1. panspermia, which these uv bacteria represent, means where life started isn't the issue, nor is how life started the issue. that discovering, for example, life on mars simply is no big deal, because life is simply EVERYWHERE. and that, in certain conditions ideal for life, such as you identify, the concern is not so much how life can start independently, but the new conception is that these are simply places that tiny intergalactic travelers can settle down in, colonize, and then give rise to more complex life forms, like us
resistance to uv light is expensive. meaning the cell has to expend all of this additional energy just surviving in high uv. remove the uv, and now uv resistance is a handicap. non-uv resistant bacteria can grow faster and reproduce faster because they aren't wasting their energy. uv resistance bacteria, on the surface of the earth, would simply be outcompeted at any food source, and die off
we see that with antibiotic resistance too. currently farmers pump livestock with antibiotics (it makes for bigger chickens, pigs, etc.) such that all of the microorganisms in the area of these farms become resistant to antibiotics
but this doesn't mean antibiotic bacteria will storm the planet. simply because antibiotic resistance is expensive. so if you remove antibiotics from these farms, bacteria from outside the farm, that aren't wasting their energy resisting antibiotics that aren't there anymore, simply grow faster and outcompete the resistant bacteria, and antibiotic resistant bacteria die off
its still dangerous though to use antibiotics in livestock, because antibiotic resistance normally would be something that bacteria would have to spend a lot of time and generations to evolve. but if you are actively breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria at various sites all over your country, you are seeding the environment with bacteria ready at a moments notice to jump in and take over from nonresistant bacteria. so someone using antibiotics is at sudden risk of reinfection by resistant bacteria, rather than only at risk of reinfection over many years time of antibiotic use, spent breeding resistance in their own bodies. which doesn't really happen, since normal antibiotic use implies a few weeks use
so antibiotic use meant for a few weeks time here and there will not breed armies of antibiotic resistant bacteria. but prolonged, extended use of antibiotics, for whatever reason, will seed the environment with resistant bacteria ready to render your antibiotic use completely ineffective
so we need to stop using antibiotics in livestock. but of course this meets resistance from the agriculture lobby, because now you are getting smaller chickens and pigs for the same cost of raising them
anything living at that atmosphere level, or on mars, has been living there perhaps for a very long time. for such a long time, you couldn't say whether it was native to mars, or native to the upper atmosphere of earth
for such a long time in fact, that these bacteria might not even be native to this solar system, or even this part of the galaxy
for such a long time in fact, you could even speculate that the initial identification of these critters as being some exotic mutation of life on earth, is in actuality the reverse: life in earth, us, we are an exotic mutation of THEM
you can begin to talk about the idea that these indian scientists have the first inklings of panspermia
welcome to what it feels like being an american during the bush administration. pariah, object of scorn and derision. you do realize what a joke this makes your country look like right?
1. sites blocked not for pornography, but ideological reasons 2. harsh punitive financial punishments just for linking 3. secret lists you, as a common citizen, don't have the right to see
i now think of australia the way i do iran and china in terms of freedom of expression. you better clean this disgrace up, you blokes can't let this continue, it is an embarassment
just as the audiophile is willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on gear to make microscopic improvements in audio quality that don't change the aesthetic experience of music one bit
so now will we have people spending obscene amounts of money on huge megapixel resolutions, and then insisting they can discern some kind of a difference
i remember a book from the dot com boom days claiming that a company in san francisco hired a network engineer who stipulated in his contract that he:
1. would only work in the middle of the night 2. got to work completely nude
he got away with it, because it was simple economics: his services were needed badly
any employee who has quirky behavior that is somehow provocative to fellow employees gets away with their oddball offenses to the extent that their services are needed that badly. beginning and ending of issue. you don't have any power or influence over the guy if he is that valuable. you just don't. so accept his behavior. you can moan all you want, but if you want the guy to disappear or act more uniformly, then just hope for a sudden influx of really good programmers from some magical place. thats the only way his behavior becomes a liability
you seem to forget western population rates declining is only a recent occurence
project to the future
well, actually, the population will still be around in the west. in europea, your average european might have 1 kid or less, but his muslim immigrant neighbor is having seven kids
according to your logic, a family that has 5 children has less invested in any given child than one who chooses to have 2 children
right?
less time to spend per child if you have more children, right?
you see why this is nonsensical?
furthermore, lets compare a homeschooled child to a child in public school: the home schooled child has less social abilities, because they spent TOO MUCH time with their parents
you actually believe that quality of child rearing is directly proportional to time spent with child, and its very easy to see how wrong you are
no: quality child rearing is quality time spent with a child, a couple of hours per day, the rest spent elsewhere while someone else holds the milk bottle or brings out the legos
you don't have to spend the whole damn day with the child. really. you can work, and come home to the kid, and raise children just fine
really
your perspective on what's important in child rearing is simply outright wrong
both statements accept that women have a difference from men. but the first statement simply accepts the difference as a inalterable fate, while the second statement proposes changes in society's structure to allow women to overcome the real difference with men. in other words, the first statement is contradictory to social progress, while the latter embraces the notion of social progress
by the way, the difference between men and women is nothing strange or mysterious: they have breasts and wombs, and therefore contribute more biologically to child rearing, and therefore to realize the level of unencumbrence that men experience, need really simple social changes, like child care support, in order to fully exercise their mental gifts
women raise your children. as a man, you recognize this contribution, and make accomodations for that. as a mysogynistic boy with mommy issues, you fail to recognize the value of women's biological contribution to your genetic future, and the future of your society and its values
i have an argument to answer that, and it has nothing to do with morality or religion: a society which hobbles half of its people just because they are women is a society that cannot compete with one that does not hobble its women
is that a good answer in your mind?
ok then, in answer to your position:
"If the woman is not capable of advancing math or science because she cannot make time for it, I don't see what you want people to do about it."
well, lets make believe we have a society that DID do something about it. if society A DID do something about it (you know, daycare, what a radical, horrible imposition pffft) then it would simply outcompete society B, that did not do something about it
so i wish to be part of society A, that is more fit, and frees its peoples up to contribute more advancement and progress
you, meanwhile, wish to hobble a person who might advance your society with her mind, simply because she has to stay home and breastfeed
which is like the saudis: without making any bullshit religious or moral or ideological arguments, your vision of society is weaker than my vision, simply because my vision is able to produce more intellectual advancement by freeing up those people with a womb to contribute to society in ways that are not hampered, just because she has a womb
simply put: my society outcompetes your society, is stronger than your society, and renders your ideology obsolete and extinct, simply because i outproduce you
(which is exactly what would happen to the saudis, if they weren't sitting on billions of barrels of oil)
if someone chooses not to have children, then they're genes and their values die. therefore, you want to make a place in society for people to have children, and you want to reward them for having kids, you want to give special consideration for that, and you want to recognize their contribution as intrinsically valuable and important. which it is, because through children is the only way your values and genes survive
seems like a simple nobrainer, but i've run into a lot these strange "crotchfruit" thinkers like yourself, and i want to understand why the blindingly obvious escapes you
simple logical consequences: if you don't have children, your value system will simply die off
you do understand that right?
please, go right ahead and considering child rearing an unimportant aspect of life. its odd to choose your own extinction, but there you are, posting away
because your entire point of view boils down to nothing but choosing the extinction of your own values, whether you realize this or not, you do understand however why i will consider your opinion just odd and strange and impossible to take seriously?
women grow children in their bodies, then are biologically attached to children via breasts and natural and social proclivities for an extended time period afterwards
in other words, they ARE special, and they DO need some consideration for that contribution
but you wish to tell us that any consideration women ask for is unfair. so: they contribute more to child rearing biologically... but hey don't deserve any consideration for that?
biology is unfair. society is trying to correct that imbalance. doesn't that seem noble to you?
of course, you could respond to me by saying women should just choose children over careers, that society has no obligation to make special considerations for women, and that's that, end of story
ok, fine. but then it is you who are like the saudis: that any mental gifts a women possesses, any contributions she can make to the advancement of math or science should be forfeit, given up. this is what your position is telling us. just because she's the one with the womb
so i say it to you: why not give women, who bear children, special consideration for that? why not? really: what is the big deal with giving women special consideration for contributing more biologically to the growth of children? why are you so antagonistic to this idea? to allow them to have children AND pursue their mental gifts, and thereby potentially enrich the society you live in? what exactly is wrong with that goal?
why do you have this axe to grind that says women deserve no special treatment, when in fact, due to their much larger biological and social contribution to child rearing, they DO deserve special consideration for that?
"it's becoming less and less a browser and more and more a platform every day. This is not the direction we want to go right now"
no, this IS the direction we want to go. google isolates all chrome tabs as individual processes, (so crashes are isolated)
they are focusing in lightning fast javascript, so that the browser IS the OS
just look at netbook sales: cheap because the issue is just getting on the web. everything everyone wants to do is on the web, this IS the future. the future is dinky os, without even a trashcan or document in site. and one big wonking rbowser, in which you do EVERYTHING you want and need to do, even something like photoshop
no really, this is the future and you are completely wrong
i am violently antagonistic to any sort of exclusivity or parochialism. that includes by nationality or religion
the only valid moral or intellectual point of view, on any topic is, a human one. period. beginning and end of discussion
as soon as that thought is broken, that's when all the grief in the world begins to be created
i'm just waiting for every else to catch up with that thought
and what's most annoying is when i say i am being to be faithful to a HUMAN morality, not a western one, people respond "yeah but you westerners..."
NO! motherfucker. i said HUMAN. debate on those terms, but don't argue against me by assuming a point of view i am NOT coming from. that's YOU introducing retarded bias, not me
its so fucking ingrained, people can't even begin to conceptualize the fact that just maybe, i might actually be arguing with 100% fidelity to the idea of a notion that is human, NOT WESTERN
a moral conviction that does not require the west, that is equally understandable, realizable, and ability to be independently appreciated in tehran, rio de janiero, yokohama, or hamburg
really
such that to argue against what i am saying by saying anything western this or anything chinese that or anything indian there
1. your statements are incredibly patronizing and condescending. not to westerns, to everyone you mention. as if i cross a border of a country and POOF, human nature warps into an inscrutable concept i have no right to observe, understand, or criticize. i'm not talking from a western pov, i'm talking from ANY pov. if you actually believe what you said, then no one, in any other culture, can criticize or value anything else from another culture. that national borders are some sort of magic curtain across which everything is inscrutable. fucking bullshit
1. there is no such thing as a western pov, or indian morality, or chinese values. the only logically and morally coherent position on any topic in the world is a human point of view. HUMAN
oh, and please note, if you respond that i am displaying some sort of western arrogance or bias: i said HUMAN. i repeat: HUMAN POINT OF VIEW. therefore, continued attacks on me as a WESTERNER immediately fail. i said HUMAN
if you can't meet me on those terms, HUMAN terms, then you are intellectually dishonest
i do not require provinciality or nationalism to make my arguments. why do you?
pretty much all the same you point out above is illegal in china. and then you get additional limitations: the worst being, no political free speech. this grass-mud horse revolt started because china was instituting a major crackdown on pornography. and then used that crackdown as a cover to shut down a number of pro-democracy sites, like charter 08
The Chinese government has said little publicly on the Charter.[8] On 8 December 2008, two days before the 60th anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Liu Xiaobo was detained by police. His detention came hours before the online release of the Charter.[9] He has been retained at an undisclosed location, though he has been allowed to meet his wife on one occasion.[10] [11] Several Nobel Laureates have written a letter to President Hu Jintao asking for his release.[8] In reponse, the Chinese government is trying to crush[10] the dissidents: at least 70 of its 303 original signatories have been summoned or interrogated by police while domestic media have been forbidden to interview anyone who has signed the document.[10] Police have also searched for or questioned a journalist, Li Datong, and two lawyers, though none have been arrested.[8] State media has been banned from reporting on the manifesto.[12] A blogging website popular with activists, bullog.cn, has been shut down which may have had ties to the Charter.[13]
can you see that happening in the west? i'm talking prison JUST FOR SAYING YOU WANT POLITICAL CHANGE. people like you really bother me because you have no perception of scale, and you see a little censorship in the west, and therefore you find that a draconian harsh censorship practice elsewhere is the same thing. utter pure 100% bullshit. your point of view is logically incoherent, ignorant, and plain wrong. no, china and the usa aren't even in the same league. your comparison is utter busllshit
for example: you can't criticize the leaders in china. that will get you tracked and possibly arrested. but here in the west, i can call barack obama anything i want, and no one is going to arrest me. go ahead and try to say the kind of things you can freely say about barack obama in the west, and compare that with what you can get away with criticizing the leadership of china, or iran
that ACTUALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE AND MEANS A LOT. the censorship in the west is nothing like that in china or iran, and that it is perfectly appropriate, acceptable, and logically coherent to criticize the draconian censorship in china or iran while at the same time celebrating the free speech in the west
the absurdity is that you wish to propose that SOME censorship, regardless of quantity, is the issue, rather than the RELATIVE amounts of censorship
look: in every society that ever existed, for all time, going in the past, and going to all of the future of mankind, there will be SOME rules about not being able to say something. so that means we can't criticize and compare the RELAITVE freedoms of one society to the next?
you really believe that?
your entire point of view on the issue is complete bullshit. you compare societies on the SCALE of their censorship, and then you arrive at a coherent and 100% factually true observation: that you have a lot more freedom of expression on the west. and that MEANS something. ESPECIALLY in regard to politics
you will NEVER have ABSOLUTE freedom of expression in ANY society, forever. and because there might be a few limits here and there in one society you honestly want to say that that society with few limitations on free speech is equivalent to one with draconian and severe limits on expression?
really? you think that's a valid and coherent belief on your part?
you're reasoning abilities have been found to have fallen short
science just isn't for everyone. if someone doesn't have the interest, ability, or inclination, what do you expect to do with them? not everyone is meant to be a great thinker. true scientific knowledge will always be the provenance of a scant few, in any society, in any time period. just let it be. these low rates of science knowledge don't surprise me and i see no problem here
Slashdot Mirror
1. panspermia, which these uv bacteria represent, means where life started isn't the issue, nor is how life started the issue. that discovering, for example, life on mars simply is no big deal, because life is simply EVERYWHERE. and that, in certain conditions ideal for life, such as you identify, the concern is not so much how life can start independently, but the new conception is that these are simply places that tiny intergalactic travelers can settle down in, colonize, and then give rise to more complex life forms, like us
2. ewoks on endor. enough said
resistance to uv light is expensive. meaning the cell has to expend all of this additional energy just surviving in high uv. remove the uv, and now uv resistance is a handicap. non-uv resistant bacteria can grow faster and reproduce faster because they aren't wasting their energy. uv resistance bacteria, on the surface of the earth, would simply be outcompeted at any food source, and die off
we see that with antibiotic resistance too. currently farmers pump livestock with antibiotics (it makes for bigger chickens, pigs, etc.) such that all of the microorganisms in the area of these farms become resistant to antibiotics
but this doesn't mean antibiotic bacteria will storm the planet. simply because antibiotic resistance is expensive. so if you remove antibiotics from these farms, bacteria from outside the farm, that aren't wasting their energy resisting antibiotics that aren't there anymore, simply grow faster and outcompete the resistant bacteria, and antibiotic resistant bacteria die off
its still dangerous though to use antibiotics in livestock, because antibiotic resistance normally would be something that bacteria would have to spend a lot of time and generations to evolve. but if you are actively breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria at various sites all over your country, you are seeding the environment with bacteria ready at a moments notice to jump in and take over from nonresistant bacteria. so someone using antibiotics is at sudden risk of reinfection by resistant bacteria, rather than only at risk of reinfection over many years time of antibiotic use, spent breeding resistance in their own bodies. which doesn't really happen, since normal antibiotic use implies a few weeks use
so antibiotic use meant for a few weeks time here and there will not breed armies of antibiotic resistant bacteria. but prolonged, extended use of antibiotics, for whatever reason, will seed the environment with resistant bacteria ready to render your antibiotic use completely ineffective
so we need to stop using antibiotics in livestock. but of course this meets resistance from the agriculture lobby, because now you are getting smaller chickens and pigs for the same cost of raising them
anything living at that atmosphere level, or on mars, has been living there perhaps for a very long time. for such a long time, you couldn't say whether it was native to mars, or native to the upper atmosphere of earth
for such a long time in fact, that these bacteria might not even be native to this solar system, or even this part of the galaxy
for such a long time in fact, you could even speculate that the initial identification of these critters as being some exotic mutation of life on earth, is in actuality the reverse: life in earth, us, we are an exotic mutation of THEM
you can begin to talk about the idea that these indian scientists have the first inklings of panspermia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
tha the seeds of life, these critters, are absolutely everywhere in the galaxy
and its not just earth they could have descended upon, many billions of years ago
welcome to what it feels like being an american during the bush administration. pariah, object of scorn and derision. you do realize what a joke this makes your country look like right?
1. sites blocked not for pornography, but ideological reasons
2. harsh punitive financial punishments just for linking
3. secret lists you, as a common citizen, don't have the right to see
i now think of australia the way i do iran and china in terms of freedom of expression. you better clean this disgrace up, you blokes can't let this continue, it is an embarassment
you sir win at the intarwebs ;-)
just as the audiophile is willing to spend ridiculous amounts of money on gear to make microscopic improvements in audio quality that don't change the aesthetic experience of music one bit
so now will we have people spending obscene amounts of money on huge megapixel resolutions, and then insisting they can discern some kind of a difference
long live the emperor's new clothes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes
i remember a book from the dot com boom days claiming that a company in san francisco hired a network engineer who stipulated in his contract that he:
1. would only work in the middle of the night
2. got to work completely nude
he got away with it, because it was simple economics: his services were needed badly
any employee who has quirky behavior that is somehow provocative to fellow employees gets away with their oddball offenses to the extent that their services are needed that badly. beginning and ending of issue. you don't have any power or influence over the guy if he is that valuable. you just don't. so accept his behavior. you can moan all you want, but if you want the guy to disappear or act more uniformly, then just hope for a sudden influx of really good programmers from some magical place. thats the only way his behavior becomes a liability
you seem to forget western population rates declining is only a recent occurence
project to the future
well, actually, the population will still be around in the west. in europea, your average european might have 1 kid or less, but his muslim immigrant neighbor is having seven kids
you can find exceptions to probably every single point in this thread, the story summary, and the article its attached to
but yes, overall, if your society has less children than another society, the other society inherits the earth
so it behooves any society to have children
its not exactly a complicated point for you to understand
a random scattering of half-truths and wannabe issues
none of which have much to do with each other, or anything i said, or anything internally coherent
try again. make a point please
in which case, we have a grand tragedy: the society with less social justice outbreeds the society with more social justice
according to your logic, a family that has 5 children has less invested in any given child than one who chooses to have 2 children
right?
less time to spend per child if you have more children, right?
you see why this is nonsensical?
furthermore, lets compare a homeschooled child to a child in public school: the home schooled child has less social abilities, because they spent TOO MUCH time with their parents
you actually believe that quality of child rearing is directly proportional to time spent with child, and its very easy to see how wrong you are
no: quality child rearing is quality time spent with a child, a couple of hours per day, the rest spent elsewhere while someone else holds the milk bottle or brings out the legos
you don't have to spend the whole damn day with the child. really. you can work, and come home to the kid, and raise children just fine
really
your perspective on what's important in child rearing is simply outright wrong
you are asserting that if a woman is given aid to have children, less will choose to have children?
and if forced to choose between career and children, more will have children?
can i have what you are smoking?
society A: no support for women. therefore an intelligent woman chooses between children or career
society B: support for women (daycare). therefore a woman can have children and a career
in society A, half the intelligent choose career over family, and don't pass on their genes
in soceity B, all the intelligent women can have a career and a family, meaning MORE genes are passed on, AS WELL AS her intellectual contribution
"Your society keeps the intelligent women from passing their genetic material on to the next generation."
no, yours does, clearly
"Your society may outcompete mine today, but not N generations later. Your short-term thinking wins today's battle but loses the war."
no, my society outcompetes yours on the short term and the long term, outright
both statements accept that women have a difference from men. but the first statement simply accepts the difference as a inalterable fate, while the second statement proposes changes in society's structure to allow women to overcome the real difference with men. in other words, the first statement is contradictory to social progress, while the latter embraces the notion of social progress
by the way, the difference between men and women is nothing strange or mysterious: they have breasts and wombs, and therefore contribute more biologically to child rearing, and therefore to realize the level of unencumbrence that men experience, need really simple social changes, like child care support, in order to fully exercise their mental gifts
women raise your children. as a man, you recognize this contribution, and make accomodations for that. as a mysogynistic boy with mommy issues, you fail to recognize the value of women's biological contribution to your genetic future, and the future of your society and its values
i have an argument to answer that, and it has nothing to do with morality or religion: a society which hobbles half of its people just because they are women is a society that cannot compete with one that does not hobble its women
is that a good answer in your mind?
ok then, in answer to your position:
"If the woman is not capable of advancing math or science because she cannot make time for it, I don't see what you want people to do about it."
well, lets make believe we have a society that DID do something about it. if society A DID do something about it (you know, daycare, what a radical, horrible imposition pffft) then it would simply outcompete society B, that did not do something about it
so i wish to be part of society A, that is more fit, and frees its peoples up to contribute more advancement and progress
you, meanwhile, wish to hobble a person who might advance your society with her mind, simply because she has to stay home and breastfeed
which is like the saudis: without making any bullshit religious or moral or ideological arguments, your vision of society is weaker than my vision, simply because my vision is able to produce more intellectual advancement by freeing up those people with a womb to contribute to society in ways that are not hampered, just because she has a womb
simply put: my society outcompetes your society, is stronger than your society, and renders your ideology obsolete and extinct, simply because i outproduce you
(which is exactly what would happen to the saudis, if they weren't sitting on billions of barrels of oil)
if people don't have children, society dies
you do understand don't you?
if someone chooses not to have children, then they're genes and their values die. therefore, you want to make a place in society for people to have children, and you want to reward them for having kids, you want to give special consideration for that, and you want to recognize their contribution as intrinsically valuable and important. which it is, because through children is the only way your values and genes survive
seems like a simple nobrainer, but i've run into a lot these strange "crotchfruit" thinkers like yourself, and i want to understand why the blindingly obvious escapes you
simple logical consequences: if you don't have children, your value system will simply die off
you do understand that right?
please, go right ahead and considering child rearing an unimportant aspect of life. its odd to choose your own extinction, but there you are, posting away
because your entire point of view boils down to nothing but choosing the extinction of your own values, whether you realize this or not, you do understand however why i will consider your opinion just odd and strange and impossible to take seriously?
women grow children in their bodies, then are biologically attached to children via breasts and natural and social proclivities for an extended time period afterwards
in other words, they ARE special, and they DO need some consideration for that contribution
but you wish to tell us that any consideration women ask for is unfair. so: they contribute more to child rearing biologically... but hey don't deserve any consideration for that?
biology is unfair. society is trying to correct that imbalance. doesn't that seem noble to you?
of course, you could respond to me by saying women should just choose children over careers, that society has no obligation to make special considerations for women, and that's that, end of story
ok, fine. but then it is you who are like the saudis: that any mental gifts a women possesses, any contributions she can make to the advancement of math or science should be forfeit, given up. this is what your position is telling us. just because she's the one with the womb
so i say it to you: why not give women, who bear children, special consideration for that? why not? really: what is the big deal with giving women special consideration for contributing more biologically to the growth of children? why are you so antagonistic to this idea? to allow them to have children AND pursue their mental gifts, and thereby potentially enrich the society you live in? what exactly is wrong with that goal?
why do you have this axe to grind that says women deserve no special treatment, when in fact, due to their much larger biological and social contribution to child rearing, they DO deserve special consideration for that?
you could conceivably now be fingerprinted at a distance, were this tech highly perfected
drive by fingerprinting
a cop cruiser could just do driving patterns in a neighborhood of interest, fingerprinting everyone they drive by, until they find a match
"it's becoming less and less a browser and more and more a platform every day. This is not the direction we want to go right now"
no, this IS the direction we want to go. google isolates all chrome tabs as individual processes, (so crashes are isolated)
they are focusing in lightning fast javascript, so that the browser IS the OS
just look at netbook sales: cheap because the issue is just getting on the web. everything everyone wants to do is on the web, this IS the future. the future is dinky os, without even a trashcan or document in site. and one big wonking rbowser, in which you do EVERYTHING you want and need to do, even something like photoshop
no really, this is the future and you are completely wrong
but i must introduce myself:
i am violently antagonistic to any sort of exclusivity or parochialism. that includes by nationality or religion
the only valid moral or intellectual point of view, on any topic is, a human one. period. beginning and end of discussion
as soon as that thought is broken, that's when all the grief in the world begins to be created
i'm just waiting for every else to catch up with that thought
and what's most annoying is when i say i am being to be faithful to a HUMAN morality, not a western one, people respond "yeah but you westerners..."
NO! motherfucker. i said HUMAN. debate on those terms, but don't argue against me by assuming a point of view i am NOT coming from. that's YOU introducing retarded bias, not me
its so fucking ingrained, people can't even begin to conceptualize the fact that just maybe, i might actually be arguing with 100% fidelity to the idea of a notion that is human, NOT WESTERN
a moral conviction that does not require the west, that is equally understandable, realizable, and ability to be independently appreciated in tehran, rio de janiero, yokohama, or hamburg
really
such that to argue against what i am saying by saying anything western this or anything chinese that or anything indian there
instant fail
1. your statements are incredibly patronizing and condescending. not to westerns, to everyone you mention. as if i cross a border of a country and POOF, human nature warps into an inscrutable concept i have no right to observe, understand, or criticize. i'm not talking from a western pov, i'm talking from ANY pov. if you actually believe what you said, then no one, in any other culture, can criticize or value anything else from another culture. that national borders are some sort of magic curtain across which everything is inscrutable. fucking bullshit
1. there is no such thing as a western pov, or indian morality, or chinese values. the only logically and morally coherent position on any topic in the world is a human point of view. HUMAN
oh, and please note, if you respond that i am displaying some sort of western arrogance or bias: i said HUMAN. i repeat: HUMAN POINT OF VIEW. therefore, continued attacks on me as a WESTERNER immediately fail. i said HUMAN
if you can't meet me on those terms, HUMAN terms, then you are intellectually dishonest
i do not require provinciality or nationalism to make my arguments. why do you?
i can understand it being blocked in china, but why can't we see it in the west?
disturbing
pretty much all the same you point out above is illegal in china. and then you get additional limitations: the worst being, no political free speech. this grass-mud horse revolt started because china was instituting a major crackdown on pornography. and then used that crackdown as a cover to shut down a number of pro-democracy sites, like charter 08
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_08
can you see that happening in the west? i'm talking prison JUST FOR SAYING YOU WANT POLITICAL CHANGE. people like you really bother me because you have no perception of scale, and you see a little censorship in the west, and therefore you find that a draconian harsh censorship practice elsewhere is the same thing. utter pure 100% bullshit. your point of view is logically incoherent, ignorant, and plain wrong. no, china and the usa aren't even in the same league. your comparison is utter busllshit
for example: you can't criticize the leaders in china. that will get you tracked and possibly arrested. but here in the west, i can call barack obama anything i want, and no one is going to arrest me. go ahead and try to say the kind of things you can freely say about barack obama in the west, and compare that with what you can get away with criticizing the leadership of china, or iran
that ACTUALLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE AND MEANS A LOT. the censorship in the west is nothing like that in china or iran, and that it is perfectly appropriate, acceptable, and logically coherent to criticize the draconian censorship in china or iran while at the same time celebrating the free speech in the west
the absurdity is that you wish to propose that SOME censorship, regardless of quantity, is the issue, rather than the RELATIVE amounts of censorship
look: in every society that ever existed, for all time, going in the past, and going to all of the future of mankind, there will be SOME rules about not being able to say something. so that means we can't criticize and compare the RELAITVE freedoms of one society to the next?
you really believe that?
your entire point of view on the issue is complete bullshit. you compare societies on the SCALE of their censorship, and then you arrive at a coherent and 100% factually true observation: that you have a lot more freedom of expression on the west. and that MEANS something. ESPECIALLY in regard to politics
you will NEVER have ABSOLUTE freedom of expression in ANY society, forever. and because there might be a few limits here and there in one society you honestly want to say that that society with few limitations on free speech is equivalent to one with draconian and severe limits on expression?
really? you think that's a valid and coherent belief on your part?
you're reasoning abilities have been found to have fallen short
science just isn't for everyone. if someone doesn't have the interest, ability, or inclination, what do you expect to do with them? not everyone is meant to be a great thinker. true scientific knowledge will always be the provenance of a scant few, in any society, in any time period. just let it be. these low rates of science knowledge don't surprise me and i see no problem here