Who said that our history represents a cosmos which is the best of all possibilities? Who said it's guided--implying that it is to the extent of being directly controlled--by an omnipotent being? These are presuppositions that may not be true. If you submit to these presuppositions, you limit your reasoning to that which they do not exclude. If these presuppositions are false, you have prevented yourself from arriving at the truth.
I don't propose that those are true--that is, I don't propose that God directly controls everything in the world, or that our history represents an optimal outcome. I propose that we seek truth, whatever it may be, using our ability to reason and the evidence we have, while at the same time being diligent to recognize our limitations and admit that which we cannot answer.
That's not what I meant. I meant that, to assume that we can reason our way to understanding the nature of God, the nature of what he is and how he created the universe, is arrogant in that it fails to recognize our finiteness--this is a form of self-worship, as it places oneself at the highest level of understanding.
We should certainly use reason! But doing so includes recognizing our limitations and the limitations of reason, given our limitations.
Implicit in your argument is the assumption that if something exists, then it must have been created. If that assumption is correct, then if the Universe exists, it must have been created. What created the Universe? Some people, perhaps including you, would answer that God created the Universe. Does God exist? If so, what created created God? Now you have the problem of an infinite regress.
This is only a problem if you make it one. If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it, and it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in a realm outside of and above our own.
If, instead, you admit that some questions are not answerable in this realm, then such problems cease to be problems, and you can move on to relevant questions.
"What caused God?" This is an irrelevant question. If God is real, and if he is God, then, given that we don't even know how the universe--what we can directly see--was created, how could we possibly understand how or if God--what we cannot directly see--was created? It's a question that is impossible for us to answer scientifically or empirically. All the question does is distract us from more important, actually relevant questions--such as, "Is God real?"
Quantum fluctuations are a more satisfactory explanation. They're extremely simple; it's more likely that something simple can be uncaused and can just exist, and have always existed, than that the same is true for something complex, like a god. And this simple thing explains how more complex things can jump into existence by random chance.
Uncaused? This is a meaningless, made-up word. We cannot explain how something can exist without having been caused to exist, because we cannot comprehend what could have come before or after what we understand as time, because we are completely within it and unable to see beyond it. Your reasoning based on this is fundamentally flawed.
Who are you to say what is simple and what is complex? If God is real, only he can say how complex he is; only he truly understands how the universe works at all levels. You're constructing God in your own image, complete with your finiteness of ability and understanding. We don't even understand ourselves, much less an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe.
Besides, you're comparing apples and oranges: quantum fluctuations exist in the physical universe. If God is real, he exists outside of the physical universe. Reasoning about the complexity or probability of one does not transfer to the other.
Your presuppositions are blinding you to possibilites of truth. The worst is when we aren't aware of our presuppositions, when we're deluding ourselves. I encourage you to open your mind and reevaluate your thinking.
Your reasoning is fundamentally illogical, yet you tout it as provable. How ironic and sad that someone would insist on his infallible logic when it's fundamentally flawed.
1. You are presupposing you know what others mean when they use the term "God." What you're actually doing is reasoning based on your own conception of God.
2. God is, by definition, above and beyond and outside of us and our universe. Statistics is a human-created field. It cannot prove anything which is by definition outside its realm.
You are simply creating God in your own image. You are delineating his boundaries according to your finite, human perception. What if you are wrong? Are you so arrogant as to assume that you cannot be wrong? Such would make you God--but self-worship is not uncommon among humanity.
Truth simply is, whether or not we believe it, understand it, or agree with it. If God is real, then he is real and he is who he is, regardless of what we feel, think, or believe about him.
Your reasoning is based on several presuppositions:
1. That you know what omnibenevolence actually is, from a universal, absolute perspective. We humans have such limited perspectives. What may seem benevolent to us might actually be harmful in ways we aren't aware of or can't comprehend. Helping one person with a problem might end up hurting many more people.
2. That you know what is actually good for anyone. This is not the same as the previous item. We humans often think we know what we need, what is good for us, but quite often we are wrong, and we do things that are not good for us. How could we make this judgment for others if we can't even make it for ourselves?
3. That you know what it would be like to be omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. Frankly, this is absurd. It's easy to say, "I'd know everything and could do everything!" But you've no idea what knowing everything would actually be like. To see how every single minute particle is connected, how the tiniest action leads to another and another, to see and understand time, to understand at once the enormity of the universe and the smallest subatomic particle, to see inside people's hearts and minds... To actually understand what that would be like is incomprehensible to us, because we are markedly finite. Therefore, to say what you would do if you were any of these things is equally absurd.
You think you're being logical, but your logic is founded on unprovable assumptions. While you criticize others for making God in their image, you are doing the same thing, constructing a God that you can comprehend. This is exactly why people throughout history have made idols and worshipped them: it's easier to comprehend something you can see and touch, something made by human hands. But in so doing, one is simply worshipping an artificial construct, which is by definition more limited than the one who created it, i.e. even lower than humans. And any God that is wholly comprehensible by humans is by definition not God. There is a fundamental arrogance in believing that nothing is beyond one's own understanding, but this is precisely what people do when they delineate God's boundaries according to their limited perceptions. In the end, this results in idol worship in the form of self-worship, believing that we can reason our way to all truth, while in reality many things are simply beyond our reach.
Truth is truth whether or not we believe it, understand it, or agree with it. If God is real, then he is real and he is who he is, regardless of what we think, feel, or believe about him.
The internet company has explicitly and openly said that the Glass platform should and must be clean and clear of any ads whatsoever, because the technology is designed to facilitate internet browsing and other related activities, therefore, the featured podium cannot be used to advertise products as it will cause the user experience to diminish
So it's designed for internet browsing and stuff...like smartphones???
I'm so sick of ads taking up my tiny screen space, my pathetic battery life, and my worthless monthly bandwidth. This is the worst in apps made by every random developer who thinks he's entitled to make a constant revenue stream from throwing together a piddly app to do something basic like a kitchen timer. I even had an app that was supposed to be an app-store release of the ICS camera app...and it had an ad on the screen when you were using the camera! All he did was release the ICS camera app!
How about standing up to these developers, Google? Huh?
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
Balderdash. Anyone can live with whomever he wants and can make whatever kind of promises or agreements he wants with whomever he wants. The government not giving a slip of paper endorsing or verifying their private decisions is not a form of regulating their personal lives--it's the opposite! It's refusing to be involved in it! How much more freedom do you require than lack of involvement?
Then why all this fuss about gay marriage? Why is bigamy illegal? Laws that criminalise those things restrict personal liberties.
That's a good question. Originally I'm sure it goes back to something like common law or colonial values, i.e. moral values. From a practical standpoint, it probably exists to protect women from men who would marry a woman and then marry another woman, perhaps even secretly; this could go on and on, as he abandons each one for the next. When those laws were written or assumed, women could not as easily suvive independently. It really hasn't been that many years since marriage and family was a basic necessity for most people to survive.
But again, while marrying two people at once may be illegal, there is no law against a spouse leaving and living with someone else, even having children. The government won't recognize it legally, but those two people don't require such official recognition to live together and make whatever promises they want to each other. As morally wrong as it is, it's not illegal.
And yet those taxes are still there. How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
You're being silly. Every nation in the world has taxes, and no nation could exist with zero taxes. Taxes have been around as long as death. Your argument is preposterous and irrational.
Just because all nations have taxation does not mean that it is impossible for a nation to exist without it. Just because taxation has been around for a long time doesn't mean it's not an infringement on our liberties.
Of course taxes are an infringement upon liberties.
Or that's one viewpoint. Another is that reasonable taxes are necessary for a government to exist and protect its citizens' liberties--without any taxes, a government couldn't exist, and might-makes-right would create anarchy.
I can't - but that doesn't mean (in any way at all) that the US is the bastian[sic] of freedom. It's not. Your government removes and dilutes your freedoms far too much.
All governments do--that's their basic function. Only by the vigilance of its citizens does a nation preserve its liberty.
The basic function of government should be to protect people from harm. They shouldn't be the ones doing the harming.
No one will disagree with you there. But again, that's not possible without taxes of some form. Even if government were only run by part-time volunteers, it would still be necessary to purchase and maintain resources for government use.
Thankfully, our basic rights which allow us to be vigilant are enshrined in our founding documents, a claim which few nations can make.
Is the US perfect? Hardly. Is it getting worse? Perhaps. Is there any freer nation? No.
But, hey, bashing America is easy and popular, so why not join the mob?
I'm not bashing the USA. I'm bashing all countries that dilute the freedoms of its citizens. (Which is all countries). Some are much better than others.
Ok...so what's your point? That the world isn't perfect?
I don't understand what you mean. I was referring to the way it seems popular to villify the U.S. nowadays, ignoring the good things the U.S. has done and continues to do. Yes, Eisenhower spoke about that, and he may have been right.
But I think you missed the GP's point. It's easy to criticize the status quo, because it's far, far from perfect, just, or fair. The problem is that there is no viable alternative. Communism and socialism and fascism all failed, because they are rotten at their core. Capitalism allows enough freedom for some people to do bad things and fulfill their greed, potentially at others' expense, but that's a price you pay for freedom. If you give up that freedom, you pay a greater price in that the common people have no liberty to determine their own destiny, or at least attempt to. And by removing that freedom, you not only give up a basic human right and greatly harm quality of life, but you also remove motivation for work, creativity, ingenuity, dedication, etc.
People who rail against capitalism may be justified in their criticisms, and I'm sure it could be regulated better than it is. But that is what they should be calling for: better (not necessarily more) regulation of capitalism. Simply crying that capitalism is bad and unfair and evil is pointless, and ultimately naive, because there is no reasonable alternative.
Empty voices easily fill the void with empty words, but they ring hollow.
I thought pinning an app to the taskbar was just another way of adding a launcher to the taskbar, the only difference being that when the app is launched, the launch button turns into the app's running taskbar button. It saves space on the taskbar since you don't need a launcher button for an app that's already running.
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
Balderdash. Anyone can live with whomever he wants and can make whatever kind of promises or agreements he wants with whomever he wants. The government not giving a slip of paper endorsing or verifying their private decisions is not a form of regulating their personal lives--it's the opposite! It's refusing to be involved in it! How much more freedom do you require than lack of involvement?
And yet those taxes are still there. How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
You're being silly. Every nation in the world has taxes, and no nation could exist with zero taxes. Taxes have been around as long as death. Your argument is preposterous and irrational.
I can't - but that doesn't mean (in any way at all) that the US is the bastian[sic] of freedom. It's not. Your government removes and dilutes your freedoms far too much.
All governments do--that's their basic function. Only by the vigilance of its citizens does a nation preserve its liberty. Thankfully, our basic rights which allow us to be vigilant are enshrined in our founding documents, a claim which few nations can make.
Is the US perfect? Hardly. Is it getting worse? Perhaps. Is there any freer nation? No.
But, hey, bashing America is easy and popular, so why not join the mob?
You have some excellent points, however I'm not convinced that they are all relevant. For example:
In an ideal world, I really would prefer, as I'm fairly sure you would, that we had a much simpler set of laws on the books, based on principles and common sense, and then allowed courts to make decisions on merit in each individual case.
Maybe the differences between the US and the UK make our discussion a bit moot, but it seems to me that courts already make decisions based on merit. Judges often dismiss cases or suspend sentences for minor offenses, even if the defendant is guilty. For a frustrating example, here in my state, cars with loud, aftermarket exhausts are illegal by state law. I talked to the local police department about a recent increase in the number of extremely loud vehicles zooming past my home. The officer told me that when they give citations and go to court, the county judge throws out the case and tells them to stop wasting his time. The judge refuses to enforce the law, because he doesn't think it's important. (He lives somewhere where loud cars don't zoom past his home every day. How someone this shortsighted got to be a judge, I don't know.) In other cases, judges sometimes show mercy to citizens who admit their mistakes.
But that requires an enforcement system that is very likely to catch offenders and deal with them efficiently, and just as importantly, very unlikely to catch anyone else and cause them extensive stress and disruption they don't deserve. That in turn relies on having many front-line police officers who all have perfect judgement. While I do have a lot of respect for most police officers I've met, that's a heavy burden to put on one individual making a decision in the heat of the moment, and given the burden that simply being pulled over or arrested carries in modern society even if no further action is taken, there are real ethical/legal concerns over allowing too much discretion to officers about what is and isn't worth imposing that burden on a member of the public.
I think you're wrong here. Again, maybe this is due to living in different countries, but police officers here certainly have discretion about enforcing the law and giving citations. Not all laws, of course--murder isn't optionally enforced, and some states require by law that one party be taken to jail if the police are called for a domestic dispute--but many laws, like traffic laws, allow the police to choose whether to pull a driver over or give him a ticket. So I think the police already do this as part of their job. It's hardly a case of black-and-white-if-they-see-it-they-must-give-a-ticket.
And I don't think it would require perfect judgement on anyone's part. This is why we have courts and juries who already make decisions like these. I think you're painting a picture of a false dichotomy.
Laws may not be intended to send a message, but as a practical reality, they do. This is demonstrated very clearly by the campaigns to use hands-free kits here in the UK that I mentioned earlier in this discussion.
I think this is a case of opportunistic businesses taking advantage of the new laws to sell stuff. Sure, a law against murder "sends a message" that murder is not ok, but that's not the purpose of the law. I would argue, again, that laws aren't what really send messages--consequences are. There are many laws which are not enforced or whose consequences are minor which people do not obey. The law is ignored because the consequences are not sending a message--or they are sending a message that it's not a big deal.
Advertisers latched on to the fact that an exception had been made and only hand-held devices were banned, even though the very same research that the government used to justify that ban also showed that using a hands-free was almost as dangerous. Since that time, it's not only people who
Well, you didn't know that little Joey had been bullied by Tommy for some time. Last week, Joey had enough and punched Tommy. Tommy got laughed at by all the kids, and Joey was feeling pretty righteous about fighting off the class bully. But bullies don't give up so easily. Tommy went and got his daddy's gun.
This silly, made-up story proves nothing, but it's the kind of pseudo-reasoning that passes for logic among many people nowadays. Let's deconstruct your hypothetical scenario:
1. Tommy bullies Joey. 2. Joey finally stands up for himself. 3. Tommy steals his father's firearm. 4. Tommy takes it to school. 5. Tommy threatens Joey with it. 6. Later, sometime in the future, Tommy makes a "finger gun" gesture at Joey.
Which of these actions are wrong? Numbers 1, 3, 4, and 5. Number 6 is not inherently wrong; only in the context of his making a threat with a real gun is it even an issue. The problem is not with #6, the problem is with 1, 3, 4, and 5! How utterly foolish it would be to punish Tommy for #6 when his actual crimes are far more serious!
And how utterly irrational it would be to punish any child who points a finger gun at another child on the basis that some random wacko at some time in history made a threat with a real gun and then made finger guns to scare people he threatened. Oh, obviously then, any child who says "bang!" is a sociopath and must be suspended or expelled--or worse!--to "protect the children." Nevermind the child who is irreparably harmed by this mindlessness.
This is the kind of messed-up thinking that is taking childhood away from children. It's taking away their imaginations, their creativity, their dreams, their innocence...it's taking away their future as lively, intelligent human beings. Conformity is enforced. Any action that could potentially, possiblly be interpreted as a symptom of a bigger problem is immediately cracked down on, whether or not the child is actually guilty of any real wrongdoing. If a child does something, and anyone ever did anything wrong before or after doing what the child did, the child is punished, suspended, or expelled, "just to be safe." "Think of the children!"
Yes, think of the children! Think of the ones whose futures are being destroyed by this mindless, dogmatic enforcement of idiotic rules and laws!
The law is not logical. It's not supposed to be. The law is about experience. It is only experience.
What an illogical statement! Who are you to say what law is "supposed to be"? What kind of absurd lawmaking bases laws on experience but not reason? Such a process would outlaw using lawn sprinklers because after someone did that, there was a flood...nevermind that there was a horrific rainstorm with flash flooding; experience shows that after Mr. Thompson watered his lawn, the whole county flooded, so we must outlaw sprinklers. It's perfectly justified based on our experience.
Laws aren't supposed to be logical? Are laws supposed to be illogical? They are either one or the other, and you cannot justify the latter.
You're simply not making any sense, but you think that by writing fancy stories you are proving your ideas.
I see this all the time on roads where I live (Perth, Australia), especially from pedestrians. I drive a sports car with a modified exhaust, so it's not quiet yet moronic pedestrians with white earbuds stuffed in their ears still walk out in front of me and my shiny, black, loud car.
Gee, I wonder why they are trying to block out sound... Maybe it's because of self-absorbed morons who make their cars unnecessarily loud at the expense of other people.
People like you make me want to buy one of those high-tech directed-sound systems and point it at your bedroom window when you're trying to sleep and blast you with some serious noise. Hey, I'm having fun with it, so it doesn't matter how it affects you or anyone else! You can't tell me what to do! I have a right to do whatever I want!
What people like you need are consequences, because the only thing you understand is a dose of your own medicine. I'm guessing you didn't get spanked as a child, or you did for the wrong reasons, because that's a prime time and method to teach about consequences and respect for other people. Otherwise people grow up and engage in sociopathic behavior like yours and are a blight on civilization.
I came to realise that legislation is important not only for its ability to prosecute in practice but also for the message it sends about what is considered acceptable behaviour. Specifically, if you have some laws but don't explicitly prohibit something else, a certain type of person will use that as an excuse to do the other things even if those things are well known to be horribly dangerous. Personally, I'd rather people like that weren't encouraged, even if actually getting them off the road is difficult in practice.
See, that's the fundamental problem right there: what is "considered acceptable behavior"!? I consider making stupid laws "unacceptable behavior!" I consider lots of things "unacceptable behavior!" If I were king, those things might be illegal. Since I'm not, they aren't--instead, things other people think are "unacceptable behavior" are illegal. What we have are foolish, self-serving politicians doing what they think will get them reelected--not doing what is right.
Laws should be based on principles. Laws are not for sending messages--that's what consequences are for. It's not good, necessary, or right to prohibit everything that could possibly cause a problem if some idiot did it. It's not necessary to outlaw inserting a knife into another person's belly--that's covered by laws against murder and assault. The point is the principle about harming or killing other people. It's not good, necessary, or right to prohibit every little behavior that could be performed by an idiotic driver in an unsafe manner which could lead to an accident--that's covered by laws against reckless driving and running into other cars. If those consequences are not strong enough or not enforced properly, making more laws is not the answer!
Here's a dose of reality: the biggest safety problem with driving is drivers who do not allow safe following distance. This is by far the biggest problem, period. If people got ticketed for this, accident and death rates would go down significantly. But too many legislators would get ticketed for that...
Here's another dose: There are many, many situations while driving a car in which it is perfectly safe to operate a device with one hand, and even look away from the road for a few seconds. An obvious example is when the car is stopped--a situation for which this law does not seem to recognize. Another obvious example is when there is no nearby traffic and no potential road hazards in sight. If the nearest car is 10-20 seconds away, and there is nothing but open fields around the road, it's perfectly safe to look at my radio or my GPS or my phone--or blow my nose!--for 2-3 seconds. But, of course, since the law was written by and for idiots, it doesn't account for the possibility of reason or intelligence on the part of the driver.
And, yes, of course, there are many idiotic drivers out there--maybe even more of them than the other! I see them every day! But we cannot outlaw everything that might be a problem if an idiot did it at a bad time! And this is probably where our fundamental philosophical differences will come to light. Life is full of danger. Getting out of bed is a risk. Taking a shower can be dangerous. Walking out your front door exposes you to many sources of risk. Staying in bed can be dangerous, because an airplane or a boulder could plow through your wall and squash you like a bug. (It has happened!) Not to mention the long-term risks of inactivity. It's not good for the human spirit for the power of choice and the needs for reason and responsibility to be taken away.
And the irony of your sig...it really gets me, man.
I think you vastly overestimate the ease and speed with which 14,000 targets can be destroyed.
You can't just drop a few CBUs from 20,000 feet and take out a few hundred artillery pieces at one time. You're talking about at least several weeks of targeted (ha) effort.
I work on the cutting edge of reducing costs and leveraging technology to better patient outcomes.
Adam Savage: "Well THERE'S your problem!"
Technology is not the solution to lowering costs or improving patient care. Neither is "leveraging" anything else. In fact, the problems we are facing in our healthcare systems now are partly due to technology and "leveraging" things. The very fact that you use such a corporate buzzword shows how out of touch you are with doctors.
Some doctors might kick and scream, but their profession has been profiting handsomely from the existing system, and they know how to work it to maximize their income.
Slashdot Mirror
Who said that our history represents a cosmos which is the best of all possibilities? Who said it's guided--implying that it is to the extent of being directly controlled--by an omnipotent being? These are presuppositions that may not be true. If you submit to these presuppositions, you limit your reasoning to that which they do not exclude. If these presuppositions are false, you have prevented yourself from arriving at the truth.
I don't propose that those are true--that is, I don't propose that God directly controls everything in the world, or that our history represents an optimal outcome. I propose that we seek truth, whatever it may be, using our ability to reason and the evidence we have, while at the same time being diligent to recognize our limitations and admit that which we cannot answer.
That's not what I meant. I meant that, to assume that we can reason our way to understanding the nature of God, the nature of what he is and how he created the universe, is arrogant in that it fails to recognize our finiteness--this is a form of self-worship, as it places oneself at the highest level of understanding.
We should certainly use reason! But doing so includes recognizing our limitations and the limitations of reason, given our limitations.
Implicit in your argument is the assumption that if something exists, then it must have been created. If that assumption is correct, then if the Universe exists, it must have been created. What created the Universe? Some people, perhaps including you, would answer that God created the Universe. Does God exist? If so, what created created God? Now you have the problem of an infinite regress.
This is only a problem if you make it one. If God created the universe, then he exists outside of it, and it is unreasonable for us to expect to comprehend the nature of existence in a realm outside of and above our own.
If, instead, you admit that some questions are not answerable in this realm, then such problems cease to be problems, and you can move on to relevant questions.
"What caused God?" This is an irrelevant question. If God is real, and if he is God, then, given that we don't even know how the universe--what we can directly see--was created, how could we possibly understand how or if God--what we cannot directly see--was created? It's a question that is impossible for us to answer scientifically or empirically. All the question does is distract us from more important, actually relevant questions--such as, "Is God real?"
Quantum fluctuations are a more satisfactory explanation. They're extremely simple; it's more likely that something simple can be uncaused and can just exist, and have always existed, than that the same is true for something complex, like a god. And this simple thing explains how more complex things can jump into existence by random chance.
Uncaused? This is a meaningless, made-up word. We cannot explain how something can exist without having been caused to exist, because we cannot comprehend what could have come before or after what we understand as time, because we are completely within it and unable to see beyond it. Your reasoning based on this is fundamentally flawed.
Who are you to say what is simple and what is complex? If God is real, only he can say how complex he is; only he truly understands how the universe works at all levels. You're constructing God in your own image, complete with your finiteness of ability and understanding. We don't even understand ourselves, much less an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe.
Besides, you're comparing apples and oranges: quantum fluctuations exist in the physical universe. If God is real, he exists outside of the physical universe. Reasoning about the complexity or probability of one does not transfer to the other.
Your presuppositions are blinding you to possibilites of truth. The worst is when we aren't aware of our presuppositions, when we're deluding ourselves. I encourage you to open your mind and reevaluate your thinking.
Your reasoning is fundamentally illogical, yet you tout it as provable. How ironic and sad that someone would insist on his infallible logic when it's fundamentally flawed.
1. You are presupposing you know what others mean when they use the term "God." What you're actually doing is reasoning based on your own conception of God.
2. God is, by definition, above and beyond and outside of us and our universe. Statistics is a human-created field. It cannot prove anything which is by definition outside its realm.
You are simply creating God in your own image. You are delineating his boundaries according to your finite, human perception. What if you are wrong? Are you so arrogant as to assume that you cannot be wrong? Such would make you God--but self-worship is not uncommon among humanity.
Truth simply is, whether or not we believe it, understand it, or agree with it. If God is real, then he is real and he is who he is, regardless of what we feel, think, or believe about him.
Your reasoning is based on several presuppositions:
1. That you know what omnibenevolence actually is, from a universal, absolute perspective. We humans have such limited perspectives. What may seem benevolent to us might actually be harmful in ways we aren't aware of or can't comprehend. Helping one person with a problem might end up hurting many more people.
2. That you know what is actually good for anyone. This is not the same as the previous item. We humans often think we know what we need, what is good for us, but quite often we are wrong, and we do things that are not good for us. How could we make this judgment for others if we can't even make it for ourselves?
3. That you know what it would be like to be omniscient, omnipotent, or omnibenevolent. Frankly, this is absurd. It's easy to say, "I'd know everything and could do everything!" But you've no idea what knowing everything would actually be like. To see how every single minute particle is connected, how the tiniest action leads to another and another, to see and understand time, to understand at once the enormity of the universe and the smallest subatomic particle, to see inside people's hearts and minds... To actually understand what that would be like is incomprehensible to us, because we are markedly finite. Therefore, to say what you would do if you were any of these things is equally absurd.
You think you're being logical, but your logic is founded on unprovable assumptions. While you criticize others for making God in their image, you are doing the same thing, constructing a God that you can comprehend. This is exactly why people throughout history have made idols and worshipped them: it's easier to comprehend something you can see and touch, something made by human hands. But in so doing, one is simply worshipping an artificial construct, which is by definition more limited than the one who created it, i.e. even lower than humans. And any God that is wholly comprehensible by humans is by definition not God. There is a fundamental arrogance in believing that nothing is beyond one's own understanding, but this is precisely what people do when they delineate God's boundaries according to their limited perceptions. In the end, this results in idol worship in the form of self-worship, believing that we can reason our way to all truth, while in reality many things are simply beyond our reach.
Truth is truth whether or not we believe it, understand it, or agree with it. If God is real, then he is real and he is who he is, regardless of what we think, feel, or believe about him.
Humans are indigenous to this planet, thus we are part of "nature."
The internet company has explicitly and openly said that the Glass platform should and must be clean and clear of any ads whatsoever, because the technology is designed to facilitate internet browsing and other related activities, therefore, the featured podium cannot be used to advertise products as it will cause the user experience to diminish
So it's designed for internet browsing and stuff...like smartphones???
I'm so sick of ads taking up my tiny screen space, my pathetic battery life, and my worthless monthly bandwidth. This is the worst in apps made by every random developer who thinks he's entitled to make a constant revenue stream from throwing together a piddly app to do something basic like a kitchen timer. I even had an app that was supposed to be an app-store release of the ICS camera app...and it had an ad on the screen when you were using the camera! All he did was release the ICS camera app!
How about standing up to these developers, Google? Huh?
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
Balderdash. Anyone can live with whomever he wants and can make whatever kind of promises or agreements he wants with whomever he wants. The government not giving a slip of paper endorsing or verifying their private decisions is not a form of regulating their personal lives--it's the opposite! It's refusing to be involved in it! How much more freedom do you require than lack of involvement?
Then why all this fuss about gay marriage? Why is bigamy illegal? Laws that criminalise those things restrict personal liberties.
That's a good question. Originally I'm sure it goes back to something like common law or colonial values, i.e. moral values. From a practical standpoint, it probably exists to protect women from men who would marry a woman and then marry another woman, perhaps even secretly; this could go on and on, as he abandons each one for the next. When those laws were written or assumed, women could not as easily suvive independently. It really hasn't been that many years since marriage and family was a basic necessity for most people to survive.
But again, while marrying two people at once may be illegal, there is no law against a spouse leaving and living with someone else, even having children. The government won't recognize it legally, but those two people don't require such official recognition to live together and make whatever promises they want to each other. As morally wrong as it is, it's not illegal.
And yet those taxes are still there. How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
You're being silly. Every nation in the world has taxes, and no nation could exist with zero taxes. Taxes have been around as long as death. Your argument is preposterous and irrational.
Just because all nations have taxation does not mean that it is impossible for a nation to exist without it. Just because taxation has been around for a long time doesn't mean it's not an infringement on our liberties.
Of course taxes are an infringement upon liberties.
Or that's one viewpoint. Another is that reasonable taxes are necessary for a government to exist and protect its citizens' liberties--without any taxes, a government couldn't exist, and might-makes-right would create anarchy.
I can't - but that doesn't mean (in any way at all) that the US is the bastian[sic] of freedom. It's not. Your government removes and dilutes your freedoms far too much.
All governments do--that's their basic function. Only by the vigilance of its citizens does a nation preserve its liberty.
The basic function of government should be to protect people from harm. They shouldn't be the ones doing the harming.
No one will disagree with you there. But again, that's not possible without taxes of some form. Even if government were only run by part-time volunteers, it would still be necessary to purchase and maintain resources for government use.
Thankfully, our basic rights which allow us to be vigilant are enshrined in our founding documents, a claim which few nations can make.
Is the US perfect? Hardly. Is it getting worse? Perhaps. Is there any freer nation? No.
But, hey, bashing America is easy and popular, so why not join the mob?
I'm not bashing the USA. I'm bashing all countries that dilute the freedoms of its citizens. (Which is all countries). Some are much better than others.
Ok...so what's your point? That the world isn't perfect?
I don't understand what you mean. I was referring to the way it seems popular to villify the U.S. nowadays, ignoring the good things the U.S. has done and continues to do. Yes, Eisenhower spoke about that, and he may have been right.
But I think you missed the GP's point. It's easy to criticize the status quo, because it's far, far from perfect, just, or fair. The problem is that there is no viable alternative. Communism and socialism and fascism all failed, because they are rotten at their core. Capitalism allows enough freedom for some people to do bad things and fulfill their greed, potentially at others' expense, but that's a price you pay for freedom. If you give up that freedom, you pay a greater price in that the common people have no liberty to determine their own destiny, or at least attempt to. And by removing that freedom, you not only give up a basic human right and greatly harm quality of life, but you also remove motivation for work, creativity, ingenuity, dedication, etc.
People who rail against capitalism may be justified in their criticisms, and I'm sure it could be regulated better than it is. But that is what they should be calling for: better (not necessarily more) regulation of capitalism. Simply crying that capitalism is bad and unfair and evil is pointless, and ultimately naive, because there is no reasonable alternative.
Empty voices easily fill the void with empty words, but they ring hollow.
More than HP?
I thought pinning an app to the taskbar was just another way of adding a launcher to the taskbar, the only difference being that when the app is launched, the launch button turns into the app's running taskbar button. It saves space on the taskbar since you don't need a launcher button for an app that's already running.
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
Balderdash. Anyone can live with whomever he wants and can make whatever kind of promises or agreements he wants with whomever he wants. The government not giving a slip of paper endorsing or verifying their private decisions is not a form of regulating their personal lives--it's the opposite! It's refusing to be involved in it! How much more freedom do you require than lack of involvement?
And yet those taxes are still there. How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
You're being silly. Every nation in the world has taxes, and no nation could exist with zero taxes. Taxes have been around as long as death. Your argument is preposterous and irrational.
I can't - but that doesn't mean (in any way at all) that the US is the bastian[sic] of freedom. It's not. Your government removes and dilutes your freedoms far too much.
All governments do--that's their basic function. Only by the vigilance of its citizens does a nation preserve its liberty. Thankfully, our basic rights which allow us to be vigilant are enshrined in our founding documents, a claim which few nations can make.
Is the US perfect? Hardly. Is it getting worse? Perhaps. Is there any freer nation? No.
But, hey, bashing America is easy and popular, so why not join the mob?
A rare voice of reason in a sea of anti-American populists milking the current fad.
Thanks for your thoughtful response.
You have some excellent points, however I'm not convinced that they are all relevant. For example:
In an ideal world, I really would prefer, as I'm fairly sure you would, that we had a much simpler set of laws on the books, based on principles and common sense, and then allowed courts to make decisions on merit in each individual case.
Maybe the differences between the US and the UK make our discussion a bit moot, but it seems to me that courts already make decisions based on merit. Judges often dismiss cases or suspend sentences for minor offenses, even if the defendant is guilty. For a frustrating example, here in my state, cars with loud, aftermarket exhausts are illegal by state law. I talked to the local police department about a recent increase in the number of extremely loud vehicles zooming past my home. The officer told me that when they give citations and go to court, the county judge throws out the case and tells them to stop wasting his time. The judge refuses to enforce the law, because he doesn't think it's important. (He lives somewhere where loud cars don't zoom past his home every day. How someone this shortsighted got to be a judge, I don't know.) In other cases, judges sometimes show mercy to citizens who admit their mistakes.
But that requires an enforcement system that is very likely to catch offenders and deal with them efficiently, and just as importantly, very unlikely to catch anyone else and cause them extensive stress and disruption they don't deserve. That in turn relies on having many front-line police officers who all have perfect judgement. While I do have a lot of respect for most police officers I've met, that's a heavy burden to put on one individual making a decision in the heat of the moment, and given the burden that simply being pulled over or arrested carries in modern society even if no further action is taken, there are real ethical/legal concerns over allowing too much discretion to officers about what is and isn't worth imposing that burden on a member of the public.
I think you're wrong here. Again, maybe this is due to living in different countries, but police officers here certainly have discretion about enforcing the law and giving citations. Not all laws, of course--murder isn't optionally enforced, and some states require by law that one party be taken to jail if the police are called for a domestic dispute--but many laws, like traffic laws, allow the police to choose whether to pull a driver over or give him a ticket. So I think the police already do this as part of their job. It's hardly a case of black-and-white-if-they-see-it-they-must-give-a-ticket.
And I don't think it would require perfect judgement on anyone's part. This is why we have courts and juries who already make decisions like these. I think you're painting a picture of a false dichotomy.
Laws may not be intended to send a message, but as a practical reality, they do. This is demonstrated very clearly by the campaigns to use hands-free kits here in the UK that I mentioned earlier in this discussion.
I think this is a case of opportunistic businesses taking advantage of the new laws to sell stuff. Sure, a law against murder "sends a message" that murder is not ok, but that's not the purpose of the law. I would argue, again, that laws aren't what really send messages--consequences are. There are many laws which are not enforced or whose consequences are minor which people do not obey. The law is ignored because the consequences are not sending a message--or they are sending a message that it's not a big deal.
Advertisers latched on to the fact that an exception had been made and only hand-held devices were banned, even though the very same research that the government used to justify that ban also showed that using a hands-free was almost as dangerous. Since that time, it's not only people who
Well, you didn't know that little Joey had been bullied by Tommy for some time. Last week, Joey had enough and punched Tommy. Tommy got laughed at by all the kids, and Joey was feeling pretty righteous about fighting off the class bully. But bullies don't give up so easily. Tommy went and got his daddy's gun.
This silly, made-up story proves nothing, but it's the kind of pseudo-reasoning that passes for logic among many people nowadays. Let's deconstruct your hypothetical scenario:
1. Tommy bullies Joey.
2. Joey finally stands up for himself.
3. Tommy steals his father's firearm.
4. Tommy takes it to school.
5. Tommy threatens Joey with it.
6. Later, sometime in the future, Tommy makes a "finger gun" gesture at Joey.
Which of these actions are wrong? Numbers 1, 3, 4, and 5. Number 6 is not inherently wrong; only in the context of his making a threat with a real gun is it even an issue. The problem is not with #6, the problem is with 1, 3, 4, and 5! How utterly foolish it would be to punish Tommy for #6 when his actual crimes are far more serious!
And how utterly irrational it would be to punish any child who points a finger gun at another child on the basis that some random wacko at some time in history made a threat with a real gun and then made finger guns to scare people he threatened. Oh, obviously then, any child who says "bang!" is a sociopath and must be suspended or expelled--or worse!--to "protect the children." Nevermind the child who is irreparably harmed by this mindlessness.
This is the kind of messed-up thinking that is taking childhood away from children. It's taking away their imaginations, their creativity, their dreams, their innocence...it's taking away their future as lively, intelligent human beings. Conformity is enforced. Any action that could potentially, possiblly be interpreted as a symptom of a bigger problem is immediately cracked down on, whether or not the child is actually guilty of any real wrongdoing. If a child does something, and anyone ever did anything wrong before or after doing what the child did, the child is punished, suspended, or expelled, "just to be safe." "Think of the children!"
Yes, think of the children! Think of the ones whose futures are being destroyed by this mindless, dogmatic enforcement of idiotic rules and laws!
The law is not logical. It's not supposed to be. The law is about experience. It is only experience.
What an illogical statement! Who are you to say what law is "supposed to be"? What kind of absurd lawmaking bases laws on experience but not reason? Such a process would outlaw using lawn sprinklers because after someone did that, there was a flood...nevermind that there was a horrific rainstorm with flash flooding; experience shows that after Mr. Thompson watered his lawn, the whole county flooded, so we must outlaw sprinklers. It's perfectly justified based on our experience.
Laws aren't supposed to be logical? Are laws supposed to be illogical? They are either one or the other, and you cannot justify the latter.
You're simply not making any sense, but you think that by writing fancy stories you are proving your ideas.
I see this all the time on roads where I live (Perth, Australia), especially from pedestrians. I drive a sports car with a modified exhaust, so it's not quiet yet moronic pedestrians with white earbuds stuffed in their ears still walk out in front of me and my shiny, black, loud car.
Gee, I wonder why they are trying to block out sound... Maybe it's because of self-absorbed morons who make their cars unnecessarily loud at the expense of other people.
People like you make me want to buy one of those high-tech directed-sound systems and point it at your bedroom window when you're trying to sleep and blast you with some serious noise. Hey, I'm having fun with it, so it doesn't matter how it affects you or anyone else! You can't tell me what to do! I have a right to do whatever I want!
What people like you need are consequences, because the only thing you understand is a dose of your own medicine. I'm guessing you didn't get spanked as a child, or you did for the wrong reasons, because that's a prime time and method to teach about consequences and respect for other people. Otherwise people grow up and engage in sociopathic behavior like yours and are a blight on civilization.
I came to realise that legislation is important not only for its ability to prosecute in practice but also for the message it sends about what is considered acceptable behaviour. Specifically, if you have some laws but don't explicitly prohibit something else, a certain type of person will use that as an excuse to do the other things even if those things are well known to be horribly dangerous. Personally, I'd rather people like that weren't encouraged, even if actually getting them off the road is difficult in practice.
See, that's the fundamental problem right there: what is "considered acceptable behavior"!? I consider making stupid laws "unacceptable behavior!" I consider lots of things "unacceptable behavior!" If I were king, those things might be illegal. Since I'm not, they aren't--instead, things other people think are "unacceptable behavior" are illegal. What we have are foolish, self-serving politicians doing what they think will get them reelected--not doing what is right.
Laws should be based on principles. Laws are not for sending messages--that's what consequences are for. It's not good, necessary, or right to prohibit everything that could possibly cause a problem if some idiot did it. It's not necessary to outlaw inserting a knife into another person's belly--that's covered by laws against murder and assault. The point is the principle about harming or killing other people. It's not good, necessary, or right to prohibit every little behavior that could be performed by an idiotic driver in an unsafe manner which could lead to an accident--that's covered by laws against reckless driving and running into other cars. If those consequences are not strong enough or not enforced properly, making more laws is not the answer!
Here's a dose of reality: the biggest safety problem with driving is drivers who do not allow safe following distance. This is by far the biggest problem, period. If people got ticketed for this, accident and death rates would go down significantly. But too many legislators would get ticketed for that...
Here's another dose: There are many, many situations while driving a car in which it is perfectly safe to operate a device with one hand, and even look away from the road for a few seconds. An obvious example is when the car is stopped--a situation for which this law does not seem to recognize. Another obvious example is when there is no nearby traffic and no potential road hazards in sight. If the nearest car is 10-20 seconds away, and there is nothing but open fields around the road, it's perfectly safe to look at my radio or my GPS or my phone--or blow my nose!--for 2-3 seconds. But, of course, since the law was written by and for idiots, it doesn't account for the possibility of reason or intelligence on the part of the driver.
And, yes, of course, there are many idiotic drivers out there--maybe even more of them than the other! I see them every day! But we cannot outlaw everything that might be a problem if an idiot did it at a bad time! And this is probably where our fundamental philosophical differences will come to light. Life is full of danger. Getting out of bed is a risk. Taking a shower can be dangerous. Walking out your front door exposes you to many sources of risk. Staying in bed can be dangerous, because an airplane or a boulder could plow through your wall and squash you like a bug. (It has happened!) Not to mention the long-term risks of inactivity. It's not good for the human spirit for the power of choice and the needs for reason and responsibility to be taken away.
And the irony of your sig...it really gets me, man.
Holy sarcasm-detector fail, Batman!
I think you vastly overestimate the ease and speed with which 14,000 targets can be destroyed.
You can't just drop a few CBUs from 20,000 feet and take out a few hundred artillery pieces at one time. You're talking about at least several weeks of targeted (ha) effort.
I work on the cutting edge of reducing costs and leveraging technology to better patient outcomes.
Adam Savage: "Well THERE'S your problem!"
Technology is not the solution to lowering costs or improving patient care. Neither is "leveraging" anything else. In fact, the problems we are facing in our healthcare systems now are partly due to technology and "leveraging" things. The very fact that you use such a corporate buzzword shows how out of touch you are with doctors.
Some doctors might kick and scream, but their profession has been profiting handsomely from the existing system, and they know how to work it to maximize their income.
s/doctors/insurance companies/; s/profession/industry/
That all doctors are comfortably rich is a myth. Talk to more doctors.
Unless the flight attendant was a male (or a hermaphrodite, as you imply), "stewardess" is correct terminology.
And unless the flight attendant is a hermaphrodite, I imagine she would be offended by your suggesting that she is one.
If you can't comprehend what I said, you need to get off the Internet or you're doing something wrong.
I've been using KeePassX for years. You missed the point.