that. you just don't want to help them. that's fine
so get the fuck out
you want the BENEFITS of society, without paying for the COSTS of society. you are full of shit, or you don't realize how helpiong people pays DIVIDENDS in YOUR life: lower crime, better safety, etc. you'd rather the usa become like haiti or somalia. that's what the usa will become if we followed your philosophy
so fuck you and your "charity will take care of it." that's a nice cheat to make your philosophy work (in other words, it is not a complete philosophy)
no charity won't work in a society full of blindly self-concerned assholes like you: there won't BE any charity, because you advocate for a society without concern or care for those less well off. it's a contradiction you won't admit. because you're blind and selfish. and people like me, people who can think, won't lett assholes like you destroy this great country with your idiotic lack of understanding of how you benefit for what you don't want to pay for
how dare you speak sarcastically of the all powerful free market fairy! ;-)
oh the poor destroy lots of things
for example, they destroyed the french monarchy, and the russian monarchy
some guys with wacky ideas came and told them they were entitled to more in life than to barely scrape by without any hope, and they believed it
those crazy poor people
the point is, if your society does not have a path for self-improvement, if it doesn't educate regardless of economic condition, if it doesn't provide for health regardless of econmic condition, if the door is closed to the possibility of a better life by a self-serving classist structure, revolution is the ultimate end point. inevitably
so you keep saying "let them eat cake"
it probably wont' hurt you. but like most self-contented rich assholes, you don't care about anything except yourself, even if it means your children or grandchildren will have to be the ones who have to deal the mess your mean-spirited "i got mine, fuck you" attitude creates in society. who cares what your offspring have to deal with, you got yours, right?
the point is not that the poor deserve anything. the point is what the poor will do, justly or unjustly, if you close the door on them
or: you just keep imagining they'll meekly accept their stagnant lot in life. can't hurt you, right?
go ahead, ignore history and it's lessons
if you have 100 applicants, all mostly equally qualified, and one says "i'll work for free", you hire him or her
it's a way for the rich to destroy the meritocracy: they have the benefit of not needing money to survive, and they can use this to extend an unfair competitive advantage over equally qualified or even more qualified poorer candidates
free market fundamentalists need to understand that you need government regulating society to counteract the force of gravity that is money. money attracts more money, and this is a force of injustice that NATURALLY develops. without government controls counteracting this, society inevitably stratifies into classes, with the rich having all the money, and the poor leading miserable lives they can't escape
it is not possible to believe in a meritocracy and a free market at the same time. the two concepts are mutually exclusive
it doesn't mean we should be communist societies. it means that pure capitalist societies are just as evil as communist ones
the answer?:
balance, in all things: a capitalist society with socialist safety nets. the only society with true justice and maximized happiness and a rich vibrant middle class
the worst is abuse is of the word "libertarianism"
libertarianism, historically, and in areas outside the usa, means pretty much NOTHING like it does in the usa today
in the 1970s conservative free market fundamentalists hijacked and rewrote the term, and now, those in the orbit of ron paul, and those in the orbit of europe, can talk about libertarianism and mean completely different things: emphasis on the economic, and emphasis on the social
continue it, but base it on income, not race
the real reason for the economic disparity between whites and blacks in the usa is because of economics, and that IS a historical hangover from institutional, governmental, and ad hoc societal favoritism towards WHITES since, well, since before this country was founded
in fact, affirmative action should exist forever, but again, based on income, not race. there is no reason why a rich black son should get preferential treatment over a poor white son, but there IS a reason for a poor child, of any race, to get preferential treatment over a rich child, of any race
simply because without the counteracting force of government policy, nepotism and cronyism will inevitably concentrate power and wealth with a few. governmental policy HAS to counteract this, in any society, for all time. or injustice, based on economic class, inevitably develops
a true meritocracy is NOT the default status of human society. money INEVITABLY concentrates power, which leads to cronyism and nepotism: the useless son of the rich guy getting the good high ranking job, rather than the guy who busted his ass for 20 years in the company and who really deserves
therefore, society MUST counteract nepotism and croyism and favoritism based on class, wealth, and family connections by promoting poor but brilliant children to the front of the line, forever. the free market does not sovle this problem, it CREATES this problem
a free market will DESTROY a true meritocracy based society because of cronyism and nepotism
that is, belief in a self-regulating society, and belief in a meritocracy, are mutually exclusive beliefs. to believe in meritocracy, you must believe in government regulation and programs LIKE affirmative action (but not EXACTLY like affirmative action), and you must understand that a self-regulating society will inevitbly lead to a regimented stratified calss based society where power and wealth concentrate with a few: money attracts more money, and that's the way it's always been. a just society MUST constantly counteract this natural gravity