"...get so upset when the mayor of New York simply decides he isn't going to buy a pornographic and overtly offensive museum exhibit."
NO. He is deciding FOR EVERYBODY else whether or not HE thinks government should fund this art. Did he conduct a poll? Did he ask anybody? I don't think so. He just up and decided it for everybody. It first has to be proven that a majority thinks government should fund such art (whether a majority LIKE the art itself is not the question...that is irrelevant as long as it is legal, which is another matter). You could well argue against me by saying that the people have shown their support for any of his actions a priori by voting for him, which I think is an equally dreadful mistake.
"If a large portion of the US doesn't like what's displayed at the museum, and government money is to benefit the people, then it makes sense that we shouldn't fund it." First prove that the majority of people of New York do not want the government to fund it (whether they like it or not is irrelevent as long as it is legal...whether it is legal is a different discussion).
Arabica is the "original" coffee bean. It has less caffeine, and a fuller, richer smoother flavor. It is harder to grow and thus more expensive. Sometimes you will see 100% Columbian. I think this means it uses only Arabica beans. Not sure.
Robusta was made so coffee could be grown in more places. It is more robust and can thrive in locations Arabica can't. It has more caffeine, and a bit less "body", and is more bitter than Arabica. It is also a lot cheaper.
Basically your cheap coffee will be chock full o robusta, while the more expensive 100% Columbian, or Supremo will have the higher-quality (IMHO) Arabica beans. That's why coffee always tastes better when you get it from like a restaurant...they use Arabica (or it could just be my imagination).
Yes but how much of a deviation is 28.21% impotence from the normal population? Over the last century impotence has skyrocketed, due, supposedly, to electric fields and industrial pollutants...oh yeah, and Mtn. Dew.
Yeah...I think and design best when I'm on caffeine...but I/code/ best with headphones and some good music (Pearl Jam and Stone Temple Pilots are my favorite coding music). It distracts the fidgety part of my mind so I don't wander off and start designing all sorts of other stuff.
I would like to know to. I take calcium supplements, because, among other reasons, I drink a lot of coffee. Does this mean I am going to inadvertently cause my brain to implode or explode?
We already have realtime audio-textual language translators that are surprisingly accurate.
I think what they are talking about is a textual intermediate language to bridge other languages. I think this is how the audio translators work anyway so we may be half way there. I think an XML language would do perfectly, like:
Something like that (hopefully it wasn't munged). Then I'd say "The boy walked slowly and lazily to school", and it would be converted to the meta language, then into the destination language.
"On the flip side, the mayor should have the right to say what goes on on property he's responsible for."
No he shouldn't. He is neither an artist or a museum exhibitor. As long as it's legal he should not bother himself with it. In fact the very thing he SHOULDN'T do is use his PERSONAL views to abuse his power and change things according to the way HE likes it. If that picture was the Kabbaa (or whatever the islamic holy stone is called) would he give a damn? Probably not.
"The mayor has not once said the museum of art can't show what it likes, he's only said it can't show this material on Government property, with Government money. Is that really censorship, when nobody is being stopped?"
Yes, because HE has no right to decide that. PEOPLE run the government, no him personally. At least there should be a vote, if he has to do anything about it (which he doesn't). According to the number of exhibit-goers, I'd say that hopefully it gets to stay. This is just another case where people who DON'T like something force their opinion on OTHERS instead of just NOT going and seeing it. OTHERS are FORCING people to see it.
"All that's happening is that the mayor has set boundaries - something every person does every day, because it is both healthy and necessary."
"Healthy and necesary" to WHOM? The people of New York, or Mr. uptight Julianni? Who? The mayor doesn't set those boundaries. The people do. Just because he's a mayor doesn't mean he gets to tyrannized people with his personal views. Perhaps he doesn't something else...maybe he just shouldn't give it funding then, right??
"If something is a definite "wrong", then who does it should not matter. As soon as it does, you have a dictatorship, with one side dictating the reality of the other. Plain and simple."
Yes, so you will have to prove to me that the people of New York (perhaps state, depending) have collectively come to the conclusion it is "wrong" to use city/state funds on it. Then I'll be convinced. But right now Julianni is acting out the dictator position you describe.
"That pig that was cut in half - a life was sacrificed for people's viewing pleasure. Is this any better than badger baiting, hare coursing or fox hunting? Yet these are either banned or under review, in many countries, as cruel and barbaric."
First prove that the pig didn't die of old age, natural death, etc. Then prove that everybody in New York STILL thinks its wrong for the government to fund such art (NOTE: Not that they think it is "morally" wrong, but that they think it is wrong for the government to/Fund/ it).
"Not surprising, really. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that degrading the value and significance of life is, at best, seriously sick and diseased."
Ok, whatever, mister moral supremecist...I guess there are a lot of "sick and diseased" artists out there...what about paintings of naked women being "sick and diseased"...Mozart once wrote a concert whose subject was a burlesque house, guess that's just another "diseased" artist...saying some art is "sick and diseased" based on your own morals has a bad historical track record...
Man, Christians calling others Hitlers and Nazis. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. (not to start off the flame war, but I just find that statement ironic seeing as the Nazi regime was devoutly Christian)
Euthanasia has nothing to do with "defining" humanity. It has to do with putting a being out of its pain (regardless of what "type" of being that is, or to what extent it is "human"). We euthanize animals out of respect, why can't humans even get the same treatment as animals. Forcing any being to suffer in any form against their will is incompassionate.
"A newborn certainly can't consent to being killed, of course (at least not in any way we can currently understand)."
Yes, and if it is born gruesomely disfigured, etc. there will probably be no chance it will ever be able to demonstrate consent. The point is that a decision has to be made on behalf of the child whether or not it should live a probably live of misery and pain or not. That decision has to be made somewhere. Not making the decision doesn't make the child not suffer. This still has nothing to do with how "human" something is. It has to do with the probability it would have to live a miserable, crippling, painful and gruesome death. Do you have hangups over putting animals to sleep? If not, why the difference?
Now abortion is a different matter. Regardless of where you draw the "human" line, it DOESN'T MATTER. It's not YOUR problem OR decision. If you draw the line at conception you can label tons of women murderers if you want, but it is entirely irrelevant because you have no say. It is their choice what they do with their body, and NOT yours.
"Making an intelligent argument, which implies backing up your statements ("Religion is for the weak-willed and needy, and this is why..."), is within anyone's rights; simple insults ("Religion is for weak-willed and needy people") are not."
It was in Playboy for crying out loud. What "intelligent argument" do you want him to give Playboy? They just wanted sound bites.
"...but freedom entails the right for people to be stupid, closed-minded, and sheep-like."
They have the freedom to be so, but NOT to enforce it on others.
"I, for one, don't think taxpayer money should pay for any art, regardless of content."
I think the reason for that is to nurture "culture". Fat chance of that here in the US, eh?;) Anyway, I DO think it is a good thing for state-funded museums, etc. I sure would hate to have to be bilked by private companies for public history, culture, etc. I'm not sure if museums are for-profit. My feeling is that there should be at least some, not-for-profit, state-funded ones that have the responsibility to hold national historical property. E.g., a private museum could sell all our national heritage to another country.
"When we start doing this, the first person I'm going after is Stephen Hawking. It's obvious from his physical inadequacies that he can offer absolutely no value to society and should therefore be removed for the good of the whole. Dammit people, different does not mean worse, it does not mean less, it means different."
Stephen Hawking is another bad example. He was born entirely normal, healthy, fit and able. He has ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which basically means he loses all moter capability over time. It does not mean he was born retarded or disabled or disfigured or even in any vague way in some catastrophic shape that child euthanasia would require.
Oh, by the way, he does have kids so his genes will go one.
No that's a TERRIBLE example used to reduce the conversation. Nobody kills people just because they are "retarded". Now if that same kid had physically half a brain, no limbs and had to be fed through a tube, and would probably die in late childhood do to internal organ failure would YOU let that child live?? I sure hope not. Where would be your compassion in that?
Well I don't know of the KKK is Nazi related (I don't think so...but every damn white supremecy group has some stupid illusion of grandeur). The cases in which these groups are NOT allowed their privelages are specific EXCEPTIONS to the constitutiosn, and are probably in fact NOT constitutional. They are upheld, though, simply because of the absolute heinousness and dangerousness of these people. I have no doubt that if the "free speech" of these people weren't restricted, that the free beating torturing and murdering of ALSO wouldn't be restrained, so because of that the threat to the freedom of others overrides their right to assemble, whatever. And in other countries, who have historically been plagued by these people, it is so super-heinous that they have like no group rights. It's all a matter of the circumstances of the country. For instance, we can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater or say "I plan to kill the president on so and so", just like KKK can't say "Let's get together and kill some niggers" in a black neighborhood...which is as it should be...
"Which also means that there shouldn't be legislation to force anyone any other way."
Tell me a piece of legislation that FORCES you to do something against your morals, which also DOESN'T exist to uphold the freedom of others (in cases where there is a conflict between the two). Any? As per the constitution if YOUR morals impede others' freedom, their freedom wins and your morals lose. Tough.
"I've never seen a group of WMCs become violent, anywhere. I've seen a lot of hate groups, anti-christian, anti-black, anti-jew, anti-almost anything become violent."
And who do these groups consist of? Is it Hispanic females? Maybe black homosexuals? NO. They consist primarily of WMCs. But I've never heard really of an anti-christian group, besides/other/ fundamentalists in other countries. But I have yet to see a group of christians attempting to lynch a scientist. Anyway, violence is often not the greatest problem. People who disagree with WMCs in governmental and powerful positions have a tendency of not getting hired/raised based on merit, not getting the same general privelages or funding, "disappearing" or getting incredibly long sentences in remote prisons (just ask Leonard Peltier), etc. Anyway, just recently WMCs dragged a black person behind their truck until he died from virtually distintegrating alive. Those guys were'nt radical AFAIK, they just saw a black, didn't like him, and decided to torture him. Good ole boys. Also there was some thing in Oklahoma city I happen to remember.
"But there have also been plenty of OTHER groups killing scientists for whatever reason." Ok, list some (that exist in this country, because after all our legislation only effects this country). If these other groups do exist, the onus is on them also, it does not absolve christian lunatics.
"The foibles of Christian society are not unique to it." No, but they are to this country. Christians have a dangerously large influence. Christianity's foibles, and it's followers, affect legislation and freedom in this country more than any other religion.
I think the terminology of "tolerance" has been the convention, because INtolerance was the historical problem. Now I think acceptance/tolerance can almost be used interchangeably because tolerance is now the default (hopefully).
Actually, as per your example, America DOES tolerate your views, just doesn't accept them. If everybody is tolerant of others besides YOU, then you are the one who must be/tolerated/ by the rest because YOU have a view others *disagree* with.
Yes, well the reason may be because there is good cause to believe when lots of WMC group up and become vocal over things, people get killed, hurt, unfairly imprisoned, cheated, stolen from, etc. It's YOUR burden to separate yourself from fellow WMCs who believe in and promote heinous, dangerous, unethical, and illegal activity. As a matter of fact, SAY and SPEAK all you want. Just stay the hell away from our civil liberties. Remember, just because you don't LIKE something, doesn't mean there has to be legislation in your favor to force everybody else your way.
"If they want to do that, it's their business, their money, and their lives. If they want the right to decide whether a baby who wouldn't normally live should be allowed to, I suppose that's their right, but there would need to be some guidelines to prevent abuse."
Well, certain people in this country DON'T suppose it is anybody's right to decide so. In fact, they take it as THEIR right and responsibility to ruin people lives, if not end them. And there IS a chilling relation between these people and organized religion.
We can decide here and now what is ethically ok, but out in America people are being crucified for being gay or shredded by pipe bombs because somebody's god supposedly doesn't like them. That's far from "free".
Slashdot Mirror
"...get so upset when the mayor of New York simply decides he isn't going to buy a pornographic and overtly offensive museum exhibit."
NO. He is deciding FOR EVERYBODY else whether or not HE thinks government should fund this art. Did he conduct a poll? Did he ask anybody? I don't think so. He just up and decided it for everybody. It first has to be proven that a majority thinks government should fund such art (whether a majority LIKE the art itself is not the question...that is irrelevant as long as it is legal, which is another matter). You could well argue against me by saying that the people have shown their support for any of his actions a priori by voting for him, which I think is an equally dreadful mistake.
It's a sorry day when our justification for enduring women is because we need frittatas...
"If a large portion of the US doesn't like what's displayed at the museum, and government money is to benefit the people, then it makes sense that we shouldn't fund it." First prove that the majority of people of New York do not want the government to fund it (whether they like it or not is irrelevent as long as it is legal...whether it is legal is a different discussion).
Arabica is the "original" coffee bean. It has less caffeine, and a fuller, richer smoother flavor. It is harder to grow and thus more expensive. Sometimes you will see 100% Columbian. I think this means it uses only Arabica beans. Not sure.
Robusta was made so coffee could be grown in more places. It is more robust and can thrive in locations Arabica can't. It has more caffeine, and a bit less "body", and is more bitter than Arabica. It is also a lot cheaper.
Basically your cheap coffee will be chock full o robusta, while the more expensive 100% Columbian, or Supremo will have the higher-quality (IMHO) Arabica beans. That's why coffee always tastes better when you get it from like a restaurant...they use Arabica (or it could just be my imagination).
Yes but how much of a deviation is 28.21% impotence from the normal population? Over the last century impotence has skyrocketed, due, supposedly, to electric fields and industrial pollutants...oh yeah, and Mtn. Dew.
Yeah...I think and design best when I'm on caffeine...but I /code/ best with headphones and some good music (Pearl Jam and Stone Temple Pilots are my favorite coding music). It distracts the fidgety part of my mind so I don't wander off and start designing all sorts of other stuff.
Although this is off-topic (dunno how it got posted here), I'm glad to hear it because I've been looking for one!
I would like to know to. I take calcium supplements, because, among other reasons, I drink a lot of coffee. Does this mean I am going to inadvertently cause my brain to implode or explode?
Which brings us to:
If a man is alone in a forest and says something, is he still wrong?
You just described me...
errr...so maybe she's right when she says I'm cranky and short-tempered...
Please tell me that you guys are joking when you say caffeine shrinks testicals, leads to breast tenderness, and lumps...
please...
We already have realtime audio-textual language translators that are surprisingly accurate.
I think what they are talking about is a textual intermediate language to bridge other languages. I think this is how the audio translators work anyway so we may be half way there. I think an XML language would do perfectly, like:
(sentance)
(clause)
(subject name="boy")
(verb name="walk" tense="past simple" adverb="slowly" adverb="lazily")
(predicate)
(preposition name="to")
(noun name="school")
(/predicate)
(/clause)
(/sentence)
Something like that (hopefully it wasn't munged). Then I'd say "The boy walked slowly and lazily to school", and it would be converted to the meta language, then into the destination language.
doh, "OTHERS are FORCING" = "OTHERS are /not/ FORCING"
"On the flip side, the mayor should have the right to say what goes on on property he's responsible for."
/Fund/ it).
No he shouldn't. He is neither an artist or a museum exhibitor. As long as it's legal he should not bother himself with it. In fact the very thing he SHOULDN'T do is use his PERSONAL views to abuse his power and change things according to the way HE likes it. If that picture was the Kabbaa (or whatever the islamic holy stone is called) would he give a damn? Probably not.
"The mayor has not once said the museum of art can't show what it likes, he's only said it can't show this material on Government property, with Government money. Is that really censorship, when nobody is being stopped?"
Yes, because HE has no right to decide that. PEOPLE run the government, no him personally. At least there should be a vote, if he has to do anything about it (which he doesn't). According to the number of exhibit-goers, I'd say that hopefully it gets to stay. This is just another case where people who DON'T like something force their opinion on OTHERS instead of just NOT going and seeing it. OTHERS are FORCING people to see it.
"All that's happening is that the mayor has set boundaries - something every person does every day, because it is both healthy and necessary."
"Healthy and necesary" to WHOM? The people of New York, or Mr. uptight Julianni? Who? The mayor doesn't set those boundaries. The people do. Just because he's a mayor doesn't mean he gets to tyrannized people with his personal views. Perhaps he doesn't something else...maybe he just shouldn't give it funding then, right??
"If something is a definite "wrong", then who does it should not matter. As soon as it does, you have a dictatorship, with one side dictating the reality of the other. Plain and simple."
Yes, so you will have to prove to me that the people of New York (perhaps state, depending) have collectively come to the conclusion it is "wrong" to use city/state funds on it. Then I'll be convinced. But right now Julianni is acting out the dictator position you describe.
"That pig that was cut in half - a life was sacrificed for people's viewing pleasure. Is this any better than badger baiting, hare coursing or fox hunting? Yet these are either banned or under
review, in many countries, as cruel and barbaric."
First prove that the pig didn't die of old age, natural death, etc. Then prove that everybody in New York STILL thinks its wrong for the government to fund such art (NOTE: Not that they think it is "morally" wrong, but that they think it is wrong for the government to
"Not surprising, really. It doesn't take an Einstein to figure out that degrading the value and significance of life is, at best, seriously sick and diseased."
Ok, whatever, mister moral supremecist...I guess there are a lot of "sick and diseased" artists out there...what about paintings of naked women being "sick and diseased"...Mozart once wrote a concert whose subject was a burlesque house, guess that's just another "diseased" artist...saying some art is "sick and diseased" based on your own morals has a bad historical track record...
Man, Christians calling others Hitlers and Nazis. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. (not to start off the flame war, but I just find that statement ironic seeing as the Nazi regime was devoutly Christian)
Euthanasia has nothing to do with "defining" humanity. It has to do with putting a being out of its pain (regardless of what "type" of being that is, or to what extent it is "human"). We euthanize animals out of respect, why can't humans even get the same treatment as animals. Forcing any being to suffer in any form against their will is incompassionate.
"A newborn certainly can't consent to being killed, of course (at least not in any way we can currently understand)."
Yes, and if it is born gruesomely disfigured, etc. there will probably be no chance it will ever be able to demonstrate consent. The point is that a decision has to be made on behalf of the child whether or not it should live a probably live of misery and pain or not. That decision has to be made somewhere. Not making the decision doesn't make the child not suffer. This still has nothing to do with how "human" something is. It has to do with the probability it would have to live a miserable, crippling, painful and gruesome death. Do you have hangups over putting animals to sleep? If not, why the difference?
Now abortion is a different matter. Regardless of where you draw the "human" line, it DOESN'T MATTER. It's not YOUR problem OR decision. If you draw the line at conception you can label tons of women murderers if you want, but it is entirely irrelevant because you have no say. It is their choice what they do with their body, and NOT yours.
"Making an intelligent argument, which implies backing up your statements ("Religion is for the weak-willed and needy, and this is why..."), is within anyone's rights; simple insults ("Religion is for weak-willed and needy people") are not."
It was in Playboy for crying out loud. What "intelligent argument" do you want him to give Playboy? They just wanted sound bites.
"...but freedom entails the right for people to be stupid, closed-minded, and sheep-like."
;) Anyway, I DO think it is a good thing for state-funded museums, etc. I sure would hate to have to be bilked by private companies for public history, culture, etc. I'm not sure if museums are for-profit. My feeling is that there should be at least some, not-for-profit, state-funded ones that have the responsibility to hold national historical property. E.g., a private museum could sell all our national heritage to another country.
They have the freedom to be so, but NOT to enforce it on others.
"I, for one, don't think taxpayer money should pay for any art, regardless of content."
I think the reason for that is to nurture "culture". Fat chance of that here in the US, eh?
"When we start doing this, the first person I'm going after is Stephen Hawking. It's obvious from his physical inadequacies that he can offer absolutely no value to society and should therefore be removed for the good of the whole. Dammit people, different does not mean worse, it does not mean less, it means different."
Stephen Hawking is another bad example. He was born entirely normal, healthy, fit and able. He has ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, which basically means he loses all moter capability over time. It does not mean he was born retarded or disabled or disfigured or even in any vague way in some catastrophic shape that child euthanasia would require.
Oh, by the way, he does have kids so his genes will go one.
No that's a TERRIBLE example used to reduce the conversation. Nobody kills people just because they are "retarded". Now if that same kid had physically half a brain, no limbs and had to be fed through a tube, and would probably die in late childhood do to internal organ failure would YOU let that child live?? I sure hope not. Where would be your compassion in that?
Well I don't know of the KKK is Nazi related (I don't think so...but every damn white supremecy group has some stupid illusion of grandeur). The cases in which these groups are NOT allowed their privelages are specific EXCEPTIONS to the constitutiosn, and are probably in fact NOT constitutional. They are upheld, though, simply because of the absolute heinousness and dangerousness of these people. I have no doubt that if the "free speech" of these people weren't restricted, that the free beating torturing and murdering of ALSO wouldn't be restrained, so because of that the threat to the freedom of others overrides their right to assemble, whatever. And in other countries, who have historically been plagued by these people, it is so super-heinous that they have like no group rights. It's all a matter of the circumstances of the country. For instance, we can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater or say "I plan to kill the president on so and so", just like KKK can't say "Let's get together and kill some niggers" in a black neighborhood...which is as it should be...
"Which also means that there shouldn't be legislation to force anyone any other way."
/other/ fundamentalists in other countries. But I have yet to see a group of christians attempting to lynch a scientist. Anyway, violence is often not the greatest problem. People who disagree with WMCs in governmental and powerful positions have a tendency of not getting hired/raised based on merit, not getting the same general privelages or funding, "disappearing" or getting incredibly long sentences in remote prisons (just ask Leonard Peltier), etc. Anyway, just recently WMCs dragged a black person behind their truck until he died from virtually distintegrating alive. Those guys were'nt radical AFAIK, they just saw a black, didn't like him, and decided to torture him. Good ole boys. Also there was some thing in Oklahoma city I happen to remember.
Tell me a piece of legislation that FORCES you to do something against your morals, which also DOESN'T exist to uphold the freedom of others (in cases where there is a conflict between the two). Any? As per the constitution if YOUR morals impede others' freedom, their freedom wins and your morals lose. Tough.
"I've never seen a group of WMCs become violent, anywhere. I've seen a lot of hate groups, anti-christian, anti-black, anti-jew, anti-almost anything become violent."
And who do these groups consist of? Is it Hispanic females? Maybe black homosexuals? NO. They consist primarily of WMCs. But I've never heard really of an anti-christian group, besides
"But there have also been plenty of OTHER groups killing scientists for whatever reason."
Ok, list some (that exist in this country, because after all our legislation only effects this country). If these other groups do exist, the onus is on them also, it does not absolve christian lunatics.
"The foibles of Christian society are not unique to it."
No, but they are to this country. Christians have a dangerously large influence. Christianity's foibles, and it's followers, affect legislation and freedom in this country more than any other religion.
I think the terminology of "tolerance" has been the convention, because INtolerance was the historical problem. Now I think acceptance/tolerance can almost be used interchangeably because tolerance is now the default (hopefully).
/tolerated/ by the rest because YOU have a view others *disagree* with.
Actually, as per your example, America DOES tolerate your views, just doesn't accept them. If everybody is tolerant of others besides YOU, then you are the one who must be
Yes, well the reason may be because there is good cause to believe when lots of WMC group up and become vocal over things, people get killed, hurt, unfairly imprisoned, cheated, stolen from, etc. It's YOUR burden to separate yourself from fellow WMCs who believe in and promote heinous, dangerous, unethical, and illegal activity. As a matter of fact, SAY and SPEAK all you want. Just stay the hell away from our civil liberties. Remember, just because you don't LIKE something, doesn't mean there has to be legislation in your favor to force everybody else your way.
"If they want to do that, it's their business, their money, and their lives. If they want the right to decide whether a baby who wouldn't normally live should be allowed to, I suppose that's their right, but there would need to be some guidelines to prevent abuse."
Well, certain people in this country DON'T suppose it is anybody's right to decide so. In fact, they take it as THEIR right and responsibility to ruin people lives, if not end them. And there IS a chilling relation between these people and organized religion.
We can decide here and now what is ethically ok, but out in America people are being crucified for being gay or shredded by pipe bombs because somebody's god supposedly doesn't like them. That's far from "free".
I think the PR people are clueless anyway...HAL is both for portability and security. They are side effects of the abstraction.