Villainizing a company because they are attempting to help their shareholders and at the same time offering a service we all really enjoy and use for a variety of subjects is completely assanine.
It's not asinine. Why should we villainize Hitler when all he wanted to do was to improve the gene pool and make for happier human beings? Helping someone doesn't make you good. Even if you want to improve something doesn't mean you're good. The "devil", as they say, is in the details.
Doesn't it seem a little unfair, given we as a nation completely and utterly condone their practice implicitly by importing billions of dollars worth of goods and permanantly extending MFN status and whatnot?
It does seem unfair. We should stop trading with China until it improves its human rights record.
When Walmart was allowed to import billions of dollars worth of goods, that already was a mistake. It's the same kind of mistake when we sold weapons to various extremists in the past, the same weapons which were later used to kill us.
It makes no sense to leave a profitable and comfortable niche and compete in an oversaturated Windows market. It especially makes no sense now that Apple is on an upswing and is being quite successful in increasing their market share and brand name recognition with iPod, selling their laptops to geeks and causal users. And Apple manages to appeal to them both: geeks get a shiny BSD system to play with, and casual users get a system that "just works".
I am no Apple fanboy. In fact I've never owned an Apple system in my life and never had any desire to own one. But if Apple keeps it up, I just might have to reconsider. If Apple could port their Cocoa shell to Linux and to offer a Linux based OS X, in addition to BSD based one, I will definitely switch, considering that their hardware is no longer lagging behind in performance. I may switch for some other reason as well -- for example, if for some reason Window has more Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) in it than OS X, and it really starts to step on my toes, then I will also switch.
Sorry, I disagree. If you would spend a year with me, I am certain to find many hypocricies in you. There is about.00001% chance I am wrong about this particular issue.
My bet is that you just don't give it too much thought and don't have very high standards or maybe none at all. I'd be thrilled to be shown otherwise by someone like you. If could really demonstrate it, congrats, you'll be the first person in my life experience who's done it, even ahead of my dad who is nearly a saint in my eyes. Of course you'll be ahead of me too, and I am not too shabby in that regard myself.:)
How about breathing? I bet breathing produces certain chemicals in the brain that indicate it needs to continue breathing.
Whether some recurring action/situation is considered an addiction or not is a personal moral judgement.
For example, if I for some reason started to think that employer/employee relationship is psycholgocially, socially wrong, and bad for my health to boot, I may consider employment an addiction that takes up the bulk of my life.
Usually things are considered addictive if they cause you to be hostile to other beings. For example a gambling addict stealing money from his wife, or a drug addict squatting on some property that doesn't belong to them (well the issue of a property ownership is a whole 'nother story, but this example will do for now).
Hypocritical though they may be, their remarks in this case are wholesome and worth paying attention to.
I say we should be willing to forgive some degree of hypocricy, in ourselves and in others, if we want to make progress. That doesn't make hypocricy OK, but acknowledging that we are not perfect is a step in the right direction. A hypocrite needs a way to move forward. It's simply insane to demand that all hypocricy stop at once. If you have ever tried to abandon hypocricy in your own life you will know how insanely hard (or impossible, in some cases) it is. It requires no less than Saintly/Noble wisdom. Moral improvements can come in small increments and we shouldn't set the bar so high as to make it impossible. Hypocricy is bad, but any movement in the right direction should be encouraged.
Sometimes the person screaming "Hypocrits!" is the one who is the biggest hypocrit of the bunch. I'm not saying you are like that, mind.
Not all religions lack reason. In some reason is a key element. Not all religions tell you what to think. Instead of promising heaven and eternal life, some religions teach how to embrace discomfort and reality and by so doing transform the grief into peace and possibility. So how are you going to attack those religions?
Mind you, I don't think we need any religion to be spiritually healthy. However, your statement doesn't address all known religions.
Any time people get organized there is the possibility of a party line being formed and subsequently pushed out to people. However, in principle, religion doesn't have to be apart from reason. Faith is something that even a scientist has. For example, most scientists believe in substance and identity, although neither can be proven. All science relies on maths and maths cannot function without axioms. Axioms are accepted as self-evident. That's the same as faith in my book. And just like any article of faith, you can also question any axiom reasonably.
It is unfortunate that religions have abused stupid gullible humans. But it will be very unfortunate if the materialism becomes the new religion. I am all for questioning things. But if you think you will establish materialistic/substantialist outlook as another unquestionable religion, then you will be surprised.
I think if homebrew games were allowed and encouraged on consoles, they would occupy a very significant niche. For example, I'd not mind playing a console-ified OAngband (but hopefully programmed to work with fewer button presses).:) However, if it's as keying intensive as the PC version, I may have to pass. Think of games like Katamari Damaci -- I think we'd have a lot more games like that. So, just because no one is making homebrew games for consoles yet, doesn't mean people wouldn't make them if the barrier to entry wasn't so absurdly high. Trouble is, serious homebrewers will not make any games even with this R/W capability, because the official vendor (in this case MS) doesn't support them.
Arguments like yours do nothing to improve the situation. On the other hand, if someone used this R/W capability to make a good game, even if it's just one lonely game, it might be argument enough for MS to drop its artificial barrier to entry.
Of course. But that's how all successful prophecies are formed, in my opinion. They are formed through some extremely deep insight into human nature and the prevalent psychodynamics of the time. In other words, a good prophet, be it Orwell, Buddha, ARI, or Jesus is not really guessing. A prophecy can still miss the mark (even if it wasn't a guess). As I see it, most of the time the point of prophecy is to serve as a warning, so the intent is for it not to happen. But that's just me.:)
Well, if you don't like it, you can apply for an "elite" job at a place like Google, with round upon round of interviews, trick questions, quizzes on everything from grade school to graduate school, psycho evaluation, IQ test, blood test, physical endurance test, gene test, hand-eye coordination test. Your credentials will be verified by 5 independent and competing with each other companies, and if their reports do not match each other, you will be rejected.
So "if you have what it takes" you can have a job for a human. Otherwise...say hello to your kibble bowl fucker. Ahahaha.. you deserve it.
Funny you quoted this. I see this as an accurate prophecy, actually. Prophecies, in my opinion, should not be read literally. The meaning is that the beast will tag people and only allow those who are tagged to participate in commerce. This has already happened to a large degree.
For the record, I do not associate with any religion. But I find that one quote to be quite meaningful and relevant in today's tag-happy world.
I had a long drawn out discussion with a cousin of mine on the importance of questioning one's own beliefs about a year and a half ago, and more recently I published a "thought out of the blue" [blogspot.com] that elaborated on it a little. I think you'll find we strongly agree on this point.
My point is that having some tool to promote (even surreptitiously, given the oppressive government) the exchange of ideas is the primary value to the Chinese people. Not just the flow of ideas from outside China, as would have been provided by "Voice of America" in the former USSR, but the flow of ideas within China. As I mentioned in one of my previous responses, it's about helping them realize the "dissidents" outnumber the comformists, or those that support the government, and helping them decide what they belive as members of the Chinese culture. They'll realize this much sooner with a restricted internet, than without any internet.
Nicely said. I am not sure if I agree 100%, but I believe you changed my mind somewhat. I still think the actual result will depend on how many different factors will play out. If censorship is used with enough presence and speed, it may distort information enough that people who exchange ideas will be exchanging more misinformation than information due to context sensitivity of information. However, what I think you and I may be counting on here, is that not everything that matters can be censored. If that's true, the presence of quality search engines may yet help.
It's not a slam dunk by any means, in my opinion, but it is possible for it to happen in the way you envision. You can bet your pinky that China will be censoring not just the stuff from the outside though, but any "questionable" communication, period. So, increasing the volume of communication can make the task of censorship more challenging, which would be playing into what you're saying.
I knew we had something in common. I'm pretty much a soulless athiest in search of world peace and harmony myself, so I tend to look at these issues with more of an open mind with respect to morality and right and wrong.
Soulless? Well, depending on what we mean by that word, it may or may not be true. If soul means depth, for example, as in "soulful music and art", then I'm sure you're not soulless. If soul is used to refer to a numinous experience, for example, "I feel happy in my soul even when tired in body", then I bet you have a soul in that sense too. However, if soul is used to refer to a permanent particle-like agent that makes you unique and comes from some higher entity (such as God or god or G-d, etc.), then perhaps you do not have a soul like that, and neither do I.
The view of substance is essentially the view of inherent identity. The view of soul as a distinct eternal entity is actually a species of the view of substance. However, I personally recognize something that is beyond space and time (and like to use different words for it, but let's say I will call it "awareness" for now). Because awareness is not spacial or temporal it cannot be considered either same or distinct, in other words, identity doesn't apply to it -- it is not an object or subject to be identified. Because it is not temporal is cannot be said to be of this or that time duration, such as, we cannot say it is permanent or impermanent, lasting, eternal, or perishing, or any other such time-related designation.
Being open minded toward vastly different viewpoints is very brave and commendable in my opinion.:) However, as I see it, the person should be very careful that they're not open minded for the sake of trivial personal gain -- because in that case open-mindedness becomes a lie. So for example, if my main motive is to help Chinese, even though I strongly disagree with censorship, that's well and good. But if deep in my heart my main motive is to make trivial gains (and money is a trivial gain in my system of values) and I tell others "hey, we should be open-minded and respect Chinese law even if we disagree with it", then I am a hollow person who will die with regrets, a cowardly person who didn't have the courage to be seen as "evil" by others.
That's not to say people shouldn't seek gains. I believe a good gain is gaining more freedom, more joy, more happiness, more health, more peace and so on. These are non-trivial gains that cannot be purchased at any price, and are therefore it doesn't make sense to measure the value of these "things" in any ordinary way.
In my opinion spiritual life consists not in asking oneself "What should I think?" but in asking oneself "Why do I think this way?" Any organization that tells you what, when and how you should think is a disgrace. Any organization that helps the person to explore their own true condition by means of experience and reason is commendable, in my opinion. Almost everyone I know is overtly or subtly pushing this or that view onto others. Heck, even I am not immune to that weakness and may be pushing some view onto you.:) So it's good to take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it's even better to take one's own views with a grain of salt. A think a person who takes their own views with some degree if skepticism is not prone to willy nilly taking up the views of others as his/her own, because once a view is one's own, it'd be immediately questioned. So a person, who instead of questioning others questions oneself, is the most immune-to-bullshit person, in my opinion.
Going back to Yahoo and China, I believe that the body of humanity can really be viewed as a biological body. Money flow can be viewed as the blood flow. Therefore, if the blood is blocked in one place for too long, the body gets a stroke in that area. The same thing happens in the body of humanity when money gets blocked up. Money is blocked up by over-accumulation. Naturally, a blockage is simply less o
Keeping Yahoo! in China, even under the oppressive requirements imposed by the government gives the people in China that want something better, a much better chance to share their ideas, and more importantly, learn exactly how much they outnumber their oppressors.
I can see what you're saying here. There are two different views on this that I can see based on what the highest value is.
If the highest value is the utmost freedom (which is a spiritual/numinous/mental/heart quality) then it makes sense to do what's right within one's own sphere regardless of the consequences in the worldly sense. In other words, you may choose not to lie, even if it actually hurts people short term in the worldly realm. You may choose not to eat, even though the consequence may be deterioration and demise of the body. You may choose to enter into homelessness even if this destroys the happiness of your family to a great degree. You may choose to help a person whom others consider evil, if you take up a precept of helping without discrimination. Now, by helping, I mean doing something that you may consider good and for this kind of person or view, making money wouldn't be it. For example, someone may choose to feed and heal a thief/rapist, etc. Other people may hate the helper and may indeed kill him/her, but to such a person, the reward is in plain sight -- they will give up their livelihood without hesitation, seeing clearly what will come next. This is a very lofty type of behavior that doesn't necessarily abide by worldly expectations. From an ordinary person's point of view a person like that can appear insane, evil, selfish, good, random, chaotic, etc., because of the invalid basis of judgement and lack of comprehensiveness of vision (in other words, partiality of vision, narrowing down of horizons).
Another point of view is that of a person seeking to improve the world. Now, improving the world usually means making it more aligned with desires. From the point of view outlined above this doesn't have much meaning, but from a secular point of view, this is how goodness is defined. For example, a person desires life and performing actions aligned with that desire is considered good. In this case, Yahoo may succeed in the way that you describe, if they are very, VERY careful and are truly, with great sincerity, motivated to improve the situation in China.
So, for a person who just wants an ordinary physical life of a human being, it might indeed be seen as something that will improve living conditions and is therefore good, if done carefully.
I hope you agree that if Yahoo is not carefully in how it conducts themselves in China, they may do more harm than good. What you say only makes sense if Yahoo's intent truly is to open up informational horizons and not just to make money.
Now, when I say "Yahoo's intent", I mean the intent of executives who execute these decisions.
When I say "physical life" I mean the person has unswerving faith in the view of immutable existence of substance, where all other properties are emergent from this substance in one way or another. A person who has uprooted their faith in the view of substance is no longer an ordinary person. This doesn't mean the person is escapist and can't face the "physical reality" so to speak. Quite the opposite in fact. They are the ones who CAN fully face it, fearlessly and then go beyond it by facing it in fearless way.
For the record, I am not associated with any religions or movements or cults or whatnot. In this I am more or less a loner.
I'm a non-smoker and I take my 15 minute breaks just like any smoker. The only difference is that instead of smoking I walk around the block meditating. This is good for many reasons. Eye strain reduction, RSI prevention, and spiritual needs (which to me is a hands-off area...I don't care what anyone says -- the world may collapse and I will still take a 15 minute meditation break if I feel the need).
Personally, I'd love it if Yahoo! had a leg to stand on in refusing the Chinese government. They've had to make a choice. If that choice had no benefit other than money, I'd be pretty angry at Yahoo!. As it is, I think the focus should remain on the real villain, which is the Chinese government.
I disagree. What you are doing is narrowing down the scope of responsibility instead of leaving it just as it is. Is the Chinese government wrong? Of course! Is complying with the wrong orders of a wrong government wrong? Yes! Yahoo has two good legs, like everyone else. They can refuse. The worst that can happen is they won't make as much money in China. Woop-de-doo. Life is not about money. Money is just a symbol that represents desire. But freedom is above desire in my view. In other words, a free person must be ready to let some desires be unsatisfied, indefinitely, if need be. That's why it's not easy to be free.
Morality is different from person to person, that's true. That's why we talk to each other. I consider this to be a strength.
Everyone who is responsible is responsible. Heck, I even see myself as responsible in all this mess. I used to use Yahoo's for certain kinds of information. It's not that I bemoan myself, "oh, poor me... I wish I didn't use Yahoo". I don't live in the past. But I am responsible. Now I don't use Yahoo. Heck, I'd prefer not to use Google either, but that's the choice I am making for now. If Google starts handing over dissidents, I may have to think long and hard about my support of it. If for some reason I must use it, you can bet I won't be taking all this laying down. I will bitch and moan constantly and look for opportunities to either move away from Google or take some other action (like send them a critical letter or donate more money to EFF as a result, etc.).
Point is, I am responsible and so are you and even my dad. Granted, our share of responsibility may not be as large as that of Chinese government's or Yahoo's, but nonetheless our share is greater than 0, as I see it.
Paraphrasing a quote from Jim Alchin (I believe), "It doesn't matter what principles you have. It matters that you have principles." I feel the same way about morality. It's ok if your inner voice is different from others. What's not OK is to live a life of lies, being false to one's own self. One should be true to oneself, and sometimes that means making a sacrifice.
Ha that's funny. Most people took the phrase "Liberal thought is dangerous" to be a slam on the Liberal values. But I honestly read it as the highest praise! Haha... I only realized you might have had a different meaning in mind when I read the other replies.
Just in case you don't realize it -- all worthwhile ideas are truly dangerous. The only safe ideas are the impotent and inert ones.
Well, you're wrong. There is no iron hand in China that will last any more than there ever was in exUSSR (btw, I'm originally from there). As I see it, your argument is BS. China is getting better but no thanks to Yahoo handing out political dissidents and no thanks to Google censoring its index. When I was back in exUSSR we used to listen to Voice of America on short wave. I loved it. And guess what? That was breaking the laws of the land there too! Broadcasting Voice of America into exUSSR was breaking the law. In fact, it was mostly jammed, but sometimes we could get it anyway.
USA citizens, including corp upper management, need to stand fast and hold to our principles or freedom (or what's left of them, anyway). But as it stand, our values are being sold for a tidy profit by the likes of Google and Yahoo (and IBM in the past, etc.).
Regardless, a law cannot simply be ignored because someone (in this case someone in another country) thinks it's a stupid law.
It can be ignored. There are consequences for all actions, be it ignoring or be it acquiescing. I am going to promote conscious and deliberate moral choice over the de-facto acquiescing to "ambient-like" laws. In other words, I strongly advise people to get rid of the mindset that "laws are just there." Nothing is just there.
Fact is, some laws not only can be ignored, but should be. In fact, it is a citizen's duty to ignore unjust laws if there is no reasonable way to fix them.
For example, let's say there is a law that says we must pay 6% tax and I would like to pay 5%. I am not going to ignore this kind of law, even though I disagree with it, because it is not critical to my liberties. However, if the law oversteps a certain unspoken boundary, then I don't care who made it, I am going to ignore it and I am going to advise others to ignore it.
For example, if suddenly there appeared a law that prohibited people from issuing public reviews for various products and services, then I would most definitely break this law, advise others to break it, and so on. There is a name for this. I hope you know it so I am not going to mention it. If you don't know what this is called, then shame on you.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone know if someone is porting git to Windows (not cygwin)?
I don't think BSD is really better though, for many reasons. I think Linux is better.
Villainizing a company because they are attempting to help their shareholders and at the same time offering a service we all really enjoy and use for a variety of subjects is completely assanine.
It's not asinine. Why should we villainize Hitler when all he wanted to do was to improve the gene pool and make for happier human beings? Helping someone doesn't make you good. Even if you want to improve something doesn't mean you're good. The "devil", as they say, is in the details.
Doesn't it seem a little unfair, given we as a nation completely and utterly condone their practice implicitly by importing billions of dollars worth of goods and permanantly extending MFN status and whatnot?
It does seem unfair. We should stop trading with China until it improves its human rights record.
When Walmart was allowed to import billions of dollars worth of goods, that already was a mistake. It's the same kind of mistake when we sold weapons to various extremists in the past, the same weapons which were later used to kill us.
It makes no sense to leave a profitable and comfortable niche and compete in an oversaturated Windows market. It especially makes no sense now that Apple is on an upswing and is being quite successful in increasing their market share and brand name recognition with iPod, selling their laptops to geeks and causal users. And Apple manages to appeal to them both: geeks get a shiny BSD system to play with, and casual users get a system that "just works".
I am no Apple fanboy. In fact I've never owned an Apple system in my life and never had any desire to own one. But if Apple keeps it up, I just might have to reconsider. If Apple could port their Cocoa shell to Linux and to offer a Linux based OS X, in addition to BSD based one, I will definitely switch, considering that their hardware is no longer lagging behind in performance. I may switch for some other reason as well -- for example, if for some reason Window has more Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) in it than OS X, and it really starts to step on my toes, then I will also switch.
Sorry, I disagree. If you would spend a year with me, I am certain to find many hypocricies in you. There is about .00001% chance I am wrong about this particular issue.
:)
My bet is that you just don't give it too much thought and don't have very high standards or maybe none at all. I'd be thrilled to be shown otherwise by someone like you. If could really demonstrate it, congrats, you'll be the first person in my life experience who's done it, even ahead of my dad who is nearly a saint in my eyes. Of course you'll be ahead of me too, and I am not too shabby in that regard myself.
How about breathing? I bet breathing produces certain chemicals in the brain that indicate it needs to continue breathing.
Whether some recurring action/situation is considered an addiction or not is a personal moral judgement.
For example, if I for some reason started to think that employer/employee relationship is psycholgocially, socially wrong, and bad for my health to boot, I may consider employment an addiction that takes up the bulk of my life.
Usually things are considered addictive if they cause you to be hostile to other beings. For example a gambling addict stealing money from his wife, or a drug addict squatting on some property that doesn't belong to them (well the issue of a property ownership is a whole 'nother story, but this example will do for now).
Hypocritical though they may be, their remarks in this case are wholesome and worth paying attention to.
:)
I say we should be willing to forgive some degree of hypocricy, in ourselves and in others, if we want to make progress. That doesn't make hypocricy OK, but acknowledging that we are not perfect is a step in the right direction. A hypocrite needs a way to move forward. It's simply insane to demand that all hypocricy stop at once. If you have ever tried to abandon hypocricy in your own life you will know how insanely hard (or impossible, in some cases) it is. It requires no less than Saintly/Noble wisdom. Moral improvements can come in small increments and we shouldn't set the bar so high as to make it impossible. Hypocricy is bad, but any movement in the right direction should be encouraged.
Sometimes the person screaming "Hypocrits!" is the one who is the biggest hypocrit of the bunch. I'm not saying you are like that, mind.
All of the above is just my opinion.
Not all religions lack reason. In some reason is a key element. Not all religions tell you what to think. Instead of promising heaven and eternal life, some religions teach how to embrace discomfort and reality and by so doing transform the grief into peace and possibility. So how are you going to attack those religions?
Mind you, I don't think we need any religion to be spiritually healthy. However, your statement doesn't address all known religions.
Any time people get organized there is the possibility of a party line being formed and subsequently pushed out to people. However, in principle, religion doesn't have to be apart from reason. Faith is something that even a scientist has. For example, most scientists believe in substance and identity, although neither can be proven. All science relies on maths and maths cannot function without axioms. Axioms are accepted as self-evident. That's the same as faith in my book. And just like any article of faith, you can also question any axiom reasonably.
It is unfortunate that religions have abused stupid gullible humans. But it will be very unfortunate if the materialism becomes the new religion. I am all for questioning things. But if you think you will establish materialistic/substantialist outlook as another unquestionable religion, then you will be surprised.
I think if homebrew games were allowed and encouraged on consoles, they would occupy a very significant niche. For example, I'd not mind playing a console-ified OAngband (but hopefully programmed to work with fewer button presses). :) However, if it's as keying intensive as the PC version, I may have to pass. Think of games like Katamari Damaci -- I think we'd have a lot more games like that. So, just because no one is making homebrew games for consoles yet, doesn't mean people wouldn't make them if the barrier to entry wasn't so absurdly high. Trouble is, serious homebrewers will not make any games even with this R/W capability, because the official vendor (in this case MS) doesn't support them.
Arguments like yours do nothing to improve the situation. On the other hand, if someone used this R/W capability to make a good game, even if it's just one lonely game, it might be argument enough for MS to drop its artificial barrier to entry.
Of course. But that's how all successful prophecies are formed, in my opinion. They are formed through some extremely deep insight into human nature and the prevalent psychodynamics of the time. In other words, a good prophet, be it Orwell, Buddha, ARI, or Jesus is not really guessing. A prophecy can still miss the mark (even if it wasn't a guess). As I see it, most of the time the point of prophecy is to serve as a warning, so the intent is for it not to happen. But that's just me. :)
oops... my sarcasm end tag got chewed up by Slashdot. :) I hope people can understand it was a tongue-in-cheek post.
Well, if you don't like it, you can apply for an "elite" job at a place like Google, with round upon round of interviews, trick questions, quizzes on everything from grade school to graduate school, psycho evaluation, IQ test, blood test, physical endurance test, gene test, hand-eye coordination test. Your credentials will be verified by 5 independent and competing with each other companies, and if their reports do not match each other, you will be rejected.
So "if you have what it takes" you can have a job for a human. Otherwise...say hello to your kibble bowl fucker. Ahahaha.. you deserve it.
Funny you quoted this. I see this as an accurate prophecy, actually. Prophecies, in my opinion, should not be read literally. The meaning is that the beast will tag people and only allow those who are tagged to participate in commerce. This has already happened to a large degree.
For the record, I do not associate with any religion. But I find that one quote to be quite meaningful and relevant in today's tag-happy world.
I had a long drawn out discussion with a cousin of mine on the importance of questioning one's own beliefs about a year and a half ago, and more recently I published a "thought out of the blue" [blogspot.com] that elaborated on it a little. I think you'll find we strongly agree on this point.
I left you a comment on your blog.
My point is that having some tool to promote (even surreptitiously, given the oppressive government) the exchange of ideas is the primary value to the Chinese people. Not just the flow of ideas from outside China, as would have been provided by "Voice of America" in the former USSR, but the flow of ideas within China. As I mentioned in one of my previous responses, it's about helping them realize the "dissidents" outnumber the comformists, or those that support the government, and helping them decide what they belive as members of the Chinese culture. They'll realize this much sooner with a restricted internet, than without any internet.
Nicely said. I am not sure if I agree 100%, but I believe you changed my mind somewhat. I still think the actual result will depend on how many different factors will play out. If censorship is used with enough presence and speed, it may distort information enough that people who exchange ideas will be exchanging more misinformation than information due to context sensitivity of information. However, what I think you and I may be counting on here, is that not everything that matters can be censored. If that's true, the presence of quality search engines may yet help.
It's not a slam dunk by any means, in my opinion, but it is possible for it to happen in the way you envision. You can bet your pinky that China will be censoring not just the stuff from the outside though, but any "questionable" communication, period. So, increasing the volume of communication can make the task of censorship more challenging, which would be playing into what you're saying.
I sure hope it works out like that.
trying to see some good that doesn't require the black-and-white view of the world that is usually typical with many religions
By the way, I am 100% with on you on this one!
Hopefully my own views do not come across as black-and-white either. And if they do, that means I failed to communicate effectively.
I knew we had something in common. I'm pretty much a soulless athiest in search of world peace and harmony myself, so I tend to look at these issues with more of an open mind with respect to morality and right and wrong.
:) However, as I see it, the person should be very careful that they're not open minded for the sake of trivial personal gain -- because in that case open-mindedness becomes a lie. So for example, if my main motive is to help Chinese, even though I strongly disagree with censorship, that's well and good. But if deep in my heart my main motive is to make trivial gains (and money is a trivial gain in my system of values) and I tell others "hey, we should be open-minded and respect Chinese law even if we disagree with it", then I am a hollow person who will die with regrets, a cowardly person who didn't have the courage to be seen as "evil" by others.
:) So it's good to take it with a grain of salt, but I believe it's even better to take one's own views with a grain of salt. A think a person who takes their own views with some degree if skepticism is not prone to willy nilly taking up the views of others as his/her own, because once a view is one's own, it'd be immediately questioned. So a person, who instead of questioning others questions oneself, is the most immune-to-bullshit person, in my opinion.
Soulless? Well, depending on what we mean by that word, it may or may not be true. If soul means depth, for example, as in "soulful music and art", then I'm sure you're not soulless. If soul is used to refer to a numinous experience, for example, "I feel happy in my soul even when tired in body", then I bet you have a soul in that sense too. However, if soul is used to refer to a permanent particle-like agent that makes you unique and comes from some higher entity (such as God or god or G-d, etc.), then perhaps you do not have a soul like that, and neither do I.
The view of substance is essentially the view of inherent identity. The view of soul as a distinct eternal entity is actually a species of the view of substance. However, I personally recognize something that is beyond space and time (and like to use different words for it, but let's say I will call it "awareness" for now). Because awareness is not spacial or temporal it cannot be considered either same or distinct, in other words, identity doesn't apply to it -- it is not an object or subject to be identified. Because it is not temporal is cannot be said to be of this or that time duration, such as, we cannot say it is permanent or impermanent, lasting, eternal, or perishing, or any other such time-related designation.
Being open minded toward vastly different viewpoints is very brave and commendable in my opinion.
That's not to say people shouldn't seek gains. I believe a good gain is gaining more freedom, more joy, more happiness, more health, more peace and so on. These are non-trivial gains that cannot be purchased at any price, and are therefore it doesn't make sense to measure the value of these "things" in any ordinary way.
In my opinion spiritual life consists not in asking oneself "What should I think?" but in asking oneself "Why do I think this way?" Any organization that tells you what, when and how you should think is a disgrace. Any organization that helps the person to explore their own true condition by means of experience and reason is commendable, in my opinion. Almost everyone I know is overtly or subtly pushing this or that view onto others. Heck, even I am not immune to that weakness and may be pushing some view onto you.
Going back to Yahoo and China, I believe that the body of humanity can really be viewed as a biological body. Money flow can be viewed as the blood flow. Therefore, if the blood is blocked in one place for too long, the body gets a stroke in that area. The same thing happens in the body of humanity when money gets blocked up. Money is blocked up by over-accumulation. Naturally, a blockage is simply less o
Keeping Yahoo! in China, even under the oppressive requirements imposed by the government gives the people in China that want something better, a much better chance to share their ideas, and more importantly, learn exactly how much they outnumber their oppressors.
I can see what you're saying here. There are two different views on this that I can see based on what the highest value is.
If the highest value is the utmost freedom (which is a spiritual/numinous/mental/heart quality) then it makes sense to do what's right within one's own sphere regardless of the consequences in the worldly sense. In other words, you may choose not to lie, even if it actually hurts people short term in the worldly realm. You may choose not to eat, even though the consequence may be deterioration and demise of the body. You may choose to enter into homelessness even if this destroys the happiness of your family to a great degree. You may choose to help a person whom others consider evil, if you take up a precept of helping without discrimination. Now, by helping, I mean doing something that you may consider good and for this kind of person or view, making money wouldn't be it. For example, someone may choose to feed and heal a thief/rapist, etc. Other people may hate the helper and may indeed kill him/her, but to such a person, the reward is in plain sight -- they will give up their livelihood without hesitation, seeing clearly what will come next. This is a very lofty type of behavior that doesn't necessarily abide by worldly expectations. From an ordinary person's point of view a person like that can appear insane, evil, selfish, good, random, chaotic, etc., because of the invalid basis of judgement and lack of comprehensiveness of vision (in other words, partiality of vision, narrowing down of horizons).
Another point of view is that of a person seeking to improve the world. Now, improving the world usually means making it more aligned with desires. From the point of view outlined above this doesn't have much meaning, but from a secular point of view, this is how goodness is defined. For example, a person desires life and performing actions aligned with that desire is considered good. In this case, Yahoo may succeed in the way that you describe, if they are very, VERY careful and are truly, with great sincerity, motivated to improve the situation in China.
So, for a person who just wants an ordinary physical life of a human being, it might indeed be seen as something that will improve living conditions and is therefore good, if done carefully.
I hope you agree that if Yahoo is not carefully in how it conducts themselves in China, they may do more harm than good. What you say only makes sense if Yahoo's intent truly is to open up informational horizons and not just to make money.
Now, when I say "Yahoo's intent", I mean the intent of executives who execute these decisions.
When I say "physical life" I mean the person has unswerving faith in the view of immutable existence of substance, where all other properties are emergent from this substance in one way or another. A person who has uprooted their faith in the view of substance is no longer an ordinary person. This doesn't mean the person is escapist and can't face the "physical reality" so to speak. Quite the opposite in fact. They are the ones who CAN fully face it, fearlessly and then go beyond it by facing it in fearless way.
For the record, I am not associated with any religions or movements or cults or whatnot. In this I am more or less a loner.
I'm a non-smoker and I take my 15 minute breaks just like any smoker. The only difference is that instead of smoking I walk around the block meditating. This is good for many reasons. Eye strain reduction, RSI prevention, and spiritual needs (which to me is a hands-off area...I don't care what anyone says -- the world may collapse and I will still take a 15 minute meditation break if I feel the need).
Personally, I'd love it if Yahoo! had a leg to stand on in refusing the Chinese government. They've had to make a choice. If that choice had no benefit other than money, I'd be pretty angry at Yahoo!. As it is, I think the focus should remain on the real villain, which is the Chinese government.
I disagree. What you are doing is narrowing down the scope of responsibility instead of leaving it just as it is. Is the Chinese government wrong? Of course! Is complying with the wrong orders of a wrong government wrong? Yes! Yahoo has two good legs, like everyone else. They can refuse. The worst that can happen is they won't make as much money in China. Woop-de-doo. Life is not about money. Money is just a symbol that represents desire. But freedom is above desire in my view. In other words, a free person must be ready to let some desires be unsatisfied, indefinitely, if need be. That's why it's not easy to be free.
Morality is different from person to person, that's true. That's why we talk to each other. I consider this to be a strength.
Everyone who is responsible is responsible. Heck, I even see myself as responsible in all this mess. I used to use Yahoo's for certain kinds of information. It's not that I bemoan myself, "oh, poor me... I wish I didn't use Yahoo". I don't live in the past. But I am responsible. Now I don't use Yahoo. Heck, I'd prefer not to use Google either, but that's the choice I am making for now. If Google starts handing over dissidents, I may have to think long and hard about my support of it. If for some reason I must use it, you can bet I won't be taking all this laying down. I will bitch and moan constantly and look for opportunities to either move away from Google or take some other action (like send them a critical letter or donate more money to EFF as a result, etc.).
Point is, I am responsible and so are you and even my dad. Granted, our share of responsibility may not be as large as that of Chinese government's or Yahoo's, but nonetheless our share is greater than 0, as I see it.
Paraphrasing a quote from Jim Alchin (I believe), "It doesn't matter what principles you have. It matters that you have principles." I feel the same way about morality. It's ok if your inner voice is different from others. What's not OK is to live a life of lies, being false to one's own self. One should be true to oneself, and sometimes that means making a sacrifice.
Ha that's funny. Most people took the phrase "Liberal thought is dangerous" to be a slam on the Liberal values. But I honestly read it as the highest praise! Haha... I only realized you might have had a different meaning in mind when I read the other replies.
Just in case you don't realize it -- all worthwhile ideas are truly dangerous. The only safe ideas are the impotent and inert ones.
Well, you're wrong. There is no iron hand in China that will last any more than there ever was in exUSSR (btw, I'm originally from there). As I see it, your argument is BS. China is getting better but no thanks to Yahoo handing out political dissidents and no thanks to Google censoring its index. When I was back in exUSSR we used to listen to Voice of America on short wave. I loved it. And guess what? That was breaking the laws of the land there too! Broadcasting Voice of America into exUSSR was breaking the law. In fact, it was mostly jammed, but sometimes we could get it anyway.
USA citizens, including corp upper management, need to stand fast and hold to our principles or freedom (or what's left of them, anyway). But as it stand, our values are being sold for a tidy profit by the likes of Google and Yahoo (and IBM in the past, etc.).
I will be happy to die, struggling side by side with a man like you, if I have to die in that way.
It is people like you that make this life worth living for me on this planet.
Regardless, a law cannot simply be ignored because someone (in this case someone in another country) thinks it's a stupid law.
It can be ignored. There are consequences for all actions, be it ignoring or be it acquiescing. I am going to promote conscious and deliberate moral choice over the de-facto acquiescing to "ambient-like" laws. In other words, I strongly advise people to get rid of the mindset that "laws are just there." Nothing is just there.
Fact is, some laws not only can be ignored, but should be. In fact, it is a citizen's duty to ignore unjust laws if there is no reasonable way to fix them.
For example, let's say there is a law that says we must pay 6% tax and I would like to pay 5%. I am not going to ignore this kind of law, even though I disagree with it, because it is not critical to my liberties. However, if the law oversteps a certain unspoken boundary, then I don't care who made it, I am going to ignore it and I am going to advise others to ignore it.
For example, if suddenly there appeared a law that prohibited people from issuing public reviews for various products and services, then I would most definitely break this law, advise others to break it, and so on. There is a name for this. I hope you know it so I am not going to mention it. If you don't know what this is called, then shame on you.