3 centuries from now, your cerebral ipv8 interface will deliver you ads for enzyte ver 9.0: increase your penis size through multidimensional fractalization
sure, when you catch these charlatans, punish them
but as long as you respect free will, you are going to have to make peace with the fact that someone somewhere will be victimized by their own ignorance
we need creationists, 9/11 truthers, ufo cultists, racists, etc. and we need people to be exposed to them. and we need them to be exposed to it, a lot. such people serve a civic duty: a cautionary tale
an often overlooked consequence of free speech is that by allowing really really stupid things to be said out loud by a dimwitted fringe few, it trains the rest of us to have stronger minds. the only real protection any of us have against falsehood is a good bullshit meter. and the only way any of us develop a good bullshit meter is to expose it to bullshit
its the principle of developing stronger muscles by working them out against increasing levels of resistance. we develop stronger minds by exposing our minds to increasing levels of well-crafted idiotic things. of course, those of you with well-developed minds don't get much out of the 5 pound dumbbell that is some of the incredibly stupid things we are exposed to, like creationism or 9/11 truthers. but what of the 13 year old? what of the young boy or girl who is just beginning their cognitive life?
for them, their first cognitive test at detecting bullshit are these soft serve easy pitches of incredibly stupid idiocies like 9/11 truthers and creationists. it is for their sake we tolerate the continuing existence of such stupid thought. and if the 13 year old were not exposed to creationists or 9/11 truthers? SOMETHING has to train their bullshit meter, or they won't develop one
notice i am not espousing that creationism or 9/11 truthers actually get any respect or money or time in the classroom, just that they be allowed to make their idiotic arguments unfettered by those of us who know better. it is odious for us to hear them, but we must let them speak
it is a common fallacy, and it is amazing that someone as supposedly as wise as berners-lee should fall for this common fallacy, that society should protect us from ourselves. i guess the thinking is that a lot of people are out there are believing bullshit they shouldn't be believing, and that someone some magical societal protection will save them from themselves
impossible: you can't save stupid people from being stupid
there is just a constant background noise of gullible people in all societies, in all time periods, in all cultures, forever, who will believe absolutely idiotic things, and nothing, i repeat, nothing you do will save them from their fate
stupid people exist, get used to it, make peace with the fact that some people are just unsalvageable
if you prevent stupid people from believing in idiotic things they find on the internet, they will find some other media channel to find something stupid to believe in. and if you filter all media channels, they will invent something of their own stupidity to believe in. it is impossible to save some people in this world. they are a problem that can't be prevented, just damage to route around
this is an unfortunate but unavoidable aspect of respecting the free will of those around you. and not respecting their free will, by somehow magically filtering "truth" for them, is simply something worse, not least of which because a good personal bullshit meter is your best protection, and you won't develop a good bullshit meter in an antiseptic magical world of only "truth". you will get flabby minds that are in fact MORE gullible, not less, in a world of only "truth"
but if your decision making process is under the effect of a disease OF your decision making organ, then you aren't making decisions based on your free will
therefore, the decision to commit suicide by someone mentally ill cannot be respected, if you respect free will
in fact, all suicides who have been stopped or unsuccessful have reached a point later in their life where they were glad they didn't succeed
its amazing what modern psychopharmacology is capable of. its not a permanent state, whatever your mental illness
suicide by the sound of body, but unsound of mind, can never be respected, in logical accord with the idea of respecting free will
1. sound of mind, unsound of body: suicide is ok. euthanasia is morally sound for the terminally ill
2. unsound of mind, sound of body: suicide is not ok. if you are mentally ill, that casts a question mark over your decision making abilities. as such, a decision to end your life when you are not mentally sound is not a decision anyone else should respect, simply because it is not free will which is guiding the decision
gunman grabs an innocent hostage, holds the innocent hostage between himself and law enforcement. law enforcement still has a shot at the gunman, but there is a real risk he can hurt the hostage
moral dilemma: do you take a shot at the gunman?
this scenario, in fact, is not esoteric, it is pretty much the dilema of all law enforcement, period. because perpetrators are always attempting to elude capture by entangling innocents in their retreat
for example: do you engage in a high speed chase with a perpetrator for a minor crime? you are in fact putting innocent lives at risk for doing this. this dilemma happens every day, in every legal jurisdiction on the planet, and will continue to happen forever
ALL perpetrators for any crime realize they can dissuade law enforcement by involving innocent victims in their retreat. your intellectual dishonesty or intellectual misperception is that it is law enforcement involving innocent people in the captruing of perpetrators. no, it is the perpetrator who surrounds himself with innocents in order to escape capture
so law enforcement continually, on a real time basis, needs to make snap judgments that take into account the relative risk of harming innocents in capturing a perpetrator, versus the amount of manpower required to do so, versus the the heinousness of the crime that demands action or not. its all one humongous grey area with a ton of moral hazard with potential horrible consequences. its not easy at all, and mistakes WILL be made. welcome to the world of law enforcement
this is real life. your scenario is not weird, it is every day. and the answer to your scenario?: get used to it. there is no answer to your scenario other than: yes, innocent people are often, and will always continue to be harmed in the capture of criminals in this world. forever
if to you this seems cold and callous, consider that letting perpetrators of crimes off without any justice is even worse for this world
furthermore, you need to recognize that is the perpetrator that involves innocents in his capture, not law enforcement
deal with it. this constant jeopardy is the way the entire world works. its not pretty
i'd leave the videos up, and have google regularly feed me the ips of whomever watches them
the videos will be gotten, youtube or not
so it is far better for youtube to function as a honeypot, rather than not to have any value at all
of course 99% of viewers will be harmless curious dorks. its the datamining correlation with activity on a given ip address that is of interest for homing in on that 1%
a straight A previous graduate of the class returns and slaughters everybody
when asked about the appropriateness of this event, the professor shrugs and mumbles something about trying to be more kid-friendly
and that maybe he should have had an outside advisor look over the syllabus first, rather than just furiously typing it out in one evening and posting it without any peer review
when asked for feedback at the end of class, most students evaluated the class thusly: "showed a lot of promise at first, but failed to capitalize on goodwill and got rather lukewarm and stultified at the end"
he certainly mistakenly kills civilians with his policies, certainly. and for this there is remorse and attempt at restitution. do you see al qaeda feeling sorry for killing innocents?
not that i agree with gw bush. not that i don't think gw bush is a complete moron
but to equate what gw bush does with what a group that tries to kill complete innocents on purpose and by surprise is not intellectually honest of you
let's put it this way:
1. guy falls asleep behind a wheel of a truck and crashes into a school bus, killing 10. he feels absolutely awful about it
2. guy purposefully tracks school buses coming and going, carefully calculating and planning for months when to strike and kill as many kids as possible, but he only kills 5
guy #1 kills 2x more than guy #2. but who is more evil? it is why in most societies there is a legal difference between murder and manslaughter. one is evil, the other is stupid. gw bush most certainly is not a terrorist, just a retard
the issue with this parade is public displays of sexuality, something that would be equally disgusting were it a heterosexual event
shamelessness about sexuality is a genuine problem, i agree with you. so outlaw it, i agree with you. no one wants to see you getting it on in public. if you don't understand that, you should be punished. its a valid issue
but that some people have a problem with being shameless in public is nothing unique to homosexuality
so please, outlaw this disgusting parade. i support you on that effort
but don't think this parade is a direct result of gay rights or being gay. that's not intellectually honest of you. public shamelessness about sexuality is not unique to gay people. would you be equally disgusted if everything at this parade were geared around homosexual activities? of course you would. so be honest about what you really have a problem with here, and sotp trying to substitute it for an entirely unrelated issue
Slashdot Mirror
put everything on one disk drive, unRAIDed. when it fails, problem solved. voila, built in obsolescence
addictive personality -> substance abuse
(yes, i said abuse, not use, as no one NEEDS to use mind-altering drugs substances on a regular basis unless they are mentally unfit)
addictive personality -> online gaming
online gaming is nothing more than digital crack
now mod me into oblivion
then someone should port the terror scenarios to an fps
SERGEANT BILKO WENT INSANE DUE TO WHAT HAPPENED HERE, can you survive?
have existed for centuries
3 centuries from now, your cerebral ipv8 interface will deliver you ads for enzyte ver 9.0: increase your penis size through multidimensional fractalization
sure, when you catch these charlatans, punish them
but as long as you respect free will, you are going to have to make peace with the fact that someone somewhere will be victimized by their own ignorance
you mean like the iq test is a bell curve? and half are below 100 and half are above?
this is a travesty, how are we ever going to make sure that everyone is above 100?
pfffffffffft
stupid people exist. deal with it. nothing you will ever do will change that
if you can't make peace with that fact, you cast some doubt on your supposed intelligence
that someone who believes some of the utterly stupid things you've listed above, can actually be saved and converted into a rational free thinker?
no: they are waste, you can't save the stupid from themselves
however, they do serve a purpose: as a cautionary example, to train young minds NOT to be so stupid
you honestly believe you can save the stupid from themselves? that you can get stupid people to stop thinking stupid things? you believe that?
no one can train you what to think
all you can do is expose people to issues and arguments, and their mind grapples with it
Yeah, because it's real hard work for our brains when we have to analyze obvious, "really stupid things."
read my comment again. what is easy work for the well-developed mind is hard work for say, a 13 year old mind just beginning the journey
we need creationists, 9/11 truthers, ufo cultists, racists, etc. and we need people to be exposed to them. and we need them to be exposed to it, a lot. such people serve a civic duty: a cautionary tale
an often overlooked consequence of free speech is that by allowing really really stupid things to be said out loud by a dimwitted fringe few, it trains the rest of us to have stronger minds. the only real protection any of us have against falsehood is a good bullshit meter. and the only way any of us develop a good bullshit meter is to expose it to bullshit
its the principle of developing stronger muscles by working them out against increasing levels of resistance. we develop stronger minds by exposing our minds to increasing levels of well-crafted idiotic things. of course, those of you with well-developed minds don't get much out of the 5 pound dumbbell that is some of the incredibly stupid things we are exposed to, like creationism or 9/11 truthers. but what of the 13 year old? what of the young boy or girl who is just beginning their cognitive life?
for them, their first cognitive test at detecting bullshit are these soft serve easy pitches of incredibly stupid idiocies like 9/11 truthers and creationists. it is for their sake we tolerate the continuing existence of such stupid thought. and if the 13 year old were not exposed to creationists or 9/11 truthers? SOMETHING has to train their bullshit meter, or they won't develop one
notice i am not espousing that creationism or 9/11 truthers actually get any respect or money or time in the classroom, just that they be allowed to make their idiotic arguments unfettered by those of us who know better. it is odious for us to hear them, but we must let them speak
it is a common fallacy, and it is amazing that someone as supposedly as wise as berners-lee should fall for this common fallacy, that society should protect us from ourselves. i guess the thinking is that a lot of people are out there are believing bullshit they shouldn't be believing, and that someone some magical societal protection will save them from themselves
impossible: you can't save stupid people from being stupid
there is just a constant background noise of gullible people in all societies, in all time periods, in all cultures, forever, who will believe absolutely idiotic things, and nothing, i repeat, nothing you do will save them from their fate
stupid people exist, get used to it, make peace with the fact that some people are just unsalvageable
if you prevent stupid people from believing in idiotic things they find on the internet, they will find some other media channel to find something stupid to believe in. and if you filter all media channels, they will invent something of their own stupidity to believe in. it is impossible to save some people in this world. they are a problem that can't be prevented, just damage to route around
this is an unfortunate but unavoidable aspect of respecting the free will of those around you. and not respecting their free will, by somehow magically filtering "truth" for them, is simply something worse, not least of which because a good personal bullshit meter is your best protection, and you won't develop a good bullshit meter in an antiseptic magical world of only "truth". you will get flabby minds that are in fact MORE gullible, not less, in a world of only "truth"
isn't true compassion about helping the suicide choose life over death?
if the temperature in a boiler goes over 200 degrees and the boiler becomes broken, it might be useful to discard the boiler at that point. right?
well, what if the thermometer itself is broken? how can you make a valid decision when the tools you use to make that decision are warped?
such as it is with mental illness: there is no free will involved. decisions are being made under duress
would you respect the decision of a man to kill himself when there is a guy standing by his side hammering his head with a shovel?
so why do you respect the decision of a man to kill himself when he depressed? schizoid? same duress, same lack of free will involved
especially since there are psychoactive compounds nowadays rthat can make that guy with a shovel dissipate
what is wrong with you people?
we all know deep in our hearts it is the decepticons
is a valid conceptual demarcation
there you will find that i condone euthanasia
suicide due to mental illness is not the same thing
the idea is to respect free will
but if your decision making process is under the effect of a disease OF your decision making organ, then you aren't making decisions based on your free will
therefore, the decision to commit suicide by someone mentally ill cannot be respected, if you respect free will
in fact, all suicides who have been stopped or unsuccessful have reached a point later in their life where they were glad they didn't succeed
its amazing what modern psychopharmacology is capable of. its not a permanent state, whatever your mental illness
suicide by the sound of body, but unsound of mind, can never be respected, in logical accord with the idea of respecting free will
the rules are simple:
1. sound of mind, unsound of body: suicide is ok. euthanasia is morally sound for the terminally ill
2. unsound of mind, sound of body: suicide is not ok. if you are mentally ill, that casts a question mark over your decision making abilities. as such, a decision to end your life when you are not mentally sound is not a decision anyone else should respect, simply because it is not free will which is guiding the decision
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/02/england.plea/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22598582/
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2007/02/2008525135351125887.html
anything else i can help you with?
has no moral implications
i see
perhaps a beam of antiprotons pointed at athens will solve the problem
say, a nontechnical interface for the household environment
i got an idea!
gunman grabs an innocent hostage, holds the innocent hostage between himself and law enforcement. law enforcement still has a shot at the gunman, but there is a real risk he can hurt the hostage
moral dilemma: do you take a shot at the gunman?
this scenario, in fact, is not esoteric, it is pretty much the dilema of all law enforcement, period. because perpetrators are always attempting to elude capture by entangling innocents in their retreat
for example: do you engage in a high speed chase with a perpetrator for a minor crime? you are in fact putting innocent lives at risk for doing this. this dilemma happens every day, in every legal jurisdiction on the planet, and will continue to happen forever
ALL perpetrators for any crime realize they can dissuade law enforcement by involving innocent victims in their retreat. your intellectual dishonesty or intellectual misperception is that it is law enforcement involving innocent people in the captruing of perpetrators. no, it is the perpetrator who surrounds himself with innocents in order to escape capture
so law enforcement continually, on a real time basis, needs to make snap judgments that take into account the relative risk of harming innocents in capturing a perpetrator, versus the amount of manpower required to do so, versus the the heinousness of the crime that demands action or not. its all one humongous grey area with a ton of moral hazard with potential horrible consequences. its not easy at all, and mistakes WILL be made. welcome to the world of law enforcement
this is real life. your scenario is not weird, it is every day. and the answer to your scenario?: get used to it. there is no answer to your scenario other than: yes, innocent people are often, and will always continue to be harmed in the capture of criminals in this world. forever
if to you this seems cold and callous, consider that letting perpetrators of crimes off without any justice is even worse for this world
furthermore, you need to recognize that is the perpetrator that involves innocents in his capture, not law enforcement
deal with it. this constant jeopardy is the way the entire world works. its not pretty
i'd leave the videos up, and have google regularly feed me the ips of whomever watches them
the videos will be gotten, youtube or not
so it is far better for youtube to function as a honeypot, rather than not to have any value at all
of course 99% of viewers will be harmless curious dorks. its the datamining correlation with activity on a given ip address that is of interest for homing in on that 1%
a straight A previous graduate of the class returns and slaughters everybody
when asked about the appropriateness of this event, the professor shrugs and mumbles something about trying to be more kid-friendly
and that maybe he should have had an outside advisor look over the syllabus first, rather than just furiously typing it out in one evening and posting it without any peer review
when asked for feedback at the end of class, most students evaluated the class thusly: "showed a lot of promise at first, but failed to capitalize on goodwill and got rather lukewarm and stultified at the end"
he certainly mistakenly kills civilians with his policies, certainly. and for this there is remorse and attempt at restitution. do you see al qaeda feeling sorry for killing innocents?
not that i agree with gw bush. not that i don't think gw bush is a complete moron
but to equate what gw bush does with what a group that tries to kill complete innocents on purpose and by surprise is not intellectually honest of you
let's put it this way:
1. guy falls asleep behind a wheel of a truck and crashes into a school bus, killing 10. he feels absolutely awful about it
2. guy purposefully tracks school buses coming and going, carefully calculating and planning for months when to strike and kill as many kids as possible, but he only kills 5
guy #1 kills 2x more than guy #2. but who is more evil? it is why in most societies there is a legal difference between murder and manslaughter. one is evil, the other is stupid. gw bush most certainly is not a terrorist, just a retard
purposefully or propagandistically
the issue with this parade is public displays of sexuality, something that would be equally disgusting were it a heterosexual event
shamelessness about sexuality is a genuine problem, i agree with you. so outlaw it, i agree with you. no one wants to see you getting it on in public. if you don't understand that, you should be punished. its a valid issue
but that some people have a problem with being shameless in public is nothing unique to homosexuality
so please, outlaw this disgusting parade. i support you on that effort
but don't think this parade is a direct result of gay rights or being gay. that's not intellectually honest of you. public shamelessness about sexuality is not unique to gay people. would you be equally disgusted if everything at this parade were geared around homosexual activities? of course you would. so be honest about what you really have a problem with here, and sotp trying to substitute it for an entirely unrelated issue
freudian slip!
funny on a number of levels too ;-)
i have no problem with fission on the moon. my post was a very bad attempt at humor, and failed utterly