From you: "The problem is many of the Scientists went to University to study "Earth Sciences" in one form or another and were already reading books by people like Konrad Lorenz before then. The Green movement is obviously anti-technocracy."
Many =! All. Your critical thinking skills are a bit off there. SOME of the "green movement" might be luddites, but this does not translate to ALL of them are. A second fallacy here is grouping a whole group of people together into one unified class. We both post and read/., therefore we share common interests, but to say that we hold a common ideologies (universal to all Slashdotters) would be patently false.
I like to view myself as a "Green" person, but I'm very far from being anti-technology, I view our environmental problems as technological problems many of which have technological solutions. Though the term "Green" makes me a bit angry, since right now it is nothing more than a marketing term, the ideology behind it has long since blown away, for the most part.
No, he's a man with a brain, who can take advice from whomever he chooses.
So he has the scientific expertise to select which scientists have the most scientific expertise? Either that or he's like most of us mere mortals who generally take advice from people who are willing to support our world view.
It just so happens that he isn't fooled by all of the Green propaganda (as you have been).
It just so happens that he isn't fooled by all of the oil industry propaganda (as you have been).
See what I did there? Its equally valid. Merry Christmas. Also please notice I never made a statement saying whether I believed in, or denied (as if it mattered) global warming. I find the debate MUCH more amusing/interesting than the topic it is based on. Neither side seems to be able to be honest or reasonable... It is much more an emotional debate than a factual or scientific one, at least as far as the popular (lay) discourse goes. And as an emotional debate, the topic itself isn't even worth listening to, all that matters is the rhetoric both parties spin.
For actual informative substance on the topic itself, I'd rather read peer-reviewed journals, as most Slashdotters (myself included) are really not qualified to have any type of opinion that matters.
Indeed, it would appear I am a lot smarter, yes. If you would like some lessons in critical thinking, I charge $100/hour.
Obviously your rhetorical skills FAR out weigh my own. I can barely remember back to some odd rhetoric or philosophy class I once took where it told me that ad hominems and groundless appeals to self-authority were the best way of supporting ones opinions.
Actually, I was referring to a paradigm shift, not harking back to some golden age. Paradigm shifts are difficult to achieve, because there are so many vested interests in keeping the status quo.
I don't think Thomas Kuhn wrote anything about politics, or policy. And from a purely scientific point of view (which was where Kuhn was speaking from, and of) the global warming hypothesis (and AGW, by relation) could be seen as a paradigm shift.
Personally, I find this to be quite ironic considering that a fundamental teaching of the belief system that many Americans profess to follow is: "let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
No irony, the obvious solution is that many people truly believe themselves to be "without sin". Or more accurately, more and more people think themselves more perfect, and smarter than everyone else. The only other people worthy of consideration is people with like views, morality, and opinions, everyone else is wrong, evil, or stupid. How many people are there in this world who "know better", and would like to inflict it on others.
Go read the global warming topic here, or the myriad off-topic health care rants. All of these arguments boil down to two sets of self-righteous people telling other groups of self-righteous people that they are wrong only because they don't agree with their own private view points.
This is rather common, and growing more-so it seems.
Read up on your epistemology. An episteme (bit of knowledge) can basically be called "a justified, true, belief". Basically it must fulfill those three conditions to be considered a valid bit of information. Obviously people who endorse a theory believe it (thus it is a belief), it must also be factual (true), and they must have done due dilligence to actually prove that said belief was factual (justified).
Yes... hence the push for low-tech solar panels, low-tech wind generators, low-tech friendly hydrogen... and even luddite nuclear power instead of the amazingly high tech, and bleeding edge, coal and oil. Obviously Luddites, only standing in the way of progress.
Oh wait, the people on the side of "progress" want things to be exactly the same as it always has been, with giant oil and gas companies doing exactly what they want, and receiving giant hand outs for it while pumping out tons of crap (not just CO2).
I think only the Czech President has the balls to face down the warmists and flat-out disagree with what they're saying.
Yes, because politicians are also all scientific experts, and obviously omnipotent enough to know whats best for everyone in the long run... Foreign ones of course, all of ours are morons (unless they agree with you at least 90% of the time).
But you know, the truth will eventually come out (that warming/cooling is almost entirely natural).
Because your a climate scientist, and have vast reams of data sitting in your mothers basement that you've been pouring over for years. Or your just that damn smart, much smarter than anyone else, especially if they disagree with you.
It's just that this generation of Politicians and Scientists have their reputations to consider, so I don't expect it to come out any time soon.
Much unlike the last generation of politicians who were truly of the grand generations, and not at all only looking out for themselves and trying to consolidate their power base as much as possible. And those previous generations of scientists who could write whatever they felt, ignoring all the standing opinions and facts with no repercussions at all, and were souly judged by the amount they agreed with your particular opinions of matters in which you are probably not qualified to have meaningful opinions in.
One of the reasons I distrust it so much, is that so damned many politicians are involved. There's money in the global warming scare. Tons of money are being shoveled at any "researcher" who promises to come up with the answers wanted. From my view, we have politicians paying "scientists" for the answers they want, which is ridiculous.
The exact same thing could be said for people denying it, or opting for the status quo.
I'm always shocked how global warming has devolved into whats sounds just like a religious argument, ON BOTH SIDES. Watching people debate global warming is like watching people debate abortion, disturbingly amusing with absolute no potential for a resolution. Also, like abortion debates, it brings out the wackos, and people who have absolutely no self-reasoned foundations for their views, who are only being a well-trained mouth piece for power players.
Global warming is now a religious debate, which I actually find scary since it basically means science has become a bunch of meaningless morality (and world-view enforcing) bullshit. In these situations there can be no meaningful debate (between experts, us lay people know jack shit, and should at least have the common courtesy to admit it), which basically means there can be no science.
Funny. I could have cherry-picked similar "numbers" decades back to "prove" that "science said" that smoking cigarettes was healthy.
So lets run with this line of logic, shall we? Being that all scientific knowledge MAY change in the future (looking at the history of the discipline shows this to be a historically accurate statement), then we can deny all of science, since someday it may be disprove, based on its very nature. So basically all of human knowledge is completely arbitrary, and thus we should be allowed to substitute it with whatever we want.
This is the exact same fallacy that the creationists use, and basically every crank out there uses, which is based on a severe misunderstanding of how science works.
Yes, AGW might be dismissed as faulty someday... And so might a lot of other things. But I'd rather wait until this actually happens before I substitute it whatever sounds pleasant to me and my world view, because it might also NOT be found faulty. I, and probably you, are not qualified in any way to actually judge, so it is rather silly to claim that we can just dismiss it because it is faulty (in our opinion).
What if it isn't proven false, and we don't act on the information we have now?
Touche! I'm generally not one to bandy the term "rights" about for pretty much the same reasons you caught me on (that and I won't take anyone seriously using it until someone can actually define them, or tell me WHERE the came from). I did use the term in a vague and "hand wavy" way, and I stand mildly chastised.
Is it mythic, then, or isn't it?
I was referring to two problems. The dependence on purely online play is a real problem to me, since I like to collect games, and not merely play them once and forget about them. The mythic bit is the fact that a substantial percentage of Blizzards potential customers will turn to piracy at this.
The conversation is not, and has never been, about whether Blizzard (or whoever) "can" do something, but whether Blizzard ought.
Ought is somewhat tricky here, though I do understand what your getting at. Blizzard ought to do whatever they see fit to make a game that is both enjoyable and profitable, this of course is my (and probably their) opinion. I'm guessing they are going to succeed in that. It would be nice if they included what is now pretty much a "niche feature" to make a small, but apparently rapid percentage of their fan base happy; but I'm not sure that this constitutes an "ought". For a vast majority of people the lack of LAN play will not be noticed or missed, so how is including it an ethical imperative?
As stated, the reliance on Battle.net for multiplayer annoys me, but I can also see some of their reasoning. I might not agree, but that doesn't matter.
Furthermore, I find it disturbing whenever people talk about corporations as having "rights," but since the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist I may be thinking anachronistically.
In this case you don't even have to look at it as a corporation, just a group of people making a product. They pretty much can make that product in whatever way they see fit, as long as it doesn't physically hurt someone, and is produced within certain ethical constraints. If they want to put restrictions on their product, I see no problem with this.
I do, tangentially, agree that corporate rights is a silly statement, and probably should be abolished. But in this case I don't see this coming into play. If you, as a private individual, created a game that required online functionality, and didn't support LAN play do you should be able to block your decision? Probably not. I have some problems with this, where I do think that people should be allowed to hack LAN play into your product, even if you retaliate by not allowing hacked copies into your online backyard, this, here I doubt is the case, nor would Blizzard's legal department agree.
But when I referred to Feyshtey as part of the problem, I was referring to Feyshtey's attitude of full support for "defective by design" or any other way a manufacturer seeks to "protect their product."
In a sense, though, I agree with him. As a creator you can make things in any way you really desire, and this is includes making flawed (but not physically harmful) products. I find it a shame that so many producers DO this, though, since they are harming a hobby I enjoy. The whole state of PC gaming (and software in general) is in pretty bad shape right now, with rampant (and often justifiable since there is no returns for bad products) piracy, flagrantly awful DRM, silly and exploitative licensing, bad mannered customers, etc...
Often, perhaps most of the time if you live in a first-world country, you will make a stronger argument if you do not resort to "rights." The realm of "what you are allowed to do" does not overlap the realm of "wise behavior," or even "rationally justifiable behavior."
Agreed. I generally get pissed when people don't mention "responsibility" in the same sentence as they utter "rights", and often the utterance of "rights" is translated by my brain as "me me me!". This, though, I don't see as being strongly applicable here. Tying accounts into Battle.net do
Yes, Slashdot is REALLY representative of Blizzards audience. Or not.
Actually with Battle.net, the people who get the pirated LAN version probably won't be able to play online matches, and thus will ONLY get LAN play. As much as people want it, I'm sure even your mythic 90% will, in the end, decide Battle.net is more important the the limited utility of LAN-only play. Best case scenario (your best case, not Blizzards) is that this mythic 90% will pirate a copy for LAN play, and buy a copy for the 90% of the functionality they would be losing out of their nostalgia for the mid 90's.
Yes, I'm going to miss LAN play (spawn copies, moreso), but I will buy the game. I'd rather be able to connect to people online, than in my living room. Most of my old friends who I used to play against in the 90's live rather too far way now to haul their rig into my living room.
Another comment; polls don't represent what people will actually do. I'm sure if there was a poll right now on whether the lack of LAN and spawn copies would be a deal breaker for me, I'd say "yes", just to send a point, but once I see that shiny box of SCII goodness on the shelves, I'd buy it in a heart beat. SCII will be a best seller, and will remain so for years, just like SCI. I'm sure some "hard core" nerds will refuse to buy it (which is what percentage of the whole population?), but will break down when they realize that there hasn't been a decent RTS out for years, and all their freinds are perfectly happy with their unethical zerg-rushes.
Relax, its just a game. And more so, it isn't even your game, Blizzard has the right to make whatever game however they want, and you have the right not to buy it. I don't see how insulting random people on/. forces Blizzard to develop their property the way you want them to.
Don't buy the game, thats that.
I personally don't see a problem, I haven't played a LAN game for years, since probably when StarCraft was still hip. Most games today don't even offer LAN multiplayer anymore, and no one gets pissy about it (that I've noticed), at least on this scale. I'm sure some people have a problem with it, and enough of them do, Blizzard will have to do something, or they won't make money (if they want to, it still is their property, and they can do whatever the hell they like with it).
I will not buy a broken product, and what is more I will avoid buying a product that can be broken on the creator's whim.
This is a problem, I agree. I've been complaining about Steam being the future of gaming for some time, even while most people continue to claim that its the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm leary of this still, but less so than I was a couple years back, and even then my greatest complaint was I had to be online to enjoy the game AT ALL (not just multiplayer). Blizzard gets a little bit of my trust though, since they haven't done much to prove otherwise. You can still find DiabloII and SC supported, a huge amount of time after release (eons in computer time, really). I don't like it, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Blizzard will see my money (God knows they have seen enough of it over the years).
Before you insult me, and call me the part of some mythic problem, this is my right, as it is your right to NOT give them money. Sure, you'll miss a probably enjoyable game, but that shouldn't matter. I don't shop at Wallmart, nor do I feel I can bitch about all the cheap Chinese crap I'm missing out on at the same time. Its one or the other.
Zeno, is that you? No? I think someone said the EXACT same thing 2000 years ago.
In all seriousness though, isn't it impossible to discuss "infinitesimal steps" since things get odd after a certain (finite but very small) point? Outside of pure math, infinite steps becomes rather meaningless.
To respond to the person your replying to: "Yes, a perfect circle is only possible in pure math, but probably not (or at least EXTREMELY improbable) in the actual universe".
An even better proof of the lack of pattern is that human brains are set up to find patterns, even in random data. We haven't found a pattern in pi, so its pretty good proof that it is REALLY random. If someone hasn't found Jesus in it yet, it is more random than tortilla chips, and that is pretty damn random.
Debates aren't about balance, they are about discussing right and wrong, or pros and cons.
Which is somewhat about balance. If we're discussing right and wrong, we acknowledge that our knowledge isn't perfect, nor our ideologies, for if they were there would never be a point of discussion.
Yes, there is degrees to this. Someone who says the Constitution grants them the unlimited right to shoot people in the face without consequences has a bit less reason to be heard, than people who are or are against health care, or who are arguing the semantics of the term "the people" as applied to the second amendment, obviously.
I know a majority of the people participating in the tea party. Not a single one was coopted by Republican think-tanks. I think you're confusing 'people coopted by Republican think-tanks' with 'people who joined the Republican party because they mostly agree with their values'.
I'm sure there was a bit of them. But there is some evidence that some of the people in them, and some of the publicists, were plants by large PACs, and not genuine grass roots. Some != all. How do you explain the fact that Tea Parties have existed for a bit, but only the last one was a HUGE media event, even though there has been no real increases in taxes for some bit, and the previous canidate was also a big spender (larger than Obama so far).
If I believe that government spending is out of control--and the Republican party also believes that--am I suddenly being coopted by Republican think-tanks?
Most Republicans voted for Bush, who was not know for being a fiscal conservative, also. I think a lot of them are donning the mask of conservatism just because they don't like Obama over-spending in ways they personally don't like, not because of government over spending in general.
I wouldn't call asking the government to behave constitutionally 'evil'. You are free to have your beliefs and do your own thing in life. And so am I.
Neither would I. I would if you wouldn't have included the second part of that, though. Good government is based on ideological fist fights, the second someone wished to remove that, then they veer on evil.
When one group gets the government to take money from another group (like the current healthcare hot topic takes money from everyone to help cover uninsured), that's evil. Actually, when your work is taken from you to serve another it's called slavery.
Here I disagree. We have nothing against roads and other public works, nor do we have much against the police and fire departments. Most of us are even for government spent research (such as ARPA's internet, NASA, etc...). You might be against these, I don't know.
Calm down, I wasn't arguing with you, you trying to present on point of view, or party, as being less idiotic than the other.
You only have vastly different meanings because some idiots are afraid of guns. If the second amendment were about books, no one would be complaining: "A well regulated library being necessary to the education of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Actually I don't think the second amendment gives a the blanket right for everyone to be armed, and I'm not scared of guns (own a couple myself). The two problem terms is the word "militia", and the parsing of the word "people" (as opposed to "persons"). This is a different debate though, I just point this out to show that there is valid ambiguity here, and not all people who disagree with you are gun haters, or people frightened of guns.
So if Democrats are doing it, it's 'ok' because the Republicans are allegedly doing it?
Never said or implied that. I was just balancing the debate, and pointing out that both major parties are participating in this idiocy.
Maybe I should ignore the Democrats when they protest the next war because they're 'astroturf protesters' brought in by the left because the right allegedly does it? (Come to think of it though, I haven't seen any more war protests now that Obama is president. Is the war suddenly OK now?)
Let me clarify, I'm sorry for being a bit vague there; Some of the Tea Party scene were actual people, who actually had views they wanted to present. A large part of the scene was coopted by Republican think-tanks, and asto-turfing firms. I have nothing against the original (mostly libertarian) groups, but I do have something against the attempts from outside to blow them into something bigger, and more talking point worthy.
I really doubt the original tea party groups approved, or endorsed, the paid idiots standing around with birther signs, for example.
(Come to think of it though, I haven't seen any more war protests now that Obama is president. Is the war suddenly OK now?)
This annoys me too. Though most of the protests were over Iraq, and now our involvement is much reduced from when Bush was at the helm (this isn't because of Obama though). Sadly Afghanistan is a boon-doggle, but it never was as "popular" a cause, for whatever reason (perhaps because it was a more just war than the completely pointless and arbitrary Iraq mess).
Fine. Here's the case. The government needs to stop spending our money on unconstitutional activities. The constitution very specifically says what each branch can do. There is no provision in the system for healthcare. No provision for the FAA, FCC, ATF, CDC, FBI, etc... Cut all the special programs out too--like housing assistance, farm subsidies, etc... Balance the budget and get spending under control or we will force you to. Stop taking away the rights of the people. Stop screwing with gun rights, freedom of speech, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc...or once again, the people will force you to stop.
Good, you have a case... This wasn't the point though. I disagree with you on many of these issues, and this too is fine. The second you try to impose your views on others, or censor their ability to disagree, then we venture into what I'd call evil, though. It isn't the views, its the idea that they are total correct, and should be inflicted on others against their will.
death panels' is a bit much
This was my point in calling them hyperbolic. I wasn't saying I LIKE the bill, or even dislike it. I was just saying that "death panel" is a bit of an overstatement.
True. I always find it funny that every single one of those people took an oath to uphold, and defend the constitution--yet not a single one of them does it. Not a single one cares about our freedom.
I think a lot of them believe that they are upholding the Constitution. Yes, a shocking, and growing, amount of them could care less, but I genuinely think that the majority still cares. The problematic bit of this is that there is no absolute idea of what the Constitution says, or any absolute way in interpreting it. Your idea of what the Constitution says is probably completely different from my idea, and both of our ideas are vastly different than what Barak Obama takes home from it at the end of the day.
The drafters are dead, and the context for much of what they wrote is completely lost to us. Even a literal reading doesn't do much for the controversial parts. Look at the Second Amendment, how you parse comma can lead to vastly different readings. Look how much debate and literature has been written about a single sentence amendment.
Again, here is the room for spirited argument, which is good for democracy. I hold nothing against anyone arguing their point, I only get worried when someone insists that their point is correct and all others should be censored. The recurring theme here is people who think they have access to absolute truth are the problem.
Yes--astroturfing like when the Democrats planted a fake Doctor [wordpress.com] at a recent town hall meeting?
The opposition is doing this too, inserting fake interested red necks into debates, and trying to side track completely unrelated events towards the ends of killing Obama's healthcare, most of whom are sponsored by party bigwigs and HMOs. Same with the fake Tea Party scene back on tax day. Both sides are guilty of this. It annoys me that the interested parties can't just come out and STATE THEIR CASE. Being that they only resort to astroturfing and other dishonesties, I personally think that these causes (both pro and con) have no actually argument, and should be completely ignored.
If you don't have a rational point, you really shouldn't expect to be listened to.
It shouldn't scare you unless you are 65+. The majority of healthcare costs (on the order of 75%) come from people 65 and up. So if you have to cut costs, where would you do it? Stop giving life-saving treatment to the old people? Yeah. They won't vote for much longer anyways. Give the treatment to the people who will vote for you for a long time--like 18-year-olds.
But calling it a "death panel" is a bit hyperbolic. So far I haven't seen anything about removing the ability to shop around. And also, our current Medicare program isn't known for killing people past 65, so I see no reason to think that an extension of it would.
He never said during his campaign that he would do this. He simply said 'Healthcare Reform'.
I seem to remember that he went over details during the primary, when he and Hillary were duking it out for the worst public health care plan. The details changed a bit, but thats to be expected from unleashing it on congress. Regardless, we the voters are still culpable since we then voted for him without being even a little bit sure of the details.
Same thing with the healthcare. There are some people that want his healthcare plan, others that oppose it, and finally some that think he's not socialist enough.
Completely true, and on its face this is a good example of healthy democracy in action. Though we run into two problems, astroturfing, and the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum (my way or no way at all). People aren't being honest here, either that or our population has truly become dominated by the lunatic fringe.
The people spouting things about "death panels"... They scare me.
Yes. the government wants power. This falls into the grandparents idea of "everyone", anyone who has read Foucault (the philosopher not the mathematician) knows this.
But some of the examples you cite are a result of the government not having power, and corporations excerting power against their long term survival. We decided that the "free market" is the be-all-end-all and killed all regulations, as a result these companies became "too big to fail", and quickly maximized short term gains over long term survival, threatening to kill our whole economic system. Thus someone needed to save them, for the good of the whole country. Yes, this sucks, but I can't see a good solution in there, outside of the old idea of "regulation" which is taboo in certain circles, ironically the same circles who are against the government squandering billions of dollars to fix the same problem that these peoples ideology helped create. As a result we have even fatter and happier bankers and automakers, who now know that there exists no consequences to their failures.
As for the auto industry... I would be even more frightened of living in a country that has NO means for manufacturing. Remember who we used to ramp up arms production in WWI and WWII. Yes, these industries were dying, but we couldn't really exist without them.
Both are ugly solutions to ugly problems, caused by ugly plutocratic ideologies (Reaganomics, supply side ideocy, and other forms of "economy over anyone else in society" blind ideologies.
What is a better solution? Ask this before you criticize.
Perhaps he did, and perhaps he didn't. Perhaps YOU are Twitter bringing attention to Twitter, AC. Perhaps I am Twitter bringing attention to Twitter's AC call to attention to Twitter. Perhaps Twitter is everywhere, and we are all but merely his sock puppets working his terrible twisted will.
My comment still stands, falling for it or not. I really don't care who said it, he had a good point. Just because he is the reviled Twitter doesn't matter much if he had a point.
If it was just Twitter posting AC to make Twitter look better, sobeit. I admit, I don't much like his tactics, and he does appear to be a dubious individual, but this is Slashdot, and a lot of our "minor celebrities" fall into this mold.
I'm not in the military, but I know some field doctors in the military, and I must say that they shock me with their professionalism even off the field of battle. One of them while on the trip to a bar, noticed a small car accident, where the police and paramedics already responded, he pulled over, and rushed to the scene, just in case he was needed. He wasn't, but still stayed just in case something happened. This guy also suffered from severe PTSD, and was an emotional wreck both before and after this, but during the actually crisis, he was as calm and cool as anyone I've ever met.
Contrast this with some paramedic friends I know, who have never actually stopped for scenarios when they might assist (despite a legal obligation to do so).
Not stating that all paramedics or military personnel are like this, but this is my limited and anecdotal experience.
For one the entire point of a government in the first place is to keep order.
Says who? Where does it say this? Is this for EVERY government in the history of the world, or just a definition someone once wrote?
I always thought the government existed to maximize the well being of its residence, and protect their individual rights (viz limiting the rights of others), via a social contract. Well at least all governments founded after Hobbes, Locke, Mill, and Rousseau (modern democracies). Before that governments existed to exert power over the masses, or to enforce the opinions of the few, to form economic blocks, to protect against the invasion of foreigners, and yes, in a few cases to keep order.
And now that we have a democracy, the goal of the government is to represent the people, along with other things.
The user "Anonymous Coward" is a known anonymous coward sock puppet.
That said, i thought Twitter was supposed to be a well known Microsoft sock puppet? Sure, some of his activities are annoying as hell, but sometimes he also has valid points, this being one of them. I really don't care WHO you are, I rarely even look at the user string of these posts, I care more about WHAT you are saying. Who you are, and what you say should be disconnected, as long as what you say is valid, and has good facts going for it.
If your worst enemy said the sky is blue, would you decide the sky was in-fact NOT blue, just because it came from someone you don't like?
I don't get it, I generally always get around six hour of sleep, naturally, even without having to set alarms or balance a night life with morning obligations. I'm glad I'm a mutant too. I noticed if I get under six hours of sleep I'm not at my peak until much later in the day, and if I get over seven hours I'm as bad off as getting five or less hours of sleep. I never realized that this was a mutation or anything, I always took it for granted that different people needed differing amounts of sleep. My girlfriend can't function with less than eight hours (or more), though if I got that much sleep I'd be a groggy zombie for hours after waking, and if she got the same six hours I got, she'd be a groggy zombie as well. I thought this was under the "natural variation" heading of genetics/biology.
I'm glad I'm a mutant, I will now gather an army of others who require slightly less sleep than others, and train them to enjoy that extra three hours a day scheming to... take the coffee away from the rest you sleepy humans!
There is a bit of finesse here. Lets presume for a second that Obama's health care plan would actually benefit some segment of the population (real people, not corporations, government or HMOs), opposing it on purely inhuman ideological grounds could be seen as evil, if we accept human well being as the ends for all good actions. He's forcing something on us, and purely ideological opponents are also forcing something on us. Its the act of imposing your will on others which is the common point.
We run into a problem with calling Obama's health care plan evil though... A majority of people voted for him, knowing EXACTLY that he would do this, and a majority of state voters voted for the majority party in congress, and should have known that this would happen. I take this as acceptance, or at best complacence. We (as in Americans, not us individually) wanted this, and thus it isn't being forced on us.
Yes, there is problems with this, but these problems are rife in any democracy (a republic being a form of democracy). The tyranny of the masses is built into the system, a little "evil" will always leak in, but this is arguably better than the alternatives (one person or group inflicting their will upon you).
The other problem with ideological opposition (notice the word "ideological") is that it ignore the real world, and human consequences. When you oppose something that effects humans for non-human reasons, then you are doing nothing but trying to inflict your ideology on others as well. Lets say, for instance, that you are a strong libertarian, this is fine, as long as you don't think that this is the only way of seeing things, or the only valid way. Your ideology must be balanced by the ideologies of other interested parties, only through that compromise do we minimize the evil of imposing our will upon others.
I, for example, have some heavy socialist leanings (not in the common misuse of the term as ad hominem and partisan smear), but I would NEVER want to live in a purely socialist country. I like the idea, but realize that it fails at several levels, several of which are going to be completely opaque to me. I need the moderation of opposing views to correct the flaws in my own mental schemas. Ideologies, in other words, exist in a void, detached from the human consequences of their imposition into reality.
If you oppose Obama's health care for real, human related, reasons then there is no evil there, as long as you can acknowledge that there are people with equally valid views on the other end. I as a socialist REALLY dislike his plan as well, to remove any partisan element from this. If you oppose it just because you have an ideology, then you are just as bad as other people inflicting ideologies on you. Just because you agree with it, doesn't make it good or just.
Slashdot Mirror
From you: "The problem is many of the Scientists went to University to study "Earth Sciences" in one form or another and were already reading books by people like Konrad Lorenz before then. The Green movement is obviously anti-technocracy."
Many =! All. Your critical thinking skills are a bit off there. SOME of the "green movement" might be luddites, but this does not translate to ALL of them are. A second fallacy here is grouping a whole group of people together into one unified class. We both post and read /., therefore we share common interests, but to say that we hold a common ideologies (universal to all Slashdotters) would be patently false.
I like to view myself as a "Green" person, but I'm very far from being anti-technology, I view our environmental problems as technological problems many of which have technological solutions. Though the term "Green" makes me a bit angry, since right now it is nothing more than a marketing term, the ideology behind it has long since blown away, for the most part.
No, he's a man with a brain, who can take advice from whomever he chooses.
So he has the scientific expertise to select which scientists have the most scientific expertise? Either that or he's like most of us mere mortals who generally take advice from people who are willing to support our world view.
It just so happens that he isn't fooled by all of the Green propaganda (as you have been).
It just so happens that he isn't fooled by all of the oil industry propaganda (as you have been).
See what I did there? Its equally valid. Merry Christmas. Also please notice I never made a statement saying whether I believed in, or denied (as if it mattered) global warming. I find the debate MUCH more amusing/interesting than the topic it is based on. Neither side seems to be able to be honest or reasonable... It is much more an emotional debate than a factual or scientific one, at least as far as the popular (lay) discourse goes. And as an emotional debate, the topic itself isn't even worth listening to, all that matters is the rhetoric both parties spin.
For actual informative substance on the topic itself, I'd rather read peer-reviewed journals, as most Slashdotters (myself included) are really not qualified to have any type of opinion that matters.
Indeed, it would appear I am a lot smarter, yes. If you would like some lessons in critical thinking, I charge $100/hour.
Obviously your rhetorical skills FAR out weigh my own. I can barely remember back to some odd rhetoric or philosophy class I once took where it told me that ad hominems and groundless appeals to self-authority were the best way of supporting ones opinions.
Actually, I was referring to a paradigm shift, not harking back to some golden age. Paradigm shifts are difficult to achieve, because there are so many vested interests in keeping the status quo.
I don't think Thomas Kuhn wrote anything about politics, or policy. And from a purely scientific point of view (which was where Kuhn was speaking from, and of) the global warming hypothesis (and AGW, by relation) could be seen as a paradigm shift.
Whose to say? Not I.
Personally, I find this to be quite ironic considering that a fundamental teaching of the belief system that many Americans profess to follow is: "let him who is without sin cast the first stone."
No irony, the obvious solution is that many people truly believe themselves to be "without sin". Or more accurately, more and more people think themselves more perfect, and smarter than everyone else. The only other people worthy of consideration is people with like views, morality, and opinions, everyone else is wrong, evil, or stupid. How many people are there in this world who "know better", and would like to inflict it on others.
Go read the global warming topic here, or the myriad off-topic health care rants. All of these arguments boil down to two sets of self-righteous people telling other groups of self-righteous people that they are wrong only because they don't agree with their own private view points.
This is rather common, and growing more-so it seems.
It shouldn't be a "belief". That isn't science.
Read up on your epistemology. An episteme (bit of knowledge) can basically be called "a justified, true, belief". Basically it must fulfill those three conditions to be considered a valid bit of information. Obviously people who endorse a theory believe it (thus it is a belief), it must also be factual (true), and they must have done due dilligence to actually prove that said belief was factual (justified).
At least that is one model.
All of these diseperate scientific bodies agreeing on one thing can only mean one thing:
A conspiracy! Worse, a conspiracy of leftist, socialist Luddites against progress and the American way of life!
The Green movement is obviously anti-technocracy.
Yes... hence the push for low-tech solar panels, low-tech wind generators, low-tech friendly hydrogen... and even luddite nuclear power instead of the amazingly high tech, and bleeding edge, coal and oil. Obviously Luddites, only standing in the way of progress.
Oh wait, the people on the side of "progress" want things to be exactly the same as it always has been, with giant oil and gas companies doing exactly what they want, and receiving giant hand outs for it while pumping out tons of crap (not just CO2).
I think only the Czech President has the balls to face down the warmists and flat-out disagree with what they're saying.
Yes, because politicians are also all scientific experts, and obviously omnipotent enough to know whats best for everyone in the long run... Foreign ones of course, all of ours are morons (unless they agree with you at least 90% of the time).
But you know, the truth will eventually come out (that warming/cooling is almost entirely natural).
Because your a climate scientist, and have vast reams of data sitting in your mothers basement that you've been pouring over for years. Or your just that damn smart, much smarter than anyone else, especially if they disagree with you.
It's just that this generation of Politicians and Scientists have their reputations to consider, so I don't expect it to come out any time soon.
Much unlike the last generation of politicians who were truly of the grand generations, and not at all only looking out for themselves and trying to consolidate their power base as much as possible. And those previous generations of scientists who could write whatever they felt, ignoring all the standing opinions and facts with no repercussions at all, and were souly judged by the amount they agreed with your particular opinions of matters in which you are probably not qualified to have meaningful opinions in.
You forgot one:
- Global Warming deniers. Because the exact same reasons.
Actually debate is impossible with anyone who classes everyone who disagrees with them into one vague and insulting stereotype.
One of the reasons I distrust it so much, is that so damned many politicians are involved. There's money in the global warming scare. Tons of money are being shoveled at any "researcher" who promises to come up with the answers wanted. From my view, we have politicians paying "scientists" for the answers they want, which is ridiculous.
The exact same thing could be said for people denying it, or opting for the status quo.
I'm always shocked how global warming has devolved into whats sounds just like a religious argument, ON BOTH SIDES. Watching people debate global warming is like watching people debate abortion, disturbingly amusing with absolute no potential for a resolution. Also, like abortion debates, it brings out the wackos, and people who have absolutely no self-reasoned foundations for their views, who are only being a well-trained mouth piece for power players.
Global warming is now a religious debate, which I actually find scary since it basically means science has become a bunch of meaningless morality (and world-view enforcing) bullshit. In these situations there can be no meaningful debate (between experts, us lay people know jack shit, and should at least have the common courtesy to admit it), which basically means there can be no science.
Funny. I could have cherry-picked similar "numbers" decades back to "prove" that "science said" that smoking cigarettes was healthy.
So lets run with this line of logic, shall we? Being that all scientific knowledge MAY change in the future (looking at the history of the discipline shows this to be a historically accurate statement), then we can deny all of science, since someday it may be disprove, based on its very nature. So basically all of human knowledge is completely arbitrary, and thus we should be allowed to substitute it with whatever we want.
This is the exact same fallacy that the creationists use, and basically every crank out there uses, which is based on a severe misunderstanding of how science works.
Yes, AGW might be dismissed as faulty someday... And so might a lot of other things. But I'd rather wait until this actually happens before I substitute it whatever sounds pleasant to me and my world view, because it might also NOT be found faulty. I, and probably you, are not qualified in any way to actually judge, so it is rather silly to claim that we can just dismiss it because it is faulty (in our opinion).
What if it isn't proven false, and we don't act on the information we have now?
Touche! I'm generally not one to bandy the term "rights" about for pretty much the same reasons you caught me on (that and I won't take anyone seriously using it until someone can actually define them, or tell me WHERE the came from). I did use the term in a vague and "hand wavy" way, and I stand mildly chastised.
Is it mythic, then, or isn't it?
I was referring to two problems. The dependence on purely online play is a real problem to me, since I like to collect games, and not merely play them once and forget about them. The mythic bit is the fact that a substantial percentage of Blizzards potential customers will turn to piracy at this.
The conversation is not, and has never been, about whether Blizzard (or whoever) "can" do something, but whether Blizzard ought.
Ought is somewhat tricky here, though I do understand what your getting at. Blizzard ought to do whatever they see fit to make a game that is both enjoyable and profitable, this of course is my (and probably their) opinion. I'm guessing they are going to succeed in that. It would be nice if they included what is now pretty much a "niche feature" to make a small, but apparently rapid percentage of their fan base happy; but I'm not sure that this constitutes an "ought". For a vast majority of people the lack of LAN play will not be noticed or missed, so how is including it an ethical imperative?
As stated, the reliance on Battle.net for multiplayer annoys me, but I can also see some of their reasoning. I might not agree, but that doesn't matter.
Furthermore, I find it disturbing whenever people talk about corporations as having "rights," but since the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist I may be thinking anachronistically.
In this case you don't even have to look at it as a corporation, just a group of people making a product. They pretty much can make that product in whatever way they see fit, as long as it doesn't physically hurt someone, and is produced within certain ethical constraints. If they want to put restrictions on their product, I see no problem with this.
I do, tangentially, agree that corporate rights is a silly statement, and probably should be abolished. But in this case I don't see this coming into play. If you, as a private individual, created a game that required online functionality, and didn't support LAN play do you should be able to block your decision? Probably not. I have some problems with this, where I do think that people should be allowed to hack LAN play into your product, even if you retaliate by not allowing hacked copies into your online backyard, this, here I doubt is the case, nor would Blizzard's legal department agree.
But when I referred to Feyshtey as part of the problem, I was referring to Feyshtey's attitude of full support for "defective by design" or any other way a manufacturer seeks to "protect their product."
In a sense, though, I agree with him. As a creator you can make things in any way you really desire, and this is includes making flawed (but not physically harmful) products. I find it a shame that so many producers DO this, though, since they are harming a hobby I enjoy. The whole state of PC gaming (and software in general) is in pretty bad shape right now, with rampant (and often justifiable since there is no returns for bad products) piracy, flagrantly awful DRM, silly and exploitative licensing, bad mannered customers, etc...
Often, perhaps most of the time if you live in a first-world country, you will make a stronger argument if you do not resort to "rights." The realm of "what you are allowed to do" does not overlap the realm of "wise behavior," or even "rationally justifiable behavior."
Agreed. I generally get pissed when people don't mention "responsibility" in the same sentence as they utter "rights", and often the utterance of "rights" is translated by my brain as "me me me!". This, though, I don't see as being strongly applicable here. Tying accounts into Battle.net do
Yes, Slashdot is REALLY representative of Blizzards audience. Or not.
Actually with Battle.net, the people who get the pirated LAN version probably won't be able to play online matches, and thus will ONLY get LAN play. As much as people want it, I'm sure even your mythic 90% will, in the end, decide Battle.net is more important the the limited utility of LAN-only play. Best case scenario (your best case, not Blizzards) is that this mythic 90% will pirate a copy for LAN play, and buy a copy for the 90% of the functionality they would be losing out of their nostalgia for the mid 90's.
Yes, I'm going to miss LAN play (spawn copies, moreso), but I will buy the game. I'd rather be able to connect to people online, than in my living room. Most of my old friends who I used to play against in the 90's live rather too far way now to haul their rig into my living room.
Another comment; polls don't represent what people will actually do. I'm sure if there was a poll right now on whether the lack of LAN and spawn copies would be a deal breaker for me, I'd say "yes", just to send a point, but once I see that shiny box of SCII goodness on the shelves, I'd buy it in a heart beat. SCII will be a best seller, and will remain so for years, just like SCI. I'm sure some "hard core" nerds will refuse to buy it (which is what percentage of the whole population?), but will break down when they realize that there hasn't been a decent RTS out for years, and all their freinds are perfectly happy with their unethical zerg-rushes.
Relax, its just a game. And more so, it isn't even your game, Blizzard has the right to make whatever game however they want, and you have the right not to buy it. I don't see how insulting random people on /. forces Blizzard to develop their property the way you want them to.
Don't buy the game, thats that.
I personally don't see a problem, I haven't played a LAN game for years, since probably when StarCraft was still hip. Most games today don't even offer LAN multiplayer anymore, and no one gets pissy about it (that I've noticed), at least on this scale. I'm sure some people have a problem with it, and enough of them do, Blizzard will have to do something, or they won't make money (if they want to, it still is their property, and they can do whatever the hell they like with it).
I will not buy a broken product, and what is more I will avoid buying a product that can be broken on the creator's whim.
This is a problem, I agree. I've been complaining about Steam being the future of gaming for some time, even while most people continue to claim that its the greatest thing since sliced bread. I'm leary of this still, but less so than I was a couple years back, and even then my greatest complaint was I had to be online to enjoy the game AT ALL (not just multiplayer). Blizzard gets a little bit of my trust though, since they haven't done much to prove otherwise. You can still find DiabloII and SC supported, a huge amount of time after release (eons in computer time, really). I don't like it, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Blizzard will see my money (God knows they have seen enough of it over the years).
Before you insult me, and call me the part of some mythic problem, this is my right, as it is your right to NOT give them money. Sure, you'll miss a probably enjoyable game, but that shouldn't matter. I don't shop at Wallmart, nor do I feel I can bitch about all the cheap Chinese crap I'm missing out on at the same time. Its one or the other.
Zeno, is that you? No? I think someone said the EXACT same thing 2000 years ago.
In all seriousness though, isn't it impossible to discuss "infinitesimal steps" since things get odd after a certain (finite but very small) point? Outside of pure math, infinite steps becomes rather meaningless.
To respond to the person your replying to: "Yes, a perfect circle is only possible in pure math, but probably not (or at least EXTREMELY improbable) in the actual universe".
An even better proof of the lack of pattern is that human brains are set up to find patterns, even in random data. We haven't found a pattern in pi, so its pretty good proof that it is REALLY random. If someone hasn't found Jesus in it yet, it is more random than tortilla chips, and that is pretty damn random.
Debates aren't about balance, they are about discussing right and wrong, or pros and cons.
Which is somewhat about balance. If we're discussing right and wrong, we acknowledge that our knowledge isn't perfect, nor our ideologies, for if they were there would never be a point of discussion.
Yes, there is degrees to this. Someone who says the Constitution grants them the unlimited right to shoot people in the face without consequences has a bit less reason to be heard, than people who are or are against health care, or who are arguing the semantics of the term "the people" as applied to the second amendment, obviously.
I know a majority of the people participating in the tea party. Not a single one was coopted by Republican think-tanks. I think you're confusing 'people coopted by Republican think-tanks' with 'people who joined the Republican party because they mostly agree with their values'.
I'm sure there was a bit of them. But there is some evidence that some of the people in them, and some of the publicists, were plants by large PACs, and not genuine grass roots. Some != all. How do you explain the fact that Tea Parties have existed for a bit, but only the last one was a HUGE media event, even though there has been no real increases in taxes for some bit, and the previous canidate was also a big spender (larger than Obama so far).
If I believe that government spending is out of control--and the Republican party also believes that--am I suddenly being coopted by Republican think-tanks?
Most Republicans voted for Bush, who was not know for being a fiscal conservative, also. I think a lot of them are donning the mask of conservatism just because they don't like Obama over-spending in ways they personally don't like, not because of government over spending in general.
I wouldn't call asking the government to behave constitutionally 'evil'. You are free to have your beliefs and do your own thing in life. And so am I.
Neither would I. I would if you wouldn't have included the second part of that, though. Good government is based on ideological fist fights, the second someone wished to remove that, then they veer on evil.
When one group gets the government to take money from another group (like the current healthcare hot topic takes money from everyone to help cover uninsured), that's evil. Actually, when your work is taken from you to serve another it's called slavery.
Here I disagree. We have nothing against roads and other public works, nor do we have much against the police and fire departments. Most of us are even for government spent research (such as ARPA's internet, NASA, etc...). You might be against these, I don't know.
Calm down, I wasn't arguing with you, you trying to present on point of view, or party, as being less idiotic than the other.
You only have vastly different meanings because some idiots are afraid of guns. If the second amendment were about books, no one would be complaining: "A well regulated library being necessary to the education of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Actually I don't think the second amendment gives a the blanket right for everyone to be armed, and I'm not scared of guns (own a couple myself). The two problem terms is the word "militia", and the parsing of the word "people" (as opposed to "persons"). This is a different debate though, I just point this out to show that there is valid ambiguity here, and not all people who disagree with you are gun haters, or people frightened of guns.
So if Democrats are doing it, it's 'ok' because the Republicans are allegedly doing it?
Never said or implied that. I was just balancing the debate, and pointing out that both major parties are participating in this idiocy.
Maybe I should ignore the Democrats when they protest the next war because they're 'astroturf protesters' brought in by the left because the right allegedly does it? (Come to think of it though, I haven't seen any more war protests now that Obama is president. Is the war suddenly OK now?)
Let me clarify, I'm sorry for being a bit vague there; Some of the Tea Party scene were actual people, who actually had views they wanted to present. A large part of the scene was coopted by Republican think-tanks, and asto-turfing firms. I have nothing against the original (mostly libertarian) groups, but I do have something against the attempts from outside to blow them into something bigger, and more talking point worthy.
I really doubt the original tea party groups approved, or endorsed, the paid idiots standing around with birther signs, for example.
(Come to think of it though, I haven't seen any more war protests now that Obama is president. Is the war suddenly OK now?)
This annoys me too. Though most of the protests were over Iraq, and now our involvement is much reduced from when Bush was at the helm (this isn't because of Obama though). Sadly Afghanistan is a boon-doggle, but it never was as "popular" a cause, for whatever reason (perhaps because it was a more just war than the completely pointless and arbitrary Iraq mess).
Fine. Here's the case. The government needs to stop spending our money on unconstitutional activities. The constitution very specifically says what each branch can do. There is no provision in the system for healthcare. No provision for the FAA, FCC, ATF, CDC, FBI, etc... Cut all the special programs out too--like housing assistance, farm subsidies, etc... Balance the budget and get spending under control or we will force you to. Stop taking away the rights of the people. Stop screwing with gun rights, freedom of speech, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, etc...or once again, the people will force you to stop.
Good, you have a case... This wasn't the point though. I disagree with you on many of these issues, and this too is fine. The second you try to impose your views on others, or censor their ability to disagree, then we venture into what I'd call evil, though. It isn't the views, its the idea that they are total correct, and should be inflicted on others against their will.
death panels' is a bit much
This was my point in calling them hyperbolic. I wasn't saying I LIKE the bill, or even dislike it. I was just saying that "death panel" is a bit of an overstatement.
Also, isn't this what insurance companies do now?
True. I always find it funny that every single one of those people took an oath to uphold, and defend the constitution--yet not a single one of them does it. Not a single one cares about our freedom.
I think a lot of them believe that they are upholding the Constitution. Yes, a shocking, and growing, amount of them could care less, but I genuinely think that the majority still cares. The problematic bit of this is that there is no absolute idea of what the Constitution says, or any absolute way in interpreting it. Your idea of what the Constitution says is probably completely different from my idea, and both of our ideas are vastly different than what Barak Obama takes home from it at the end of the day.
The drafters are dead, and the context for much of what they wrote is completely lost to us. Even a literal reading doesn't do much for the controversial parts. Look at the Second Amendment, how you parse comma can lead to vastly different readings. Look how much debate and literature has been written about a single sentence amendment.
Again, here is the room for spirited argument, which is good for democracy. I hold nothing against anyone arguing their point, I only get worried when someone insists that their point is correct and all others should be censored. The recurring theme here is people who think they have access to absolute truth are the problem.
Yes--astroturfing like when the Democrats planted a fake Doctor [wordpress.com] at a recent town hall meeting?
The opposition is doing this too, inserting fake interested red necks into debates, and trying to side track completely unrelated events towards the ends of killing Obama's healthcare, most of whom are sponsored by party bigwigs and HMOs. Same with the fake Tea Party scene back on tax day. Both sides are guilty of this. It annoys me that the interested parties can't just come out and STATE THEIR CASE. Being that they only resort to astroturfing and other dishonesties, I personally think that these causes (both pro and con) have no actually argument, and should be completely ignored.
If you don't have a rational point, you really shouldn't expect to be listened to.
It shouldn't scare you unless you are 65+.
The majority of healthcare costs (on the order of 75%) come from people 65 and up. So if you have to cut costs, where would you do it? Stop giving life-saving treatment to the old people? Yeah. They won't vote for much longer anyways. Give the treatment to the people who will vote for you for a long time--like 18-year-olds.
But calling it a "death panel" is a bit hyperbolic. So far I haven't seen anything about removing the ability to shop around. And also, our current Medicare program isn't known for killing people past 65, so I see no reason to think that an extension of it would.
He never said during his campaign that he would do this. He simply said 'Healthcare Reform'.
I seem to remember that he went over details during the primary, when he and Hillary were duking it out for the worst public health care plan. The details changed a bit, but thats to be expected from unleashing it on congress. Regardless, we the voters are still culpable since we then voted for him without being even a little bit sure of the details.
Same thing with the healthcare. There are some people that want his healthcare plan, others that oppose it, and finally some that think he's not socialist enough.
Completely true, and on its face this is a good example of healthy democracy in action. Though we run into two problems, astroturfing, and the extreme ends of the ideological spectrum (my way or no way at all). People aren't being honest here, either that or our population has truly become dominated by the lunatic fringe.
The people spouting things about "death panels"... They scare me.
Yes. the government wants power. This falls into the grandparents idea of "everyone", anyone who has read Foucault (the philosopher not the mathematician) knows this.
But some of the examples you cite are a result of the government not having power, and corporations excerting power against their long term survival. We decided that the "free market" is the be-all-end-all and killed all regulations, as a result these companies became "too big to fail", and quickly maximized short term gains over long term survival, threatening to kill our whole economic system. Thus someone needed to save them, for the good of the whole country. Yes, this sucks, but I can't see a good solution in there, outside of the old idea of "regulation" which is taboo in certain circles, ironically the same circles who are against the government squandering billions of dollars to fix the same problem that these peoples ideology helped create. As a result we have even fatter and happier bankers and automakers, who now know that there exists no consequences to their failures.
As for the auto industry... I would be even more frightened of living in a country that has NO means for manufacturing. Remember who we used to ramp up arms production in WWI and WWII. Yes, these industries were dying, but we couldn't really exist without them.
Both are ugly solutions to ugly problems, caused by ugly plutocratic ideologies (Reaganomics, supply side ideocy, and other forms of "economy over anyone else in society" blind ideologies.
What is a better solution? Ask this before you criticize.
Perhaps he did, and perhaps he didn't. Perhaps YOU are Twitter bringing attention to Twitter, AC. Perhaps I am Twitter bringing attention to Twitter's AC call to attention to Twitter. Perhaps Twitter is everywhere, and we are all but merely his sock puppets working his terrible twisted will.
My comment still stands, falling for it or not. I really don't care who said it, he had a good point. Just because he is the reviled Twitter doesn't matter much if he had a point.
If it was just Twitter posting AC to make Twitter look better, sobeit. I admit, I don't much like his tactics, and he does appear to be a dubious individual, but this is Slashdot, and a lot of our "minor celebrities" fall into this mold.
I'm not in the military, but I know some field doctors in the military, and I must say that they shock me with their professionalism even off the field of battle. One of them while on the trip to a bar, noticed a small car accident, where the police and paramedics already responded, he pulled over, and rushed to the scene, just in case he was needed. He wasn't, but still stayed just in case something happened. This guy also suffered from severe PTSD, and was an emotional wreck both before and after this, but during the actually crisis, he was as calm and cool as anyone I've ever met.
Contrast this with some paramedic friends I know, who have never actually stopped for scenarios when they might assist (despite a legal obligation to do so).
Not stating that all paramedics or military personnel are like this, but this is my limited and anecdotal experience.
For one the entire point of a government in the first place is to keep order.
Says who? Where does it say this? Is this for EVERY government in the history of the world, or just a definition someone once wrote?
I always thought the government existed to maximize the well being of its residence, and protect their individual rights (viz limiting the rights of others), via a social contract. Well at least all governments founded after Hobbes, Locke, Mill, and Rousseau (modern democracies). Before that governments existed to exert power over the masses, or to enforce the opinions of the few, to form economic blocks, to protect against the invasion of foreigners, and yes, in a few cases to keep order.
And now that we have a democracy, the goal of the government is to represent the people, along with other things.
The user "Anonymous Coward" is a known anonymous coward sock puppet.
That said, i thought Twitter was supposed to be a well known Microsoft sock puppet? Sure, some of his activities are annoying as hell, but sometimes he also has valid points, this being one of them. I really don't care WHO you are, I rarely even look at the user string of these posts, I care more about WHAT you are saying. Who you are, and what you say should be disconnected, as long as what you say is valid, and has good facts going for it.
If your worst enemy said the sky is blue, would you decide the sky was in-fact NOT blue, just because it came from someone you don't like?
I don't get it, I generally always get around six hour of sleep, naturally, even without having to set alarms or balance a night life with morning obligations. I'm glad I'm a mutant too. I noticed if I get under six hours of sleep I'm not at my peak until much later in the day, and if I get over seven hours I'm as bad off as getting five or less hours of sleep. I never realized that this was a mutation or anything, I always took it for granted that different people needed differing amounts of sleep. My girlfriend can't function with less than eight hours (or more), though if I got that much sleep I'd be a groggy zombie for hours after waking, and if she got the same six hours I got, she'd be a groggy zombie as well. I thought this was under the "natural variation" heading of genetics/biology.
I'm glad I'm a mutant, I will now gather an army of others who require slightly less sleep than others, and train them to enjoy that extra three hours a day scheming to... take the coffee away from the rest you sleepy humans!
There is a bit of finesse here. Lets presume for a second that Obama's health care plan would actually benefit some segment of the population (real people, not corporations, government or HMOs), opposing it on purely inhuman ideological grounds could be seen as evil, if we accept human well being as the ends for all good actions. He's forcing something on us, and purely ideological opponents are also forcing something on us. Its the act of imposing your will on others which is the common point.
We run into a problem with calling Obama's health care plan evil though... A majority of people voted for him, knowing EXACTLY that he would do this, and a majority of state voters voted for the majority party in congress, and should have known that this would happen. I take this as acceptance, or at best complacence. We (as in Americans, not us individually) wanted this, and thus it isn't being forced on us.
Yes, there is problems with this, but these problems are rife in any democracy (a republic being a form of democracy). The tyranny of the masses is built into the system, a little "evil" will always leak in, but this is arguably better than the alternatives (one person or group inflicting their will upon you).
The other problem with ideological opposition (notice the word "ideological") is that it ignore the real world, and human consequences. When you oppose something that effects humans for non-human reasons, then you are doing nothing but trying to inflict your ideology on others as well. Lets say, for instance, that you are a strong libertarian, this is fine, as long as you don't think that this is the only way of seeing things, or the only valid way. Your ideology must be balanced by the ideologies of other interested parties, only through that compromise do we minimize the evil of imposing our will upon others.
I, for example, have some heavy socialist leanings (not in the common misuse of the term as ad hominem and partisan smear), but I would NEVER want to live in a purely socialist country. I like the idea, but realize that it fails at several levels, several of which are going to be completely opaque to me. I need the moderation of opposing views to correct the flaws in my own mental schemas. Ideologies, in other words, exist in a void, detached from the human consequences of their imposition into reality.
If you oppose Obama's health care for real, human related, reasons then there is no evil there, as long as you can acknowledge that there are people with equally valid views on the other end. I as a socialist REALLY dislike his plan as well, to remove any partisan element from this. If you oppose it just because you have an ideology, then you are just as bad as other people inflicting ideologies on you. Just because you agree with it, doesn't make it good or just.
Yes, and the people who oppose it for purely ideological reasons as well.