I think you missed the point. It doesn't matter if he received his priestiness from a fully accredited source or not. The fact that he's a priest, in other words, is largely irrelevant. (Because if it somehow matters, then we have to start getting into who we consider a "valid" priest and who we don't. Best to leave it unconsidered, don't you think?)
I think you're definitely on to something here...building the tools can work, building a game is less likely.
Here's why I think that's the case. A good game, such as Spiderman-2 or Doom or Half-Life, all require the vision of a particular person or group or people. OSS, by its very nature, seeks to put everyone's contributions not only on equal technological footing, but on an equal creative footing as well. The fact is, for most games, the creative aspects should be limited to a select few. Which select few? Well, business gets this wrong a lot too and the game fails...but at least business organizes to put a select few in charge creatively. With OSS, it's open for anyone and everyone to step in and make their contributions. People whose contributions are disregarded are simply going to leave the project, meaning that it will languish and die on the vine. In business, the paycheck keeps 'em crankin'.
So you can see how this is lagging way behind the other kinds of apps if you consider that many use OSS somewhat naively. Despite the anti-Socialist (and correct) argument made my OSSers about free-as-in-speech-not-as-in-beer, many developers accept that as a theoretical notion but warp their minds to understand that they have equal footing in every respect as everyone else on OSS projects...this is most naive developers expectation going into an OSS project. And this is, in a big way, OSS's original motivating force. Think of Stallman's purpose--he wanted to be able to tweak the code produced by other labs and businesses for his own needs...and now apply that to the gaming industry. If you're using a business or research application, you can simply ignore the features that others have added that you do not require. A game, on the other hand, is an enveloping experience and anything that takes out of that experience lessens the overall impact of the game.
That's not to say all OSS must be done naively, though. It simply needs to adapt a bit. My approach would be to assemble a team of OSS developers with a business-like structure...this guy's the creative director, this guy's the artist, etc. The power of OSS here is that any "guy" will do in any particular capacity given that he has the talents, so one may leave and be replaced by another (asking several to work together, though, as on business apps, is where the problems come in). Once the vision of the game is hammered down to a specific few that have signed onto the overall creative direction of the project owner, the rest of the work can be split up and farmed out to OSS people.
A slight paradigm shift might be in order for this type of game development, too. If an OSS project incurs expenses, I see no problem with simply listing those expenses on the website and releasing the game as a low-cost, for-profit product until the budget is paid back. Then, OSS it. I'm sure that some will figure out a way to apply the we-provide-code-free-but-services-cost-money approach to gaming (I'll probably receive replies that this type of game already exists, maybe like the Sims or something), and then you won't even need the for-profit stage to recoup losses. One of the big factors preventing a lot of OSS development, as I see it, is the fear that losses cannot be recouped. Why doesn't OSS start a mini-movement to get participation in a self-regulating patent/copyright system? You create an app, count up the expenses associated with that app, and then create a license that requires you to open source it once those expenses are recouped? Needs work, but the seed of a good idea perhaps.
The problem with an idea like OSS is that it's too revered. The difference between ideas and beliefs is that ideas can change and adapt to new requirements. Beliefs cannot change without mitigating explanations and some loss of face. OSS is a good idea...it's time to evolve it.
What about freedom? It seems to me that you would be all for arresting someone, who while walking across a bridge sees a person about to jump, but does nothing to stop it.
What about freedom? What about responsibility? Parents are responsible for their children, and we must have some objective measure that allows us to define neglect and abuse! Using your approach, how could we ever prosecute any parent for child abuse or neglect? They could just claim the right to exercise their religious freedom no matter how depraved the act.
If I'm walking across a bridge and I see someone about to jump, from a legal standpoint I have no responsibility for that person or his actions. If, on the other hand, I'm the legal guardian of that person and the person is 8 years old, then guess what? I could, in fact, be prosecuted for allowing the child to jump if I could have taken reasonable action to prevent it. I see nothing wrong with this. You do!?
Now we want to jail people because they do believe in God.
We are? Name one.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture a guess that, if you are able to name someone, that person wasn't actually jailed for "belief in god." It was probably something else.
I can't imagine that my thinking, as a matter of public policy would be better than a father and mothers love for their child. If they want to express their faith to their child, and they trully believe God will make a miracle, they should be free to do so.
No. The law doesn't believe in miracles, nor should it. We have something in this country called separation of church and state, so we can't go around enacting legislation based on the existence of angels or woodland fairies. If you want that, you're free to move to Iran or some other fundamentalist dictatorship if you're an American (you'd better be sure before you go, though, because you probably won't be free to move back if you change your mind).
But we can't assume we know best for others.
Yes, actually we can, as long as the group making the decisions for others is defined in a shared social contract that is tacitly accepted by the members of the society. In our case, that would be Congress. Again, if you reject the social contract of America, we have provisions for you. You are free to move anywhere else in the world you want to, and we won't stop you. But in exchange for the freedom to own property and no government death squads, don't throw a hissy fit because there's a set of house rules already in place that I'm pretty happy with.
I will not say you are wrong. But I would not make such a blanket statement. I know some people, who seem normal, but would rather chat with a IM than in person. Healthy? I know some people who browse the web endlessly rather than going out and doing something. Healthy?
Well, I personally don't know if it's healthy or not...but I will say this: the passage of mine you were responding to with the above statement missed the point a bit. It is the potential for increased efficiency that breeds the potential for increased happiness. I am not foolish enough to argue that we as a society always use technology in a way that maximizes our efficiency or our happiness. But that the potential is there is important, and we at least garner a percentage of the benefits if not all of them once the drawbacks are taken into account.
So let's evaluate the potential for good that comes of advanced technology. Genetic modification of food crops feeds millions of people today that would otherwise starve. It makes our use of land more efficient and more environment-friendly. Where's the downside to this? How could it ever make sense to roll back these developments now that literally millions of people world-wide are dependent upon them for their lives? This is the story with technology over, and over, and over again; major, significant victories for everyone involved that cannot be denied. Who is more the humanitarian, then? Me, advocating the advancement of such technologies until everyone is fed, or a worldview that would require us to immediately cease and desist using such advances that would be more destructive to humanity than any war ever was?
To me it seems that technology is slowly stripping away out liberty.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm slow on the uptake, but you're going to have to connect the dots a bit more for me to understand how video cameras strip away our liberty. There is a reasonable expectation that others will see what I do if I do it in public. Why does it matter whether they see it through a video camera or from the bushes with their own eyes? Do you consider it somehow more of an infringement of your liberty when you read a book on a crowded beach than an empty one? By this argument, it seems to me you should; after all, more people can see what you're reading if they want to in the former situation.
This is easy. Blame the capitalist, and greed.
Again, you're not connecting enough dots for me to pick up the thread here. I was arguing that, the greed of capitalists notwithstanding, the total amount of work required of the total labor force produced a certain output. Now, with technology, the same labor force can output several times more output, allowing everyone, greedy or otherwise, to get more. This part of my argument need not consider value judgments on the whys and wherefores behind the fact--it only depends upon the fact itself. That greed was involved or not involved is irrelevant to my point.
I read playboy. And I love the logic puzzle they put on the cover every month.
What logic puzzle? Are you messing with me? You're messing with me.
You would have a homogonous world. No more exotic places to visit. No more unique cultures.
I suggested that America play a role in world politics by pushing its worldview that people should be free. How is that tantamount to desiring a homogenous world, devoid of exotic places and unique cultures? America freed the French from the Germans in World War II...if the French have become more Americanized since then, it was certainly not a direct result of us freeing them.
What is your definition of free? How about we change that statement and remove the word free and replace it with happy?
I don't particularly want the right to force people to live a certain way. I'm happy to leave them alone, so long as their lifestyle doesn't force me to change my way of life too much to accomodate them. That's a component of the problem as I see it.
The other component of what I'm talking about here has nothing to do with changing anything. I'm merely expressing my viewpoint that I don't see the lifestyle they espouse as being self-consistent. On this side of the coin, I'm perfectly happy to let the hypocritical continue to lead their lives hypocritically, insofar as it doesn't affect me, I don't care. But if I'm presented with an opportunity to say what I think, I'm going to be honest and engage the topic. On this count I don't particularly expect anything to change, or want anything to change. I'm just saying what I think, nothing more, and nothing less.
There's a shade of difference between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying. I didn't say that everyone should only be allowed to draw from technology in equal part what they themselves have contributed to it. I'm not even saying that they don't have an equal right to share in the spoils of advanced technology--as a matter of public policy, I think they do.
At the same time, I am saying that I think there's something hypocritical to benefit from technology while at the same time badmouthing it. Does this mean I think that, as a matter of public policy, we should deny them medicines and military protection and all the other things they automatically get by living in America? No. I'm making a statement about how I view the self-consistency of their beliefs and behavior.
So is Al Sharpton. So is Michael Moore. But more importantly, so what!? I can only assume from your reply that the implication in your statement is that the most-watched cable news network is heavily skewed to the right of the political spectrum. Evidence? Well, Ann Coulter's been on a couple of times!
No, I didn't hear wrong. I went to school with a girl whose family is one generation removed from the dirt patch. I'm not saying that the community in which her extended family lives represents all Amish communities, but it certainly represents some.
Most Amish when they are hurt use their own doctors.
Allow me to expound a hypothetical here that will raise some interesting questions in the thinking person's mind. An Amish child has a condition that requires advanced medicine and is 100% curable, but would require the use of advanced technology. The parents decide: (1) to use their local doctor, who has no reasonable chance of curing the child, and the child dies, or (2) to use advanced medicine and the child is cured.
In the case of option (1), I would say that the state would have to prosecute the parents for child neglect/abuse. This is the same thing that happened about 15 years ago when some crazy cultists (Jehovah's Witnesses, I think) decided that they would only use prayer to heal their children, and one of their kids died from a strep throat or something like that. The parents went to jail, as I think they should have, and the kids that managed to survive that household were taken away and placed into foster homes with parents that will hopefully, like, you know, care enough about them to toss 'em an antibiotic when they're running a 103-degree fever from a curable disease.
In the case of option (2), this family has derived a real and irrefutable benefit from modern technology. Such a benefit would normally express itself through logic, and the causal technology would be recognized as a generally good and useful thing by normal people involved. Those people would live in such a way as to create or support the development of such technology as much as possible.
I can think of a good analogy with our military. I may not be able to, or even want to, join our military. At the same time, though I may personally not want or be able to participate in it, I generally recognize it as a good thing and see it as my responsibility as an American to contribute to and support it in some other way. Often in these situations the best one can do is lend support to the institution and give comfort to those who do participate in it directly, since I derive the benefits of it and generally agree that I do not have a better means of realizing those same benefits in mind.
[The Amish] benefit from nothing you've given them. Most will say they suffer because of it. For instance, these days, the Amish have to put lights on their buggies at night so fucking dumb ass teenagers don't hit them. C'mon now, its not like its that easy to hit a buggy doing 5 MPH even in the dead of night if folks are paying attention and doing the speed limit. Folks are too impatient and because of it, these folks are increasingly becoming roadkill because of idiots that sound just like you.
In most places where I have contributed my own money to pay for roads, I expect to be able to derive the full utility of that expenditure and get where I'm going in a reasonable amount of time. I'm not being selfish, either--most people do. That's why we pass minimum speed and obstruction of traffic flow laws. We have other laws that prohibit slow moving vehicles, such as bicycles or motorized scooters, from even riding on the shoulder of high-volume roadways. (This is less to protect someone foolish enough to do this and more to protect the health and property of the motorists using the roadway itself.) If the Amish make choices in their lives that do not allow them the participate in the shared use of these resources, or creates a dangerous situation given a reasonable understanding of this resource (yes, people will speed, people will drive drunk, that's why we have seat belts and airbags and insurance and we pay just as much for idiots on the road as they do,
Oh, and lookie here. Another person with a primary source of information who agrees with me. Tell me again how you know more about it because you decided one time to google "Amish". I'm always up for a good story.
If you've studied economics, then you know that advances in technology make people more efficient, allow them to do more, and generally increase the standard of living and everyone's utility. Generally, this makes people happier. If you disagree with this, think about the early 20th Century America where the average worker worked 14 to 16 hour days, got no breaks, started working at around the age of 12, and worked right up until the day s/he died. Read The Jungle. Read about how difficult life was on pre-Industrial Revolution farms. Read something, dammit.
My point all along is that the Amish largely derive their happiness from all of the surrounding technology they outwardly claim to shun while indirectly deriving important benefits of it.
"Decline of America's standing in the world"...
Who gives a flying piece of toddler shit?
I do. Most Americans do. I want America to push its agenda on the world to some extent. I want us to stabilize places like Pakistan and India before they start dropping nukes on each other and causing a global change in weather patterns. I want us to promote democracy around the world and cause people to be free--throughout human history, no other country has freed more people from despots and tyranny. I'm proud of that, and I recognize that it makes my life better because of increased commerce with those people, the ability to travel to those areas on vacation--whatever...the benefits are too numerous to count.
And now we've come to the unfortunate place in my post where it becomes painfully obvious to everyone reading that you, sir, are the idiot. It was inevitable given your uninformed and naive position, but hopefully you've learned something. I'm not bitter or angry at you, I feel pity when I meet a mind so irrational that a logical progression of statements has no choice but to become completely chaotic and burst forth from one's ears.
(Did that finally do it? Did I finally make your foe list?)
What do you mean "sneak" Peter Jennings in? I did no so "sneaking". And I didn't mean to imply that everyone in that list only speaks truth at all times. If you'd read what I wrote carefully, you would see that I simply said that everyone in that list has shown a willingness to be skeptical of their own point of view. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else you saw in my statements was confabulated in your own mind, sir.
Incidentally, you should read up on O'Reilly's bio before you keep jibber-jabbering about it. He worked his way up the totem pole like everyone else in show business, through some jobs that were more puff pieces than hard-hitting news reporting. But that doesn't mean he hasn't done hard-hitting news reporting from war zones in Africa, Central America, South America, etc. His current position at FNC is most definitely NOT as a news reporter, which he states repeatedly on his show.
Lots of people form impressions about things without knowing the true facts. I myself am guilty of it from time to time. When it's pointed out to me, though, I look it up and figure out the truth. What will you do?
Nice. Confabulation of disconnected statements is an artful ruse.
Let me restate: FNC is opposed to HIT AND RUN commentators that are highly partisan. Hannity and Colmes spend an hour each weekday arguing the finer points of what they believe. That is not "hit and run". I have yet to see Franken sit down and cogently discuss any of his wild invective about Bush, or even acknowledge that those who disagree with his extreme take on things have a valid viewpoint.
I assumed you didn't watch O'Reilly and I still don't think you are watching him, even if you point your eyes at the screen while he's on, you're obviously not registering much of what he says...he has stated several times on his show that he was personally against FNC bringing the suit against Franken because he understood it to be a wholly symbolic gesture that Franken would ultimately only see as a win for his side. Having said that, he has gone on to say that he hopes he's wrong on that count and FNC can make their point.
Your other statement that led me to believe you do not watch O'Reilly's show is the one about Ann Coulter being a regular guest. In the couple of years I've been watching him, I've seen her on exactly as many times as I've seen Michael Moore. I've seen Al Sharpton on more frequently than her. I believe I have seen Alec Baldwin on at least as many times as well. These are all "regular" guests by the same standard that would serve to disprove your point.
What does it feel like to be smug and wrong at the same time?
Limbaugh is more or less harmless. His attacks on people (from what I remember when I listened to his show on a semi-regular basis 10 years ago) were jibes and good-natured ribbing for the most part. Unless he's changed his style in the last 10 years, and that's altogether possible, he does not have a corrosive effect on the debate...he's more or less irrelevant, actually.
Now compare that to Franken, who has actually stood onstage with John Kerry at fundraising events and launched personal attacks on the office of the President based on spurious facts and reasoning. The influence Franken enjoys in the debate currently isn't totally all his own doing, it's definitely received a major boost from the Democratic Party that's willing to put him up on stage in the first place. Now be careful to understand what I'm saying...I do not mean to say he's an evil guy, or even necessarily that his views are wrong. I'm simply saying that he doesn't back up his views with good arguments and his style does more to obscure important issues that enhance understanding of them.
If [FNC was] opposed to commentators that are highly partisan then they would not employ O'Reilly and Hannity and have Coulter as a regular guest.
FNC is not opposed to having commentators that are highly partisan. They even bill Hannity & Colmes as a show that features two partisan commentators. As far as O'Reilly is concerned, I'm going to disagree with you. He is not partisan...I will concede that he's right of center (but then, no one is split right down the middle independent), but he continually hammers Bush and has lately been favorable to Kerry on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth controversy. If he's a by-the-book, Republican talking points, right-wing hatchet man, how do you explain this? How do you explain his continual hammering on the Bush administration on border security? There are lots of other things he doesn't agree with the Bushies about, and he hits them hard. Likewise, he does the same thing to the left...but if you watch (and I know you don't), most of his venom is reserved for the far-left extremists, not the reasonable, run-of-the-mill, middle America lefty.
Why doesn't he unleash a similar amount of venom against far-right extremists? Because there simply aren't any that are relevant these days (there are a few, and he's hammered them, but by and large it's the far-left). Meanwhile we have every Hollywood left wing fanatic using every ounce of influence and media control they have to hammer Bush...which isn't even what upsets O'Reilly. It's when they won't sit down and have a discussion about their views, they just go to a media event, mouth off about something or other, and then refuse to answer questions about it (and he's the first guy I've ever heard that invites his foes to debates moderated on other hard-hitting venues like Meet the Press).
I'm not going to take the position to defend O'Reilly because people who hate him as much as you obviously do can't separate his traditional views from his political ones. I am certainly not as traditional as he is, and when it comes to topics of religion my eyes often glaze over too. But what he says about politics is largely backed up by actual facts. I've disagreed with him often, but not usually because his argument was flawed or otherwise specious (like Franken's). I've disagreed with him mostly on matters of priority and what's important.
...a lot of the perishables in my supermarket (and a lot of advances in organic crop-raising and dairy farming) trace directly back to the Amish.
I never said that the Amish never made contributions to the outside world. I don't know when these contributions to farming were made, but I'm guessing at least decades ago and perhaps a century or more (based on the advanced technology used in modern farming) when their lifestyle was as up-to-the-minute as everyone else's. The point is that any contributions the Amish can made to modern society, due to the nature of their societies, are somewhat limited.
Just because multiple ways of serving exist doesn't mean one must pursue all of them.
What is this touchy-feely crap? Shunning modern technology is simply not a responsible way to live. I don't care what you think you know about the Amish, the basic tenet of their philosophy is flawed when they artificially yield their responsibility to their larger community by bowing out of participation in human advancement. One of the effects of their chosen way of life is the complete and total abdication of responsibility towards having a hand in events outside the immediate surrounding community, and through intentional and artificial means at that. Societies like Iran and North Korea are trying to develop nuclear weapons. Hussein was gassing the Kurds. Hitler was exterminating the Jews. The Amish attitude is to position themselves in the world such that they will not, because they cannot, do anything about these things. Their culture is anachronistic in the modern world because it is founded upon the idea that far-flung societies can not have an impact on each other over vast distances. Well, today's world is a smaller place and we're all less than a day's travel from each other. With the shrinking of the world comes some kind of extra responsibility to the rest of humanity, like it or not.
They seem to have helped a neighbor build a barn, for example.
With modern building equipment the same number of people could help 20 neighbors build barns. The pervasive attitude towards the Amish that they're oh-so-concerned about each other's welfare and brotherly love and all that starts to look more like clannishness, isolationism, and even racism when you weigh it against the fact that using technology, they could do much more for each other without compromising their value system (their value system has room for diesel generators, but not buttons?...come on, there is clearly something more beneath the surface). Consider the fact that their society is engineered so that all acts of brotherly love are directed within the Amish communities, never outward. They do not trouble themselves one iota with the welfare of those outside their little communities, unlike the largess you seem to exhibit towards protecting their quaint little way of life.
If you think the Amish prohibit printing presses and books...
I do not think this. My point could have been made a bit better, perhaps, but it was that they do not prohibit the products of *modern* printing presses. Printing presses that require heavy machinery to manufacture and assemble (I know this because my mom worked for MAN Roland Printing Presses for over a decade, and the average printing press that pounds out the daily newspaper or a four-color poster consumes several hundred square feet and weighs tens to hundreds of tons). If you think the modern world is able to disseminate as much information in print as it does without relying pretty heavily on a lot of modern technology and R&D over the last hundred years, you are sadly mistaken.
Again, if the Amish limited what they read only to the output of their own Gutenberg-style printing presses, that seems in keeping with their philosophy of clasps-are-ok-but-buttons-are-forbidden-advanced-t echnology. You blab about how I don't know what I'm talking about, but I know a girl whose family left the Amish way of life one generation ago, and the stories she tells me about her other family members still tending the dirt patch and their general view of things is enough to curl your toes. You google all you want...I got my information from a primary source.
It's not to do with paying cash versus credit. It's to do with raising people and educating them to participate in a modern economy by using the goods and services that make their lives easier once they learn not to fear them. But even this is not the most important thing. Far more important is the contribution of human capital in the way of raising scientists, engineers, etc. If you don't think technological advancement and a belief in it is important to the American or the world economy, you have some studying up to do, my friend (I recommend Wheelan's Naked Economics, a very non-controversial summary of basic econ).
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the only reason the Amish movement isn't a real social problem contributing to the decline of America's standing in the world is because it's so small. But the fact remains that it is, from a purely ethical standpoint, not the best approach to ensure that America remains in a position to take care of all its people to the best of our collective ability (this is true by definition--the Amish philosophy revolves around the idea of artificially hobbling the community with respect to what could be accomplished).
Well, I guess things have changed since the authors wrote my college statistics text book in 1994. I bear absolutely no responsibility for this collision with the facts, I would like to point out it's all due to those dastardly authors.
(I gotsta keep up me/. forum cred, you unnerstans.)
You managed to completely miss the point of that analogy. It's not like the guy preferring to walk. The Amish are indeed benefitting from the technology that surrounds them while they prefer to live in a way that contributes nothing to it. In other words, we pay taxes to ensure that they have roads to carry milk and bread to their local refrigerated grocery stores, ambulances to their hospitals, and we fund research to ensure that medicines are available for them if they need them. That's where the bumming free rides comes in.
You know what, you don't want to see the inconsistency in the lifestyle or my point...that's why you're not getting it. If the Amish simply said, oh, technology is fine but we prefer to live this way, that would be one thing. That's not really what's going on here, though, is it? They talk about the evils of technology within their communities and teach their children to fear it and see those of us who use technology as people dallying with evil. You are certainly not a supreme authority on this religion if you think they're all just a bunch of happy-go-lucky, you-do-it-your-way-I'll-do-it-mine kind of people.
Ok, so I shall break down the actual meaning of my post for those of you who obviously don't understand it *ahem* *cough* parent *cough*.
I sure do hope that this here new can technology is inexpensive, because, boy jeepers, it would probably be pretty useless if it wasn't!
To further clarify: I wasn't saying that the technology is prohibitively expensive (anyone that read the article could have seen that cost was not addressed, so there's no way I could have known that it was). I was merely pointing out, using an interesting, cutting edge, rhetorical style that the cheaper it is, the more situations will exist in which it will be a viable option.
In conclusion: Boo-ya! In yo' face! And by the way, impressive knowledge of logic fallacy (well, it would have been if you'd been able to decide what fallacy I'd ostensibly engaged in, but still...).
What is the definition of necessary, then? We can play semantics games if you like, but in whose estimation is it necessary to have a kidney dialysis machine? In whose estimation is keeping up with modern dairy farms necessary? Perhaps I'm being cynical, but why does their definition of necessary seem to allow them to gain the most from modern technology while contributing the least?
I may not be able to quite put my finger on it, but something in this way of seeing the world definitely rubs me the wrong way.
So do you personally believe the kind of invective and innuendo that people like Franken bring to the table actually enhances the public debate? The fact is, he likes to make fun of people. If he went around billing himself as a comedian, I wouldn't have a problem with that...that's what comedians are supposed to do. But he styles himself as a political commentator/activist, meaning that he's opened the door on scrutinizing his facts, figures, and general stance on things, just like other "serious" people (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Peter Jennings, to name a few).
Generally, I find Franken to be humorous. When it comes to his effect on political discussions, though, I have to say that he works backwards to the facts from his ideological position--what he wants to be true rather than what is true. The facts that conform make it into his argument. Those that don't are ignored or worse, discredited, but not in a way that is in keeping with the spirit of informed debate.
If I'm listening to someone make a point about some political issue, there's a particular thing I look for, and you should try it out too to see if your guys pass this litmus test. See if they're ever willing to concede a point or discredit a fact that hurts their arguments. People I have not seen do this: Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken. People I have seen do this: Ann Coulter (I know, surprised me too), Bill O'Reilly, nearly every major news figure like Rather, Jennings, etc. This is of course not a slam-dunk way of knowing if that person is worth believing wholesale (Ann Coulter being the prime example), it merely points up if their input is worth considering.
This, by the way, is an informed, even-handed response to your post, which, as if sent as an example from above, is a very Franken-style hit'n'run...for those of you paying attention.
Even so, this kind of approach to life smacks a little bit like the neighbor that borrows a little too much. The point I'm making is that they have no qualms about enjoying many of the benefits of modern technology, in that they'll get news either directly from modern mass-produced sources (such as newspapers, magazines, books, etc) or indirectly. In either case, the news has reached them much more rapidly than it would have had everyone adopted their lifestyle.
I agree with your example of the 386 vs. the cell phone, but the gap between the Amish and modern society is much, much more significant, and this is one of those things where shades of grey matter. And like I said in my post, their lifestyle is not overtly offensive to me...but it bothers me much in the same way of the following example...
When I was in high school, I went out and bought a shitty used car that was always having minor problems. Many of my friends did not own cars at all, making me the de facto transportation in 10 out of 10 of our parent-independent outings. Most of my friends recognized that dealing with minor car issues such as unexpected breakdowns, engine overheating, etc, was part and parcel of this deal, and I typically didn't ask for anyone to chip in for gas, generous guy that I am. On one occasion, four of us broke down on the highway and needed a $65 tow, which two of the three friends present offered to split with me because of all the free tranny they'd enjoyed over the past year, gas fee-free.
The odd man out did not feel compelled to kick in anything, rationalizing that the three of us would have gone to the same place whether he'd come or not, and it was my car and my responsibility to keep it up. This was in response to the urging of my other two friends, I never brought it up and I didn't expect any of them to kick in for more or less the same reason...when I tuned the car up, changed the oil, replaced the air filter, I didn't divide up the expense and issue bills all over town. It was my car.
However, after that, perhaps due to a guilty conscience, that particular friend would always ride me unmercifully about my junky car...even while being chauffeured around town. One day, when he was attempting to humiliate me at school in front of some other people about my car (I have a pretty good sense of humor about things like this but it was starting to get mean-spirited), I gently pointed out that he enjoyed many of the same benefits of my having the car that I did, and none of the expense. I went on to say that a smart person would shut up and take the free transportation, or mouth off and get their own, better car and offer to drive us all around, but his position of accepting the benefits while badmouthing it were highly inconsistent with his behavior.
This is how I sort of see the Amish, in a way. Within their communities, they do what amounts to badmouthing technology. But the rates of death and disease in those communities is drastically reduced due to modern technology and they enjoy many of the same benefits that we do from living in an advanced society. By shunning tech within their own communities, though, they retain a kind of plausible deniability when it comes to taking any responsibility for contributing to society outside their communities. In the above analogy, it would be completely justified for me to deny my friend a ride in my car. To extend this particular feature of the analogy, would it be justified for modern society to completely cut off the Amish from all modern technology if that is their chosen and professed desire? To put it another way, do they fare as well as they do simply because of the largess of the surrounding modern society, and would it be somehow unethical for modern society to simply withhold such largess?
To put another slightly different spin on it: would it perhaps be beneficial in the long run for both modern society and the Amish if modern society were to take an ethical, but hard-lined stance of refusing to confer any benefits of mod
Slashdot Mirror
I think you missed the point. It doesn't matter if he received his priestiness from a fully accredited source or not. The fact that he's a priest, in other words, is largely irrelevant. (Because if it somehow matters, then we have to start getting into who we consider a "valid" priest and who we don't. Best to leave it unconsidered, don't you think?)
I think you're definitely on to something here...building the tools can work, building a game is less likely.
Here's why I think that's the case. A good game, such as Spiderman-2 or Doom or Half-Life, all require the vision of a particular person or group or people. OSS, by its very nature, seeks to put everyone's contributions not only on equal technological footing, but on an equal creative footing as well. The fact is, for most games, the creative aspects should be limited to a select few. Which select few? Well, business gets this wrong a lot too and the game fails...but at least business organizes to put a select few in charge creatively. With OSS, it's open for anyone and everyone to step in and make their contributions. People whose contributions are disregarded are simply going to leave the project, meaning that it will languish and die on the vine. In business, the paycheck keeps 'em crankin'.
So you can see how this is lagging way behind the other kinds of apps if you consider that many use OSS somewhat naively. Despite the anti-Socialist (and correct) argument made my OSSers about free-as-in-speech-not-as-in-beer, many developers accept that as a theoretical notion but warp their minds to understand that they have equal footing in every respect as everyone else on OSS projects...this is most naive developers expectation going into an OSS project. And this is, in a big way, OSS's original motivating force. Think of Stallman's purpose--he wanted to be able to tweak the code produced by other labs and businesses for his own needs...and now apply that to the gaming industry. If you're using a business or research application, you can simply ignore the features that others have added that you do not require. A game, on the other hand, is an enveloping experience and anything that takes out of that experience lessens the overall impact of the game.
That's not to say all OSS must be done naively, though. It simply needs to adapt a bit. My approach would be to assemble a team of OSS developers with a business-like structure...this guy's the creative director, this guy's the artist, etc. The power of OSS here is that any "guy" will do in any particular capacity given that he has the talents, so one may leave and be replaced by another (asking several to work together, though, as on business apps, is where the problems come in). Once the vision of the game is hammered down to a specific few that have signed onto the overall creative direction of the project owner, the rest of the work can be split up and farmed out to OSS people.
A slight paradigm shift might be in order for this type of game development, too. If an OSS project incurs expenses, I see no problem with simply listing those expenses on the website and releasing the game as a low-cost, for-profit product until the budget is paid back. Then, OSS it. I'm sure that some will figure out a way to apply the we-provide-code-free-but-services-cost-money approach to gaming (I'll probably receive replies that this type of game already exists, maybe like the Sims or something), and then you won't even need the for-profit stage to recoup losses. One of the big factors preventing a lot of OSS development, as I see it, is the fear that losses cannot be recouped. Why doesn't OSS start a mini-movement to get participation in a self-regulating patent/copyright system? You create an app, count up the expenses associated with that app, and then create a license that requires you to open source it once those expenses are recouped? Needs work, but the seed of a good idea perhaps.
The problem with an idea like OSS is that it's too revered. The difference between ideas and beliefs is that ideas can change and adapt to new requirements. Beliefs cannot change without mitigating explanations and some loss of face. OSS is a good idea...it's time to evolve it.
If I'm walking across a bridge and I see someone about to jump, from a legal standpoint I have no responsibility for that person or his actions. If, on the other hand, I'm the legal guardian of that person and the person is 8 years old, then guess what? I could, in fact, be prosecuted for allowing the child to jump if I could have taken reasonable action to prevent it. I see nothing wrong with this. You do!?
We are? Name one.I'm going to go out on a limb here and venture a guess that, if you are able to name someone, that person wasn't actually jailed for "belief in god." It was probably something else.
No. The law doesn't believe in miracles, nor should it. We have something in this country called separation of church and state, so we can't go around enacting legislation based on the existence of angels or woodland fairies. If you want that, you're free to move to Iran or some other fundamentalist dictatorship if you're an American (you'd better be sure before you go, though, because you probably won't be free to move back if you change your mind). Yes, actually we can, as long as the group making the decisions for others is defined in a shared social contract that is tacitly accepted by the members of the society. In our case, that would be Congress. Again, if you reject the social contract of America, we have provisions for you. You are free to move anywhere else in the world you want to, and we won't stop you. But in exchange for the freedom to own property and no government death squads, don't throw a hissy fit because there's a set of house rules already in place that I'm pretty happy with.Nice. This ad hom was so artfully crafted I almost forgot that ad homs are completely irrelevant to a discussion.
Well, I personally don't know if it's healthy or not...but I will say this: the passage of mine you were responding to with the above statement missed the point a bit. It is the potential for increased efficiency that breeds the potential for increased happiness. I am not foolish enough to argue that we as a society always use technology in a way that maximizes our efficiency or our happiness. But that the potential is there is important, and we at least garner a percentage of the benefits if not all of them once the drawbacks are taken into account.
So let's evaluate the potential for good that comes of advanced technology. Genetic modification of food crops feeds millions of people today that would otherwise starve. It makes our use of land more efficient and more environment-friendly. Where's the downside to this? How could it ever make sense to roll back these developments now that literally millions of people world-wide are dependent upon them for their lives? This is the story with technology over, and over, and over again; major, significant victories for everyone involved that cannot be denied. Who is more the humanitarian, then? Me, advocating the advancement of such technologies until everyone is fed, or a worldview that would require us to immediately cease and desist using such advances that would be more destructive to humanity than any war ever was?
I'm sorry, maybe I'm slow on the uptake, but you're going to have to connect the dots a bit more for me to understand how video cameras strip away our liberty. There is a reasonable expectation that others will see what I do if I do it in public. Why does it matter whether they see it through a video camera or from the bushes with their own eyes? Do you consider it somehow more of an infringement of your liberty when you read a book on a crowded beach than an empty one? By this argument, it seems to me you should; after all, more people can see what you're reading if they want to in the former situation.
Again, you're not connecting enough dots for me to pick up the thread here. I was arguing that, the greed of capitalists notwithstanding, the total amount of work required of the total labor force produced a certain output. Now, with technology, the same labor force can output several times more output, allowing everyone, greedy or otherwise, to get more. This part of my argument need not consider value judgments on the whys and wherefores behind the fact--it only depends upon the fact itself. That greed was involved or not involved is irrelevant to my point.
What logic puzzle? Are you messing with me? You're messing with me.
I suggested that America play a role in world politics by pushing its worldview that people should be free. How is that tantamount to desiring a homogenous world, devoid of exotic places and unique cultures? America freed the French from the Germans in World War II...if the French have become more Americanized since then, it was certainly not a direct result of us freeing them.
The definition of free that I'm using here is n
I don't particularly want the right to force people to live a certain way. I'm happy to leave them alone, so long as their lifestyle doesn't force me to change my way of life too much to accomodate them. That's a component of the problem as I see it.
The other component of what I'm talking about here has nothing to do with changing anything. I'm merely expressing my viewpoint that I don't see the lifestyle they espouse as being self-consistent. On this side of the coin, I'm perfectly happy to let the hypocritical continue to lead their lives hypocritically, insofar as it doesn't affect me, I don't care. But if I'm presented with an opportunity to say what I think, I'm going to be honest and engage the topic. On this count I don't particularly expect anything to change, or want anything to change. I'm just saying what I think, nothing more, and nothing less.
There's a shade of difference between what I'm saying and what you think I'm saying. I didn't say that everyone should only be allowed to draw from technology in equal part what they themselves have contributed to it. I'm not even saying that they don't have an equal right to share in the spoils of advanced technology--as a matter of public policy, I think they do.
At the same time, I am saying that I think there's something hypocritical to benefit from technology while at the same time badmouthing it. Does this mean I think that, as a matter of public policy, we should deny them medicines and military protection and all the other things they automatically get by living in America? No. I'm making a statement about how I view the self-consistency of their beliefs and behavior.
So is Al Sharpton. So is Michael Moore. But more importantly, so what!? I can only assume from your reply that the implication in your statement is that the most-watched cable news network is heavily skewed to the right of the political spectrum. Evidence? Well, Ann Coulter's been on a couple of times!
Case closed. You got me.
No, I didn't hear wrong. I went to school with a girl whose family is one generation removed from the dirt patch. I'm not saying that the community in which her extended family lives represents all Amish communities, but it certainly represents some.
Allow me to expound a hypothetical here that will raise some interesting questions in the thinking person's mind. An Amish child has a condition that requires advanced medicine and is 100% curable, but would require the use of advanced technology. The parents decide: (1) to use their local doctor, who has no reasonable chance of curing the child, and the child dies, or (2) to use advanced medicine and the child is cured.
In the case of option (1), I would say that the state would have to prosecute the parents for child neglect/abuse. This is the same thing that happened about 15 years ago when some crazy cultists (Jehovah's Witnesses, I think) decided that they would only use prayer to heal their children, and one of their kids died from a strep throat or something like that. The parents went to jail, as I think they should have, and the kids that managed to survive that household were taken away and placed into foster homes with parents that will hopefully, like, you know, care enough about them to toss 'em an antibiotic when they're running a 103-degree fever from a curable disease.
In the case of option (2), this family has derived a real and irrefutable benefit from modern technology. Such a benefit would normally express itself through logic, and the causal technology would be recognized as a generally good and useful thing by normal people involved. Those people would live in such a way as to create or support the development of such technology as much as possible.
I can think of a good analogy with our military. I may not be able to, or even want to, join our military. At the same time, though I may personally not want or be able to participate in it, I generally recognize it as a good thing and see it as my responsibility as an American to contribute to and support it in some other way. Often in these situations the best one can do is lend support to the institution and give comfort to those who do participate in it directly, since I derive the benefits of it and generally agree that I do not have a better means of realizing those same benefits in mind.
In most places where I have contributed my own money to pay for roads, I expect to be able to derive the full utility of that expenditure and get where I'm going in a reasonable amount of time. I'm not being selfish, either--most people do. That's why we pass minimum speed and obstruction of traffic flow laws. We have other laws that prohibit slow moving vehicles, such as bicycles or motorized scooters, from even riding on the shoulder of high-volume roadways. (This is less to protect someone foolish enough to do this and more to protect the health and property of the motorists using the roadway itself.) If the Amish make choices in their lives that do not allow them the participate in the shared use of these resources, or creates a dangerous situation given a reasonable understanding of this resource (yes, people will speed, people will drive drunk, that's why we have seat belts and airbags and insurance and we pay just as much for idiots on the road as they do,
Oh, and lookie here. Another person with a primary source of information who agrees with me. Tell me again how you know more about it because you decided one time to google "Amish". I'm always up for a good story.
If you've studied economics, then you know that advances in technology make people more efficient, allow them to do more, and generally increase the standard of living and everyone's utility. Generally, this makes people happier. If you disagree with this, think about the early 20th Century America where the average worker worked 14 to 16 hour days, got no breaks, started working at around the age of 12, and worked right up until the day s/he died. Read The Jungle. Read about how difficult life was on pre-Industrial Revolution farms. Read something, dammit.
My point all along is that the Amish largely derive their happiness from all of the surrounding technology they outwardly claim to shun while indirectly deriving important benefits of it.
I do. Most Americans do. I want America to push its agenda on the world to some extent. I want us to stabilize places like Pakistan and India before they start dropping nukes on each other and causing a global change in weather patterns. I want us to promote democracy around the world and cause people to be free--throughout human history, no other country has freed more people from despots and tyranny. I'm proud of that, and I recognize that it makes my life better because of increased commerce with those people, the ability to travel to those areas on vacation--whatever...the benefits are too numerous to count.And now we've come to the unfortunate place in my post where it becomes painfully obvious to everyone reading that you, sir, are the idiot. It was inevitable given your uninformed and naive position, but hopefully you've learned something. I'm not bitter or angry at you, I feel pity when I meet a mind so irrational that a logical progression of statements has no choice but to become completely chaotic and burst forth from one's ears.
(Did that finally do it? Did I finally make your foe list?)
Please tell me this article summary doesn't use the word virii !!!
What do you mean "sneak" Peter Jennings in? I did no so "sneaking". And I didn't mean to imply that everyone in that list only speaks truth at all times. If you'd read what I wrote carefully, you would see that I simply said that everyone in that list has shown a willingness to be skeptical of their own point of view. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. Everything else you saw in my statements was confabulated in your own mind, sir.
Incidentally, you should read up on O'Reilly's bio before you keep jibber-jabbering about it. He worked his way up the totem pole like everyone else in show business, through some jobs that were more puff pieces than hard-hitting news reporting. But that doesn't mean he hasn't done hard-hitting news reporting from war zones in Africa, Central America, South America, etc. His current position at FNC is most definitely NOT as a news reporter, which he states repeatedly on his show.
Lots of people form impressions about things without knowing the true facts. I myself am guilty of it from time to time. When it's pointed out to me, though, I look it up and figure out the truth. What will you do?
Nice. Confabulation of disconnected statements is an artful ruse.
Let me restate: FNC is opposed to HIT AND RUN commentators that are highly partisan. Hannity and Colmes spend an hour each weekday arguing the finer points of what they believe. That is not "hit and run". I have yet to see Franken sit down and cogently discuss any of his wild invective about Bush, or even acknowledge that those who disagree with his extreme take on things have a valid viewpoint.
I assumed you didn't watch O'Reilly and I still don't think you are watching him, even if you point your eyes at the screen while he's on, you're obviously not registering much of what he says...he has stated several times on his show that he was personally against FNC bringing the suit against Franken because he understood it to be a wholly symbolic gesture that Franken would ultimately only see as a win for his side. Having said that, he has gone on to say that he hopes he's wrong on that count and FNC can make their point.
Your other statement that led me to believe you do not watch O'Reilly's show is the one about Ann Coulter being a regular guest. In the couple of years I've been watching him, I've seen her on exactly as many times as I've seen Michael Moore. I've seen Al Sharpton on more frequently than her. I believe I have seen Alec Baldwin on at least as many times as well. These are all "regular" guests by the same standard that would serve to disprove your point.
What does it feel like to be smug and wrong at the same time?
Limbaugh is more or less harmless. His attacks on people (from what I remember when I listened to his show on a semi-regular basis 10 years ago) were jibes and good-natured ribbing for the most part. Unless he's changed his style in the last 10 years, and that's altogether possible, he does not have a corrosive effect on the debate...he's more or less irrelevant, actually.
Now compare that to Franken, who has actually stood onstage with John Kerry at fundraising events and launched personal attacks on the office of the President based on spurious facts and reasoning. The influence Franken enjoys in the debate currently isn't totally all his own doing, it's definitely received a major boost from the Democratic Party that's willing to put him up on stage in the first place. Now be careful to understand what I'm saying...I do not mean to say he's an evil guy, or even necessarily that his views are wrong. I'm simply saying that he doesn't back up his views with good arguments and his style does more to obscure important issues that enhance understanding of them.
FNC is not opposed to having commentators that are highly partisan. They even bill Hannity & Colmes as a show that features two partisan commentators. As far as O'Reilly is concerned, I'm going to disagree with you. He is not partisan...I will concede that he's right of center (but then, no one is split right down the middle independent), but he continually hammers Bush and has lately been favorable to Kerry on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth controversy. If he's a by-the-book, Republican talking points, right-wing hatchet man, how do you explain this? How do you explain his continual hammering on the Bush administration on border security? There are lots of other things he doesn't agree with the Bushies about, and he hits them hard. Likewise, he does the same thing to the left...but if you watch (and I know you don't), most of his venom is reserved for the far-left extremists, not the reasonable, run-of-the-mill, middle America lefty.Why doesn't he unleash a similar amount of venom against far-right extremists? Because there simply aren't any that are relevant these days (there are a few, and he's hammered them, but by and large it's the far-left). Meanwhile we have every Hollywood left wing fanatic using every ounce of influence and media control they have to hammer Bush...which isn't even what upsets O'Reilly. It's when they won't sit down and have a discussion about their views, they just go to a media event, mouth off about something or other, and then refuse to answer questions about it (and he's the first guy I've ever heard that invites his foes to debates moderated on other hard-hitting venues like Meet the Press).
I'm not going to take the position to defend O'Reilly because people who hate him as much as you obviously do can't separate his traditional views from his political ones. I am certainly not as traditional as he is, and when it comes to topics of religion my eyes often glaze over too. But what he says about politics is largely backed up by actual facts. I've disagreed with him often, but not usually because his argument was flawed or otherwise specious (like Franken's). I've disagreed with him mostly on matters of priority and what's important.
Again, if the Amish limited what they read only to the output of their own Gutenberg-style printing presses, that seems in keeping with their philosophy of clasps-are-ok-but-buttons-are-forbidden-advanced-t echnology. You blab about how I don't know what I'm talking about, but I know a girl whose family left the Amish way of life one generation ago, and the stories she tells me about her other family members still tending the dirt patch and their general view of things is enough to curl your toes. You google all you want...I got my information from a primary source.
It's not to do with paying cash versus credit. It's to do with raising people and educating them to participate in a modern economy by using the goods and services that make their lives easier once they learn not to fear them. But even this is not the most important thing. Far more important is the contribution of human capital in the way of raising scientists, engineers, etc. If you don't think technological advancement and a belief in it is important to the American or the world economy, you have some studying up to do, my friend (I recommend Wheelan's Naked Economics, a very non-controversial summary of basic econ).
From a purely pragmatic standpoint, the only reason the Amish movement isn't a real social problem contributing to the decline of America's standing in the world is because it's so small. But the fact remains that it is, from a purely ethical standpoint, not the best approach to ensure that America remains in a position to take care of all its people to the best of our collective ability (this is true by definition--the Amish philosophy revolves around the idea of artificially hobbling the community with respect to what could be accomplished).
Well, I guess things have changed since the authors wrote my college statistics text book in 1994. I bear absolutely no responsibility for this collision with the facts, I would like to point out it's all due to those dastardly authors.
(I gotsta keep up me /. forum cred, you unnerstans.)
You managed to completely miss the point of that analogy. It's not like the guy preferring to walk. The Amish are indeed benefitting from the technology that surrounds them while they prefer to live in a way that contributes nothing to it. In other words, we pay taxes to ensure that they have roads to carry milk and bread to their local refrigerated grocery stores, ambulances to their hospitals, and we fund research to ensure that medicines are available for them if they need them. That's where the bumming free rides comes in.
You know what, you don't want to see the inconsistency in the lifestyle or my point...that's why you're not getting it. If the Amish simply said, oh, technology is fine but we prefer to live this way, that would be one thing. That's not really what's going on here, though, is it? They talk about the evils of technology within their communities and teach their children to fear it and see those of us who use technology as people dallying with evil. You are certainly not a supreme authority on this religion if you think they're all just a bunch of happy-go-lucky, you-do-it-your-way-I'll-do-it-mine kind of people.
Ok, so I shall break down the actual meaning of my post for those of you who obviously don't understand it *ahem* *cough* parent *cough*.
I sure do hope that this here new can technology is inexpensive, because, boy jeepers, it would probably be pretty useless if it wasn't!
To further clarify: I wasn't saying that the technology is prohibitively expensive (anyone that read the article could have seen that cost was not addressed, so there's no way I could have known that it was). I was merely pointing out, using an interesting, cutting edge, rhetorical style that the cheaper it is, the more situations will exist in which it will be a viable option.
In conclusion: Boo-ya! In yo' face! And by the way, impressive knowledge of logic fallacy (well, it would have been if you'd been able to decide what fallacy I'd ostensibly engaged in, but still...).
I hope you're being funny, and I hope you clicked the link and read why that's funny. :-)
What is the definition of necessary, then? We can play semantics games if you like, but in whose estimation is it necessary to have a kidney dialysis machine? In whose estimation is keeping up with modern dairy farms necessary? Perhaps I'm being cynical, but why does their definition of necessary seem to allow them to gain the most from modern technology while contributing the least?
I may not be able to quite put my finger on it, but something in this way of seeing the world definitely rubs me the wrong way.
So do you personally believe the kind of invective and innuendo that people like Franken bring to the table actually enhances the public debate? The fact is, he likes to make fun of people. If he went around billing himself as a comedian, I wouldn't have a problem with that...that's what comedians are supposed to do. But he styles himself as a political commentator/activist, meaning that he's opened the door on scrutinizing his facts, figures, and general stance on things, just like other "serious" people (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Peter Jennings, to name a few).
Generally, I find Franken to be humorous. When it comes to his effect on political discussions, though, I have to say that he works backwards to the facts from his ideological position--what he wants to be true rather than what is true. The facts that conform make it into his argument. Those that don't are ignored or worse, discredited, but not in a way that is in keeping with the spirit of informed debate.
If I'm listening to someone make a point about some political issue, there's a particular thing I look for, and you should try it out too to see if your guys pass this litmus test. See if they're ever willing to concede a point or discredit a fact that hurts their arguments. People I have not seen do this: Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken. People I have seen do this: Ann Coulter (I know, surprised me too), Bill O'Reilly, nearly every major news figure like Rather, Jennings, etc. This is of course not a slam-dunk way of knowing if that person is worth believing wholesale (Ann Coulter being the prime example), it merely points up if their input is worth considering.
This, by the way, is an informed, even-handed response to your post, which, as if sent as an example from above, is a very Franken-style hit'n'run...for those of you paying attention.
Even so, this kind of approach to life smacks a little bit like the neighbor that borrows a little too much. The point I'm making is that they have no qualms about enjoying many of the benefits of modern technology, in that they'll get news either directly from modern mass-produced sources (such as newspapers, magazines, books, etc) or indirectly. In either case, the news has reached them much more rapidly than it would have had everyone adopted their lifestyle.
I agree with your example of the 386 vs. the cell phone, but the gap between the Amish and modern society is much, much more significant, and this is one of those things where shades of grey matter. And like I said in my post, their lifestyle is not overtly offensive to me...but it bothers me much in the same way of the following example...
When I was in high school, I went out and bought a shitty used car that was always having minor problems. Many of my friends did not own cars at all, making me the de facto transportation in 10 out of 10 of our parent-independent outings. Most of my friends recognized that dealing with minor car issues such as unexpected breakdowns, engine overheating, etc, was part and parcel of this deal, and I typically didn't ask for anyone to chip in for gas, generous guy that I am. On one occasion, four of us broke down on the highway and needed a $65 tow, which two of the three friends present offered to split with me because of all the free tranny they'd enjoyed over the past year, gas fee-free.
The odd man out did not feel compelled to kick in anything, rationalizing that the three of us would have gone to the same place whether he'd come or not, and it was my car and my responsibility to keep it up. This was in response to the urging of my other two friends, I never brought it up and I didn't expect any of them to kick in for more or less the same reason...when I tuned the car up, changed the oil, replaced the air filter, I didn't divide up the expense and issue bills all over town. It was my car.
However, after that, perhaps due to a guilty conscience, that particular friend would always ride me unmercifully about my junky car...even while being chauffeured around town. One day, when he was attempting to humiliate me at school in front of some other people about my car (I have a pretty good sense of humor about things like this but it was starting to get mean-spirited), I gently pointed out that he enjoyed many of the same benefits of my having the car that I did, and none of the expense. I went on to say that a smart person would shut up and take the free transportation, or mouth off and get their own, better car and offer to drive us all around, but his position of accepting the benefits while badmouthing it were highly inconsistent with his behavior.
This is how I sort of see the Amish, in a way. Within their communities, they do what amounts to badmouthing technology. But the rates of death and disease in those communities is drastically reduced due to modern technology and they enjoy many of the same benefits that we do from living in an advanced society. By shunning tech within their own communities, though, they retain a kind of plausible deniability when it comes to taking any responsibility for contributing to society outside their communities. In the above analogy, it would be completely justified for me to deny my friend a ride in my car. To extend this particular feature of the analogy, would it be justified for modern society to completely cut off the Amish from all modern technology if that is their chosen and professed desire? To put it another way, do they fare as well as they do simply because of the largess of the surrounding modern society, and would it be somehow unethical for modern society to simply withhold such largess?
To put another slightly different spin on it: would it perhaps be beneficial in the long run for both modern society and the Amish if modern society were to take an ethical, but hard-lined stance of refusing to confer any benefits of mod