absolutely. do whatever you want on your land. if it affects NO ONE ELSE'S LAND. duh. why do you think i want to regulate wha tonly affects you? didn't you read my comment? didn't you see the part where i talked about about imposing on other people's freedom and was against that?
(smack forehead)
why do you think you just negated my point? what the hell does property rights have to do with it? why do think changing the entire subject is a valid line of thought?
if you throw the beer can on public land, WHICH WAS MY POINT, or if you examine my example of the coal plant dumping CO2 in the atmosphere, WHICH WAS MY POINT, you can see that my point remains completely untouched by your tirade about private land, and therefore completely irrelevant
you meanwhile, have completely changed the subject, and i don't even think you noticed
"So why would you take away my property and rights to live as I see fit (read: freedom) over something has been happening naturally long before man existed?"
ok, again this bizarre confusing of public property and private property in your mind. i'll let you try to work that out. i don't want to touch that lunacy with a ten foot pole
meanwhile:
are you saying man has been dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere long before man existed?
(snicker)
wait: actually, you are right, there IS a natural corollary to what man is doing: volcanic explosions
which fucking basic science and historical record shows DRAMATICALLY CHANGES THE CLIMATE
and yet that still makes them the most stable entity in the room
as you described them, that still makes them more stable than the mobs of greedy/ fearful investors
as further proof: please describe to me an entity in your mind that you think is MORE stable than the awful government entity you just described. i don't think you can think of one. no one can. no one has
the point is not to find the perfect regulatory entity. none exists. the point is to find the best regulatory entity possible. simply because no regulatory entity is worse than a messy regulatory entity. feel me now?
unless you think any sort of emotional response is an inability to deal with criticism. maybe you are just dealing with someone who is passionate about the subject. how do you differentiate between someone who is just passionate versus someone who is emotional due to an inability to deal? or do you differentiate ebtween the two?;-) xoxoxoxoxoxox
to hysteria than individual mobs. in fact, it is less prone to emotional fluctuations than any other entity in the equation
the idea is to stop the wild fluctuations of the bubbles and pops of mobs acting on greed and fear. which is a vital goal as current market issues show us and why we can never get away from strong regulation. no, sorry, the market does not take care of itself (it just fluctuates wildly when left on its own, and weakening of regulations under bush has led to a bubble, and now a pop, which means we will get strong regulations and high governemnt invovlement which is a GOOD thing for stability's sake)
so: being that there is no entity that is completely immune to emotional fluctuations, the government is the best entity to turn to to regulate the market, not becuase it is perfect, but because it is the least emotional entity we can turn to
you've completely revealed my utter illegitimacy on being able to decide what market driven and what isn't
whatever. now:
who is so empowered to judge this issue? are you? based on what miraculous indoctrination into what magical ideology that self-referentially concludes itself to be correct? in the same manner i erroneously do?
furthermore:
my utter inability to decide what is market driven and what isn't is COMPLETELY BESIDES THE POINT
what is the point?
that there is some progress that is market driven. and some progress that is not market driven
the point is NOT that I KNOW which is, and which isn't, but merely THAT THE TWO SEPARATE CATEGORIES EXIST
why am i making this point?
in order to destroy the simpleton's argument of the market fundamentalists that say EVERYTHING is market driven
feel me now?
or do you wish to further attack me as an authority, when i never put myself forth as an authority, and completely miss the whole fucking substance of the point i am making?
to make any progress on any issue in this world without some passion for the topic
and with passion, this often leads to calling a moron a moron when you see a moron
sorry about that. i don't know how to not be passionate. nor how to tolerate a moron
deal with it. or don't listen to me. no one is forcing you to read my posts
we are not robots who care about these issues
that you are, or that you can only consider topics when impartially and mind-numbingly dispassionately regurgitated robotically, speaks more to your failures than mine
i care. you don't seem to you. i am not here to serve you. and you don't have to read my posts
in other words, good bye, good riddance, happy to never have to deal with you again
some people believe if we allow gays to marry, we also have to accept pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, polygamy...
no: this is retarded hysteria. but some people actually believe this. because they are letting their irrational fears overpower their logical thought
as you are:
you believe if we accept a little government regulation, we're on an unstoppable slippery slope into a black hole of mind control communism
uh... how about no? how about you are irrational and fear addled?
we need a market that is mostly free for a rich society. no brainer. we also need a strong government and strong regulation so the market doesn't bubble and pop. no brainer
and, on either side of these obvious and prudent realizations, from the left and the right, we have fear addled folks, like yourself, who beleive in the slippery slope
there is no slippery slope. your fears are unfounded
really
please lose your irrational fears of a little prudent regulation leading to a communist apocalypse
how come the markets, in their infinite wisdom, are not immune to human fear and human greed?
what i mean by that is, it is an obvious rule, bourne out by hundreds of examples from the historical record (look at the bank panics in the 1800s) that an unregulated marketplace is a market place of boom and bust
what is happening in the market right now, is merely the product of weakened regulations by the government
so what is the purpose of the government? it is to regulate and serve as a steward of the marketplace. because left to its own devices, simple human psychology means it will bubble and pop, bubble and pop, forever. regulation and a strong central government STABILIZE the market
and you, in your "infinite wisdom" confuse this prudent intelligent stewardship of the market with, what did you say? "Ahh yes... Big brother knows best. People don't make good decisions on their own. They need someone else to make decisions for them."
hey, genius: it is possible to have a well regulated marketplace without everyone being mind-controlled communists. really. you should look into this notion sometime, and not blindly swallow your conservatard propaganda and hysteria
the contrast between freedom and security is a false dichotomy. terrorists are not people who take advantage of freedoms in order to make havoc, therefore showing us the need to constrain freedoms. rather, terrorists are people produced form societies with no freedoms at all. thereby showing us the need to maintain freedoms and EXTEND them
meanwhile, when you throw your beer can from your hunting blind, you're an asshole. you have no freedom, nor did you ever have the freedom, to do that. so when someone makes a law that you, as a consumer, can not litter, or some coal company has to scrub its CO2, this is not freedom that is being taken away, this is simply good stewardship of the land being enforced on assholes who mistake their laziness and irresponsibility with the notion of freedom
you don't have the freedom to be irresponsible in such a way that it hurts me, my environment, that i share with you. the notion of freedom never ever included your right to be irresponsible in such a way that it hurts other people. when you litter, you impose on my freedom, and i, in the name of my freedom, and the freedom of y societ yot have a clean environment, will fight lazy irresponsible assholes like you, who don't even understand what freedom really is
is that enough "straight talk" for you genius? am i unclear on any concepts?
for problems where the producer and buyer drive progress. electronic gadgets, for example: i want my iphone cheaper. i want my iphone with more doodads. competitors are happy to oblige. congratulations: progress
there are other problems in the world, where neither producer nor buyer have a vested interest. and yet these problems are very real. here's one: justice. crime
you need a government, a strong one, with police powers, to run the judiciary since producer and buyer need an impartial justice system that favors neither producer nor buyer
now you could ignore justice and criminal law. and the social environment will deteriorate such that the marketplace deteriorates. or you could have a justice system run by populism that ignores the needs of producers. or a justice system bought and sold by corporations that ignores the needs of consumers. which are just two forms of injustice
the physical environment is the same thing: neither producer nor buyer has a vested interest in maintaining it. so its get dumed on by both, and the marketplace deteriorates. so you need a third party, a government, to engage in maintaining the environment by setting environmental regulations and enforcing them. the marketplace WILL NOT TAKE CARE OF THIS PROBLEM ON ITS OWN IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER
i say: leave to the marketplace issues that progress in the marketplace can solve
but that does not describe all of the problems in the world
irrefutable fact you need to learn: the marketplace is not where all progress in the world takes place, and does not answer every question that needs answering. this sort of marketplace fundamentalism some morons believe in is a simpleton's ideology that needs to die
the american consumer won't buy it, because the american consumer is complacent about fossil fuels
sometimes you need to foot the bill, you need a strong central government to force the issue, because the market place won't solve the problem
market forces are NOT the source of all progress in this world
the government needs to step in, overruuling the whining conservatards, and mandate what consumers can buy and what manufacturers can make
why?
because:
1. the technology will prove itself as more economically viable than fossil fuels once the recharging infrastructure is in place and technology improves 2. fossil fuels are going to become more expensive no matter what, simply because it will get harder and harder to dig up, and more and more demand is growing world wide. we can prepare for the future now or suffer more 3. the geopolitical reality is that soccer moms refueling their SUVs are paying for gasbags like chavez in venezuela, islamic nutjobbery via saudi wahabbism, and russian neoimperialism. that comes back to bite us in the ass. but those geopolitical realities, that soccer mom is paying for, is completely decoupled form her considerations when she shops for a new SUV 4. the environment. yes, conservatards, we need to tackle the endless dumping of CO2 in the atmosphere. begin your al gore jokes and your head in the fucking sand
the issue is not that current battery technology can't adequately replace typical american highway needs
of course it can't
the issue is american car companies aren't even trying to solve the problem. meaning there is no advances in the technology that could make the replacement economically efficient
there is also the issue of american consumers, who will blindly buy SUVs while they send their sons and daughters to die in the middle east to fight for the oilfields needed to drive their precious SUVs
what is needed obviously is strong american legislation that will mandate battery recharging infrastructure and non-fossil fuel dependent car design
but of course, the conservatards will whine "socialism"
you know what conservatards? sometimes you need a large government and strong regulations. no, really, you really do
the market will NOT take care of itself on some issues
simple market dynamic only drives us into the status quo, since consumer demand is not coupled with the geopolitical realities about fossil fuels
government policy is the only way out of this mess. strong government regulation from a strong and powerful central government
market forces aren't cutting it. market forces don't drive progress on all issues
at a bus stop, twelve passengers get on a bus. at the next stop, thirteen get off
theologian: "a miracle! a miracle!" biologist: "reproduction in action" physicist: "measurement error. roughly nine percent statistical deviation is within acceptable tolerance ranges" mathematician: "if one person gets in, the bus is empty again"
until it can be rephrased in such a way that it asserts the ascendency of physicists over mathematicians. or the ascendency of mathematicians over physcists. i need to keep score. joke form is acceptable
who wishes us to believe dinosaurs could evolve to hold a basketball. the holy truth is of course intelligent dribbling, probably taught by 3 point all star jesus himself to intelligent basketball playing dinosaurs on jurassic half courts
simple actual effect is not the only grounds on which we can, and should, legally proceed, on this question or any other
that's why we can try people for attempted murder. but according to you, someone is innocent until they actually murder someone. that if they try to murder someone, and fail, according to your approach they get off scott free. wrong. or consider the riaa: their reason for being is to stop music piracy. their tactic of suing grandmothers and students of course has zero effect. but according to you, since their intent is unfulfilled, they can't be prosecuted on the grounds of having an legally questionable purpose (nevermind being prosecuted for the secondary damage to their main purpose, of extortion of people of limited means)
no, your entire argument completely disregards the notion of intent, which is a completely valid legal concept
if someone attempts to squash your freedom of speech, they have violated the spirit of the law, if not technically successful
and they are therefore wrong, morally, and legally
have an aura of being more secure than ie or microsoft, simply because they have been tested less than ie or microsoft, simply because they have less market penetration, and therefore less hackers aim their minds at firefox or mac than at ie or microsoft. in other words, ie and microsoft are more "battlehardened" than firefox or mac
if you were a general in a war, and you had to choose between two guns, and
gun #1: backfires and kills the gunman every 1,000 rounds, as proven by solid combat use
gun #2: backfires and kills the gunman every unknown number of rounds, unproven in combat use
you tend to choose gun #1. because you are a GENERAL, which is a type of bureaucrat, which is a person who is extremely conservative and careful. you are not the r&d department
this is the thinking of the bureaucrats in colorado, who, like all government figureheads, are extremely conservative careful and slow on the uptake. as they SHOULD be. it is not the job of government to suggest the less battle tested. that is your job
just make sure you have enough wisdom that you don't expect a bureaucrat to act like a progressive. sorry, not in the job description. you will nowhere on the face of this earth find a government mandarin who is risk taking and countercultural and daring in their thinking
therefore, the error is not in the official word of the state of colorado. the error is yours: expecting a government figurehead to be a progressive influence
i support your desire to destroy religious and nationalistic bases for morality
but unless you replace the substandard form of moralities you outline above with another morality of your own choosing, you are a nihilist, and are therefore worse in effect on your world than any of the examples you cite above
Slashdot Mirror
one doesn't even care to make an argument
duh
issues are not brought forth, nor are they settled, by robots
you care about an issue, and you therefore get involved. right?
rather: how does one solve, never mind get involved in, an issue they don't even care about?
consider this intellectual charity on my part for you about some simple concepts about the basic functioning of human social interaction
i hope you educate yourself further on the subject matter before you respond and make yourself look like a bigger fool
but i'm glad by responding to me you've shown some passion for the subject
(snicker)
absolutely. do whatever you want on your land. if it affects NO ONE ELSE'S LAND. duh. why do you think i want to regulate wha tonly affects you? didn't you read my comment? didn't you see the part where i talked about about imposing on other people's freedom and was against that?
(smack forehead)
why do you think you just negated my point? what the hell does property rights have to do with it? why do think changing the entire subject is a valid line of thought?
if you throw the beer can on public land, WHICH WAS MY POINT, or if you examine my example of the coal plant dumping CO2 in the atmosphere, WHICH WAS MY POINT, you can see that my point remains completely untouched by your tirade about private land, and therefore completely irrelevant
you meanwhile, have completely changed the subject, and i don't even think you noticed
"So why would you take away my property and rights to live as I see fit (read: freedom) over something has been happening naturally long before man existed?"
ok, again this bizarre confusing of public property and private property in your mind. i'll let you try to work that out. i don't want to touch that lunacy with a ten foot pole
meanwhile:
are you saying man has been dumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere long before man existed?
(snicker)
wait: actually, you are right, there IS a natural corollary to what man is doing: volcanic explosions
which fucking basic science and historical record shows DRAMATICALLY CHANGES THE CLIMATE
here, let me educate you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
you lose
good day sir
(if you respond, please try not to change the subject. or confuse public and private property. it doesn't win the argument. k thx)
and yet that still makes them the most stable entity in the room
as you described them, that still makes them more stable than the mobs of greedy/ fearful investors
as further proof: please describe to me an entity in your mind that you think is MORE stable than the awful government entity you just described. i don't think you can think of one. no one can. no one has
the point is not to find the perfect regulatory entity. none exists. the point is to find the best regulatory entity possible. simply because no regulatory entity is worse than a messy regulatory entity. feel me now?
show me the one president, ever, who was elected not based on appeal to emotion
unless you somehow mistake approval by your ideological partisanship with the definition of unemotionality perhaps?
and please, more exclamation points and name calling
it makes your unemotional point of view so much clearer ;-)
(snicker)
unless you think any sort of emotional response is an inability to deal with criticism. maybe you are just dealing with someone who is passionate about the subject. how do you differentiate between someone who is just passionate versus someone who is emotional due to an inability to deal? or do you differentiate ebtween the two? ;-) xoxoxoxoxoxox
to hysteria than individual mobs. in fact, it is less prone to emotional fluctuations than any other entity in the equation
the idea is to stop the wild fluctuations of the bubbles and pops of mobs acting on greed and fear. which is a vital goal as current market issues show us and why we can never get away from strong regulation. no, sorry, the market does not take care of itself (it just fluctuates wildly when left on its own, and weakening of regulations under bush has led to a bubble, and now a pop, which means we will get strong regulations and high governemnt invovlement which is a GOOD thing for stability's sake)
so: being that there is no entity that is completely immune to emotional fluctuations, the government is the best entity to turn to to regulate the market, not becuase it is perfect, but because it is the least emotional entity we can turn to
you've completely revealed my utter illegitimacy on being able to decide what market driven and what isn't
whatever. now:
who is so empowered to judge this issue? are you? based on what miraculous indoctrination into what magical ideology that self-referentially concludes itself to be correct? in the same manner i erroneously do?
furthermore:
my utter inability to decide what is market driven and what isn't is COMPLETELY BESIDES THE POINT
what is the point?
that there is some progress that is market driven. and some progress that is not market driven
the point is NOT that I KNOW which is, and which isn't, but merely THAT THE TWO SEPARATE CATEGORIES EXIST
why am i making this point?
in order to destroy the simpleton's argument of the market fundamentalists that say EVERYTHING is market driven
feel me now?
or do you wish to further attack me as an authority, when i never put myself forth as an authority, and completely miss the whole fucking substance of the point i am making?
xoxoxoxoxoxox
to make any progress on any issue in this world without some passion for the topic
and with passion, this often leads to calling a moron a moron when you see a moron
sorry about that. i don't know how to not be passionate. nor how to tolerate a moron
deal with it. or don't listen to me. no one is forcing you to read my posts
we are not robots who care about these issues
that you are, or that you can only consider topics when impartially and mind-numbingly dispassionately regurgitated robotically, speaks more to your failures than mine
i care. you don't seem to you. i am not here to serve you. and you don't have to read my posts
in other words, good bye, good riddance, happy to never have to deal with you again
some people believe if we allow gays to marry, we also have to accept pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, polygamy...
no: this is retarded hysteria. but some people actually believe this. because they are letting their irrational fears overpower their logical thought
as you are:
you believe if we accept a little government regulation, we're on an unstoppable slippery slope into a black hole of mind control communism
uh... how about no? how about you are irrational and fear addled?
we need a market that is mostly free for a rich society. no brainer. we also need a strong government and strong regulation so the market doesn't bubble and pop. no brainer
and, on either side of these obvious and prudent realizations, from the left and the right, we have fear addled folks, like yourself, who beleive in the slippery slope
there is no slippery slope. your fears are unfounded
really
please lose your irrational fears of a little prudent regulation leading to a communist apocalypse
NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
tell me something market fundamentalist:
how come the markets, in their infinite wisdom, are not immune to human fear and human greed?
what i mean by that is, it is an obvious rule, bourne out by hundreds of examples from the historical record (look at the bank panics in the 1800s) that an unregulated marketplace is a market place of boom and bust
what is happening in the market right now, is merely the product of weakened regulations by the government
so what is the purpose of the government? it is to regulate and serve as a steward of the marketplace. because left to its own devices, simple human psychology means it will bubble and pop, bubble and pop, forever. regulation and a strong central government STABILIZE the market
and you, in your "infinite wisdom" confuse this prudent intelligent stewardship of the market with, what did you say? "Ahh yes... Big brother knows best. People don't make good decisions on their own. They need someone else to make decisions for them."
hey, genius: it is possible to have a well regulated marketplace without everyone being mind-controlled communists. really. you should look into this notion sometime, and not blindly swallow your conservatard propaganda and hysteria
the contrast between freedom and security is a false dichotomy. terrorists are not people who take advantage of freedoms in order to make havoc, therefore showing us the need to constrain freedoms. rather, terrorists are people produced form societies with no freedoms at all. thereby showing us the need to maintain freedoms and EXTEND them
meanwhile, when you throw your beer can from your hunting blind, you're an asshole. you have no freedom, nor did you ever have the freedom, to do that. so when someone makes a law that you, as a consumer, can not litter, or some coal company has to scrub its CO2, this is not freedom that is being taken away, this is simply good stewardship of the land being enforced on assholes who mistake their laziness and irresponsibility with the notion of freedom
you don't have the freedom to be irresponsible in such a way that it hurts me, my environment, that i share with you. the notion of freedom never ever included your right to be irresponsible in such a way that it hurts other people. when you litter, you impose on my freedom, and i, in the name of my freedom, and the freedom of y societ yot have a clean environment, will fight lazy irresponsible assholes like you, who don't even understand what freedom really is
is that enough "straight talk" for you genius? am i unclear on any concepts?
for problems where the producer and buyer drive progress. electronic gadgets, for example: i want my iphone cheaper. i want my iphone with more doodads. competitors are happy to oblige. congratulations: progress
there are other problems in the world, where neither producer nor buyer have a vested interest. and yet these problems are very real. here's one: justice. crime
you need a government, a strong one, with police powers, to run the judiciary since producer and buyer need an impartial justice system that favors neither producer nor buyer
now you could ignore justice and criminal law. and the social environment will deteriorate such that the marketplace deteriorates. or you could have a justice system run by populism that ignores the needs of producers. or a justice system bought and sold by corporations that ignores the needs of consumers. which are just two forms of injustice
the physical environment is the same thing: neither producer nor buyer has a vested interest in maintaining it. so its get dumed on by both, and the marketplace deteriorates. so you need a third party, a government, to engage in maintaining the environment by setting environmental regulations and enforcing them. the marketplace WILL NOT TAKE CARE OF THIS PROBLEM ON ITS OWN IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER
i say: leave to the marketplace issues that progress in the marketplace can solve
but that does not describe all of the problems in the world
irrefutable fact you need to learn: the marketplace is not where all progress in the world takes place, and does not answer every question that needs answering. this sort of marketplace fundamentalism some morons believe in is a simpleton's ideology that needs to die
because the american consumer won't buy it
the american consumer won't buy it, because the american consumer is complacent about fossil fuels
sometimes you need to foot the bill, you need a strong central government to force the issue, because the market place won't solve the problem
market forces are NOT the source of all progress in this world
the government needs to step in, overruuling the whining conservatards, and mandate what consumers can buy and what manufacturers can make
why?
because:
1. the technology will prove itself as more economically viable than fossil fuels once the recharging infrastructure is in place and technology improves
2. fossil fuels are going to become more expensive no matter what, simply because it will get harder and harder to dig up, and more and more demand is growing world wide. we can prepare for the future now or suffer more
3. the geopolitical reality is that soccer moms refueling their SUVs are paying for gasbags like chavez in venezuela, islamic nutjobbery via saudi wahabbism, and russian neoimperialism. that comes back to bite us in the ass. but those geopolitical realities, that soccer mom is paying for, is completely decoupled form her considerations when she shops for a new SUV
4. the environment. yes, conservatards, we need to tackle the endless dumping of CO2 in the atmosphere. begin your al gore jokes and your head in the fucking sand
the issue is not that current battery technology can't adequately replace typical american highway needs
of course it can't
the issue is american car companies aren't even trying to solve the problem. meaning there is no advances in the technology that could make the replacement economically efficient
there is also the issue of american consumers, who will blindly buy SUVs while they send their sons and daughters to die in the middle east to fight for the oilfields needed to drive their precious SUVs
what is needed obviously is strong american legislation that will mandate battery recharging infrastructure and non-fossil fuel dependent car design
but of course, the conservatards will whine "socialism"
you know what conservatards? sometimes you need a large government and strong regulations. no, really, you really do
the market will NOT take care of itself on some issues
simple market dynamic only drives us into the status quo, since consumer demand is not coupled with the geopolitical realities about fossil fuels
government policy is the only way out of this mess. strong government regulation from a strong and powerful central government
market forces aren't cutting it. market forces don't drive progress on all issues
wake the fuck up conservatards
taking a silly throwaway joke and analyzing it in complete seriousness
at a bus stop, twelve passengers get on a bus. at the next stop, thirteen get off
theologian: "a miracle! a miracle!"
biologist: "reproduction in action"
physicist: "measurement error. roughly nine percent statistical deviation is within acceptable tolerance ranges"
mathematician: "if one person gets in, the bus is empty again"
plutocrats?
has declared Pluto to be a dog
so there
until it can be rephrased in such a way that it asserts the ascendency of physicists over mathematicians. or the ascendency of mathematicians over physcists. i need to keep score. joke form is acceptable
what god has revealed, in his infinite wisdom, to an internet troll ;-)
who wishes us to believe dinosaurs could evolve to hold a basketball. the holy truth is of course intelligent dribbling, probably taught by 3 point all star jesus himself to intelligent basketball playing dinosaurs on jurassic half courts
since its unenforceable, its no big deal
but you are disregarding the issue of intent
simple actual effect is not the only grounds on which we can, and should, legally proceed, on this question or any other
that's why we can try people for attempted murder. but according to you, someone is innocent until they actually murder someone. that if they try to murder someone, and fail, according to your approach they get off scott free. wrong. or consider the riaa: their reason for being is to stop music piracy. their tactic of suing grandmothers and students of course has zero effect. but according to you, since their intent is unfulfilled, they can't be prosecuted on the grounds of having an legally questionable purpose (nevermind being prosecuted for the secondary damage to their main purpose, of extortion of people of limited means)
no, your entire argument completely disregards the notion of intent, which is a completely valid legal concept
if someone attempts to squash your freedom of speech, they have violated the spirit of the law, if not technically successful
and they are therefore wrong, morally, and legally
have an aura of being more secure than ie or microsoft, simply because they have been tested less than ie or microsoft, simply because they have less market penetration, and therefore less hackers aim their minds at firefox or mac than at ie or microsoft. in other words, ie and microsoft are more "battlehardened" than firefox or mac
if you were a general in a war, and you had to choose between two guns, and
gun #1: backfires and kills the gunman every 1,000 rounds, as proven by solid combat use
gun #2: backfires and kills the gunman every unknown number of rounds, unproven in combat use
you tend to choose gun #1. because you are a GENERAL, which is a type of bureaucrat, which is a person who is extremely conservative and careful. you are not the r&d department
this is the thinking of the bureaucrats in colorado, who, like all government figureheads, are extremely conservative careful and slow on the uptake. as they SHOULD be. it is not the job of government to suggest the less battle tested. that is your job
just make sure you have enough wisdom that you don't expect a bureaucrat to act like a progressive. sorry, not in the job description. you will nowhere on the face of this earth find a government mandarin who is risk taking and countercultural and daring in their thinking
therefore, the error is not in the official word of the state of colorado. the error is yours: expecting a government figurehead to be a progressive influence
is simple humanism
i support your desire to destroy religious and nationalistic bases for morality
but unless you replace the substandard form of moralities you outline above with another morality of your own choosing, you are a nihilist, and are therefore worse in effect on your world than any of the examples you cite above
yes ;-)