go ahead and read my post again. this time, try to get past the first sentence. notice something interesting about my attitude towards nuclear power?
ohhhhhhhhh, yeah, that's right, i don't actually hold the beliefs you are insulting. doh!
nest time, read the whole post, then throw the insults. for example, i read your entire post. and now, i will call you a fucking jackass. and that insult will be accurate
sitting here in new york city, i care fuck-all about the gossip surrounding the romantic life of some minor euro soccer player. and yet, due to the effort to cover up that gossip, i now know all about it
not at all. no government system is perfect. however, trading the best we have working so far for a system clearly much worse is rather dumb, no?
i'm glad you have identified the problems with capitalism. most everyone has. now, would you mind entertaining your boundless imagination with some of the potential problems with the utopian vision of the stoned philosophy major?
then you want breeder reactors, which leave 1/10th the amount of waste, generate 10x more power, and have less harmful radioactive waste byproducts with halflives of a century rather than 10,000 years
problem is, breeder reactors make plutonium. nobody wants anyone making plutonium
nuclear power is over, it's a historical, ostracized energy source as of march 11, 2011. all serious nations are moving away from nuclear. nuclear is a wonderful power source in all regards except for the waste nightmare and the fact that althought hings rarely go wrong, when they do, they REALLY go wrong
if you deny nuclear power is an endangered species, you indeed are living in denial, and you just remind me of baghdad bob:
an idea a philosophy major with no real world experience with human nature dreams up is not a valid basis for society
not that that fact will stop you. nothing ever stops the regular low drumbeat of utopianists and their half-baked ideas from appearing and flaming out over the centuries. but have fun wasting years of your life and years of the lives of the well-meaning but gullible fools that listen to you for some reason
enthusiastic dreaming and good intentions are no replacement for a solid understanding of the inescapable bad qualities of human nature. you have to learn to work with those bad qualities, because you can't avoid them, they are part of all of us. don't try to imagine a society that somehow exists in spite of those bad qualities, it can't
any idea of organizing society that depends upon people just behaving in a way that people never have behaved is a loser, son
free market fundamentalism and communism are two opposite extremes on a continuum. the most ideal government is capitalism with social safety nets, or socialism with a capitalist engine, take your pick. size of country has nothing to do with it
it's impossible to make communism work without despotism. the state dictates the entire economy
yes, in capitalist countries, wealth accumulation corrupts the government. but corruption exists in ALL types of government system, even communism
finally, simple corruption is a lot different than "we are in charge and tell you everything that happens in the economy, we dictate. and this status is directly prescribed in your government's constitution"
if you fight that, you are fighting the entire government. if you fight corruption, you are fighting something that is a poisonous infection, not an idea which is celebrated and embraced and supposedly a good thing (and worse than simple corruption)
nicotine is highly addictive. but it doesn't inebriate. so you can hold a job/ relationship while using. heroin/ coke/ meth inebriates AND addicts, meaning the drug replaces a job/ relationship. oh i'm certain you will say so-and-so anecdotal person heavily uses meth/ heroin/ coke while having a stellar relationship and a great job. good for that mythical 0.0001% of humanity
i grossly overestimate? you grossly underestimate a use of a substance which undermines willpower
"Nobody forces you to take drugs. Becoming a drug addict is a choice."
this is true. and it is my assertion that you have the freedom to do anything in this life, EXCEPT REMOVE YOUR OWN FREEDOM. for philosophical reasons, but also practical ones: people without freedom cost society money, they are not self-sufficient. well, i don't want to pay for the zombies, i'd rather fight the creation of zombies. that costs money too. but LESS than thousands of wards of the state, living empty freedomless lives. i guess that's what you want. some champion of freedom you are. some champion of liberty you are: accepting of people to lose their freedom and liberty. you're a blind ignorant asshole, because you don't know or won't be intellectually honest enough to admit what drug addiction actually means to freedom. you're a dangerous moron
let's put it in a way that might make you think a little more, and rely less on blind thoughtless idealism: the most orwellian tyranny possible is less of an imposition on your liberty than something like meth, cocaine, or heroin addiction. well, that's not entirely true: the most orwellian tyranny possible would make heroin use compulsory, thereby ensuring we are all addicted slaves to the state
please understand that the greatest destroyer of freedom in the history of mankind, way more than all governments put together, is drug addiction. a constant interrupt switch on your thought processes, insisting you find and consume something you don't need. a force greater than your willpower. the bars in your mind are greater than any bars in a prison. understand that, or understand nothing about what you are talking about. addiction, you ignorant fool, is the true enemy of liberty
i think that marijuana should be legal, but if marijuana is interfering with his ability to work, then that's an argument people will make against marijuana legalization. either a drug is harmless, or it isn't. not being able to hold a job while using a drug means its harmful, it means society has to pay for the guy's food and housing. society doesn't want to pay for some asshole to get high all day, why are we underwriting that lifestyle? he needs to get a job. and i'm not saying potheads can't work, you are: " lack of valuable employment."
employed, productive potheads: an argument for legalization. potheads sitting around all day unemployed supported by society: an argument for continued criminalization
"I don't really understand what you're trying to say here - are you suggesting that human rights violations in the West are beyond comparison with what happens in China?"
yes, that is exactly what i am saying
"I can think of several specific incidents ( Gitmo, Iraq , Panama, Vietnam, Pakistan ) of Western powers shitting all over the human rights when it suits them to do so."
yes, the usa did these things, and they are evil, and the usa deserves to be criticized for that. and i am also saying that what china does is far, far worse. based not on empty tribal chest thumping nationalism, but based on a sound understanding of the actual principles in play here
"In fact, I would say that even suggesting that it is a false equivalency just shows your ignorance of history."
no, i think a good grasp of history would put a proper amount of proportionality between waterboarding terrorist assholes whose duty in life is blowing up civilians, and jailing your own citizens for 10 years hard labor just because they had the audacity to ask for the same dignity and human rights afforded in western countries
waterboarding terrorists: wrong and evil. 10 years hard labor for asking for democracy: much, much more evil
"conflating genuine criticism of US actions with false equivalency"
it is entirely fair to criticize the usa, the usa does plenty wrong in this world, and i welcome all criticism of the usa
fuck the usa. let me say it again: fuck the usa. two things:
1. i am free to criticize the usa, within the usa, which is an ironic meta-commentary in itself (you can't criticize chinese political decisions in china, do you understand that and why that is so much worse than RIAA and MPAA shenanigans?)
2. i am motivated by PRINCIPLES, not tirbalism here. on the gauge of PRINCIPLES, not tribal chest thumping like hooligans at a soccer match ("go usa!" "go china!"), china is far worse
if you lose sense of proportion on the principles you comment on, in other words, when you excuse or rationalize genuinely far worse crimes by other countries in your effort to criticize the usa, then you are more about tribal chest thumping than you are being motivated by principles
example #1: conflating throwing someone in prison for 10 years just because they advocated for democracy, versus waterboarding a confirmed terrorist asshole.
1. i don't agree with waterboarding. it's ineffective: torture doesn't help you get real intelligence. 2. its morally repugnant. if we are supposed to be fighting for higher moral purposes, lets demonstrate those higher moral purposes and not torture people 3. finally, by waterboarding al qaeda assholes, all you do is give al qaeda wonderful recruitment talking points, and create more terrorist assholes
so obviously, the west shouldn't be waterboarding anyone. however, having said all that, guess what?: waterboarding a terrorist asshole just isn't even remotely like a guy doing 10 years hard labor, just because he advocated for democracy. do you see the proportionality here? to me, with a logical and moral understanding of proportionality in condemning criminal behavior by world governments, jailing your own citizens just asking for their rights that most of us in the west take for granted, is nothing REMOTELY like waterboarding a guy who's life duty is blowing up civilians. do you feel me?
example #2: china frequently suppresses political free speech. criticize the government, and you will be censored. i can sit here, and, as long as i don't threaten his life, i can criticize obama and the democratic party and their policies until my face is blue, for months on end. no one is going to knock on my door. but in china? your political opinion will be censored. continue to criticize the ruling party, and you will be harassed and eventually arrested. do you see a slight issue of proptionality in censorship here yet?
and the crime in the west? well in the west, corporations run roughshop over people who share media, claiming intellectual property. i hate this, and i actually think the very idea of intellectual property is invalid. i think that what these corporations are doing is pure evil. but having said all that, i still clearly recognize that going after your own citizens just for engaging in political speech is far, far worse than intellectual property shenanigans
proportionality in framing equivalencies. feel me yet? i'm not about blindly defending the usa and blindly attacking china. i'm not nationalistic soccer hooligan. i am saying go ahead and criticize the usa. but i am saying, in your rush to do so, don't forget how much FAR FAR WORSE things are going on elsewhere in the world, and please don't belittle those far far worse things or claim them as just as bad as what the usa does. it's simply not!
it's not about the west is better than china or china is better than the west, rah rah rah, tirbal chest thumping. no, its about principles. on the basis of PRINCIPLES, not tribalism, china violates human rights and freedoms to a much greater degree than the usa
simple fact, that if you don't understand or agree to, i really have to wonder at your mental faculties or motivations
i always complain about false equivalency morons posting on slashdot and elsewhere. you know, the morons who say "but the u.s.a..." whenever the issue of chinese internet censorship or human rights violations comes up. even though chinese internet censorship and human rights violations are genuinely orders of magnitude worse than in the west. not that the false equivalency morons can see that. whether out of intellectual dishonesty or genuine stupidity, who knows
but this is entertainment, not government policy
as such, it is innocuous and without consequence. frankly: who fucking cares if the chinese shoot westerners in their video games. no, really, who fucking cares?
why is this fact important or even surprising to you? the west makes plenty of games and movies with the red chinese as fair game for military adventurism. therefore, it is entirely fair for the red chinese to make video games and movies with westerners as fair game for military adventurism. no big fucking deal. a big yawn
in other words, true equivalency
don't be hypocritical, westerners, by expecting those you demonize not to demonize you in turn. turnaround is fair play
i don't know what it is about your personality that makes you such a creepy stalker lurker, but dude, you really need to get a life. i'm not worth it, crawford doesn't deserve it, and your effort is not appreciated by anyone. put it this way, who is more of a loser: the guys who can't finish a movie or an ogg player? or their one faithful fan?
#1: the COSTS of fossil fuel use is socialized. that we all suffer for the burning of fossil fuels. while true, it's not a matter of jet exhaust being piped directly into your bedroom, it is much more abstract and complicated, and not a matter for great anger, unless you are a hysterical person
#2: that there is hypocrisy with the upper middle class and upper classes. they often are the greatest proponents of green living, while paradoxically being the greatest creators of pollution with their lifestyles. again, while true, there is nothing wrong with an aspirational ideology. that because you can't be 100% in compliance with your self-stated goals all at once, that your goals are somehow invalid. fucking bullshit. no one can ever try to improve their lives and their world unless they can do it all at once? really? that's a basis for criticizing someone?
i see this idea frequently in right wing thinking: al gore, for instance, flying on private jets and such. therefore, al gore needs to be heckled
no, right wing assholes
(as opposed to right wing intellectually honest folk: i'm not criticizing the idea of being right wing, i'm criticizing the idea of being an asshole on the right. there are assholes on the left too, but if you are an intellectually honest right winger, you have to admit that right now there are some real flaming losers in your ideological camp)
so look, right wing assholes:
there is nothing wrong with trying to make our existence less of a polluting one. your violent weather, particulate filled air, and contaminated rivers is a bad thing, no? and someone who tries to correct those SOCIALIZED costs on us all are not deserving of being criticized for their lofty goals, that benefits you and your children as well
sure, you can criticize any METHODS they might propose for achieving green living goals, but certainly you agree less pollution is a good thing, no? so why don't you keep your ignorant minds away from criticizing their truly great goals, and say something instead like:
"while i agree with al gore's desire to pollute less, his policy XYZ would actually impose economic costs out of proportion to the environmental costs we are discussing here"
THAT's a criticism i can accept from the right. but criticizing the very concept of environmentalism? no, that just makes you a blind asshole, deserving of no respect and nothing but derision for being so loud, and so ignorant
Slashdot Mirror
oops
i'm a hypocrite
apologies
well said
no, no, no
it's JIGAwatts
go ahead and read my post again. this time, try to get past the first sentence. notice something interesting about my attitude towards nuclear power?
ohhhhhhhhh, yeah, that's right, i don't actually hold the beliefs you are insulting. doh!
nest time, read the whole post, then throw the insults. for example, i read your entire post. and now, i will call you a fucking jackass. and that insult will be accurate
xoxoxoxoxox
indiana jones had a gem that could turn regular sunlight into a bright ruby laser and pinpoint hidden artifacts on a miniature city made of legos
it's good to see shakespeare still employed and writing story summaries on the internet
but he could do with less colorful opinionated superlatives and just relate the facts
sitting here in new york city, i care fuck-all about the gossip surrounding the romantic life of some minor euro soccer player. and yet, due to the effort to cover up that gossip, i now know all about it
not at all. no government system is perfect. however, trading the best we have working so far for a system clearly much worse is rather dumb, no?
i'm glad you have identified the problems with capitalism. most everyone has. now, would you mind entertaining your boundless imagination with some of the potential problems with the utopian vision of the stoned philosophy major?
then you want breeder reactors, which leave 1/10th the amount of waste, generate 10x more power, and have less harmful radioactive waste byproducts with halflives of a century rather than 10,000 years
problem is, breeder reactors make plutonium. nobody wants anyone making plutonium
nuclear power is over, it's a historical, ostracized energy source as of march 11, 2011. all serious nations are moving away from nuclear. nuclear is a wonderful power source in all regards except for the waste nightmare and the fact that althought hings rarely go wrong, when they do, they REALLY go wrong
if you deny nuclear power is an endangered species, you indeed are living in denial, and you just remind me of baghdad bob:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf
cool story bro
an idea a philosophy major with no real world experience with human nature dreams up is not a valid basis for society
not that that fact will stop you. nothing ever stops the regular low drumbeat of utopianists and their half-baked ideas from appearing and flaming out over the centuries. but have fun wasting years of your life and years of the lives of the well-meaning but gullible fools that listen to you for some reason
enthusiastic dreaming and good intentions are no replacement for a solid understanding of the inescapable bad qualities of human nature. you have to learn to work with those bad qualities, because you can't avoid them, they are part of all of us. don't try to imagine a society that somehow exists in spite of those bad qualities, it can't
any idea of organizing society that depends upon people just behaving in a way that people never have behaved is a loser, son
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia
no, eivind is correct
free market fundamentalism and communism are two opposite extremes on a continuum. the most ideal government is capitalism with social safety nets, or socialism with a capitalist engine, take your pick. size of country has nothing to do with it
moderation, in all things
it's impossible to make communism work without despotism. the state dictates the entire economy
yes, in capitalist countries, wealth accumulation corrupts the government. but corruption exists in ALL types of government system, even communism
finally, simple corruption is a lot different than "we are in charge and tell you everything that happens in the economy, we dictate. and this status is directly prescribed in your government's constitution"
if you fight that, you are fighting the entire government. if you fight corruption, you are fighting something that is a poisonous infection, not an idea which is celebrated and embraced and supposedly a good thing (and worse than simple corruption)
nicotine is highly addictive. but it doesn't inebriate. so you can hold a job/ relationship while using. heroin/ coke/ meth inebriates AND addicts, meaning the drug replaces a job/ relationship. oh i'm certain you will say so-and-so anecdotal person heavily uses meth/ heroin/ coke while having a stellar relationship and a great job. good for that mythical 0.0001% of humanity
i grossly overestimate? you grossly underestimate a use of a substance which undermines willpower
"Nobody forces you to take drugs. Becoming a drug addict is a choice."
this is true. and it is my assertion that you have the freedom to do anything in this life, EXCEPT REMOVE YOUR OWN FREEDOM. for philosophical reasons, but also practical ones: people without freedom cost society money, they are not self-sufficient. well, i don't want to pay for the zombies, i'd rather fight the creation of zombies. that costs money too. but LESS than thousands of wards of the state, living empty freedomless lives. i guess that's what you want. some champion of freedom you are. some champion of liberty you are: accepting of people to lose their freedom and liberty. you're a blind ignorant asshole, because you don't know or won't be intellectually honest enough to admit what drug addiction actually means to freedom. you're a dangerous moron
let's put it in a way that might make you think a little more, and rely less on blind thoughtless idealism: the most orwellian tyranny possible is less of an imposition on your liberty than something like meth, cocaine, or heroin addiction. well, that's not entirely true: the most orwellian tyranny possible would make heroin use compulsory, thereby ensuring we are all addicted slaves to the state
please understand that the greatest destroyer of freedom in the history of mankind, way more than all governments put together, is drug addiction. a constant interrupt switch on your thought processes, insisting you find and consume something you don't need. a force greater than your willpower. the bars in your mind are greater than any bars in a prison. understand that, or understand nothing about what you are talking about. addiction, you ignorant fool, is the true enemy of liberty
please don't post on slashdot while stoned, thanks
really? you want something like meth to be legal? what the hell is wrong with you?
i think that marijuana should be legal, but if marijuana is interfering with his ability to work, then that's an argument people will make against marijuana legalization. either a drug is harmless, or it isn't. not being able to hold a job while using a drug means its harmful, it means society has to pay for the guy's food and housing. society doesn't want to pay for some asshole to get high all day, why are we underwriting that lifestyle? he needs to get a job. and i'm not saying potheads can't work, you are: " lack of valuable employment."
employed, productive potheads: an argument for legalization. potheads sitting around all day unemployed supported by society: an argument for continued criminalization
thanks, i would take your advice, if i weren't arguing with genuine passion
"I don't really understand what you're trying to say here - are you suggesting that human rights violations in the West are beyond comparison with what happens in China?"
yes, that is exactly what i am saying
"I can think of several specific incidents ( Gitmo, Iraq , Panama, Vietnam, Pakistan ) of Western powers shitting all over the human rights when it suits them to do so."
yes, the usa did these things, and they are evil, and the usa deserves to be criticized for that. and i am also saying that what china does is far, far worse. based not on empty tribal chest thumping nationalism, but based on a sound understanding of the actual principles in play here
"In fact, I would say that even suggesting that it is a false equivalency just shows your ignorance of history."
no, i think a good grasp of history would put a proper amount of proportionality between waterboarding terrorist assholes whose duty in life is blowing up civilians, and jailing your own citizens for 10 years hard labor just because they had the audacity to ask for the same dignity and human rights afforded in western countries
waterboarding terrorists: wrong and evil. 10 years hard labor for asking for democracy: much, much more evil
"conflating genuine criticism of US actions with false equivalency"
it is entirely fair to criticize the usa, the usa does plenty wrong in this world, and i welcome all criticism of the usa
fuck the usa. let me say it again: fuck the usa. two things:
1. i am free to criticize the usa, within the usa, which is an ironic meta-commentary in itself (you can't criticize chinese political decisions in china, do you understand that and why that is so much worse than RIAA and MPAA shenanigans?)
2. i am motivated by PRINCIPLES, not tirbalism here. on the gauge of PRINCIPLES, not tribal chest thumping like hooligans at a soccer match ("go usa!" "go china!"), china is far worse
if you lose sense of proportion on the principles you comment on, in other words, when you excuse or rationalize genuinely far worse crimes by other countries in your effort to criticize the usa, then you are more about tribal chest thumping than you are being motivated by principles
example #1: conflating throwing someone in prison for 10 years just because they advocated for democracy, versus waterboarding a confirmed terrorist asshole.
1. i don't agree with waterboarding. it's ineffective: torture doesn't help you get real intelligence.
2. its morally repugnant. if we are supposed to be fighting for higher moral purposes, lets demonstrate those higher moral purposes and not torture people
3. finally, by waterboarding al qaeda assholes, all you do is give al qaeda wonderful recruitment talking points, and create more terrorist assholes
so obviously, the west shouldn't be waterboarding anyone. however, having said all that, guess what?: waterboarding a terrorist asshole just isn't even remotely like a guy doing 10 years hard labor, just because he advocated for democracy. do you see the proportionality here? to me, with a logical and moral understanding of proportionality in condemning criminal behavior by world governments, jailing your own citizens just asking for their rights that most of us in the west take for granted, is nothing REMOTELY like waterboarding a guy who's life duty is blowing up civilians. do you feel me?
example #2: china frequently suppresses political free speech. criticize the government, and you will be censored. i can sit here, and, as long as i don't threaten his life, i can criticize obama and the democratic party and their policies until my face is blue, for months on end. no one is going to knock on my door. but in china? your political opinion will be censored. continue to criticize the ruling party, and you will be harassed and eventually arrested. do you see a slight issue of proptionality in censorship here yet?
and the crime in the west? well in the west, corporations run roughshop over people who share media, claiming intellectual property. i hate this, and i actually think the very idea of intellectual property is invalid. i think that what these corporations are doing is pure evil. but having said all that, i still clearly recognize that going after your own citizens just for engaging in political speech is far, far worse than intellectual property shenanigans
proportionality in framing equivalencies. feel me yet? i'm not about blindly defending the usa and blindly attacking china. i'm not nationalistic soccer hooligan. i am saying go ahead and criticize the usa. but i am saying, in your rush to do so, don't forget how much FAR FAR WORSE things are going on elsewhere in the world, and please don't belittle those far far worse things or claim them as just as bad as what the usa does. it's simply not!
it's not about the west is better than china or china is better than the west, rah rah rah, tirbal chest thumping. no, its about principles. on the basis of PRINCIPLES, not tribalism, china violates human rights and freedoms to a much greater degree than the usa
simple fact, that if you don't understand or agree to, i really have to wonder at your mental faculties or motivations
i always complain about false equivalency morons posting on slashdot and elsewhere. you know, the morons who say "but the u.s.a..." whenever the issue of chinese internet censorship or human rights violations comes up. even though chinese internet censorship and human rights violations are genuinely orders of magnitude worse than in the west. not that the false equivalency morons can see that. whether out of intellectual dishonesty or genuine stupidity, who knows
but this is entertainment, not government policy
as such, it is innocuous and without consequence. frankly: who fucking cares if the chinese shoot westerners in their video games. no, really, who fucking cares?
why is this fact important or even surprising to you? the west makes plenty of games and movies with the red chinese as fair game for military adventurism. therefore, it is entirely fair for the red chinese to make video games and movies with westerners as fair game for military adventurism. no big fucking deal. a big yawn
in other words, true equivalency
don't be hypocritical, westerners, by expecting those you demonize not to demonize you in turn. turnaround is fair play
i don't know what it is about your personality that makes you such a creepy stalker lurker, but dude, you really need to get a life. i'm not worth it, crawford doesn't deserve it, and your effort is not appreciated by anyone. put it this way, who is more of a loser: the guys who can't finish a movie or an ogg player? or their one faithful fan?
well said
#1: the COSTS of fossil fuel use is socialized. that we all suffer for the burning of fossil fuels. while true, it's not a matter of jet exhaust being piped directly into your bedroom, it is much more abstract and complicated, and not a matter for great anger, unless you are a hysterical person
#2: that there is hypocrisy with the upper middle class and upper classes. they often are the greatest proponents of green living, while paradoxically being the greatest creators of pollution with their lifestyles. again, while true, there is nothing wrong with an aspirational ideology. that because you can't be 100% in compliance with your self-stated goals all at once, that your goals are somehow invalid. fucking bullshit. no one can ever try to improve their lives and their world unless they can do it all at once? really? that's a basis for criticizing someone?
i see this idea frequently in right wing thinking: al gore, for instance, flying on private jets and such. therefore, al gore needs to be heckled
no, right wing assholes
(as opposed to right wing intellectually honest folk: i'm not criticizing the idea of being right wing, i'm criticizing the idea of being an asshole on the right. there are assholes on the left too, but if you are an intellectually honest right winger, you have to admit that right now there are some real flaming losers in your ideological camp)
so look, right wing assholes:
there is nothing wrong with trying to make our existence less of a polluting one. your violent weather, particulate filled air, and contaminated rivers is a bad thing, no? and someone who tries to correct those SOCIALIZED costs on us all are not deserving of being criticized for their lofty goals, that benefits you and your children as well
sure, you can criticize any METHODS they might propose for achieving green living goals, but certainly you agree less pollution is a good thing, no? so why don't you keep your ignorant minds away from criticizing their truly great goals, and say something instead like:
"while i agree with al gore's desire to pollute less, his policy XYZ would actually impose economic costs out of proportion to the environmental costs we are discussing here"
THAT's a criticism i can accept from the right. but criticizing the very concept of environmentalism? no, that just makes you a blind asshole, deserving of no respect and nothing but derision for being so loud, and so ignorant