while shipping container datacenters get all of the news today, google has realized that a shipping container just isn't very sexy
meanwhile, imagine a full rack of server hardware, effortlessly streaming youtube movies and search returns, all the while cruising at mach 1 above the rockies
as in, theocracy. as actually stated in the country's constitution
not theocracy. as in determined by propaganda-addled fools
theocracy is actually the reality in iran: the mullahs decide who runs and who doesn't, they in fact disqualified a popular reformist against ahmadinejad. now if the pope decided who could run for us president or not, you would have a point. but since this is not reality, you're simply a blind partisan hack. typical, dumb, useless
you trust a theocracy with a nuclear weapon. a THEOCRACY, as in, grumpy old men who have a monopoly on the word of god. is this a demonization or a fair description of religious fundamentalists my dear atheist friend?
"the US is a theocracy"
United States Constitution Bill of Rights Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
compare and contrast with the iranian constitution
you are biased, and this is the third time you have been unable to qualify your acceptance of a theocracy with nukes, solely on consideration of that government alone
"Your turn. remember, if you mention israel or the usa in your articulation of why iran can have the bomb, you have an invalid opinion."
Bullshit, You do not define the terms of discussion, much as you would like to set up a straw man.
To make it plain you have no right to limit this discussion to what YOU want to limit it to.
i do not define the terms of the discussion. i am only the messenger. don't shoot the messenger. my message, about the reality you inhabit, is simple: if you are unable to consider iran's right to have a nuclear weapon or not solely on the merits or lack thereof of the government of iran, you have an opinion which is not logically valid
somewhere in the usa is a blindly pro-american fool, who believes everything gw bush says. that fool is your intellectual equal, because you are blindly anti-american. the intellectual superior of the blindly pro-american is not the blindly anti-american. no, the intellectual superior of the blindly pro-american AND the blindsly anti-american is the person who can articulate opinions about the world WITHOUT IT STARTING WITH THE USA. because the usa is not the sole actor in the world. true or false? show me someone who can formulate opinions on the issues in this world not seen through the prism of "the usa is evil" OR "the usa is good" and you will show me an intellectually honest individual with an open mind. the only morally and intellectually consistent point of view about global issues is an unbiased one. you don't have that sir. therefore, your opinions are deficient and invalid
don't like my opinion of you? then be able to articulate to me an opinion about iran that does not revolve around the usa. this is not me dictating the terms of the discussion, this is me informing you of the only logical framework in which your opinions have any weight in the reality you live in
you are unable to see past your hatred of the united states. meanwhile, my rationale and thinking is neither pro-usa, nor anti-usa. my opinion does not involve the usa. it is formulated simply on a consideration of iran's government. this makes my opinion sound, unbiased, and fair. you, on the other hand, are a blind, ignorant victim of propaganda. you are unable to enunciate to me an opinion about iran without blathering on about the united states. IRAN IS NOT THE UNITED STATES. do you understand that? based on your words, you don't. you think the usa pulls a string, and iran jumps. you think american actions dictate responsibility for iranian actions. this is incredibly ignorant, condescending, and ethnocentric of you. you see iran not as a coherent entity capable of responsibility and accountability, but as a simple reflection of western actions. this is patronizing of you to iranians. you have a colonialist attitude to noneuropean parts of the world. in your thinking, a colonial european is responsible and accountable. but noneuropeans, in your thinking, are not responsible or accountable, but merely reflections of what europeans do. why are so racist towards iranians?
my thinking of iran considers iran as responsible for its own
1. it helps when criticising someone to not commit the same crime you criticize them of. i leave it to your vast superior intellect to understand what i am talking about (snicker)
2.
However, that aside, take a system where you have paper ballots and holes to punch out. Would you find that more or less reliable than having a computer terminal for every vote and that computer printed out a human-readable "recipt" for every vote that the person takes and drops into the vote bucket with the hole-puncher? Well, there have been numerous cases of hole-punching being flawed (chads and such) and that's paper voting, and yet there isn't a single case I know of where human-readable printed ballots from an e-box were confusing to the counters. As such, an e-voting system is necessarily less ambiguous and less exploitable than the non-e-system I'm comparing it to.
If you disagree, then you fail at logic.
i disagree, and i shall use logic to dismantle your assertion
a. observation: system a is more complicated than system b
deduction: system a has more avenues for exploitation and failure than system b
b. observation: electronic voting is more complicated than paper voting
deduction: for every example you can give me of paper voting breaking down or being exploited, i can give you many more of electronic voting breaking down and being exploited
feel free in your vast command of logic and reason to dismantle my religious rant. i won't conclude by saying "If you disagree, then you fail at logic."
because you know, i wouldn't want to appear to be a member of some irational religion that feels is it impervious and perfect;-)
if you can frame your opinion about iran having the bomb or not without mentioning the usa or israel at all, then you have a valid opinion. if you are unable to do that, then you only have a poisonous tribal, nationalist chest thumping bias. simple as that
i'm glad you do not have a problem with iran having a bomb. i await your response to me for your rationale for that without mentioning the usa or israel. if you can't do that, i consider your opinion incoherent. until you give me your opinion for iran's right to have the bomb, only mentioning iran and its qualities, not the usa or israel, then you don't have a valid opinion. as the issue with iran having the bomb or not, has to do with iran. and only has to do with describing iran's capacities. do you get that? or are your biased blinders completely blocking out any logic and reason?
since i am not hypocrite, i will explain my rationale to you for me opposing iran having the bomb without mentioning the usa or israel. fair enough?
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;
now, all other countries with a nuclear weapon are not theocracies. of course, religion holds a vast sway in many countries with a nuclear weapon, but they are still republics. some countries with the bomb are run by people who are religious. but their power is curtailed by the rules of their country's constitution, which is not overtly based on religion. if you wanted to say, erroneously, that other countries are generally equivalent to iran in terms of religious influence, you would have to give me something like: the pope has to approve of all presidential candidates in that country's ballot, or they are denied the right to run for office (this is how it works in iran, if you didn't know)
it does not work this way in any other nuclear armed country. if a president of another country woke up tomorrow, and said god told him to nuke iran, he couldn't do that, as he does not hold the ultimate power to do that in his country
but in iran, the ultimate decision to use nukes rests with grumpy old men who claim a monopoly on their ability to interpret the will of god. these same grumpy old men are the ultimate power in iran, they trump ahmadinejad
you don't see a problem there? you don't see something intrinsically different there than any other country? iran, having nukes, is genuinely different than every other country that has the bomb
the principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction) works because the leader of a country doesn't want to see children from his country dead in the street, which is what he would get, if he nuked another country with nuclear weapons
you are not a luddite if you oppose electornic voting. you are simply someone with a better grasp of what is exactly being risked and what is exactly being gained. as in: trust and integrity in your government being risked, and slight pointless convenience being gained
electronic voting is the greatest threat to democracy in the world today
electronic voting in any democracy is wrong. it is nothing about americans or brazilians, it is baout putting your trust in a system which is more easily exploitable
do you think electornic voting is more or less exploitable than paper voting?
if you think it is less exloitable, you fail at logic
assume system a is more complex than system b. out of a simple logical conseuqence of it being more complex, it has many more avenues for exploitation in it
you need the cooperation of dozens of campaign workers to make small, easily identifiable dents in a national election with paper voting. losing boxes of records, adding fake ones... this takes work and cooperation and planning and an airtight conspiracy of dozens. with electornic voting, you need 300 milliseconds and one well-placed hacker to ghost over millions of records in statistically invisible ways, without any outward signs of tampering
living in hiroshima or nagasaki, said to you that they distrust iran more than the usa with the bomb, because it is a theocracy, and a theocracy thinks death is a gateway to paradise, and therefore iran would not have any problem using the bomb like russia or france, what would you say to this japanese person?
"If the US stopped behaving like, as you put it like a bad hollywood movie plot, the whole world would be better off."
absolutely 100% true. it is possible to oppose iran and not support the usa. it is possible to oppose iran and the usa at the same time. so when you hear me oppose iran, do not automatically assume i am pro-usa. furthermore, attacking the usa does not in any way attack me, or my words, or my position on iran getting the bomb
do you see that now? is it possible now for you to think about the words i am saying to you without the blinders of anti-america, or pro-america? do you think you can do that? or are you hopelessly biased about america? america is not the issue. IRAN is. understand yet?
"Iran is simply not really a threat to anyone"
this is a country whose leader repeatedly talking about wiping israel off the face of the earth. if i said that was a problem, do i have to be pro-israel to think that is a problem? or is it possible i can think that is a problem simply because i view any threat by any country to another country to be a problem?
to be against iran getting the bomb does not mean you need be pro-american or pro-israel, but simply concerned about religious fundamentalists with a nuclear bomb
religious fundamentalists with a nuclear bomb
that doesn't bother you?
religious fundamentalists with a nuclear bomb
can you examine that issue and deliver an opinion about that without your bias about america getting in the way? or can you only talk about iran and the bomb as framed as a pro- or anti-american issue?
in which case, you would simply be part of the problem in this world: your mind has been turned off, and you have turned into a braindead partisan
frame your opinion about iran having the bomb or not without mentioning the usa or israel at all, and you have a valid opinion. if you ar eunable to do that, you have a poisonous tribal, nationalist chest thumping bias. simple as that
people can use computers, television, and the car, but they don't have to trust them. in fact, they don't. the tv has the biased media on it. the computer spies on them with cookies. the car is always breaking down. sure, they still use thes tools, but that's not a question of trust going on with these things in the same way it is going on with their voting system. you do not have the same relationship you have with your tools that oyu have with your social environment
a government is a purely human construct. its all about social structure and where you fit into it. its all about trusting or not trusting the other people around you. its a completely different dynamic. and a sliver of doubt about how the social hierarchy around you works can only grow if you are dealing with a black box voting system
what i'm saying is that your allegories are unsound
if you want to stand for no moral or even intellectually honest position, go ahead and put out your snipers
small clue for you: you don't effectively defend the integrity of the united states by abandoning all the principles your country is supposed to stand for
so in truth, your snipers would do more to dissolve american territorial integrity than protect it, because the existence of those snipers would weaken the will of the american people to believe its territory is worth defending
you have to stand for a set of principles, or you stand for nothing at all. standing for principles is what makes america great, woudln't you agree? well, snipers on the border makes you so disgusting, your lack of principles so heinous, that such an america would be a place that i, and most americans, would openly wage guerrilla war with
and that wouldn't be treason, that would be true patriotism
the day your snipers exist on the border, is the day america isn't american anymore. which is a strange thing to realize, since you are so keen on keeping out the mexicans and keeping america "american"
in truth, if you want to put snipers on the border, you aren't a real american. i say this in judgment of your beliefs, regardless of your ancestry. in fact, i would suspect some of those mexicans sneaking into our country have a better udnerstanding of what this country stands for than you do, if you honestly propose snipers on the border
and for that reason, i welcome those mexicans with open arms, and propose your deportation
in the name of strengthening america and standing for true american values
the bias is yours, thinking that what underlines the actions of other countries is american actions. responsibility for everything in the world does not lead to washington dc. who is responsible for iran having nukes? IRAN is, and ONLY iran. to see it another way is, frankly, condescending to iranians. that they have no motivations or desires of their own, that they are merely cardboard cut out reflections of western actions. that's patronizing of you
if i see a child punch another child, and so i kick that child in the face, who is repsonsible for me kicking a child in the face? i am, according to any coherent logic or morality
but you wish to tell us iran is pursuing nuclear weapons because the usa invaded iraq. this is like saying the fault for me kicking a child in the face is the child's, for punching another kid. that the fault of the woman who got beat by her husband is her's, for wearing that dress he forbid her to wear. YOU are responsible for YOUR actions. IRAN is repsonsible for IRAN'S actions. get it? any other way of thinking about iran's actions is morally and intellectually incoherent, and patronizing and condescending to iranians
let's put it another way: the usa is solely responsible for invading iraq. according to your logic, i could say that saddam hussein is responsible for the usa invading iraq. of course this is absurd. but this rationale would be 100% in line with how you view the world, were you a braindead pro-american rather than a braindead anti-american
so do you smell bias?
yes. i am biased against those who can't think about the world they live in without viewing it through pro-american or anti-american blinders. i am able to view the world as it is, with many players on the stage other than washington dc. i am impartial. you, however, are a braindead partisan
you put forth the sort of braindead propaganda that imagines the world works like a bad hollywood movie plot, a cartoon, and it seriously questions your ability to judge how and why things really happen the way they do in this world
iran is its own entity. it is not a puppet of the usa. when you see iran do something, question iran's agenda, not the usa's. iran does nothing it doesn't think is good for iran. the world has slightly more players in it than the only player you seem capable of looking at
could be made 100% secure, foolproof, etc., it should still not be used
simply because of the PERCEPTION of what happens to your vote in electronic voting
it is a black box. your votes go in, sausage comes out. meanwhile, a piece of paper has no secrets. it stays in a box, it can retallied. it can be messed with and falsified and burned, sure. but not with such ease and not in so many quick secret and immensely powerful ways electrons or magnetic marks on a disk can be messed with
all nations should use paper ballots, doesn't matter how rich they are. joe schmoe needs to touch and feel and smell his vote. voting machines and electronic voting represents a black box system, and therefore represents too much fundamental distrust. distrust undermines the legitimacy of democratically elected governments in the eyes of the people
it is not good enough that joe schmoe vote in absolute security and privacy and integrity. joe schmoe must also BELIEVE that. but in an irreducibly black box system, distrust is inescapable
electronic voting is the greates threat to democracy, ever. no ideological system or intolerant set of beliefs can undermine faith in democracy more than a method of tallying votes that the technofetishist loves, but the general populace views with suspicion
you don't need to say "gee whiz" when you vote
we need to end electronic voting, in the name of strengthening democracy
the principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction) worked in the cold war between the usa and the ussr because russian leaders did not want to see dead russian children and american leaders did not want to see dead american children
meanwhile, iran is a theocracy
the deeply religious believe the afterlife is a glorious reward for the righteous, an eden. in its war with iraq, iran sent children with little wooden keys around their necks to clean up minefields. the keys were the keys to heaven. how is a death a deterent for those who see death as a reward? how do you deter iranian leaders when they think dead iranian children are in a better place?
a theocracy with a bomb should give everyone a special pause
iran with the bomb is different and unique when considering any other country that currently has the bomb
iran really should not get the bomb. no theocracy should
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;
now, all other countries with a nuclear weapon are not theocracies. of course, religion holds a vast sway in many countries with a nuclear weapon, but they are still republics. the usa, for example, is currently run by a devout southern baptist. but his power is curtailed by the rules of his country's constitution, which is not overtly based on religion. if you wanted to say, erroneoussly, that the usa was generally equivalent to iran in terms of religious influence, you would have to give me something like: the pope has to approve of all presidential candidates in the us ballot, or they are denied the right to run for office (this is how it works in iran)
it does not work this way in pakistan. it does not work this way in israel. it doesn't work this way in any other nuclear armed country. if gw bush woke up tomorrow, and said god told him to nuke iran, he couldn't do that, as he does not hold the ultimate power to do that
but in iran, the ultimate decision to use nukes rests with grumpy old men who claim a monopoly on their ability to interpret the will of god. these same grumpy old men are the ultimate power in iran, they trump ahmadinejad
you don't see a problem there? you don't see something intrinsically different there than any other country? iran, having nukes, is genuinely different than every othe rcountry that has the bomb
pro-usa, or anti-usa, the facts about iran, because it is a theocracy, should scare you about iran having nukes, and give you special pause, unlike when you consider any other country with a nuke
we are talking about a theocracy, with nuclear weapons. no matter WHAT your ideological attitude, towards any country in the world: doesn't this fact give you pause, and doesn't it worry you uniquely?
so yes, i say, not as a pro-american, or an anti-american, but simply as a human being wary of the influence of fundamentalist religion in this world, that iran having the nuclear weapon is something especially worrisome, and stands out as especially dangerous, than all countries with nukes. simply because they are a theocracy
khan got them via a variety of means: dutch, chinese sources. but this isn't to blame the dutch or chinese like you blame the usa. the best way to describe the truth and ascribe blame for pakistan having nukes is that pakistan wanted nukes like india had, so it went out and got them. the fault of pakistan having nukes is... drum roll please... pakistan's
for you to suggest that the usa "gave" nukes to pakistan is a sort of braindead propaganda that imagines the world works like a bad hollywood movie plot, a cartoon, and seriously questions your ability to judge how and why things really happen in this world. pakistan is its own entity. it is not a puppet of the usa. when you see pakistan do something, question pakistan's agenda, not the usa's. pakistan does nothing it doesn't think is good for pakistan. the world has slightly more players in it than the only player you look at
"And why is Israel the only country allowed to have nukes without international oversight?"
ok, you go tell israel it can't have nukes. you get the security council to unilaterally insist israel give up its nukes or face invasion or economic isolation. would israel give up its nukes then?
no. because the reason israel has nukes is because israel wants nukes. there is no dark secret cabal secretly protecting israel's right to have nukes. it is more acccurate to say that the international consensus is that it is bad tha tisrael has nukes, it is dangerous, but at the same time, everyone accepts that they won't be persuaded to get rid of them
so why is it that in your mind, this acceptance of the inevitable is some sort of purposeful endorsement?
international inspection teams in the usa, sounds like a good idea
it is possible to oppose iran and not support the usa. it is possible to oppose iran and the usa at the same time. so when you hear me oppose iran, do not automatically assume i am pro-usa
Slashdot Mirror
http://entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/24/1449236
now Bill Gates buys a thinking tank of borgs, cubed, or whatever
on that note, i'm now going to go buy a subway sandwich, footlong, in utter mediocrity
while shipping container datacenters get all of the news today, google has realized that a shipping container just isn't very sexy
meanwhile, imagine a full rack of server hardware, effortlessly streaming youtube movies and search returns, all the while cruising at mach 1 above the rockies
now that's some seriously sexy IT hardware
a software movement founded on getting around ip restrictions being used to enforce those ip restrictions
next you'll tell me the chinese communist party is actually hypercapitalist
ok now wait, bad example
i think it would be more of hassle trying get a linux distro, than a free available-everywhere pirate of a windows os
as in, theocracy. as actually stated in the country's constitution
not theocracy. as in determined by propaganda-addled fools
theocracy is actually the reality in iran: the mullahs decide who runs and who doesn't, they in fact disqualified a popular reformist against ahmadinejad. now if the pope decided who could run for us president or not, you would have a point. but since this is not reality, you're simply a blind partisan hack. typical, dumb, useless
ambulating whimsically about the countryside
until the day it wandered into an AT-AT retirement farm, during mating season
let me tell you, it's not fun to be in a house on legs being humped by a horny AT-AT
my fat cells are killing my heart cells
might as well sacrifice a few of them to give back what they took
congratulations
you've utterly defeated and humbled me beyond the pale
i stand here in abject pain at how thoroughly you have spanked my rotten ways
i am now reeducated:
(drum roll)
a paper and a pencil are more complicated than a computer kiosk
(!?)
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
you sir, are a fucking retard, beneath even a consideration of intellectual charity
adios, stubborn moron
theocracy
nuclear bomb
put the two concepts together in your mind, tell me what your mind comes up with
k thx
xoxoxoxoxoxox
fucking retard
is this a demonization or a fact?
you trust a theocracy with a nuclear weapon. a THEOCRACY, as in, grumpy old men who have a monopoly on the word of god. is this a demonization or a fair description of religious fundamentalists my dear atheist friend?
"the US is a theocracy"
compare and contrast with the iranian constitution
you are biased, and this is the third time you have been unable to qualify your acceptance of a theocracy with nukes, solely on consideration of that government alone
"Your turn. remember, if you mention israel or the usa in your articulation of why iran can have the bomb, you have an invalid opinion."
Bullshit, You do not define the terms of discussion, much as you would like to set up a straw man.
To make it plain you have no right to limit this discussion to what YOU want to limit it to.
i do not define the terms of the discussion. i am only the messenger. don't shoot the messenger. my message, about the reality you inhabit, is simple: if you are unable to consider iran's right to have a nuclear weapon or not solely on the merits or lack thereof of the government of iran, you have an opinion which is not logically valid
somewhere in the usa is a blindly pro-american fool, who believes everything gw bush says. that fool is your intellectual equal, because you are blindly anti-american. the intellectual superior of the blindly pro-american is not the blindly anti-american. no, the intellectual superior of the blindly pro-american AND the blindsly anti-american is the person who can articulate opinions about the world WITHOUT IT STARTING WITH THE USA. because the usa is not the sole actor in the world. true or false? show me someone who can formulate opinions on the issues in this world not seen through the prism of "the usa is evil" OR "the usa is good" and you will show me an intellectually honest individual with an open mind. the only morally and intellectually consistent point of view about global issues is an unbiased one. you don't have that sir. therefore, your opinions are deficient and invalid
don't like my opinion of you? then be able to articulate to me an opinion about iran that does not revolve around the usa. this is not me dictating the terms of the discussion, this is me informing you of the only logical framework in which your opinions have any weight in the reality you live in
you are unable to see past your hatred of the united states. meanwhile, my rationale and thinking is neither pro-usa, nor anti-usa. my opinion does not involve the usa. it is formulated simply on a consideration of iran's government. this makes my opinion sound, unbiased, and fair. you, on the other hand, are a blind, ignorant victim of propaganda. you are unable to enunciate to me an opinion about iran without blathering on about the united states. IRAN IS NOT THE UNITED STATES. do you understand that? based on your words, you don't. you think the usa pulls a string, and iran jumps. you think american actions dictate responsibility for iranian actions. this is incredibly ignorant, condescending, and ethnocentric of you. you see iran not as a coherent entity capable of responsibility and accountability, but as a simple reflection of western actions. this is patronizing of you to iranians. you have a colonialist attitude to noneuropean parts of the world. in your thinking, a colonial european is responsible and accountable. but noneuropeans, in your thinking, are not responsible or accountable, but merely reflections of what europeans do. why are so racist towards iranians?
my thinking of iran considers iran as responsible for its own
you must be a communist muslim supported by jewish money
like mccain
(i'm being funny, but yes, there are people who actually think like this)
1. it helps when criticising someone to not commit the same crime you criticize them of. i leave it to your vast superior intellect to understand what i am talking about (snicker)
2.
i disagree, and i shall use logic to dismantle your assertion
a. observation: system a is more complicated than system b
deduction: system a has more avenues for exploitation and failure than system b
b. observation: electronic voting is more complicated than paper voting
deduction: for every example you can give me of paper voting breaking down or being exploited, i can give you many more of electronic voting breaking down and being exploited
feel free in your vast command of logic and reason to dismantle my religious rant. i won't conclude by saying "If you disagree, then you fail at logic."
because you know, i wouldn't want to appear to be a member of some irational religion that feels is it impervious and perfect ;-)
if you can frame your opinion about iran having the bomb or not without mentioning the usa or israel at all, then you have a valid opinion. if you are unable to do that, then you only have a poisonous tribal, nationalist chest thumping bias. simple as that
i'm glad you do not have a problem with iran having a bomb. i await your response to me for your rationale for that without mentioning the usa or israel. if you can't do that, i consider your opinion incoherent. until you give me your opinion for iran's right to have the bomb, only mentioning iran and its qualities, not the usa or israel, then you don't have a valid opinion. as the issue with iran having the bomb or not, has to do with iran. and only has to do with describing iran's capacities. do you get that? or are your biased blinders completely blocking out any logic and reason?
since i am not hypocrite, i will explain my rationale to you for me opposing iran having the bomb without mentioning the usa or israel. fair enough?
that's the constitution of iran
it describes a theocracy
now, all other countries with a nuclear weapon are not theocracies. of course, religion holds a vast sway in many countries with a nuclear weapon, but they are still republics. some countries with the bomb are run by people who are religious. but their power is curtailed by the rules of their country's constitution, which is not overtly based on religion. if you wanted to say, erroneously, that other countries are generally equivalent to iran in terms of religious influence, you would have to give me something like: the pope has to approve of all presidential candidates in that country's ballot, or they are denied the right to run for office (this is how it works in iran, if you didn't know)
it does not work this way in any other nuclear armed country. if a president of another country woke up tomorrow, and said god told him to nuke iran, he couldn't do that, as he does not hold the ultimate power to do that in his country
but in iran, the ultimate decision to use nukes rests with grumpy old men who claim a monopoly on their ability to interpret the will of god. these same grumpy old men are the ultimate power in iran, they trump ahmadinejad
you don't see a problem there? you don't see something intrinsically different there than any other country? iran, having nukes, is genuinely different than every other country that has the bomb
the principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction) works because the leader of a country doesn't want to see children from his country dead in the street, which is what he would get, if he nuked another country with nuclear weapons
meanwhile, iran is a theocra
you are not a luddite if you oppose electornic voting. you are simply someone with a better grasp of what is exactly being risked and what is exactly being gained. as in: trust and integrity in your government being risked, and slight pointless convenience being gained
electronic voting is the greatest threat to democracy in the world today
electronic voting in any democracy is wrong. it is nothing about americans or brazilians, it is baout putting your trust in a system which is more easily exploitable
do you think electornic voting is more or less exploitable than paper voting?
if you think it is less exloitable, you fail at logic
assume system a is more complex than system b. out of a simple logical conseuqence of it being more complex, it has many more avenues for exploitation in it
you need the cooperation of dozens of campaign workers to make small, easily identifiable dents in a national election with paper voting. losing boxes of records, adding fake ones... this takes work and cooperation and planning and an airtight conspiracy of dozens. with electornic voting, you need 300 milliseconds and one well-placed hacker to ghost over millions of records in statistically invisible ways, without any outward signs of tampering
do you see the issues at work now?
living in hiroshima or nagasaki, said to you that they distrust iran more than the usa with the bomb, because it is a theocracy, and a theocracy thinks death is a gateway to paradise, and therefore iran would not have any problem using the bomb like russia or france, what would you say to this japanese person?
"If the US stopped behaving like, as you put it like a bad hollywood movie plot, the whole world would be better off."
absolutely 100% true. it is possible to oppose iran and not support the usa. it is possible to oppose iran and the usa at the same time. so when you hear me oppose iran, do not automatically assume i am pro-usa. furthermore, attacking the usa does not in any way attack me, or my words, or my position on iran getting the bomb
do you see that now? is it possible now for you to think about the words i am saying to you without the blinders of anti-america, or pro-america? do you think you can do that? or are you hopelessly biased about america? america is not the issue. IRAN is. understand yet?
"Iran is simply not really a threat to anyone"
this is a country whose leader repeatedly talking about wiping israel off the face of the earth. if i said that was a problem, do i have to be pro-israel to think that is a problem? or is it possible i can think that is a problem simply because i view any threat by any country to another country to be a problem?
to be against iran getting the bomb does not mean you need be pro-american or pro-israel, but simply concerned about religious fundamentalists with a nuclear bomb
religious fundamentalists with a nuclear bomb
that doesn't bother you?
religious fundamentalists with a nuclear bomb
can you examine that issue and deliver an opinion about that without your bias about america getting in the way? or can you only talk about iran and the bomb as framed as a pro- or anti-american issue?
in which case, you would simply be part of the problem in this world: your mind has been turned off, and you have turned into a braindead partisan
frame your opinion about iran having the bomb or not without mentioning the usa or israel at all, and you have a valid opinion. if you ar eunable to do that, you have a poisonous tribal, nationalist chest thumping bias. simple as that
people can use computers, television, and the car, but they don't have to trust them. in fact, they don't. the tv has the biased media on it. the computer spies on them with cookies. the car is always breaking down. sure, they still use thes tools, but that's not a question of trust going on with these things in the same way it is going on with their voting system. you do not have the same relationship you have with your tools that oyu have with your social environment
a government is a purely human construct. its all about social structure and where you fit into it. its all about trusting or not trusting the other people around you. its a completely different dynamic. and a sliver of doubt about how the social hierarchy around you works can only grow if you are dealing with a black box voting system
what i'm saying is that your allegories are unsound
if you want to stand for no moral or even intellectually honest position, go ahead and put out your snipers
small clue for you: you don't effectively defend the integrity of the united states by abandoning all the principles your country is supposed to stand for
so in truth, your snipers would do more to dissolve american territorial integrity than protect it, because the existence of those snipers would weaken the will of the american people to believe its territory is worth defending
you have to stand for a set of principles, or you stand for nothing at all. standing for principles is what makes america great, woudln't you agree? well, snipers on the border makes you so disgusting, your lack of principles so heinous, that such an america would be a place that i, and most americans, would openly wage guerrilla war with
and that wouldn't be treason, that would be true patriotism
the day your snipers exist on the border, is the day america isn't american anymore. which is a strange thing to realize, since you are so keen on keeping out the mexicans and keeping america "american"
in truth, if you want to put snipers on the border, you aren't a real american. i say this in judgment of your beliefs, regardless of your ancestry. in fact, i would suspect some of those mexicans sneaking into our country have a better udnerstanding of what this country stands for than you do, if you honestly propose snipers on the border
and for that reason, i welcome those mexicans with open arms, and propose your deportation
in the name of strengthening america and standing for true american values
xoxoxoxoxoxox
actually, i was referring to a scratch and sniff voting system
"hmmm... obama"
scrathscrathscratch
"yay! smells like jesus and cupcakes! ok, now... mccain"
scrathscrathscratch
"uggh. smells like depends and denture cream"
the bias is yours, thinking that what underlines the actions of other countries is american actions. responsibility for everything in the world does not lead to washington dc. who is responsible for iran having nukes? IRAN is, and ONLY iran. to see it another way is, frankly, condescending to iranians. that they have no motivations or desires of their own, that they are merely cardboard cut out reflections of western actions. that's patronizing of you
if i see a child punch another child, and so i kick that child in the face, who is repsonsible for me kicking a child in the face? i am, according to any coherent logic or morality
but you wish to tell us iran is pursuing nuclear weapons because the usa invaded iraq. this is like saying the fault for me kicking a child in the face is the child's, for punching another kid. that the fault of the woman who got beat by her husband is her's, for wearing that dress he forbid her to wear. YOU are responsible for YOUR actions. IRAN is repsonsible for IRAN'S actions. get it? any other way of thinking about iran's actions is morally and intellectually incoherent, and patronizing and condescending to iranians
let's put it another way: the usa is solely responsible for invading iraq. according to your logic, i could say that saddam hussein is responsible for the usa invading iraq. of course this is absurd. but this rationale would be 100% in line with how you view the world, were you a braindead pro-american rather than a braindead anti-american
so do you smell bias?
yes. i am biased against those who can't think about the world they live in without viewing it through pro-american or anti-american blinders. i am able to view the world as it is, with many players on the stage other than washington dc. i am impartial. you, however, are a braindead partisan
you put forth the sort of braindead propaganda that imagines the world works like a bad hollywood movie plot, a cartoon, and it seriously questions your ability to judge how and why things really happen the way they do in this world
iran is its own entity. it is not a puppet of the usa. when you see iran do something, question iran's agenda, not the usa's. iran does nothing it doesn't think is good for iran. the world has slightly more players in it than the only player you seem capable of looking at
lose your bias
could be made 100% secure, foolproof, etc., it should still not be used
simply because of the PERCEPTION of what happens to your vote in electronic voting
it is a black box. your votes go in, sausage comes out. meanwhile, a piece of paper has no secrets. it stays in a box, it can retallied. it can be messed with and falsified and burned, sure. but not with such ease and not in so many quick secret and immensely powerful ways electrons or magnetic marks on a disk can be messed with
all nations should use paper ballots, doesn't matter how rich they are. joe schmoe needs to touch and feel and smell his vote. voting machines and electronic voting represents a black box system, and therefore represents too much fundamental distrust. distrust undermines the legitimacy of democratically elected governments in the eyes of the people
it is not good enough that joe schmoe vote in absolute security and privacy and integrity. joe schmoe must also BELIEVE that. but in an irreducibly black box system, distrust is inescapable
electronic voting is the greates threat to democracy, ever. no ideological system or intolerant set of beliefs can undermine faith in democracy more than a method of tallying votes that the technofetishist loves, but the general populace views with suspicion
you don't need to say "gee whiz" when you vote
we need to end electronic voting, in the name of strengthening democracy
the principle of MAD (mutually assured destruction) worked in the cold war between the usa and the ussr because russian leaders did not want to see dead russian children and american leaders did not want to see dead american children
meanwhile, iran is a theocracy
the deeply religious believe the afterlife is a glorious reward for the righteous, an eden. in its war with iraq, iran sent children with little wooden keys around their necks to clean up minefields. the keys were the keys to heaven. how is a death a deterent for those who see death as a reward? how do you deter iranian leaders when they think dead iranian children are in a better place?
a theocracy with a bomb should give everyone a special pause
iran with the bomb is different and unique when considering any other country that currently has the bomb
iran really should not get the bomb. no theocracy should
etc.
that's the constitution of iran
it describes a theocracy
now, all other countries with a nuclear weapon are not theocracies. of course, religion holds a vast sway in many countries with a nuclear weapon, but they are still republics. the usa, for example, is currently run by a devout southern baptist. but his power is curtailed by the rules of his country's constitution, which is not overtly based on religion. if you wanted to say, erroneoussly, that the usa was generally equivalent to iran in terms of religious influence, you would have to give me something like: the pope has to approve of all presidential candidates in the us ballot, or they are denied the right to run for office (this is how it works in iran)
it does not work this way in pakistan. it does not work this way in israel. it doesn't work this way in any other nuclear armed country. if gw bush woke up tomorrow, and said god told him to nuke iran, he couldn't do that, as he does not hold the ultimate power to do that
but in iran, the ultimate decision to use nukes rests with grumpy old men who claim a monopoly on their ability to interpret the will of god. these same grumpy old men are the ultimate power in iran, they trump ahmadinejad
you don't see a problem there? you don't see something intrinsically different there than any other country? iran, having nukes, is genuinely different than every othe rcountry that has the bomb
pro-usa, or anti-usa, the facts about iran, because it is a theocracy, should scare you about iran having nukes, and give you special pause, unlike when you consider any other country with a nuke
we are talking about a theocracy, with nuclear weapons. no matter WHAT your ideological attitude, towards any country in the world: doesn't this fact give you pause, and doesn't it worry you uniquely?
so yes, i say, not as a pro-american, or an anti-american, but simply as a human being wary of the influence of fundamentalist religion in this world, that iran having the nuclear weapon is something especially worrisome, and stands out as especially dangerous, than all countries with nukes. simply because they are a theocracy
khan got them via a variety of means: dutch, chinese sources. but this isn't to blame the dutch or chinese like you blame the usa. the best way to describe the truth and ascribe blame for pakistan having nukes is that pakistan wanted nukes like india had, so it went out and got them. the fault of pakistan having nukes is... drum roll please... pakistan's
for you to suggest that the usa "gave" nukes to pakistan is a sort of braindead propaganda that imagines the world works like a bad hollywood movie plot, a cartoon, and seriously questions your ability to judge how and why things really happen in this world. pakistan is its own entity. it is not a puppet of the usa. when you see pakistan do something, question pakistan's agenda, not the usa's. pakistan does nothing it doesn't think is good for pakistan. the world has slightly more players in it than the only player you look at
"And why is Israel the only country allowed to have nukes without international oversight?"
ok, you go tell israel it can't have nukes. you get the security council to unilaterally insist israel give up its nukes or face invasion or economic isolation. would israel give up its nukes then?
no. because the reason israel has nukes is because israel wants nukes. there is no dark secret cabal secretly protecting israel's right to have nukes. it is more acccurate to say that the international consensus is that it is bad tha tisrael has nukes, it is dangerous, but at the same time, everyone accepts that they won't be persuaded to get rid of them
so why is it that in your mind, this acceptance of the inevitable is some sort of purposeful endorsement?
international inspection teams in the usa, sounds like a good idea
it is possible to oppose iran and not support the usa. it is possible to oppose iran and the usa at the same time. so when you hear me oppose iran, do not automatically assume i am pro-usa