Out of interest, would you also object to a publicly funded performance of, for example, Handel's Messiah?
Yeah, that was a question that cropped up for me in my own head... or a display of classical artists with a decidedly religious theme. Or what should happen if the Sistine Chapel was a national monument? It's a question of degree I think... and it's really hard to find the line.
To be perfectly clear, I don't object to the piss-christ thing (although I think it's kind of stupid...) or even the publicly displayed cross (although what purpose does it serve?). But I happen to agree if either bothers someone it needs to be removed from the public payroll. That's not censorship... it's rational in my opinion,
So my answer is... no... I don't object to Handel's Messiah being played in a public venue. But if a group did have a problem with it (which I doubt would happen), there is enough other classical music and private performers that a publicly funded group doesn't need to play it.
So, why didn't they protest when other pro-religious painters were exhibited? And if it is about separation of church and state, then why is it that the same people who protested Piss Christ are the same types that lobby to have nativity scenes and the Ten Commandments shown on public grounds, and teaching of religion in schools?
I don't think we're on the same page here. I agree that they are entirely incosistent and short-sighted... but they get to be inconsiderate stupid assholes and still get to be right in this specific instance. Just as I believe they are wrong about the commandment and teaching religion in schools (except for philosophy classes)... and just as I also believe you're wrong about piss-Christ and are also inconsistent.
Which is why it's a damn good idea to keep the govt far far away from this crap. It's very hard to agree on.
And that is what totally undermines their credibility, and makes it seems like the "taxpayer money" thing is just a tacked-on justification, not the real root of the issue.
Of course it's tacked-on! Duh! But it also happens to be correct, which is all I really care about. But might I suggest your insistence on pointing this out also feels tacked-on because it's clear you dislike this group?
Hey, should it remain instead if they erect a giant vat of urine around it and call it art? I don't think so.
Why not?
Because it's a cross and crosses bring up religious issues in people. Some in one way, some in another. And it's completely and easily avoidable with very few consequences by removing things with clear religious connotations.
Oh bullshit. They object to that kind of art, whether it's publicly funded or not. They would outright ban its existence if they could.
If it were about the public funding aspect, then why don't they protest when art that isn't offensive to them is publicly funded?
So what you're saying is, they hate our freedoms?
They get to "object to that kind of art" all they like. That's free speech. But I don't know if this means the majority of christians would ban it's existence. The fact it offended them got them moving, but that doesn't invalidate their complaint. And even if they did want to ban all that kind of art, defenestrate the perpetrators, and erase all mention of its existence... it still doesn't make the fact that the government shouldn't be in the business of propagating things with clear religious symbols on them.
There is a group suing to remove a memorial cross from public land here and the christians are trying to save it. Just because said group is going after a cross doesn't mean they hate all christians and want to ban them.
Got any evidence for that? If the problem was public funding of art in general, then why did they wait until "Piss Christ" to make a big shitstorm about it?
It was religious in nature. We try not to do that here.
Would any other exhibition that was publicly funded, be just as offensive? Somehow I doubt they would be protesting a publicly funded Monet exhibition.
Monet is not general considered to have a religious connotation. Monet's work are not religious in nature.
Here's the gist:
1. They didn't like it.
2. It was religious in nature.
3. It was publicly funded.
#2 and #3 put me on their side even if #1 doesn't. But I don't think they got off their tuff until #1 cropped up. I certainly don't bother to protest things I know the government is doing that are stupid. For example, there is a cross mounted on some local public land that a group is suing to remove. I happen to agree it should go if it's on public land. It's still there. I'm not going to do to much about that either.
Hey, should it remain instead if they erect a giant vat of urine around it and call it art? I don't think so. But it would be pretty funny.
That's silly. Guns are used for all sorts of things (none of which I do) but target shooting for entertainment comes into mind. I did that once (only time I've ever held or fired a gun) and it was fun and not remotely violent.
hindus upset at orkut, muslims upset at muhammed cartoons, christians upset at crosses in pee, etc:
To be fair... (and I don't really mind crosses in pee, except that I'm not particularly fond of crosses. Or pee for that matter. Probably more fond of pee than crosses though. But only slightly.) But anyways, to be fair, the Christians were objecting to the crosses in pee art being funded by government grants, and therefore circuitously by them. Which I think is reasonable. It really doesn't compare in my mind to the other things.
At the very least a cross in pee is a comment on religion and I'd like the government to stay out of that whole thing on either side.
In the US, companies howl with outrage at the prospect that they should treat their customers with similar fairness. You could argue that resisting even the smallest extra expense is in the short term interests of their shareholders. Of course that ignore the possibility that ethical policies may increase customer loyalty, and better serve their shareholders' longer term interests - as well as being "The Right Thing".
Great! Then the companies that do "The Right Thing" will survive and out-prosper the ones that don't regardless of whether we pass a bunch of legislation. This is excellent news.
If this is NOT the case then whether it is beneficial to the consumer should be left up to, oh, the consumer? For example, I don't particularly give a damn about my privacy except in very limited situations.
I recognize that others do care and am pleased that there are places that cater to them. I would like the same courtesy please. Please don't legislate away my right to get a better deal because I don't care about privacy.
After suffering a total hard drive failure, I tried to obtain a factory-restore CD from IBM (this was before they sold the PC business to Lenovo). They told me I couldn't have one without paying because *Microsoft* forbids them from giving them away.
It's still a decent point but I bought a Compaq over Ebay less than a year ago. No install disks. I called support and they two-day expressed them to me after a short phone call.
Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised. Indian tech support too.
I'll note that many African countries have flat out rejected US offers of agricultural aid, because it came in the form of Monsanto-engineered crops complete with all the legal restrictions. They are able to see the cost, even if accountants can't.
So that's why those jerkwad African countries are all so rich. Bastards.
What makes this evil is that 'wild' pollination of those seeds is uncontrollable, and from the perspective of the corporation a positive (side?) effect. If the modified seeds become more widespread they will disable competitors and only seeds produced by that corporation will work.
As I pointed out in my original post I was not referring to the environmental issues (and neither was the person I replied to). The danger of cross-pollination makes perfect sense and is a very realistic issue to be concerned about.
Also, any other behavior by Monsanto is irrelevant to consideration of this action. From a purely economic standpoint this is simply an additional choice Monsanto is offering...
...though again, from an environmental standpoint, I think the cross-pollination issue is absolutely appropriate to be investigated and regulated. It is a classic case where the government must control indirect harm. But it was made explicit that this is not what was being discussed.
Additionally, your use of the word "evil" diminishes your argument. It puts you on the same level as the anti-turrurists and the religious right.
Terminating seed crops are a simple greed grab wrapped in the cloak of tangent pluses.
Perhaps it is. I'm not the one to judge since I'm not a farmer. But it seems to me that you have two types of farmers:
1. The individual "Mom and Pop" who aren't going to touch this stuff unless it becomes industry standard. Nothing changes for them so this greed is no more relevant than overcharging for hot dogs at the ballpark. Probably less so.
2. The corporate farm, which is going to do a strict cost benefit analysis and probably small scale experiments and if this "greed" isn't a better deal than what they've currently got they won't touch it... meaning it will never take off and "Mom and Pop" above will never bother with it either.
What it comes down to is that they can charge in whatever way they like. If it isn't a cost benefit, it will go away. They will pay the price, no one else.
Seriously, passing a law that requires farmers to re-purchase natural seeds every year???
No one is REQUIRING anything.
They are offering seeds that have other benefits but include the drawback of needing to be re-purchased.
When did people get so obsessed with money that they stopped caring about the people that they live with on this planet?
I know! I can't believe those corporate farms are so obsessed with money they don't want to pay for the hard work done by those poor bio-scientists. That's what you meant, right?
I do see the other problems with this... possible contamination of neighboring crops and possible issues with non-self-sustaining agriculture... I'm just replying to the "OMG!11! Someone is charging for something!!11!" post.
One thing I have noticed about PC games releases in recent years, in Europe most games are on one or two DVDs, but in the USA almost all releases are on large numbers of multiple discs, which was a bit of a shock to me when I spent some holiday money in a games shop!
Don't know where you were shopping, but I've gotten everything on DVD for at least five years.
I suppose spending it in a games shop is your first problem... why pay 20% more than you have to?
So, yes, it is selfish, but it's selfish on a tribal/societal level. Sharing ensures the survival of the tribe, therefore sharing ensures the survival of the individual (because it's really hard, if not impossible, to survive on your own in a hostile world).
And the interesting corollary is we are also hardwired to recognize and punish "cheaters". When the guy who never seems to bring home any deer comes knocking for the 15th time people actually derive pleasure from denying him.
This is an unfortunate difficulty with enforced anonymous charity. It removes both the pleasure of performing the altruistic act and the opportunity to recognize and eliminate cheating. Ultimately it seems to make both parties contemptuous of one another.
No, I was comparing it not having cable and stealing the shows you watch. I actually have no problem with BitTorrent provided you have previously paid to access to the shows you are downloading.
Granted the magnitude of the two examples was different but I was going for the whole hyperbole thing to demonstrate the point.
Calling me a cunt doesn't change the fact that you aren't paying for what you're using.
It really saves on the cable bill - I don't get one because I don't have cable. Believe me, the worthwhile stuff filters through the great sieve of BitTorrent and I don't find myself on a Saturday afternoon watching some shite made-for-TV nonsense on the Sci-Fi Channel.
Exhibit A in where socialism falls on it's face. Yeah, there are lots of examples for the other -isms too.
It really saves on worrying about a paycheck - I don't get one because I don't have a job. Believe me, the worthwhile stuff can be easily stolen from parked cars/unoccupied houses and I don't find myself on a Saturday afternoon watching what I'm drinking because I might be too hungover for work.
Just imagine. For a minute.. impossible as it may seem. If $6/gallon were levied as a gas tax in all counties with a population density over a certain threshold, to pay for a public transport system for that county. To make it faster, cleaner, safer and more convenient. I'd gladly pay $9 a gallon to gas my car up then.
People driving an additional hour a week to fill up in the lower density counties to avoid the taxes? Awesome. Truly a solution we could only look to government to provide.
Do people honestly think that Life on Earth would be the same right now if we had seen a President Gore or President Kerry? Personally I won't give Rupert Murdoch and his fellow corporate media illuminati club that much fnord credit.
No, but I believe a long-term pattern of voting for the lesser of two evils got us here.
It isn't that who is president doesn't make a difference in the short-run... of course it does. It's just that over time we have successfully gotten gotten worse and worse and worse on average.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of interest, would you also object to a publicly funded performance of, for example, Handel's Messiah?
Yeah, that was a question that cropped up for me in my own head... or a display of classical artists with a decidedly religious theme. Or what should happen if the Sistine Chapel was a national monument? It's a question of degree I think... and it's really hard to find the line.
To be perfectly clear, I don't object to the piss-christ thing (although I think it's kind of stupid...) or even the publicly displayed cross (although what purpose does it serve?). But I happen to agree if either bothers someone it needs to be removed from the public payroll. That's not censorship... it's rational in my opinion,
So my answer is... no... I don't object to Handel's Messiah being played in a public venue. But if a group did have a problem with it (which I doubt would happen), there is enough other classical music and private performers that a publicly funded group doesn't need to play it.
So, why didn't they protest when other pro-religious painters were exhibited? And if it is about separation of church and state, then why is it that the same people who protested Piss Christ are the same types that lobby to have nativity scenes and the Ten Commandments shown on public grounds, and teaching of religion in schools?
I don't think we're on the same page here. I agree that they are entirely incosistent and short-sighted... but they get to be inconsiderate stupid assholes and still get to be right in this specific instance. Just as I believe they are wrong about the commandment and teaching religion in schools (except for philosophy classes)... and just as I also believe you're wrong about piss-Christ and are also inconsistent.
Which is why it's a damn good idea to keep the govt far far away from this crap. It's very hard to agree on.
And that is what totally undermines their credibility, and makes it seems like the "taxpayer money" thing is just a tacked-on justification, not the real root of the issue.
Of course it's tacked-on! Duh! But it also happens to be correct, which is all I really care about. But might I suggest your insistence on pointing this out also feels tacked-on because it's clear you dislike this group?
Hey, should it remain instead if they erect a giant vat of urine around it and call it art? I don't think so.
Why not?
Because it's a cross and crosses bring up religious issues in people. Some in one way, some in another. And it's completely and easily avoidable with very few consequences by removing things with clear religious connotations.
Oh bullshit. They object to that kind of art, whether it's publicly funded or not. They would outright ban its existence if they could.
If it were about the public funding aspect, then why don't they protest when art that isn't offensive to them is publicly funded?
So what you're saying is, they hate our freedoms?
They get to "object to that kind of art" all they like. That's free speech. But I don't know if this means the majority of christians would ban it's existence. The fact it offended them got them moving, but that doesn't invalidate their complaint. And even if they did want to ban all that kind of art, defenestrate the perpetrators, and erase all mention of its existence... it still doesn't make the fact that the government shouldn't be in the business of propagating things with clear religious symbols on them.
There is a group suing to remove a memorial cross from public land here and the christians are trying to save it. Just because said group is going after a cross doesn't mean they hate all christians and want to ban them.
Got any evidence for that? If the problem was public funding of art in general, then why did they wait until "Piss Christ" to make a big shitstorm about it?
It was religious in nature. We try not to do that here.
Would any other exhibition that was publicly funded, be just as offensive? Somehow I doubt they would be protesting a publicly funded Monet exhibition.
Monet is not general considered to have a religious connotation. Monet's work are not religious in nature.
Here's the gist:
1. They didn't like it.
2. It was religious in nature.
3. It was publicly funded.
#2 and #3 put me on their side even if #1 doesn't. But I don't think they got off their tuff until #1 cropped up. I certainly don't bother to protest things I know the government is doing that are stupid. For example, there is a cross mounted on some local public land that a group is suing to remove. I happen to agree it should go if it's on public land. It's still there. I'm not going to do to much about that either.
Hey, should it remain instead if they erect a giant vat of urine around it and call it art? I don't think so. But it would be pretty funny.
This is news for nerds. Everyone who was paying attention in 2004 knows what it is.
Sorry, I like totally spaced that year.
Guns are ONLY used to commit violence,
That's silly. Guns are used for all sorts of things (none of which I do) but target shooting for entertainment comes into mind. I did that once (only time I've ever held or fired a gun) and it was fun and not remotely violent.
hindus upset at orkut, muslims upset at muhammed cartoons, christians upset at crosses in pee, etc:
To be fair... (and I don't really mind crosses in pee, except that I'm not particularly fond of crosses. Or pee for that matter. Probably more fond of pee than crosses though. But only slightly.) But anyways, to be fair, the Christians were objecting to the crosses in pee art being funded by government grants, and therefore circuitously by them. Which I think is reasonable. It really doesn't compare in my mind to the other things.
At the very least a cross in pee is a comment on religion and I'd like the government to stay out of that whole thing on either side.
In the US, companies howl with outrage at the prospect that they should treat their customers with similar fairness. You could argue that resisting even the smallest extra expense is in the short term interests of their shareholders. Of course that ignore the possibility that ethical policies may increase customer loyalty, and better serve their shareholders' longer term interests - as well as being "The Right Thing".
Great! Then the companies that do "The Right Thing" will survive and out-prosper the ones that don't regardless of whether we pass a bunch of legislation. This is excellent news.
If this is NOT the case then whether it is beneficial to the consumer should be left up to, oh, the consumer? For example, I don't particularly give a damn about my privacy except in very limited situations.
I recognize that others do care and am pleased that there are places that cater to them. I would like the same courtesy please. Please don't legislate away my right to get a better deal because I don't care about privacy.
After suffering a total hard drive failure, I tried to obtain a factory-restore CD from IBM (this was before they sold the PC business to Lenovo). They told me I couldn't have one without paying because *Microsoft* forbids them from giving them away.
It's still a decent point but I bought a Compaq over Ebay less than a year ago. No install disks. I called support and they two-day expressed them to me after a short phone call.
Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised. Indian tech support too.
So basically the seed they get is worth more than the benefit the GM crops would bring. To us, it's not because we're richer.
Makes sense!
Could we have found the only person in the world who reads playboy for the articles?
No! Think of it man! One of the actresses lives nearby and was checking out her speaking parts! Lucky dog.
I'll note that many African countries have flat out rejected US offers of agricultural aid, because it came in the form of Monsanto-engineered crops complete with all the legal restrictions. They are able to see the cost, even if accountants can't.
So that's why those jerkwad African countries are all so rich. Bastards.
What makes this evil is that 'wild' pollination of those seeds is uncontrollable, and from the perspective of the corporation a positive (side?) effect. If the modified seeds become more widespread they will disable competitors and only seeds produced by that corporation will work.
...though again, from an environmental standpoint, I think the cross-pollination issue is absolutely appropriate to be investigated and regulated. It is a classic case where the government must control indirect harm. But it was made explicit that this is not what was being discussed.
As I pointed out in my original post I was not referring to the environmental issues (and neither was the person I replied to). The danger of cross-pollination makes perfect sense and is a very realistic issue to be concerned about.
Also, any other behavior by Monsanto is irrelevant to consideration of this action. From a purely economic standpoint this is simply an additional choice Monsanto is offering...
Additionally, your use of the word "evil" diminishes your argument. It puts you on the same level as the anti-turrurists and the religious right.
Terminating seed crops are a simple greed grab wrapped in the cloak of tangent pluses.
Perhaps it is. I'm not the one to judge since I'm not a farmer. But it seems to me that you have two types of farmers:
1. The individual "Mom and Pop" who aren't going to touch this stuff unless it becomes industry standard. Nothing changes for them so this greed is no more relevant than overcharging for hot dogs at the ballpark. Probably less so.
2. The corporate farm, which is going to do a strict cost benefit analysis and probably small scale experiments and if this "greed" isn't a better deal than what they've currently got they won't touch it... meaning it will never take off and "Mom and Pop" above will never bother with it either.
What it comes down to is that they can charge in whatever way they like. If it isn't a cost benefit, it will go away. They will pay the price, no one else.
Come off of your artificial pulpit.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Seriously, passing a law that requires farmers to re-purchase natural seeds every year???
No one is REQUIRING anything.
They are offering seeds that have other benefits but include the drawback of needing to be re-purchased.
When did people get so obsessed with money that they stopped caring about the people that they live with on this planet?
I know! I can't believe those corporate farms are so obsessed with money they don't want to pay for the hard work done by those poor bio-scientists. That's what you meant, right?
I do see the other problems with this... possible contamination of neighboring crops and possible issues with non-self-sustaining agriculture... I'm just replying to the "OMG!11! Someone is charging for something!!11!" post.
One thing I have noticed about PC games releases in recent years, in Europe most games are on one or two DVDs, but in the USA almost all releases are on large numbers of multiple discs, which was a bit of a shock to me when I spent some holiday money in a games shop!
Don't know where you were shopping, but I've gotten everything on DVD for at least five years.
I suppose spending it in a games shop is your first problem... why pay 20% more than you have to?
So, yes, it is selfish, but it's selfish on a tribal/societal level. Sharing ensures the survival of the tribe, therefore sharing ensures the survival of the individual (because it's really hard, if not impossible, to survive on your own in a hostile world).
And the interesting corollary is we are also hardwired to recognize and punish "cheaters". When the guy who never seems to bring home any deer comes knocking for the 15th time people actually derive pleasure from denying him.
This is an unfortunate difficulty with enforced anonymous charity. It removes both the pleasure of performing the altruistic act and the opportunity to recognize and eliminate cheating. Ultimately it seems to make both parties contemptuous of one another.
No, I was comparing it not having cable and stealing the shows you watch. I actually have no problem with BitTorrent provided you have previously paid to access to the shows you are downloading.
Granted the magnitude of the two examples was different but I was going for the whole hyperbole thing to demonstrate the point.
Calling me a cunt doesn't change the fact that you aren't paying for what you're using.
It really saves on the cable bill - I don't get one because I don't have cable. Believe me, the worthwhile stuff filters through the great sieve of BitTorrent and I don't find myself on a Saturday afternoon watching some shite made-for-TV nonsense on the Sci-Fi Channel.
Exhibit A in where socialism falls on it's face. Yeah, there are lots of examples for the other -isms too.
It really saves on worrying about a paycheck - I don't get one because I don't have a job. Believe me, the worthwhile stuff can be easily stolen from parked cars/unoccupied houses and I don't find myself on a Saturday afternoon watching what I'm drinking because I might be too hungover for work.
I don't want to buy one either.
Because I already have two.
$200 portable video / mp3 player (including the 4GB card) with a beautiful screen that can play PS1 games in addition to it's own mature library.
Yeah, sucker me.
You've never been hungry, have you? Like, really hungry, not just I-missed-lunch peckish?
Have you ever been that way because you weren't particularly fond of the food that had been offered?
I would be happy to not pay tax on it as a student.
There we go.
Shame that you led that happen, bringing the infrastructure back is hard now.
Sorry, I was busy not being born yet.
Just imagine. For a minute.. impossible as it may seem. If $6/gallon were levied as a gas tax in all counties with a population density over a certain threshold, to pay for a public transport system for that county. To make it faster, cleaner, safer and more convenient. I'd gladly pay $9 a gallon to gas my car up then.
People driving an additional hour a week to fill up in the lower density counties to avoid the taxes? Awesome. Truly a solution we could only look to government to provide.
Do people honestly think that Life on Earth would be the same right now if we had seen a President Gore or President Kerry? Personally I won't give Rupert Murdoch and his fellow corporate media illuminati club that much fnord credit.
No, but I believe a long-term pattern of voting for the lesser of two evils got us here.
It isn't that who is president doesn't make a difference in the short-run... of course it does. It's just that over time we have successfully gotten gotten worse and worse and worse on average.
Culminating with George W. Bush.
Twice.
Need I say more?