I thought that the "poster" was using the 1984 reference to suggest that I was using "right thought" to support censorship, and the "joke" was that I unwittingly made an 1984 reference.
Thanks for educating me. That's actually what I strive for as well.
I also found it humorous that a Buddhist tennant was used as part of an argument by someone defending christianity because most people in general don't know much about other religions, much less use them in their arguments.
Early Christians actually learned all about other religions, but that's something I won't go into here (it's not at all pertinent).
The issue here is that I was using Buddhism to defend the position that wanting to shelter your young from certain thoughts--I can see now that Buddhism wasn't actually a good example, but I suspect that still the premise is true.
Thanks for the info. I'm glad to see someone is understanding me.
If you want to post in a looney liberal leftist place like this, check your religion at the door...unless it is one of those new age "trendy" ones.
I agree, but I'm hesitant to pit Christianity against political "leftism" because, while there is a strong correlation between political sides and religious views, my views are somewhat radical Libertarian and I am at odds with Republicanism today. Which means that I can't mix religion and politics lest I alienate myself from my religion.
I got as far as I believe that "right thought" before I burst out laughing from thinking "Right Thinking is doubleplus good for everyone"
I hate to spoil your fun, but I was referring to a Buddhist tennant of purging the mind of undesireable thought. I did so to demonstrate that a) censoring undesireable material out of television is not for "behavior" as the original grand-parent said, and b) Christians are not the only ones interested in this. Why does this idea make you laugh?
The only problem is that this requires mommy and daddy to come home for an hour to read the instruction book and learn how to set up the TV and decide just what they want little timmy to see. And these days, thats just too hard for too many parents.
I agree--I have a real problem with parents that want to go along with censorship and all the first amendment problems it entails just because they're letting the TV raise their children and they don't want to do anything about it.
This is, incidentally, the core of the problem, so I'm glad we agree.
Who's we? I thought you said there is no protoypical Christian...
I used 'we' there because the standards are not set by Christians themselves.
Lordy you are a hypocrite. Would you kiss your Lord with that mouth? Try living the Word instead of preaching it.
I'm in the dark here--could you please spell it out for me?
Did I ever suggest that censorship was a good thing? Did I ever demonstrate a lack of open-mindedness as I defined it? My guess is that you called me a hypocrite because you assume that I fail to meet my definition of open-mindedness, because you believe that most Christians don't.
Please, if you're going to get smarmy and call me names, make sure you've read my post. I never claimed to be in favor of censorship--I was responding to someone who attacked Christianity in his post, and I stepped in to defend.
Um, I should have made it more clear. I know that "right thought" is a Buddhist tennant (part of the 8 fold path). I was demonstrating that Christians aren't the only people out there who believe in making an honest attempt at getting rid of certain thoughts, while promoting others. Why is that such a laughable concept? Please enlighten me.
I'll spare you the big long schpiel (sic?) about why I have chosen to believe in what I do, but I will say that if holding views that you might consider "religious" disqualifies me from reasoned discourse, then I think you're just as incapable of holding reasonable discourse as I am, since you blindly dismiss what I have to say on the basis of my beliefs. You, too, are making a big "leap" of faith--that everything I say must have no merit because you disagree with me about some other premise.
And I'm not trying to apply my beliefs to others in any form. Show me where I have. I dare you. You only think I am because you have a gigantic pigeon hole in your mind that you drop all Christians in so that you can actually avoid thinking about such matters critically.
I would love for you to prove my claim wrong, because it would demonstrate that you have given my views the same consideration as you would any one elses--anything less than that is morally wrong by almost any value system on earth.
Besides, how would you respond if I told you I didn't want to talk to you because you're not a Christian?
Any popular FOSS games developed with OGRE out there? I bet this speeds development enough that there are already some pretty interesteng games to play.
Now, I'm against this kind of censorship, because I think it's up to the parent to make sure their children are viewing appropriate material, and without such laws, I'm sure there would be a big market in this country for some kind of product that screens certain content on TV.
Please, tell me what exactly you think my argument is.
The Christians in the real world all have differing opinions. I, for one, don't mind watching movies with swear words--I very seldom swear despite hearing them both on TV and out in the real world.
As for things like nudity, I must admit that watching nekkid women turns me on, and causes me to think about things I know I shouldn't, but that's why I make it a point not to watch nekkid women.
The general consensus from Christians is "garbage in, garbage out." What's garbage for you is the same as what's garbage for me, and even if there is no perceptible change in behavior, even change in thought is undesireable. Before you peg me as being an extremist, I believe that "right thought" is part of the eight-fold path--the difference is what is deemed acceptible and what is not.
Now, I'm against this kind of censorship, because I think it's up to the parent to make sure their children are viewing appropriate material, and without such laws, I'm sure there would be a big market in this country for some kind of product that screens certain content on TV.
So, to answer your question, I'd say that Christians are no more weak-minded than you are. We have different standards that constitute what is acceptible or not, and because you have not been able to see the world through my perspective, you can only explain my value system by attacking my character.
Open-mindedness--and by that I mean the willingess to suppose any possiblility without accepting it dogmatically--is not something to be feared, friend. Try looking at the world from someone else's perspective.
I lived in Costa Rica a few years back. I recall talking to my maid about how several members of her family were approached by suited men who promised lots of colones if they promised to vote for a certain presidential candidate (the then-incumbent). Not sure what year this was but the exchange rate was somewhere between 100-200 to the dollar.
A friend of mine got a patent that incorporated a patent dating back to the 1860's that contained essentially the idea of using a pipe of a certain size in a certain manner for a certain task. It was definately an "idea" as it only combined components that already existed in a unique way. Of course, you could argue that all inventions are just that--so what if I combine a bubble sort, a hash table, IPC, etc?
I agree with you, though, the patent system is getting worse in that it's allowing increasingly obvious and broad patents to get the green-light.
I also think that software patents are especially dangerous--but I don't think we should be reviewing the validity of software patents in general--they're a symptom of a deeper problem.
You miss the point that hardware is a thing, whereas software is, in source form, a free expression of ideas, as any novel in literature is.
I don't necessarily agree with that. There are lots of patents that cover "ideas" outside of software. If I tried to patent the idea of using a separate CPU to process graphics commands back before this idea had been implemented, I might have been able to get such a patent, if the guys reviewing my application were as braindead as some of the guys who review software patent applications.
Software isn't a free expression of ideas to me, it's a set of instructions that, when translated, tell hardware what to do. You'd have a decent chance at expressing any idea that popped up in your head in novel form, but not in computer software. Even if you could, you'd be violating the intent of software, whereas expression is the intent of a novel.
If I come up with a new way to make databases with tens of millions of entries sort themselves fifty times faster than any other database implementation, not only would that idea be as unique and concrete as any hardware patent, but copyright wouldn't prevent someone else from reimplementing my technique with new code.
If I could bypass all of nvidia's patents on graphics cards by simply re-implementing them, their patents would be meaningless.
I think patents are in a murky state either way you look at it. My point is not that software patents are acceptible, but that we have a biased standard to them, and we should review the patent system as a whole instead of focusing on one area because it happens to threaten what we're immediately interested in.
Perhaps our rejection of software patents over, say hardware patents, lies in how easy it is to write software and how hard it is to make hardware.
I agree that a lot of software patents are a joke (the isNot example comes to mind)--but so are a lot of non-software patents. I think we just have a preference here because software patents "hit closer to home."
If it were as easy to get "duh-obvious" patents in the hardware realm, the hardware world would similarly be handicapped. In my opinion, we simply need more, better-educated people working at the USPTO, as well as stricter, more consistent rules for granting patents.
A great new idea that no one has thought of before can theoretically exist in any field, even software.
I can see how free software is threatened (I am myself an advocate), but I fail to see how any other hobby activity is also not similarly threatened, except for, say, building remote control cars isn't as easy to "publish" than software.
I guess my point is that the real problem is crappy patents, and they exist in every field, and they cause similar problems. Maybe there is a place for software patents that do truly contain unique and innovative ideas--or at least such a software patent would have more merit to me than a frivolous hardware patent.
Uhh, I didn't use Linux 7 years ago, so maybe things have changed (most likely with monitors, not Linux), but you don't need drivers for a monitor, only refresh rates.
I know he's responsible. I guess culpability isn't a consideration here.
We're trying to assess a potential inconsistency in Bush's value structure--specifically, we are claiming that Bush values an embryo more than an Iraqi civilian. We are trying to bring in evidence to help our case--we are claiming that the actions of U.S. soldiers in Iraq demonstrates less of a value for human life than Bush has for embryos.
The question we must answer is not "who do we blame" -- that is a matter for a discussion on whether or not the war is just. We must determine whether the actions taken by soldiers in Iraq directly stem from decisions made by Bush himself, or one of his subordinates. We may be at war because of Bush, and we may ultimately find that the deaths of Iraqi civilians are caused by Bush, but what I'm saying is that we cannot assess Bush's value system through decisions he did not directly make.
So, I think, to really make an effective comparison of Bush's estimation of the value of an embryo versus an Iraqi civilian, we must look for decisions Bush has directly made regarding Iraqi civilians. Something that would work would be, hypothetically, Bush signing some kind of decree to the effect of allowing certain numbers of civilian casualties as being acceptible.
I hope you don't think I'm attacking your moral qualms of the war itself; this is an entirely separate issue.
I'm not aware of any war in which troops of both sides have not engaged in some form of abuse on civilians, whether it be torture, murder, rape, theft etc. If you're the commander in chief you are responsible for all actions performed in your name - legally (usually) and certainly morally (in my opinion).
Agreed, but we're trying to draw conclusions about Bush's value structure--specifically a disparity and inconsistency between valuing the life of an embryo vs. an Iraqi civilian.
In which case, using the treatment of Iraqi civilians is inconclusive, since while Bush has issued executive orders regarding embryotic stem cell research, he hasn't been the one "running" the war in Iraq.
He definately is responsible from a political viewpoint, but that's not in question here.
Yes, so if value life as highly as Bush claims to then then you'd probably decide to uphold the Geneva Convention and do all you can to avoid civilian deaths and injuries. There are many examples in Singer's book (and elsewhere) that this didn't take place - that he was more concerned with the result of death/injury to US soldiers on the US public than on the results of bombing cities. You're right - they're all factors, and it's possible to come to more than one decision, depending on the weighting of those factors. The book argues that Bush was inconsistant in this assessment.
Sounds like a pretty interesting read, if slanted.
And I agree that because Bush had his sights on Iraq for a long time, and apparently has few moral qualms about war itself, he probably does value the lives of embryos and fetuses more than Iraqi civilians (even U.S. soldiers).
In his view, however, his reasoning might be the whole "the soldiers and civilians have voices" argument. Not saying it's right or wrong--I'd hate to be minding my business and suddenly cluster bombed.
Another thing is, even though we hold Bush responsible for all actions of the army that serves under him as Commander in Cheif, when we specifically assess his value judgements, unless specifically ordered by Bush himself, actions of U.S. soldiers would not be accurate in determining Bush's values, since he's not actually calling the shots (he just gives certain generals a vague battle plan and they, with their experience and education, find the best way of doing it).
Well, there is the argument that women who don't want to have a baby could give the baby up for adoption. In which case, the "rights" of the fetus and the "rights" of the mother are not impugned too greatly.
I think moral questions shoud be answered without the word "rights" because generally it's a question of whether or not a person or group should be granted the "right" to commit some act.
If it's morally acceptible, one should be allowed to do it. If it's morally unacceptible, then the government has a new choice: should it be legal but frowned upon, or illegal? What should the penalties be?
At this point in the debate of abortion, we should try and come up with an answer for the question--is it wrong to abort a fetus? We might need to break it down, i.e. is it wrong to abort a fetus in the first trimester? How about the third?
Before we get "rights" and laws into it, we should get more facts. Then questions like "is the abortion necessary? Can we provide an equitable alternative?" should come in to play.
I'll admit, I haven't read it, but I don't think you can compare valuing lives in a war that you have deemed just and embryos that have been thrown out of fertility clinics. The intended human targets in Iraq all want to attack the American soldiers, for one thing, so I assume Peter Singer is referring to the "friendly fire" and unintentional deaths of civilians.
In which case, you still can't compare the two, because with embryotic stem cells, the embryos themselves are the "target" of destruction, whereas in war, the civilian casualties are an uninteded side effect.
If you deem the war just, given the type of terrain and methods of fighting employed by the insurgents, and all those other factors, then you have to accept civilian casualties. You're going into a country and forcibly changing the government structure. So the value of the lives of the civilians is "lumped in" with all the other value assessments when Bush went to war.
Slashdot Mirror
My bad.
That is the self control they shoot for.
Thanks for educating me. That's actually what I strive for as well.
I also found it humorous that a Buddhist tennant was used as part of an argument by someone defending christianity because most people in general don't know much about other religions, much less use them in their arguments.
Early Christians actually learned all about other religions, but that's something I won't go into here (it's not at all pertinent).
The issue here is that I was using Buddhism to defend the position that wanting to shelter your young from certain thoughts--I can see now that Buddhism wasn't actually a good example, but I suspect that still the premise is true.
Thanks for the info. I'm glad to see someone is understanding me.
If you want to post in a looney liberal leftist place like this, check your religion at the door...unless it is one of those new age "trendy" ones.
I agree, but I'm hesitant to pit Christianity against political "leftism" because, while there is a strong correlation between political sides and religious views, my views are somewhat radical Libertarian and I am at odds with Republicanism today. Which means that I can't mix religion and politics lest I alienate myself from my religion.
I got as far as I believe that "right thought" before I burst out laughing from thinking "Right Thinking is doubleplus good for everyone"
I hate to spoil your fun, but I was referring to a Buddhist tennant of purging the mind of undesireable thought. I did so to demonstrate that a) censoring undesireable material out of television is not for "behavior" as the original grand-parent said, and b) Christians are not the only ones interested in this. Why does this idea make you laugh?
The only problem is that this requires mommy and daddy to come home for an hour to read the instruction book and learn how to set up the TV and decide just what they want little timmy to see. And these days, thats just too hard for too many parents.
I agree--I have a real problem with parents that want to go along with censorship and all the first amendment problems it entails just because they're letting the TV raise their children and they don't want to do anything about it.
This is, incidentally, the core of the problem, so I'm glad we agree.
Who's we? I thought you said there is no protoypical Christian...
I used 'we' there because the standards are not set by Christians themselves.
Lordy you are a hypocrite. Would you kiss your Lord with that mouth? Try living the Word instead of preaching it.
I'm in the dark here--could you please spell it out for me?
Did I ever suggest that censorship was a good thing? Did I ever demonstrate a lack of open-mindedness as I defined it? My guess is that you called me a hypocrite because you assume that I fail to meet my definition of open-mindedness, because you believe that most Christians don't.
Please, if you're going to get smarmy and call me names, make sure you've read my post. I never claimed to be in favor of censorship--I was responding to someone who attacked Christianity in his post, and I stepped in to defend.
Um, I should have made it more clear. I know that "right thought" is a Buddhist tennant (part of the 8 fold path). I was demonstrating that Christians aren't the only people out there who believe in making an honest attempt at getting rid of certain thoughts, while promoting others. Why is that such a laughable concept? Please enlighten me.
And I'm not trying to apply my beliefs to others in any form. Show me where I have. I dare you. You only think I am because you have a gigantic pigeon hole in your mind that you drop all Christians in so that you can actually avoid thinking about such matters critically.
I would love for you to prove my claim wrong, because it would demonstrate that you have given my views the same consideration as you would any one elses--anything less than that is morally wrong by almost any value system on earth.
Besides, how would you respond if I told you I didn't want to talk to you because you're not a Christian?
Any popular FOSS games developed with OGRE out there? I bet this speeds development enough that there are already some pretty interesteng games to play.
Let me repeat part of my post:
Now, I'm against this kind of censorship, because I think it's up to the parent to make sure their children are viewing appropriate material, and without such laws, I'm sure there would be a big market in this country for some kind of product that screens certain content on TV.
Please, tell me what exactly you think my argument is.
In korea, for example, only old men have depression.
The Christians in the real world all have differing opinions. I, for one, don't mind watching movies with swear words--I very seldom swear despite hearing them both on TV and out in the real world.
As for things like nudity, I must admit that watching nekkid women turns me on, and causes me to think about things I know I shouldn't, but that's why I make it a point not to watch nekkid women.
The general consensus from Christians is "garbage in, garbage out." What's garbage for you is the same as what's garbage for me, and even if there is no perceptible change in behavior, even change in thought is undesireable. Before you peg me as being an extremist, I believe that "right thought" is part of the eight-fold path--the difference is what is deemed acceptible and what is not.
Now, I'm against this kind of censorship, because I think it's up to the parent to make sure their children are viewing appropriate material, and without such laws, I'm sure there would be a big market in this country for some kind of product that screens certain content on TV.
So, to answer your question, I'd say that Christians are no more weak-minded than you are. We have different standards that constitute what is acceptible or not, and because you have not been able to see the world through my perspective, you can only explain my value system by attacking my character.
Open-mindedness--and by that I mean the willingess to suppose any possiblility without accepting it dogmatically--is not something to be feared, friend. Try looking at the world from someone else's perspective.
This really depends on what map you look at.
What's the exchange rate now?
A friend of mine got a patent that incorporated a patent dating back to the 1860's that contained essentially the idea of using a pipe of a certain size in a certain manner for a certain task. It was definately an "idea" as it only combined components that already existed in a unique way. Of course, you could argue that all inventions are just that--so what if I combine a bubble sort, a hash table, IPC, etc?
I agree with you, though, the patent system is getting worse in that it's allowing increasingly obvious and broad patents to get the green-light.
I also think that software patents are especially dangerous--but I don't think we should be reviewing the validity of software patents in general--they're a symptom of a deeper problem.
You miss the point that hardware is a thing, whereas software is, in source form, a free expression of ideas, as any novel in literature is.
I don't necessarily agree with that. There are lots of patents that cover "ideas" outside of software. If I tried to patent the idea of using a separate CPU to process graphics commands back before this idea had been implemented, I might have been able to get such a patent, if the guys reviewing my application were as braindead as some of the guys who review software patent applications.
Software isn't a free expression of ideas to me, it's a set of instructions that, when translated, tell hardware what to do. You'd have a decent chance at expressing any idea that popped up in your head in novel form, but not in computer software. Even if you could, you'd be violating the intent of software, whereas expression is the intent of a novel.
If I come up with a new way to make databases with tens of millions of entries sort themselves fifty times faster than any other database implementation, not only would that idea be as unique and concrete as any hardware patent, but copyright wouldn't prevent someone else from reimplementing my technique with new code.
If I could bypass all of nvidia's patents on graphics cards by simply re-implementing them, their patents would be meaningless.
I think patents are in a murky state either way you look at it. My point is not that software patents are acceptible, but that we have a biased standard to them, and we should review the patent system as a whole instead of focusing on one area because it happens to threaten what we're immediately interested in.
I agree that a lot of software patents are a joke (the isNot example comes to mind)--but so are a lot of non-software patents. I think we just have a preference here because software patents "hit closer to home."
If it were as easy to get "duh-obvious" patents in the hardware realm, the hardware world would similarly be handicapped. In my opinion, we simply need more, better-educated people working at the USPTO, as well as stricter, more consistent rules for granting patents.
A great new idea that no one has thought of before can theoretically exist in any field, even software.
I can see how free software is threatened (I am myself an advocate), but I fail to see how any other hobby activity is also not similarly threatened, except for, say, building remote control cars isn't as easy to "publish" than software.
I guess my point is that the real problem is crappy patents, and they exist in every field, and they cause similar problems. Maybe there is a place for software patents that do truly contain unique and innovative ideas--or at least such a software patent would have more merit to me than a frivolous hardware patent.
basicly->basically
Anyways, is the hoary cd also Morphix?
At any rate, I have noticed a difference in quality.
My suggestion: try ubuntu (they have a live cd as well).
Uhh, I didn't use Linux 7 years ago, so maybe things have changed (most likely with monitors, not Linux), but you don't need drivers for a monitor, only refresh rates.
We're trying to assess a potential inconsistency in Bush's value structure--specifically, we are claiming that Bush values an embryo more than an Iraqi civilian. We are trying to bring in evidence to help our case--we are claiming that the actions of U.S. soldiers in Iraq demonstrates less of a value for human life than Bush has for embryos.
The question we must answer is not "who do we blame" -- that is a matter for a discussion on whether or not the war is just. We must determine whether the actions taken by soldiers in Iraq directly stem from decisions made by Bush himself, or one of his subordinates. We may be at war because of Bush, and we may ultimately find that the deaths of Iraqi civilians are caused by Bush, but what I'm saying is that we cannot assess Bush's value system through decisions he did not directly make.So, I think, to really make an effective comparison of Bush's estimation of the value of an embryo versus an Iraqi civilian, we must look for decisions Bush has directly made regarding Iraqi civilians. Something that would work would be, hypothetically, Bush signing some kind of decree to the effect of allowing certain numbers of civilian casualties as being acceptible.
I hope you don't think I'm attacking your moral qualms of the war itself; this is an entirely separate issue.
This question may be stupid but...
Would we need to read 32 quantum states at a time to get '32-bit' registers to build basic processors??
I'm not aware of any war in which troops of both sides have not engaged in some form of abuse on civilians, whether it be torture, murder, rape, theft etc. If you're the commander in chief you are responsible for all actions performed in your name - legally (usually) and certainly morally (in my opinion).
Agreed, but we're trying to draw conclusions about Bush's value structure--specifically a disparity and inconsistency between valuing the life of an embryo vs. an Iraqi civilian.
In which case, using the treatment of Iraqi civilians is inconclusive, since while Bush has issued executive orders regarding embryotic stem cell research, he hasn't been the one "running" the war in Iraq.
He definately is responsible from a political viewpoint, but that's not in question here.
Yes, so if value life as highly as Bush claims to then then you'd probably decide to uphold the Geneva Convention and do all you can to avoid civilian deaths and injuries. There are many examples in Singer's book (and elsewhere) that this didn't take place - that he was more concerned with the result of death/injury to US soldiers on the US public than on the results of bombing cities. You're right - they're all factors, and it's possible to come to more than one decision, depending on the weighting of those factors. The book argues that Bush was inconsistant in this assessment.
Sounds like a pretty interesting read, if slanted.
And I agree that because Bush had his sights on Iraq for a long time, and apparently has few moral qualms about war itself, he probably does value the lives of embryos and fetuses more than Iraqi civilians (even U.S. soldiers).
In his view, however, his reasoning might be the whole "the soldiers and civilians have voices" argument. Not saying it's right or wrong--I'd hate to be minding my business and suddenly cluster bombed.
Another thing is, even though we hold Bush responsible for all actions of the army that serves under him as Commander in Cheif, when we specifically assess his value judgements, unless specifically ordered by Bush himself, actions of U.S. soldiers would not be accurate in determining Bush's values, since he's not actually calling the shots (he just gives certain generals a vague battle plan and they, with their experience and education, find the best way of doing it).
Again, Singer might have addressed this.
Well, there is the argument that women who don't want to have a baby could give the baby up for adoption. In which case, the "rights" of the fetus and the "rights" of the mother are not impugned too greatly.
I think moral questions shoud be answered without the word "rights" because generally it's a question of whether or not a person or group should be granted the "right" to commit some act.
If it's morally acceptible, one should be allowed to do it. If it's morally unacceptible, then the government has a new choice: should it be legal but frowned upon, or illegal? What should the penalties be?
At this point in the debate of abortion, we should try and come up with an answer for the question--is it wrong to abort a fetus? We might need to break it down, i.e. is it wrong to abort a fetus in the first trimester? How about the third?
Before we get "rights" and laws into it, we should get more facts. Then questions like "is the abortion necessary? Can we provide an equitable alternative?" should come in to play.
In which case, you still can't compare the two, because with embryotic stem cells, the embryos themselves are the "target" of destruction, whereas in war, the civilian casualties are an uninteded side effect.
If you deem the war just, given the type of terrain and methods of fighting employed by the insurgents, and all those other factors, then you have to accept civilian casualties. You're going into a country and forcibly changing the government structure. So the value of the lives of the civilians is "lumped in" with all the other value assessments when Bush went to war.