russia tinkers in british affairs. china tinkers in american affairs. cuba tinkers in angolan affairs
etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum
most every country that exists and has ever existed and will ever exist has tinkered in the affairs of other countries
and you want to do two things:
1. conveniently forget all tinkering by any country except american tinkering 2. leverage that american tinkering into direct accountability by the usa for whatever bullshit someone else does
example: britian, france, russia, china, and the usa all had arms deals with iraq. but we'll forget all of that and just think about the usa. next, saddam hussein gassed kurds. so obviously, the usa is responsible for that
this is your superior understanding of the world?
your example of this kind of bullshit is saying this:
1. an american gas company had dealings with the house of saud. you are conveniently forgetting the involvement of companies and businesses from almost every nation on earth in saudi arabia
2. the house of saud does bad things. therefore, the usa is directly responsible for whatever it is that is done
i find this bias of yours
1. sheltered. you are only aware of western and american activites in the world, none else 2. condescending and patronizing. only westerners and americans can ever be responsible for their actions. other people can't?
people like you just blow my mind. you have this incredible bias, and you will stretch accountability and responsiblity into the most incredibly creative lines of reasoning, and not once think "hmmm, maybe other governments and peoples in this world are capable of doing bad things?"
how do people like you function?
i for one, think maybe i can't beat you, i should join you
but my bias is anti-philippines:
1. the philippines has 800,000 guest workers in saudi arabia. we all know that the filipino is a wily manipulator, so this means the philippines is responsible for what happens in saudi arabia now 2. saudi arabia is the source of a most of the hijackers on 9/11. it is impossible that most of those saudi hijakers didn't meet and conspire with of one of those 800,000 filipinos at some point
therefore, the philippine government is 100% repsonsible for 9/11
then explain rulings in northern nigeria, saudi arabia, iran, wazuristan, baluchistan, etc., that propose punishments completely out of proportion to the crimes. in the name of sharia law. dozens of times. in recent years
i make flip flops called supershoes. they are wonderful flip flops. millions of people buy them
then some vile guys come and start making defective flip flops, and label them the same as my supershoes. people start tripping and breaking their legs, it's an awful situation
1. am i responsible for those broken legs? absolutely not 2. am i reponsible for shutting down those vile guys making cheap dangerous knockoffs? absolutely
critical question: what if i never shut these guys down? what if these guys keep making defective flip flops?
answer: my supershoe label begins to suffer in the eyes of the general public. my supershoe label gets watered downed, cheapened, mistrusted. the wonder and glory of the supershoe fades into history. do you care baout how great supershoes are? then shut down the imitators. but if you are unwilling or unable to do that, and vile imitations of supershoes continue to be made unresisted, then the image of supershoes will suffer. simple as that
the catholic church bears no blame for what rogue catholic terrorists do. but the catholic church bears complete responsibility and accountability for shutting these terrorists down, doing everything they can to aggrssively distance themselves from these terorrists, before they cheapen catholicism. and if they can't or won't do that? then catholicism as a brand suffers in the eyes of the world
if there is a true peaceful islam, and a vile terrorist perversion of islam, but the true peaceful islam has no ability or desire to destroy those who pervert islam, then the image of islam gets warped, in the eyes of nonmuslims AND the eyes of muslims. where is the greatness and justice of islam if it canot control these madmen acting in its name? this is a question a nonmuslim and a muslim can ask. these madmen cheapen islam. therefore it is with the greatest priority in the name of the greatness of islam for these madment o be stopped by muslims. if one truly loves islam, one goes about destroying those who pervert it
and no, that's not danish cartoons. that's mujahedin who suicide bomb women and children, most shockingly, mostly fellow muslims... in the name of islam
and yet, there's all these people walking around in so-called supershoes, breaking their legs, and no one seems willing or able to stop them
i don't know how to disprove that stability and prosperity in society flows from a healthy justice system. and i don't know of a healthy justice system that metes out punishments that are too harsh or too mild
as a rule, religious fundamentalism asserts that human nature must be confined to narrow bands of behavior. so therefore logically ones life is constrained. so i am referring to a poverty of life experience, range of thoughts, not just financial impoverishment
however, one can prove that a financially rich society is built upon innovation and novel inventions which uproot the status quo. and that more of these accumulate in a society that encourages a mind to wander rather than a society that insists a mind stay rooted in one small space
so in fact i think that you can very much make the logical inference that religious fundamentalism makes society poor, both in life experience, and in actual financial well-being, since it can be shown that encouraging young minds to question the status quo leads to more minds wandering to more new and novel places that enrich all of us, culturally and financially, while a society that enforces rigid adherence leads to mediocre minds that dar enot stray from the straight and narrow
that sharia law is a larger legal framework than its most fringe pronouncements, and the majroity is mild and not undifferent from most law in the west in terms of severity of punishment. sharia law in egypt would not condone what sharia law in wazuristan would propose. and yet right now, in part sof this world, in the name of sharia law, barbarity occurs. that's a problem
and i would go further and say that law based on religious teachings in general is inherently unjust. look at the barbaric violence and thoughts and words in the torah, the bible, and the quran. this is not justice. the idea of a just and tolerant society would be one founded on the law of man, humane laws, not the law of god. for the simplest of reasons: show me the man who says he can understand and interpret the law of god and i'll show you a man who is deluded and arrogant. what man has the audacity to say to you or me or any of us with a straight face that they can adequately interpret the will of god? and yet such men in sharia law exist. no, that's not morality
christian fundamentalists are just as wrong as muslim fundamentalists
but it doesn't take a genius to see that currently the muslim world has a bigger problem with fundamentalist assholes destroying muslim societies than the christian world does
when the christian world was busy clubbing each other in the dark ages, the muslim world was making advances in algebra, alchemy, alcohol, algorithms... notice a trend in those words?
the christian world was once as dogmatic and fascist religiously as the muslim world is now. then the christian world went throught the enlightment, in which religious fundamentalism was questioned, and rejected. and ever since then the christian world has gained in terms of scientific advancement and prosperity as compared to the muslim world, while the muslim world stagnated into poverty and backwardness as religious fundamentalism took root
so i have nothing against islam. i simply understand history and see a cycle between religious dogmatism and enlightment. and i recognize correctly that currently the christian world is more enlightened than the muslim world and the muslim world is full of more religious fascism than the christian world. currently. once, that situation was reversed. and it could reverse again
so why does recognizing this obvious historical cycle fact make me anti-muslim? i'm not anti-muslim at all for saying any of these obvious things. i'm simply anti-fundamentalist, and i simply understand the cycles of fundamentalist peak and wane are separate in the muslim and christian worlds. currently, the muslim world suffers a horrible fundamentalist growth much larger than the christian world currently does
the $100 was never yours in the first place, so it is never taken back from you. it is returned to the rightful owner completely. it was never yours, ever, to ever be considered as something taken back from you. the way you are thinking about the situation is simply not the moral way to think about the situation
the $100 doesn't even figure into the punishment calculation. the act of stealing does. get it?
do you understand what morality is? apparently not based on how you frame it in your comment above
that is, that punishing a crime, real or perceived, with a punishment that is worse than the crime is not actually justice or morality
upload a song, owe thousands may not be as awful as steal some bread, have your hand chopped off, or commit adultery, get stoned to death, but the riaa's tactics shares with religious fundamentalist notions of justice this same disproportionate massive punishment for comparatively mild crimes
it's very simple: you don't teach anyone to respect morality with fear and terror. you just teach them that fear and terror are more important than morality
they need to learn that lesson in rural yemen as much as they do in riaa headquarters
a truly just society is one that metes out punishments that are milder than the actual crimes being punished (but not too mild, just milder). in such a way does a society provide stability and a respect for justice. if the punishments are too severe or too mild in comparison to the crimes, then justice is disrespected, not served, and society is destabilized and impoverished as a result
the impoverishments under religious fundamentalism are apparent. the impoverishments unde rriaa tactics are simply less cultural riches for us all
and they have these twin blue led lights mounted above the rear view mirror pointed diagonally down. i can't figure how to turn them off. i thought they were for reading maps at night. perhaps honda's r&d guys are ahead of the curve here?
so there is absolutely no one firewall tools will help? you can't imagine how a curious student might be able to get the tools and pass them out to friends? this escapes your imagination or is impossible for you to contemplate as a possibility? everyone who wants the info already has clean unfettered access?
are you continuing to try to make a stupid point out of sheer stubbornness or what?
the firewall tools will let more people get more info. it will enable curiosity that is not being fulfilled now, it will get into hands through various channels
i can't possibly believe you are trying to tell me otherwise, that you can't imagine how the obvious isn't obvious
where do you live? hong kong? taiwan? is it possible that your ability to access is a little superior than someone in nanjing? harbin? lanzhou? you can't imagine someone there who would like info but can't get it? who would get tools and spread them around? do you need some asshole in new york city to make you aware of the obvious? really?
please tell me you are just arguing out of stubbornness
and i don't care who you are. all i know is that whatever your points are, they seem inane and frivolous
here's my point, across which all of your points break: the more access there is to more media sources, no matter what the source, and the more you are allowed to pursue that media without fear of repercussion or censure, the healthier the body politic, and the healthier the society
meanwhile, your points fall secondary to that, and they do not overrule my larger point. such that the conclusions you seem to be making amount to little more than counterproductive cynicism about humanity. for example: yes, you can have all the free media you want, you're still going to have uninterested fools. no shit. this is true of all societies
but the whole point is you will have LESS uninformed fools. and if that fact carries no weight with you, if that point fails to make an impression on you, then you're an empty useless negative cynic
your position is that censorship and propaganda don't actually effect people's opinions, and people's opinions stand as they would whether they had completely unfettered access to info, or completely limited access to info
i wish i could be more diplomatic, but i'm sorry i can't: you're a total moron if you really believe that. if you're just playing devil's advocate, you fail
you are basically making the argument that it doesn't matter how tainted or censored your media is. i'm sorry, you're not a moron. you're a stupid asshole
walling yourself off from the world makes your country go into decline. all countries need an exchange of ideas with the outer world to prosper. the grumpy old men in beijing are controlling bastards, but they aren't stupid
even if only the elite chinese get (censored) access to the outside world, it's still useful to write guerilla apps that help the elite get uncensored info. actually, that's the case now: the mass of the interior of china is still poor, only the rich and middle class on the coastal cities are getting real internet access
Slashdot Mirror
four words:
lead lined shipping container
how you going to stop that until it is in newport news virginia or elizabeth new jersey and it is too late?
signed,
the taxpayers funding your security projects
russia tinkers in british affairs. china tinkers in american affairs. cuba tinkers in angolan affairs
etc., etc., etc., ad nauseum
most every country that exists and has ever existed and will ever exist has tinkered in the affairs of other countries
and you want to do two things:
1. conveniently forget all tinkering by any country except american tinkering
2. leverage that american tinkering into direct accountability by the usa for whatever bullshit someone else does
example: britian, france, russia, china, and the usa all had arms deals with iraq. but we'll forget all of that and just think about the usa. next, saddam hussein gassed kurds. so obviously, the usa is responsible for that
this is your superior understanding of the world?
your example of this kind of bullshit is saying this:
1. an american gas company had dealings with the house of saud. you are conveniently forgetting the involvement of companies and businesses from almost every nation on earth in saudi arabia
2. the house of saud does bad things. therefore, the usa is directly responsible for whatever it is that is done
i find this bias of yours
1. sheltered. you are only aware of western and american activites in the world, none else
2. condescending and patronizing. only westerners and americans can ever be responsible for their actions. other people can't?
people like you just blow my mind. you have this incredible bias, and you will stretch accountability and responsiblity into the most incredibly creative lines of reasoning, and not once think "hmmm, maybe other governments and peoples in this world are capable of doing bad things?"
how do people like you function?
i for one, think maybe i can't beat you, i should join you
but my bias is anti-philippines:
1. the philippines has 800,000 guest workers in saudi arabia. we all know that the filipino is a wily manipulator, so this means the philippines is responsible for what happens in saudi arabia now
2. saudi arabia is the source of a most of the hijackers on 9/11. it is impossible that most of those saudi hijakers didn't meet and conspire with of one of those 800,000 filipinos at some point
therefore, the philippine government is 100% repsonsible for 9/11
sounds pretty stupid and funny, right?
now you know you sound
2. everyone
that says justice and morality exist
do you believe those things exist?
do you believe, civilization, progress, prosperity is possible without the fighting of evil?
it's policework man, not cosmic clashes
comes from simple humanism that almost every human being learns in kindergarten
there is no need for an invisble skyman to explain the perfectly reasonable
that is apparent to almost everyone
please explain to me in your worldview who bears the responsibility for stopping those who do evil in the name of something
if someone does evil in the name of a religion
1. should they be stopped?
2. who should stop them?
answer those questions
is universally not worthy of being punished with your hand cut off or death by stoning
of course, you can find me someone who thinks so. that doesn't make them correct. morality is not relative, it is absolute
if a bunch of guys in a small town believe that jaywalking should be punished by death, does this make this true in that small town?
absolutely not
then explain rulings in northern nigeria, saudi arabia, iran, wazuristan, baluchistan, etc., that propose punishments completely out of proportion to the crimes. in the name of sharia law. dozens of times. in recent years
i make flip flops called supershoes. they are wonderful flip flops. millions of people buy them
then some vile guys come and start making defective flip flops, and label them the same as my supershoes. people start tripping and breaking their legs, it's an awful situation
1. am i responsible for those broken legs? absolutely not
2. am i reponsible for shutting down those vile guys making cheap dangerous knockoffs? absolutely
critical question: what if i never shut these guys down? what if these guys keep making defective flip flops?
answer: my supershoe label begins to suffer in the eyes of the general public. my supershoe label gets watered downed, cheapened, mistrusted. the wonder and glory of the supershoe fades into history. do you care baout how great supershoes are? then shut down the imitators. but if you are unwilling or unable to do that, and vile imitations of supershoes continue to be made unresisted, then the image of supershoes will suffer. simple as that
the catholic church bears no blame for what rogue catholic terrorists do. but the catholic church bears complete responsibility and accountability for shutting these terrorists down, doing everything they can to aggrssively distance themselves from these terorrists, before they cheapen catholicism. and if they can't or won't do that? then catholicism as a brand suffers in the eyes of the world
if there is a true peaceful islam, and a vile terrorist perversion of islam, but the true peaceful islam has no ability or desire to destroy those who pervert islam, then the image of islam gets warped, in the eyes of nonmuslims AND the eyes of muslims. where is the greatness and justice of islam if it canot control these madmen acting in its name? this is a question a nonmuslim and a muslim can ask. these madmen cheapen islam. therefore it is with the greatest priority in the name of the greatness of islam for these madment o be stopped by muslims. if one truly loves islam, one goes about destroying those who pervert it
and no, that's not danish cartoons. that's mujahedin who suicide bomb women and children, most shockingly, mostly fellow muslims... in the name of islam
and yet, there's all these people walking around in so-called supershoes, breaking their legs, and no one seems willing or able to stop them
i don't know how to disprove that stability and prosperity in society flows from a healthy justice system. and i don't know of a healthy justice system that metes out punishments that are too harsh or too mild
as a rule, religious fundamentalism asserts that human nature must be confined to narrow bands of behavior. so therefore logically ones life is constrained. so i am referring to a poverty of life experience, range of thoughts, not just financial impoverishment
however, one can prove that a financially rich society is built upon innovation and novel inventions which uproot the status quo. and that more of these accumulate in a society that encourages a mind to wander rather than a society that insists a mind stay rooted in one small space
so in fact i think that you can very much make the logical inference that religious fundamentalism makes society poor, both in life experience, and in actual financial well-being, since it can be shown that encouraging young minds to question the status quo leads to more minds wandering to more new and novel places that enrich all of us, culturally and financially, while a society that enforces rigid adherence leads to mediocre minds that dar enot stray from the straight and narrow
that sharia law is a larger legal framework than its most fringe pronouncements, and the majroity is mild and not undifferent from most law in the west in terms of severity of punishment. sharia law in egypt would not condone what sharia law in wazuristan would propose. and yet right now, in part sof this world, in the name of sharia law, barbarity occurs. that's a problem
and i would go further and say that law based on religious teachings in general is inherently unjust. look at the barbaric violence and thoughts and words in the torah, the bible, and the quran. this is not justice. the idea of a just and tolerant society would be one founded on the law of man, humane laws, not the law of god. for the simplest of reasons: show me the man who says he can understand and interpret the law of god and i'll show you a man who is deluded and arrogant. what man has the audacity to say to you or me or any of us with a straight face that they can adequately interpret the will of god? and yet such men in sharia law exist. no, that's not morality
i have nothing against islam
christian fundamentalists are just as wrong as muslim fundamentalists
but it doesn't take a genius to see that currently the muslim world has a bigger problem with fundamentalist assholes destroying muslim societies than the christian world does
when the christian world was busy clubbing each other in the dark ages, the muslim world was making advances in algebra, alchemy, alcohol, algorithms... notice a trend in those words?
the christian world was once as dogmatic and fascist religiously as the muslim world is now. then the christian world went throught the enlightment, in which religious fundamentalism was questioned, and rejected. and ever since then the christian world has gained in terms of scientific advancement and prosperity as compared to the muslim world, while the muslim world stagnated into poverty and backwardness as religious fundamentalism took root
so i have nothing against islam. i simply understand history and see a cycle between religious dogmatism and enlightment. and i recognize correctly that currently the christian world is more enlightened than the muslim world and the muslim world is full of more religious fascism than the christian world. currently. once, that situation was reversed. and it could reverse again
so why does recognizing this obvious historical cycle fact make me anti-muslim? i'm not anti-muslim at all for saying any of these obvious things. i'm simply anti-fundamentalist, and i simply understand the cycles of fundamentalist peak and wane are separate in the muslim and christian worlds. currently, the muslim world suffers a horrible fundamentalist growth much larger than the christian world currently does
understand?
steal $100, go to jail
what about the $100?
the $100 was never yours in the first place, so it is never taken back from you. it is returned to the rightful owner completely. it was never yours, ever, to ever be considered as something taken back from you. the way you are thinking about the situation is simply not the moral way to think about the situation
the $100 doesn't even figure into the punishment calculation. the act of stealing does. get it?
do you understand what morality is? apparently not based on how you frame it in your comment above
that is, that punishing a crime, real or perceived, with a punishment that is worse than the crime is not actually justice or morality
upload a song, owe thousands may not be as awful as steal some bread, have your hand chopped off, or commit adultery, get stoned to death, but the riaa's tactics shares with religious fundamentalist notions of justice this same disproportionate massive punishment for comparatively mild crimes
it's very simple: you don't teach anyone to respect morality with fear and terror. you just teach them that fear and terror are more important than morality
they need to learn that lesson in rural yemen as much as they do in riaa headquarters
a truly just society is one that metes out punishments that are milder than the actual crimes being punished (but not too mild, just milder). in such a way does a society provide stability and a respect for justice. if the punishments are too severe or too mild in comparison to the crimes, then justice is disrespected, not served, and society is destabilized and impoverished as a result
the impoverishments under religious fundamentalism are apparent. the impoverishments unde rriaa tactics are simply less cultural riches for us all
and they have these twin blue led lights mounted above the rear view mirror pointed diagonally down. i can't figure how to turn them off. i thought they were for reading maps at night. perhaps honda's r&d guys are ahead of the curve here?
story title not misleading enough to create enough false excitement
should have gone with
"Room Temperature Superconducting Revolutionizes All Technology"
or
"All Energy Problems Solved with Room Temperature Superconducting, Peace Reigns in the Middle East Forever"
or
"Dogs and Cats Living Together, Your High School Crush Promises You Undying Love, All with the Power of Room Temperature Superconductivity"
there, those are better misleading story titles for creating false excitement
shove his body into jupiter, and start the ignition of the star child
so there is absolutely no one firewall tools will help? you can't imagine how a curious student might be able to get the tools and pass them out to friends? this escapes your imagination or is impossible for you to contemplate as a possibility? everyone who wants the info already has clean unfettered access?
are you continuing to try to make a stupid point out of sheer stubbornness or what?
the firewall tools will let more people get more info. it will enable curiosity that is not being fulfilled now, it will get into hands through various channels
i can't possibly believe you are trying to tell me otherwise, that you can't imagine how the obvious isn't obvious
what do the logistics and curiosity on display in this story mean to you then? (my submission) if you can understand the censorship and desire and distribution in cuba in the abstract sense, why do you think these concepts do not also apply to chinese censorship and desire and distribution there? what does supply and demand mean to you?
where do you live? hong kong? taiwan? is it possible that your ability to access is a little superior than someone in nanjing? harbin? lanzhou? you can't imagine someone there who would like info but can't get it? who would get tools and spread them around? do you need some asshole in new york city to make you aware of the obvious? really?
please tell me you are just arguing out of stubbornness
and i don't care who you are. all i know is that whatever your points are, they seem inane and frivolous
here's my point, across which all of your points break: the more access there is to more media sources, no matter what the source, and the more you are allowed to pursue that media without fear of repercussion or censure, the healthier the body politic, and the healthier the society
meanwhile, your points fall secondary to that, and they do not overrule my larger point. such that the conclusions you seem to be making amount to little more than counterproductive cynicism about humanity. for example: yes, you can have all the free media you want, you're still going to have uninterested fools. no shit. this is true of all societies
but the whole point is you will have LESS uninformed fools. and if that fact carries no weight with you, if that point fails to make an impression on you, then you're an empty useless negative cynic
your position is that censorship and propaganda don't actually effect people's opinions, and people's opinions stand as they would whether they had completely unfettered access to info, or completely limited access to info
i wish i could be more diplomatic, but i'm sorry i can't: you're a total moron if you really believe that. if you're just playing devil's advocate, you fail
you are basically making the argument that it doesn't matter how tainted or censored your media is. i'm sorry, you're not a moron. you're a stupid asshole
the bat bomb
sounds like the plot of a bad saturday morning cartoon
the difference in censorship between the usa/uk and china is the difference between an inch and a mile
yes, plenty obsess over that inch, but this is silly hysteria
i think it is far more fruitful to focus on that mile
walling yourself off from the world makes your country go into decline. all countries need an exchange of ideas with the outer world to prosper. the grumpy old men in beijing are controlling bastards, but they aren't stupid
even if only the elite chinese get (censored) access to the outside world, it's still useful to write guerilla apps that help the elite get uncensored info. actually, that's the case now: the mass of the interior of china is still poor, only the rich and middle class on the coastal cities are getting real internet access