Where are the fools who always pop up under a story like this to explain to us, with great indignation, why it is no better in the West, that the West does the same thing? Whenever China, Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Zimbabwe, etc., does anything vile with human rights, I need the solace of my false equivalency fools who are always there to tell me why in the West it is exactly the same, and no better.
Of course, these brave false equivalency fools are always so critical of the West... from within the West. What I want to see is their "bravery" and lazy iconoclasm, from within another country. Let's see how brave they are to post criticism of China, from within China, to post criticism of Iran, from within Iran, of Zimbabwe, from within Zimbabwe.
Any takers?
(crickets)
Don't seem so brave and counterculture now, do they? And maybe that means more about the true relationship between your rights and freedoms in the West versus those in countries that genuinely grant you no rights to expression or other simple aspects of human dignity, whatsoever.
The West does plenty wrong, and the West can improve, of course. But if you understand how good you have it RELATIVELY SPEAKING (never mind that we can do better), only then you can begin to say something intelligent about the world you live in. But if you think you are saying something intelligent by equating human rights in the West versus Zimbabwe, or China, or Iran, you're just announcing how sheltered and ignorant you are.
'allow for a more effective and liberal manipulation of light.'
it is bad enough this communist secret muslim obama is turning us into a freedom destroying country by giving us better healthcare. now his vile fascist liberal agenda is to manipulate the physical properties of light itself? as a solid conservative, i will not abide it
photons are conservative particles: conservation of mass-energy, conservation of momentum, etc. those evil liberals want to turn this good god-fearing conservative particle with possibly homosexual physical manipulations? no, not on my watch. the liberals will not mess with the laws of nature, like evolution
for some reason you seem to think peace means stasis. i mean, poetically, you could describe a lake as peaceful, if there is no wind blowing. or a farm, if the farming duties there are carried out repetitiously and without difficulty or drama. but no one is going to give a peace prize to a peaceful lake or a peaceful farm, so your use of the word peace as applied to the idea of a peace prize is absurd, completely out of context
we limit ourselves to a definition of peace to the meaning of the word peace in a peace PRIZE, or we aren't saying anything useful at all. right?
so we are talking about a subject matter that is at one time a matter of conflict, and then ceases to be a matter of conflict, due to the efforts of someone who is said to deserve a peace prize. how do you go about arbitrating the terms of the end of a war, or any conflict? how? with politics, that's how. therefore, it is completely impossible to talk about a peace prize without talking about politics. the very essence of what it means to make peace is a political process
peace is a political concept. it is not possible to talk about peace without talking about politics. the very definition of the concept of peace itself is only possible to be made in political terminology
any political situation has people on one side or another. therefore, every peace prize every offered, or any theoretical peace prize even possible, will have political controversy attached to it. even if you awarded the prize to some monk who just helped farmers grow their crops better: some company who is angry that the farmers are better fed and have more time to protest them, they will make a political stink about that prize
so the idea that the peace prize is too political, to me, this just means you don't understand what the peace prize is, or perhaps you don't entirely understand the concept of peace itself
the case could be made, in fact, that the more controversial the peace prize, the more valid a prize it is, because it is more topical and current. pissing a lot of people off is proof that the particular political issue the peace prize is involved with is still a very passionate issue. awarding a peace prize on only very dry dead subjects no one cares about anymore is not interesting or useful
therefore, the more political, the more passionate, and the more controversial the peace prize is, the better. some people need to be pissed off in this world
author would always be a person, never a corporation corporations can own copyrights, of course, but they don't enjoy benefits of authorship
otherwise, you wind up with these obscene situations where forgotten media is featured in a new movie/ whatever, and the original author stands to make some ancillary revenues, rather than nothing, from the new exposure, but no one can license the dead content because its too laborious/ tedious/ expensive
Every story under Slashdot lately has some asshole griping about the inadequacy of the story subject.
Hey, adequacy police assholes: don't take it so fucking seriously. And stop taking yourselves so fucking seriously. This is a place to hang out and discuss random topics of nerd interest. That's it. That's all this place is. We're not compiling the text to Bible 2.0. Yet you attack the adequacy of story subjects as if you were some sort of religious fundamentalist and we were insulting your religion.
nobody here dislikes tolkien or his estate. but everybody here dislikes the bullshit intellectual property laws that enable this behavior. your rant assumes the wrong target. nobody is gunning for tolkien or his estate, they are gunning for bullshit laws
i don't fucking care about israel. i don't care if it exists for a thousand years or disappears tomorrow. neither occurrence would change my opinion about the THEOCRACY of iran having nukes
my opinion about iran having nukes has to do with IRAN. with the CONSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS of the government possessing nuclear weapons. in iran's case, and iran's case alone, a RELIGIOUS power structure is getting possession of a nuclear weapon. this really bothers me, immensely. and it has nothing to do with islam. it would bother me just as much i f we were talking about a country with a jewish or christian theocracy
a THEOCRACY should not have nuclear weapons. beginning and end of discussion
everyone please shut the fuck up with the false equivalencies: only iran is a theocracy. and that is the source of the formation of my opinion
and no, its not ok for the usa to have them either. or france. or anyone
no one really deserves nukes. no regime is fit for them in my eyes
however, there is definitely a sliding scale of regimes who have nukes, and if you put canada on the top of your scale, you have to agree, iran falls down on the low end. so where do you draw the line between "i'm uncomfortable with this" and "no fucking way"
the usa is not a theocracy. compare the us constitution's statements on religion with that of iran's. no matter what eisenhower decided to add to our currency in the 1950s, this little brainfart doesn't alter the reality of longstanding constitutional separations between church and state
but this is just intellectual charity at this point. to call the usa a theocracy is just loudly announcing how ignorant you are
i don't really understand you false equivalency morons
i don't care about israel. israel doesn't matter: iran shouldn't have nukes because it is a theocracy. it believes in power invested in some grumpy old men who are believed to have a sort of monopoly on the interpretation of the will of god. this is not the kind of person i want with a nuclear weapon
this is the constitution of iran:
1- General Principles Article 1
The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji' al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.
Article 2
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;...
you want a government who believes these things in possession of a nuclear weapon?
and please, don't get me wrong: i don't have any problems with islam. if this document was centered on christianity or judaism i would have the same repulsion. i have problem with religious power structures, period. some religious kooks who think some invisible mahdi dude will reappear at armageddeon, with freaking NUCLEAR BOMB?! self-fulfilling prophecy? hello?
no, no fucking thanks, no nuke for iran
again: i don't care about israel. i have no problem with islam. i simply have a major serious problem with religious kooks possessing a nuclear bomb. NO THANK YOU
and please, i don't want any asshole lecturing me about false equivalency: that it's the same as pakistan, or israel, or the usa, or whatever: no, it isn't really the same. iran is EXPLICITLY a theocracy. A THEOCRACY. do you understand that? it really is different than saying "well gw bush is religious". yeah, good for him. but the fucking government he is part of isn't based on the fucking pope or some rabbi holding all ultimate power. that difference is real
who the fuck cares about sending the maximum number of people into space? why the fuck do you think that is the goal?
look: the most important discoveries science has ever made stemmed from basic research: research for research's sake. not an economically driven pursuit. yet all of those amazing discoveries from basic research has resulted in trillions in economic development
the point for going into space is not about following the money, its about basic research. you of course will poopoo that, because you don't see the immediate economic benefit of it. which only means you are a pinhead who stop fucking talking about a subject matter predicated on a sense of basic human wonder you apparently don't understand
there is no use in trying to argue with someone with such a complete lack of wonder and curiosity about the value of a pursuit that is all about wonder and curiosity. suffice it to say that every great discovery of mankind in every single field of endeavor is due to people with the exact opposite quality of mind as you. you: you're a pinhead, a dolt, of little more use to science and technology than a doorstop
you really are posting on the wrong website, pinhead
so you seemed to have created an account called "AmericanIndian" just to give some weird weight to a reply to my stupid post?
seriously?
btw, a real American "Indian" wouldn't call themselves an "Indian", that's the give away. i don't understand why 500 years after columbus made a mistake with his maps that we are still calling the original peoples of north america "indians", and i don't think they, or genuine real asian indians, understand why either
so i don't know why you felt so compelled to create an entire account just to reply to my dumb comment, but you are certainly a hard working troll, that's for sure
you might have noticed that 500 years ago some nations in europe spent a lot of money sending boats in the wrong direction, towards the ends of the earth
complete waste of money, right?
it should be a crime to display such ignorant levels of a lack of an imagination, like you do
nothing worth going into space for, right?
nothing worth sending perfectly good boats over the ends of the earth for, right?
no. anyone who has opinions on subject matter they don't understand is an undesirable fungus
i liked how you threw in "method of understanding the pathway to the circumstances in which we now live". as if actual factual history is something i invented and is my opinion that can be disputed, and that disagreeing with actual history i cite is a valid thought process. you need to understand actual cold hard facts, you need to understand the real world constraints of economic history. otherwise, we can all just invent alternative histories and this justifies magical thinking, right?
you can't have a legitimate discussion with a fungal growth. and i'm the one with the problem because i won't try? i've already determined i'm dealing with a john birch society style moonbat, therefore there is no legitimate discussion to be had
to have an actual valid discussion, you have to understand WHY these financial regulations and entities were put in place (no, it was not fascism or EVIIIL liburuls or plots and conspiracies or whatever stock bogeyman you use to explain away everything you don't understand about life). when you understand the STRUCTURAL problem that these entities were put in place to fix, and have a discussion about how to fix these structural problems another way, THEN you can have a fruitful discussion
but if you are talking with someone whose position is "just wipe away all the regulations because regulations are evil and these structural problems will take care of themselves because... magic!" then you are dealing with a fucking moron, and there is no discussion to be had
look: all of these financial regulations and government financial entities have trade offs and problems, for sure. i am not against reforming any financial regulation or government financial entity
but what i am against is this right wing libertardian nuttery that says financial rules and regulations CAUSE our problems and abolishing them will be some sort of financial utopia
fucking ignorant paint fume sniffing bullshit!
if you believe that sort of financial magical thinking that less financial regulations means a better economy, then you're just a complete moron who has no understanding of simple economic history and why these entities and regulations were created in the first place. try getting a real education, and less low iq ideological indoctrination, PLEASE
yes, so we got the FDIC added, along with the glass steagall act banking protections... which were underminded starting with reagan, legislated around further through clinton, and gutted under bush ii (hey SEC: stop doing your job, there's no guy pulling off a giant ponzi scheme, naaah). leading to, surprise! the crash of 2008
uhhh... i hear you on the patriot act, but you do realize that the fed was brought into existence not because of some retarded senator palpatine style freedom destroying plot, which seems to be the way you think, but because people were sick of banking panic after banking panic laying waste to the economy and people's lives and financial well being:
and although i'd really love to hear your john birch society conspiracy theories about the fed, i'm sorry, but i have an appointment with economic reality and psychological stability that i really must keep, adieu
i don't fucking care. i think the protesters in the middle east should have taught you something about how well fear really works when principles are at stake
Slashdot Mirror
Where are the fools who always pop up under a story like this to explain to us, with great indignation, why it is no better in the West, that the West does the same thing? Whenever China, Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Zimbabwe, etc., does anything vile with human rights, I need the solace of my false equivalency fools who are always there to tell me why in the West it is exactly the same, and no better.
Of course, these brave false equivalency fools are always so critical of the West... from within the West. What I want to see is their "bravery" and lazy iconoclasm, from within another country. Let's see how brave they are to post criticism of China, from within China, to post criticism of Iran, from within Iran, of Zimbabwe, from within Zimbabwe.
Any takers?
(crickets)
Don't seem so brave and counterculture now, do they? And maybe that means more about the true relationship between your rights and freedoms in the West versus those in countries that genuinely grant you no rights to expression or other simple aspects of human dignity, whatsoever.
The West does plenty wrong, and the West can improve, of course. But if you understand how good you have it RELATIVELY SPEAKING (never mind that we can do better), only then you can begin to say something intelligent about the world you live in. But if you think you are saying something intelligent by equating human rights in the West versus Zimbabwe, or China, or Iran, you're just announcing how sheltered and ignorant you are.
'allow for a more effective and liberal manipulation of light.'
it is bad enough this communist secret muslim obama is turning us into a freedom destroying country by giving us better healthcare. now his vile fascist liberal agenda is to manipulate the physical properties of light itself? as a solid conservative, i will not abide it
photons are conservative particles: conservation of mass-energy, conservation of momentum, etc. those evil liberals want to turn this good god-fearing conservative particle with possibly homosexual physical manipulations? no, not on my watch. the liberals will not mess with the laws of nature, like evolution
for some reason you seem to think peace means stasis. i mean, poetically, you could describe a lake as peaceful, if there is no wind blowing. or a farm, if the farming duties there are carried out repetitiously and without difficulty or drama. but no one is going to give a peace prize to a peaceful lake or a peaceful farm, so your use of the word peace as applied to the idea of a peace prize is absurd, completely out of context
we limit ourselves to a definition of peace to the meaning of the word peace in a peace PRIZE, or we aren't saying anything useful at all. right?
so we are talking about a subject matter that is at one time a matter of conflict, and then ceases to be a matter of conflict, due to the efforts of someone who is said to deserve a peace prize. how do you go about arbitrating the terms of the end of a war, or any conflict? how? with politics, that's how. therefore, it is completely impossible to talk about a peace prize without talking about politics. the very essence of what it means to make peace is a political process
peace is a political concept. it is not possible to talk about peace without talking about politics. the very definition of the concept of peace itself is only possible to be made in political terminology
any political situation has people on one side or another. therefore, every peace prize every offered, or any theoretical peace prize even possible, will have political controversy attached to it. even if you awarded the prize to some monk who just helped farmers grow their crops better: some company who is angry that the farmers are better fed and have more time to protest them, they will make a political stink about that prize
so the idea that the peace prize is too political, to me, this just means you don't understand what the peace prize is, or perhaps you don't entirely understand the concept of peace itself
the case could be made, in fact, that the more controversial the peace prize, the more valid a prize it is, because it is more topical and current. pissing a lot of people off is proof that the particular political issue the peace prize is involved with is still a very passionate issue. awarding a peace prize on only very dry dead subjects no one cares about anymore is not interesting or useful
therefore, the more political, the more passionate, and the more controversial the peace prize is, the better. some people need to be pissed off in this world
author would always be a person, never a corporation corporations can own copyrights, of course, but they don't enjoy benefits of authorship
otherwise, you wind up with these obscene situations where forgotten media is featured in a new movie/ whatever, and the original author stands to make some ancillary revenues, rather than nothing, from the new exposure, but no one can license the dead content because its too laborious/ tedious/ expensive
sanity please!
Every story under Slashdot lately has some asshole griping about the inadequacy of the story subject.
Hey, adequacy police assholes: don't take it so fucking seriously. And stop taking yourselves so fucking seriously. This is a place to hang out and discuss random topics of nerd interest. That's it. That's all this place is. We're not compiling the text to Bible 2.0. Yet you attack the adequacy of story subjects as if you were some sort of religious fundamentalist and we were insulting your religion.
Get the fuck over yourselves.
nobody here dislikes tolkien or his estate. but everybody here dislikes the bullshit intellectual property laws that enable this behavior. your rant assumes the wrong target. nobody is gunning for tolkien or his estate, they are gunning for bullshit laws
i don't fucking care about israel. i don't care if it exists for a thousand years or disappears tomorrow. neither occurrence would change my opinion about the THEOCRACY of iran having nukes
my opinion about iran having nukes has to do with IRAN. with the CONSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS of the government possessing nuclear weapons. in iran's case, and iran's case alone, a RELIGIOUS power structure is getting possession of a nuclear weapon. this really bothers me, immensely. and it has nothing to do with islam. it would bother me just as much i f we were talking about a country with a jewish or christian theocracy
a THEOCRACY should not have nuclear weapons. beginning and end of discussion
everyone please shut the fuck up with the false equivalencies: only iran is a theocracy. and that is the source of the formation of my opinion
The Moose Jaw Loon Nukes
has a nice ring to it
no, we don't give them to canada
and no, its not ok for the usa to have them either. or france. or anyone
no one really deserves nukes. no regime is fit for them in my eyes
however, there is definitely a sliding scale of regimes who have nukes, and if you put canada on the top of your scale, you have to agree, iran falls down on the low end. so where do you draw the line between "i'm uncomfortable with this" and "no fucking way"
the usa is not a theocracy. compare the us constitution's statements on religion with that of iran's. no matter what eisenhower decided to add to our currency in the 1950s, this little brainfart doesn't alter the reality of longstanding constitutional separations between church and state
but this is just intellectual charity at this point. to call the usa a theocracy is just loudly announcing how ignorant you are
i don't really understand you false equivalency morons
i don't care about israel. israel doesn't matter: iran shouldn't have nukes because it is a theocracy. it believes in power invested in some grumpy old men who are believed to have a sort of monopoly on the interpretation of the will of god. this is not the kind of person i want with a nuclear weapon
this is the constitution of iran:
http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution-1.html
you want a government who believes these things in possession of a nuclear weapon?
and please, don't get me wrong: i don't have any problems with islam. if this document was centered on christianity or judaism i would have the same repulsion. i have problem with religious power structures, period. some religious kooks who think some invisible mahdi dude will reappear at armageddeon, with freaking NUCLEAR BOMB?! self-fulfilling prophecy? hello?
no, no fucking thanks, no nuke for iran
again: i don't care about israel. i have no problem with islam. i simply have a major serious problem with religious kooks possessing a nuclear bomb. NO THANK YOU
and please, i don't want any asshole lecturing me about false equivalency: that it's the same as pakistan, or israel, or the usa, or whatever: no, it isn't really the same. iran is EXPLICITLY a theocracy. A THEOCRACY. do you understand that? it really is different than saying "well gw bush is religious". yeah, good for him. but the fucking government he is part of isn't based on the fucking pope or some rabbi holding all ultimate power. that difference is real
who the fuck cares about sending the maximum number of people into space? why the fuck do you think that is the goal?
look: the most important discoveries science has ever made stemmed from basic research: research for research's sake. not an economically driven pursuit. yet all of those amazing discoveries from basic research has resulted in trillions in economic development
the point for going into space is not about following the money, its about basic research. you of course will poopoo that, because you don't see the immediate economic benefit of it. which only means you are a pinhead who stop fucking talking about a subject matter predicated on a sense of basic human wonder you apparently don't understand
there is no use in trying to argue with someone with such a complete lack of wonder and curiosity about the value of a pursuit that is all about wonder and curiosity. suffice it to say that every great discovery of mankind in every single field of endeavor is due to people with the exact opposite quality of mind as you. you: you're a pinhead, a dolt, of little more use to science and technology than a doorstop
you really are posting on the wrong website, pinhead
this is your only comment
http://slashdot.org/~AmericanIndian/comments
so you seemed to have created an account called "AmericanIndian" just to give some weird weight to a reply to my stupid post?
seriously?
btw, a real American "Indian" wouldn't call themselves an "Indian", that's the give away. i don't understand why 500 years after columbus made a mistake with his maps that we are still calling the original peoples of north america "indians", and i don't think they, or genuine real asian indians, understand why either
so i don't know why you felt so compelled to create an entire account just to reply to my dumb comment, but you are certainly a hard working troll, that's for sure
you might have noticed that 500 years ago some nations in europe spent a lot of money sending boats in the wrong direction, towards the ends of the earth
complete waste of money, right?
it should be a crime to display such ignorant levels of a lack of an imagination, like you do
nothing worth going into space for, right?
nothing worth sending perfectly good boats over the ends of the earth for, right?
what a pinhead
this is a question whose answer reveals less about reality and more about the psychology of whomever answers
no. anyone who has opinions on subject matter they don't understand is an undesirable fungus
i liked how you threw in "method of understanding the pathway to the circumstances in which we now live". as if actual factual history is something i invented and is my opinion that can be disputed, and that disagreeing with actual history i cite is a valid thought process. you need to understand actual cold hard facts, you need to understand the real world constraints of economic history. otherwise, we can all just invent alternative histories and this justifies magical thinking, right?
you can't have a legitimate discussion with a fungal growth. and i'm the one with the problem because i won't try? i've already determined i'm dealing with a john birch society style moonbat, therefore there is no legitimate discussion to be had
to have an actual valid discussion, you have to understand WHY these financial regulations and entities were put in place (no, it was not fascism or EVIIIL liburuls or plots and conspiracies or whatever stock bogeyman you use to explain away everything you don't understand about life). when you understand the STRUCTURAL problem that these entities were put in place to fix, and have a discussion about how to fix these structural problems another way, THEN you can have a fruitful discussion
but if you are talking with someone whose position is "just wipe away all the regulations because regulations are evil and these structural problems will take care of themselves because... magic!" then you are dealing with a fucking moron, and there is no discussion to be had
look: all of these financial regulations and government financial entities have trade offs and problems, for sure. i am not against reforming any financial regulation or government financial entity
but what i am against is this right wing libertardian nuttery that says financial rules and regulations CAUSE our problems and abolishing them will be some sort of financial utopia
fucking ignorant paint fume sniffing bullshit!
if you believe that sort of financial magical thinking that less financial regulations means a better economy, then you're just a complete moron who has no understanding of simple economic history and why these entities and regulations were created in the first place. try getting a real education, and less low iq ideological indoctrination, PLEASE
WHARRRRRGARRRBLLLLLEEEEEE
why have education when ideological crackpot indoctrination is available?
my argument is if you have a central bank you stabilize the economy
duhhh...
oh no wait, i'm sorry, that's not my argument. that's economic reality pretty much agreed upon by anyone with an IQ above 100 and an average education
please drink less kool aid, thanks
yes, so we got the FDIC added, along with the glass steagall act banking protections... which were underminded starting with reagan, legislated around further through clinton, and gutted under bush ii (hey SEC: stop doing your job, there's no guy pulling off a giant ponzi scheme, naaah). leading to, surprise! the crash of 2008
anything else i can help you with?
uhhh... i hear you on the patriot act, but you do realize that the fed was brought into existence not because of some retarded senator palpatine style freedom destroying plot, which seems to be the way you think, but because people were sick of banking panic after banking panic laying waste to the economy and people's lives and financial well being:
http://history1800s.about.com/od/thegildedage/a/financialpanics.htm
and although i'd really love to hear your john birch society conspiracy theories about the fed, i'm sorry, but i have an appointment with economic reality and psychological stability that i really must keep, adieu
i don't fucking care. i think the protesters in the middle east should have taught you something about how well fear really works when principles are at stake