> Why do I not go out an murder? Is it because it
> is against the law? Do I not kill because I feel
> punishment? No. I will tell you why I do not kill
> others, I could not live with myself and my
> conscience if I did.
And why is that?
If your resistance to killing is nothing more than mere squeamishness, then your philosophy is no more solid than a child's philosophy of not eating liver because it's icky.
You claim moral relativism then proceed to find a solid base to stand on anyway by claiming simple conscience will provide it.
When you rule out such things, you get the world around you, with nothing other than might makes right as the de facto method of operation for everyone.
What about the person without a conscience? I'm not talking about someone fighting back. I'm talking about someone who sees something they want and has no problem about killing to get it. An equally arbitrary philosophy and world view, no doubt...
> Terrorists are only trying to destroy our way
> of life because they feel that we destroyed (and
> continue to destroy) theirs.
Either that or they're just trying to involve us in old-school battles of the biggest dick between the official royal family and royal family wannabees.
I'll take the modern world based on freedom, which is not just an arbitrary culture compared to a religious theocracy. Your desire to shoot me in the head and my desire not to be shot are not equally valid and arbitrary world viewpoints.
I always thought Bush cynically put the troops in there because Clinton was all high about going in [generically] for humanitarian reasons, not oil, so this was a deliberate handoff for him.
Reg
Yeah, all right Stan, don't delay with the point. And what have [the Romans] ever given us in return?
Revolutionary I
The aqueduct?
Reg
What?
Revolutionary I
The aqueduct.
Reg
Oh. Yeah, yeah, they did give us that, ah, that's true, yeah.
Revolutionary II
And the sanitation.
Loretta
Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like.
Reg
Yeah, all right, I'll grant you the aqueduct and sanitation, the two things the Romans have done.
Matthias
And the roads.
Reg
Oh, yeah, obviously the roads. I mean the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads...
Revolutionary III
Irrigation.
Revolutionary I
Medicine.
Revolutionary IV
Education.
Reg
Yeah, yeah, all right, fair enough.
Revolutionary V
And the wine.
All revolutionaries except Reg
Oh, yeah! Right!
Rogers
Yeah! Yeah, that's something we'd really miss Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
Revolutionary VI
Public bathes.
Loretta
And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
Rogers
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it; they're the only ones who could in a place like this.
All revolutionaries except Reg
Hahaha...all right...
Reg
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
I can't wait to read the reports of deeply-placed CIA operatives egging on the Taliban to destroy those 2000 year old statues...to execute people for misdemeanor crimes...hey, you know, it says right here to not let women learn, yeah, that's be a good law to pass...learning serves no purpose but to challenge men for authority, ya know.
> Why does it seem that governments always come to
> be dominated by special interests, e.g., big
> business, religious zealots, etc., at the
> expense of the people at large?
Because the government's power is not properly restricted. Until you have a government restricted to a very limited set of powers, and none others, you'll always have people trying to lord over people using the law in one form or another.
Corporations should sink or swim under their own weight, and religious people should live under their own beliefs, and not force others to live that way, too.
Proposed Ammendment: All laws shall expire unless renewed every five years. "If it's still a good law, they'll have no problem renewing it."
Proposed Ammendment: All laws shall require a 75% supermajority of each House of Congress to pass, or a 90% supermajority to override a veto. "If you can't get most people to agree it should be a law, it probably shouldn't."
...and therefore I should be able to download it all for free for my own entertainment pleasure.
Sounds like Sartre. While you can't know the thing-in-itself, for you merely experience a perception of it, not the thing itself, that perception is itself an object, and you do experience that directly, and know it directly...
...therefore no one should read anything but what the communist party permits.
A password you don't have to give up because you can't be forced to incriminate yourself.
Biometrics are not freedom of speech. You can't stop them from making you open up your stuff that way.
It's like refusing to take an breathalyzer when they suspect you of drunk driving. That is physical evidence. The police don't force you generally because that is a public relations goof, however, they have every right to force you if necessary.
1. Why does the universe take that particular form and not some other?
2. Why does anything exist at all? (Including God, if you believe in such a thing.)
3. How does the subjective perceptual experience arise? When I perceive "green", that sensation is a very real thing, but none of this physics even touches that.
It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. It was the period of skyrocketting salaries. It was the period of the disappearing middle clases. It was the season of cheaper products than ever before, including gas. It was the season of
what was the topic again? Oh, yeah. The middle class is disappearing.
Slashdot Mirror
> Why do I not go out an murder? Is it because it
> is against the law? Do I not kill because I feel
> punishment? No. I will tell you why I do not kill
> others, I could not live with myself and my
> conscience if I did.
And why is that?
If your resistance to killing is nothing more than mere squeamishness, then your philosophy is no more solid than a child's philosophy of not eating liver because it's icky.
You claim moral relativism then proceed to find a solid base to stand on anyway by claiming simple conscience will provide it.
When you rule out such things, you get the world around you, with nothing other than might makes right as the de facto method of operation for everyone.
What about the person without a conscience? I'm not talking about someone fighting back. I'm talking about someone who sees something they want and has no problem about killing to get it. An equally arbitrary philosophy and world view, no doubt...
"Wait, don't go!" sayeth thousands of Vietnamese as the last helicopter lifts off...
I wonder how many on the far left masturbated themselves to sleep that night thinking about the "righteous" executions that would be to soon follow.
> Terrorists are only trying to destroy our way
> of life because they feel that we destroyed (and
> continue to destroy) theirs.
Either that or they're just trying to involve us in old-school battles of the biggest dick between the official royal family and royal family wannabees.
I'll take the modern world based on freedom, which is not just an arbitrary culture compared to a religious theocracy. Your desire to shoot me in the head and my desire not to be shot are not equally valid and arbitrary world viewpoints.
> If Chinese paratroopers started dropping into
> your neighborhood to shoot up a neighbors house
> would you stay hidden in your basement?
If China were a free country, and they were here to stop local thug-kings from lording over me, I say more power to them.
If that leads to increasing lifespans, I'm all for it.
Previous propositions like Communism lead to shortened lifespans, surprising many.
I'm sorry I just had a muscular spasm like sucking a lemon. This sarcasm is getting too cloying. Shutting down...
I always thought Bush cynically put the troops in there because Clinton was all high about going in [generically] for humanitarian reasons, not oil, so this was a deliberate handoff for him.
Reg
Yeah, all right Stan, don't delay with the point. And what have [the Romans] ever given us in return?
Revolutionary I
The aqueduct?
Reg
What?
Revolutionary I
The aqueduct.
Reg
Oh. Yeah, yeah, they did give us that, ah, that's true, yeah.
Revolutionary II
And the sanitation.
Loretta
Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like.
Reg
Yeah, all right, I'll grant you the aqueduct and sanitation, the two things the Romans have done.
Matthias
And the roads.
Reg
Oh, yeah, obviously the roads. I mean the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads...
Revolutionary III
Irrigation.
Revolutionary I
Medicine.
Revolutionary IV
Education.
Reg
Yeah, yeah, all right, fair enough.
Revolutionary V
And the wine.
All revolutionaries except Reg
Oh, yeah! Right!
Rogers
Yeah! Yeah, that's something we'd really miss Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
Revolutionary VI
Public bathes.
Loretta
And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
Rogers
Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it; they're the only ones who could in a place like this.
All revolutionaries except Reg
Hahaha...all right...
Reg
All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Revolutionary I
Brought peace?
Reg
Oh, peace! Shut up!
I can't wait to read the reports of deeply-placed CIA operatives egging on the Taliban to destroy those 2000 year old statues...to execute people for misdemeanor crimes...hey, you know, it says right here to not let women learn, yeah, that's be a good law to pass...learning serves no purpose but to challenge men for authority, ya know.
Don't let facts get in the way, sir.
> If the American military is involved it is
> always to further the national interests of
> America.
I should certainly hope so. To further another country's interests (unless also ours) would be treasonous.
> Why does it seem that governments always come to
> be dominated by special interests, e.g., big
> business, religious zealots, etc., at the
> expense of the people at large?
Because the government's power is not properly restricted. Until you have a government restricted to a very limited set of powers, and none others, you'll always have people trying to lord over people using the law in one form or another.
Corporations should sink or swim under their own weight, and religious people should live under their own beliefs, and not force others to live that way, too.
> I'm from Europe myself.
Where they have transcontinental slaughters every generation and a half for three thousand years.
Proposed Ammendment: All laws shall expire unless renewed every five years. "If it's still a good law, they'll have no problem renewing it."
Proposed Ammendment: All laws shall require a 75% supermajority of each House of Congress to pass, or a 90% supermajority to override a veto. "If you can't get most people to agree it should be a law, it probably shouldn't."
> he won't be doing anything to rein in the near
> monopoly enjoyed by our biggest teleco
Is that a true, coercive monopoly, i.e. a company who can use armed, government thugs to put competition out of business?
I believe the point of the article is you don't know what you can't get to.
"128 bits of music ought to be enough for anybody."
It's not a bug. It's not a design flaw. It's not foreplanning ignorance. It's a feature.
> Chinese version of Intel/AMD comes out with a
> "unlocked" linux friendly computer, everyone
> buys it to play their mp3's
That's a strange definition of everyone. I've never seen it defined as "about 10 people" before.
> Hardware isn't that hard to make,
Sorry, "4 people".
...and therefore I should be able to download it all for free for my own entertainment pleasure.
Sounds like Sartre. While you can't know the thing-in-itself, for you merely experience a perception of it, not the thing itself, that perception is itself an object, and you do experience that directly, and know it directly...
...therefore no one should read anything but what the communist party permits.
Biometrics would be bad.
A password you don't have to give up because you can't be forced to incriminate yourself.
Biometrics are not freedom of speech. You can't stop them from making you open up your stuff that way.
It's like refusing to take an breathalyzer when they suspect you of drunk driving. That is physical evidence. The police don't force you generally because that is a public relations goof, however, they have every right to force you if necessary.
This is what happens when you let scientists do farming.
They've still got a long way to go:
1. Why does the universe take that particular form and not some other?
2. Why does anything exist at all? (Including God, if you believe in such a thing.)
3. How does the subjective perceptual experience arise? When I perceive "green", that sensation is a very real thing, but none of this physics even touches that.
Is the X Files show still on?
Hey, where's the "post anonymously" button? Hmm, to submit or not to submit.
Those dumbass engineers also went to the moon while the rest of the world festered in various theories about how man should be master to other men.
What's your point?
Geordi: Did I say "graviton"? I meant "gravitoorinkeedoo".
It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. It was the period of skyrocketting salaries. It was the period of the disappearing middle clases. It was the season of cheaper products than ever before, including gas. It was the season of
what was the topic again? Oh, yeah. The middle class is disappearing.
Sorry, wrong answer.