Whoops I was redundant a minute ago, so I'll just add:
They write the law. The adjudicate the law. They enforce the law (prosecutorially speaking). They represent both sides of the argument, in virtually all cases.
And to top it off they review the law when challenged!
Then say so. Saying "Violence never works" is both obviously untrue and irrelevant to aggressors.
I think our primary difference is that self-defense seems to you to be an exception that occurs at the end of the discussion, for me it is the core of the discussion.
I'm going to assume that you don't go around starting fights, and I certainly don't. But we aren't the only people (or animals) in the universe, and so we aren't alone in defining reality.
In other words, since the Bad Guys can and do gain by the use of force, they will continue to do so. Until such time as it becomes impossibly improfitable to do so, at which point only the insane or animal will initiate force. But we aren't there yet.
My whole original point was that revenge was an (imperfect) control on the initiation of force, and thus one might say that we evolved (were selected for) a positive response to gaining revenge. One could outline as many scenarios as one could think of, and historically speaking, I'd put money on the "revenge works" side.
Not necessarily for your sensibilities, but for survival and procreation. Thus selected trait, thus pleasure response to revenge.
Of course, that pleasure response, like the adrenaline rush from danger, can become an unhealthy addiction, as we have seen in certain parts of the world.
But to try to go "cold turkey" on an inherited response, especially one that has real advantages? Nah. Adopt, adapt, and improve.
So you're saying that the violent never succeed? There was no Roman empire built on conquest? China didn't use force to take over Tibet? Muggers never profit from their actions? All murderers are caught and punished? All forced injustive fails? There are no dictators, no strongmen, no thugs?
And what about self-defense? No one has ever protected themselves, their family, their country using force?
This is a strange world you live in, what is it called?
I don't mean to mock, I just find it odd that there is anyone who cannot think of a single example of success via force.
I'm not suggesting YOU must like the consequences, but to say that violence never works.... talk about setting yourself up for a fall.
You have to start your philosophy in the world you live in. If you want peace, you have to make it happen, it isn't going to happen by itself. It it isn't ever going to happen as long as people deceive themselves about the causes and consequences of violence.
Despite thoughtless moralizing (or ethicizing), think about this for a moment.
Revenge is a deterrent factor. If you fear revenge, you either have to be less of a bastard or a total bastard. It raises the bar for bad behavior.
It's far from a perfect control on bad behavior (a certain percentage of people will interpret the rule as "try to ensure the victim cannot get revenge"), and perspectives are often skewed on who started what, but there is a form of control here that at least works sometimes.
This pleasure response is there for a reason. Revenge works. Sometimes.
Revenge is only unethical to the extent that the target gets more that it deserves (or you get the wrong target, or you deserved what you got in the first place).
Now, being quite imperfect, we get the "system" screwed up a lot. Which is why a lot of people want to avoid the principle at all.
But like the "violence never works" crowd, as long as they insist on platitudes that are demonstrably untrue (and they deny basic physiological/psychological principles), they will have a big fight on their hands.
On the other hand, the better you understand your behavior, its causes and results, the more control you can have over it.
Oh, boy. Pregnant WIB (Woman In Black) is Commander Grayza, recently relieved of command (possibly back in command) who was making a deal with the Scarrans (the blue meanie is a ruling-class Scarran, the warrior-class are more lizardlike and primitive).
The long-haird WIB is Aeryn, the mother of John Crichton's child.
The fuzzy-headed WIB who walks up walls is Sikozu, Scorpy's girlfriend, with a major hair and clothing restyle.
I was confused by the question for a sec - every gal but Pip was wearing black!
I'd like to take a moment to bring up my proposal from back in the day for a new, all-purpose pronoun to use when ambiguity rears its ugly head. Or is that his ugly head? Her?
Anyway, recognizing that everyone is very sensitive about these things, I decided to combine three common pronouns, she, he, and it.
My proposal for a new, generic pronoun:
s/h/it.
Face it, it makes as much sense as the other choices.
No Mcdonalds' restaurants discovered on Mt. Everest, they may not exist.
No Ming vases found in a small lake in Idaho, it may be time to consider that China may be a hoax.
Or, in other words:
It may be time to consider that if I get in the newspapers and maybe on a BBC or PBS special, that exposure will help my next grant proposal. The best way might be to say something that appears vaguely profound but is actually vacuous and redundant to a newbie science reporter.
If what they say is true, then we're looking at a case of "ship crap now and get hammered" vs. "get hammered for being late."
Probably shouldn't have announced it early, but the pressure was probably pretty heavy.
I mean, look at Doom3 vs. HL2. Valve announced a date early and got hashed when they couldn't meet it. ID said "when it's ready." Looks like the wait time will be close to the same, but I don't see a lot of posts from people claiming ID is lying about how close they are...
How do you go to the moon by creating a vacuum above you? You get a few dozen miles into the trip and there's no air to move away anymore, and nothing to lift with.
The article may have said something different than the poster, but the link doesn't work.
If everyone was really out to see that everyone does well, if everyone was really basically decent, then it could work.
But if only 90% of people are like that, then "total information" could make your life annoying as heck, one of the reasons why "total sharing" (communism) always fails so abysmally.
Which means that such a system has to find and harshly punish (reform, exile, or kill) anyone who doesn't cooperate (assuming the enforcers are not corrupt), with near 100% effectiveness (i.e, become totalitarian).
Even if you do that, natural inclinations are for the corrupt to seek power, and become the enforcers.
Any large-scale society needs significant privacy (even if not officially protected) simply so that people can live near each other without constantly fighting. Small, relatively isolated communities can do without much privacy because then can effectively exile or control the 10% or whatever that don't fit in.
Ultimately we'll probably settle in at some level of surveillance that is survivable (I hope), with more or less in various communities and individual or community measures to have some control (like "community associations" that don't allow surveillance (or limit it), or EMP grenades for that matter).
Unless of course someone develops really effective subliminal or broadcast mind control, in which case it's pretty much over (for practical purposes). The advantage to that being that you won't care if you have privacy (or anything else).:)
Slashdot Mirror
Some people get tired of responding to the same BS 365 days a year.
Makes 'em grumpy.
Whoops I was redundant a minute ago, so I'll just add:
They write the law.
The adjudicate the law.
They enforce the law (prosecutorially speaking).
They represent both sides of the argument, in virtually all cases.
And to top it off they review the law when challenged!
What a racket!
Power-grubbing politicians are almost always lawyers, BTW.
(at least on the "large scale," i.e. technically if you run for dog-catcher you're a politican - but look at Congress).
1) Lawyers don't sue to make YOU rich, they sue to make THEM rich.
2) The very fact that we have a class of people whose job is to ensure that technique triumphs over reality is sick.
3) As always when it comes to law and politics, logic is defined as protecting your own ox from being gored. Sad.
Hmmm... officially recognized by a state as a gender. I can't figure that one out. Still trying.
Maybe that's why they're not knocking down my door, I'm not listed with the state! I always answer "NOYFB" on the forms...
It's an Excalibur. The rest of the system is in a landfill, and rightly so.
JC Whitney Special. Blue Light Deal-of-the day.
Baa-aa-aa-aa-d. Bad like poi.
Dr. M says go buy a Viper. I can write a prescription if you need one.
How did this get rated informative? You didn't even read the OP, did you? Nobody's trying to stop them from making fun of movies.
Then say so. Saying "Violence never works" is both obviously untrue and irrelevant to aggressors.
I think our primary difference is that self-defense seems to you to be an exception that occurs at the end of the discussion, for me it is the core of the discussion.
I'm going to assume that you don't go around starting fights, and I certainly don't. But we aren't the only people (or animals) in the universe, and so we aren't alone in defining reality.
In other words, since the Bad Guys can and do gain by the use of force, they will continue to do so. Until such time as it becomes impossibly improfitable to do so, at which point only the insane or animal will initiate force. But we aren't there yet.
My whole original point was that revenge was an (imperfect) control on the initiation of force, and thus one might say that we evolved (were selected for) a positive response to gaining revenge. One could outline as many scenarios as one could think of, and historically speaking, I'd put money on the "revenge works" side.
Not necessarily for your sensibilities, but for survival and procreation. Thus selected trait, thus pleasure response to revenge.
Of course, that pleasure response, like the adrenaline rush from danger, can become an unhealthy addiction, as we have seen in certain parts of the world.
But to try to go "cold turkey" on an inherited response, especially one that has real advantages? Nah. Adopt, adapt, and improve.
So you're saying that the violent never succeed? There was no Roman empire built on conquest? China didn't use force to take over Tibet? Muggers never profit from their actions? All murderers are caught and punished? All forced injustive fails? There are no dictators, no strongmen, no thugs?
And what about self-defense? No one has ever protected themselves, their family, their country using force?
This is a strange world you live in, what is it called?
I don't mean to mock, I just find it odd that there is anyone who cannot think of a single example of success via force.
I'm not suggesting YOU must like the consequences, but to say that violence never works.... talk about setting yourself up for a fall.
You have to start your philosophy in the world you live in. If you want peace, you have to make it happen, it isn't going to happen by itself. It it isn't ever going to happen as long as people deceive themselves about the causes and consequences of violence.
No, it's not slow motion (the sound, listen to the sound).
It's just a REALLY BAD suspension on that darker Lexus. They're not even going that fast.
Despite thoughtless moralizing (or ethicizing), think about this for a moment.
Revenge is a deterrent factor. If you fear revenge, you either have to be less of a bastard or a total bastard. It raises the bar for bad behavior.
It's far from a perfect control on bad behavior (a certain percentage of people will interpret the rule as "try to ensure the victim cannot get revenge"), and perspectives are often skewed on who started what, but there is a form of control here that at least works sometimes.
This pleasure response is there for a reason. Revenge works. Sometimes.
Revenge is only unethical to the extent that the target gets more that it deserves (or you get the wrong target, or you deserved what you got in the first place).
Now, being quite imperfect, we get the "system" screwed up a lot. Which is why a lot of people want to avoid the principle at all.
But like the "violence never works" crowd, as long as they insist on platitudes that are demonstrably untrue (and they deny basic physiological/psychological principles), they will have a big fight on their hands.
On the other hand, the better you understand your behavior, its causes and results, the more control you can have over it.
Oh, look. Vandals! Running up and down the comments with spray paint and rocks!
/.
Too many d***-wavers on
Don't feed the Trolls, people. And don't get them wet.
Oh, boy. Pregnant WIB (Woman In Black) is Commander Grayza, recently relieved of command (possibly back in command) who was making a deal with the Scarrans (the blue meanie is a ruling-class Scarran, the warrior-class are more lizardlike and primitive).
The long-haird WIB is Aeryn, the mother of John Crichton's child.
The fuzzy-headed WIB who walks up walls is Sikozu, Scorpy's girlfriend, with a major hair and clothing restyle.
I was confused by the question for a sec - every gal but Pip was wearing black!
Nice to see D'argo kicking a little Scarran tail.
I'd like to take a moment to bring up my proposal from back in the day for a new, all-purpose pronoun to use when ambiguity rears its ugly head. Or is that his ugly head? Her?
Anyway, recognizing that everyone is very sensitive about these things, I decided to combine three common pronouns, she, he, and it.
My proposal for a new, generic pronoun:
s/h/it.
Face it, it makes as much sense as the other choices.
Great, now Office Depot are about to be introduced to their own September That Never Ended....
I don't think we'll really see a statistically significant change online... I mean the clue ratio will go from 13.2 to 12.9%. Who cares?
Ahhh, that classic argument, "If you don't play the game the way I play it, you're a crying baby!"
:)
Great way to make friends and influence people.
12YODW.
What you and many other fanboys seem to misunderstand (or ignore) is that I'm not scared - I'm bored.
The 213th time a monster jumps out of a shadow it's not scary, it's tedious.
The game is pretty good, but it's kind of a one-trick pony in this regard.
Oh, look, more than three items on the floor. Must trigger a monster event... yep.
Oh, look, a dark room. Must trigger a monster event... yep.
Oh, look, the screen turned red... again...
To some extent this does improve later in the game, but I almost didn't make it that far. Not because I was "scared," but because I was bored.
No Mcdonalds' restaurants discovered on Mt. Everest, they may not exist.
No Ming vases found in a small lake in Idaho, it may be time to consider that China may be a hoax.
Or, in other words:
It may be time to consider that if I get in the newspapers and maybe on a BBC or PBS special, that exposure will help my next grant proposal. The best way might be to say something that appears vaguely profound but is actually vacuous and redundant to a newbie science reporter.
Darned rent-seeking scientists.
If what they say is true, then we're looking at a case of "ship crap now and get hammered" vs. "get hammered for being late."
:)
Probably shouldn't have announced it early, but the pressure was probably pretty heavy.
I mean, look at Doom3 vs. HL2. Valve announced a date early and got hashed when they couldn't meet it. ID said "when it's ready." Looks like the wait time will be close to the same, but I don't see a lot of posts from people claiming ID is lying about how close they are...
Oh... back to the topic clready? Oh, OK.
Here's another tip/ Is a financial institution going to brag to its customers how often they get ripped off? Duuuuuhhhhhh.....
My GEIL Gold Dragons work pretty well, and they are measurably faster than the cheap stuff. I'm not quite into high-end yet.
I do know the Gold Dragons make hash of the Kingstons in my machines (Kingstons work fine, just not as fast). And the price was right.
Ummm...
How do you go to the moon by creating a vacuum above you? You get a few dozen miles into the trip and there's no air to move away anymore, and nothing to lift with.
The article may have said something different than the poster, but the link doesn't work.
Hey, I majored in English Lit, not grammar. :)
If everyone was really out to see that everyone does well, if everyone was really basically
:)
decent, then it could work.
But if only 90% of people are like that, then "total information" could make your life annoying
as heck, one of the reasons why "total sharing" (communism) always fails so abysmally.
Which means that such a system has to find and harshly punish (reform, exile, or kill) anyone who
doesn't cooperate (assuming the enforcers are not corrupt), with near 100% effectiveness (i.e,
become totalitarian).
Even if you do that, natural inclinations are for the corrupt to seek power, and become the enforcers.
Any large-scale society needs significant privacy (even if not officially protected) simply so that
people can live near each other without constantly fighting. Small, relatively isolated communities
can do without much privacy because then can effectively exile or control the 10% or whatever
that don't fit in.
Ultimately we'll probably settle in at some level of surveillance that is survivable (I hope), with
more or less in various communities and individual or community measures to have some control (like
"community associations" that don't allow surveillance (or limit it), or EMP grenades for
that matter).
Unless of course someone develops really effective subliminal or broadcast mind control, in which
case it's pretty much over (for practical purposes). The advantage to that being that you
won't care if you have privacy (or anything else).
God, I hope not.