Now, now, those were heady days before we knew things like 9-11 and that Cisco wasn't the end-all company that she thought it was... or its mandatory firing of the bottom 10%... that she salivated over and tried to impose on a company that had never even seen a single lay-off.
The problem with teaching children in utero is the smarter ones hack mommy's system and that makes for a difficult pregnancy, with her constantly craving hot pockets, bacon flavored snacks and highly caffienated beverages.
One problem with math education is that it simply isn't the same thing as logic or computer linguistics. Even Discrete Mathematics uses a whole different set of terms, jargon and solves only a subset of the sorts of logical conditions one can expect to program in a computer. But then that's been a problem for mathematics since its inception--its application to real world issues and uses...
And very few schools actually teach programming, even at the High School level, let alone at lower level education. One reason is that a programmer generally gets paid better than a public school teacher, and so if you know how to program you've probably got a better paying job not at school. Further there's the question of what is a decent education in programming--and do you focus on programming at all with the limited time and access to computers--or teach them basic computer skills and be happy with it.
In a public school you can probably expect the computer science teacher to double as a coach, with his first love being coaching. My High School experience was a bunch of us "smart kids" (most of them were kids who had dads with computers and that had taught them a few things) figuring it out, while the teacher floundered to explain sorting algorithms and what recursion was. (He had no clue, though I didn't realize this until I got to College and what had taken months to study and explain was all explained in perfect clarity by a grad student in about an hour lecture...)
Agreed. It's less a jury and more a beauty contest, where the judges are all in the audience... and nobody has enough time to vett all the comments so the sooner you reply the more likely you are to get noticed.
I agree that some languages make Programming a very heartless and painful experience, but then others are just fun to get working. It's how I fell about Perl. I love that I can get to a solution via an assortment of different ways and that there's not just one way to do everything. It allows me to express my individuality and creativity and helps me maintain a sense of ownership. Sure, that's not always a top priority to your boss, but as a programmer, it makes you feel more than you're just another project resource... probably vanity or hubris, but sometimes you need something to have a little pride in doing--code that isn't just generated by next-year's code generator.
There is the "I've experienced some unexplainable events in my life, and so I'm open to the possibility of God," group. There is the "I've had bad experiences with religion, and so I'm not interested in any of it..." There is the "I just want to party, be sarcastic, and mock anything that's an easy target" group. There is the "I feel threatened by these people that don't share my personal beliefs, philosophy or antireligious sentiments" group. There is the "I couldn't live by X religion's basic tenets, and so now I try to define discredit it" group. There is the "I just want to be accepted by a group so I follow X religion" group. There is the "I just want to be accepted by a group so I follow X philosophy or nonreligion or antireligious" group. There is the "I was raised X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious), so I'm X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious)" There is the "I was raised X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious), and now I'm X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious) because I've found personal evidence of it." There are those who claim to have experienced direct and divine personal revelation regarding their religion, have tested it, and live it. There are those who are naturally skeptical who never found any evidence convincing enough to enable them to commit to religious affiliation, all with varying degrees reaction to this failed search...
In reality, there are thousands of other ideas floating around out there, and we weakly associate one with another to form religious, nonreligious or antireligious groups... religions do have a powerful sway, they convey commonalities that many people feel are truth in their lives, and can be used to affect remarkable compassion and human decency. When threatened humans can also join as a group (religious, nonreligious or antireligious) and do terrible things...
The collander thing is clearly a faux religion, intended to make a mockery of human tendencies by ironically embracing the very thing it mocks. A religious parody based upon the mockery of other religions, imo, is small-minded, and does nothing. One does not make one's own beliefs more true by mocking or tearing down the beliefs of others. Even if you were to completely and utterly disprove a body of religious thought, it would do not prove your own.
But in the same sense, if they wish to embrace a fabricated tasty cthonic diety my personal response is, "Meh."
Truth is personal. Most of us are in a constant state of flux, trying and learning and exploring different ideas and ideaologies as we age and wizen and mature. I've come to the conclusion that religious freedom is one of the most fundamentally sound and civil ideas that humanity has embraced. It is the ultimate freedom and for those who wish to control others, or must belong to the one and only true group of humans (religious, nonreligious or antireligious), the most threatening.
I agree. After reading it, I wondered which was the more pointless loony cheerleader, the ones in Silicon Valley, or this guy who's cheering to see them fail. There are no sure things, not even the most humane, charitable service-oriented, down-home, genuine, open, enviro-friendly green companies get that, and trying to build a company solely with values is not going to create any sort of sustainable margins.
I wondered the same thing. further there's a whole cadre of instrumentation that needs to be built up to create a valid launch range, and we already have that, so why spend all that money on something closer to D.C.? Is it the country's vision that every state needs its own launch pad?
Actually, Perception is a large part of the equation...if I'm healed by the power of placebo-positive thinking, I'm still healed... I got what I sought in the transaction.
Most products sold are based on this idea, and many have ethical tradeoffs... and they're perfectly legal and as long as you're happy with it as a customer, then you got your value out of it... Heck, we've sold all sorts of things to one another that are openly harmful, including fast food, daily caffeine dosages, cigarettes, gasoline for your car, plastic containers that don't biodegrade, etc. At a certain point, I believe tabacco sellers knew their products were killing people, and imo, when they attempted to suppress scientific evidence to prevent the loss of profits--at that point--they became scammers.
In most cases we don't even know we're doing potential harm one to another. Heck, next week you'll probably discover that Greek Yogurt is the bane of good health and that twinkies is a miracle cure for baldness...And as long as you believe it, then it's probably just "business" as usual, because at the time of the transaction everyone was being open, honest and thought they were performing a mutually beneficial service.
Scammers that openly deceive, and Twitter is rife with it (60% of all accounts created is a HUGE number of scammers!) do so with expressly criminal intent. The distinction between them entrepreneurs may be small. IMO when the intent is personal profit above the humanity of your neighbor/business partner, etc, you need to go to jail or be banned or need to go to your room for a timeout...
IMO, it's gaming in class during lectures given by ancient professors who could bore the paint off the walls on topics of study that are genetically predisposed to cause blindness by its very nature due to sheer boringness... Essentially you bring a device into class that has the potential to make your class less boring, but only in the sense that it keeps you from having to endure sheer boredom to the point where you force yourself to learn the material.
There's nothing wrong with doing business. Scamming occurs when one party in the negotiation (could be solicitor in some cases, but more often is the customer) leaves the exchange feeling jilted, decieved so as to give one party unfair advantage, or outright robbed.
Any business exchange where one party is not completely honest is suspect. Twitter is perfect for dishonesty because it's just a name on a screen that can be spoofed, hijacked, and misrepresented.
I personally have a hard time seeing anything on Twitter as serious news, business, social or otherwise, and with it being a vehicle for phishing and malware, it's a tool I just don't use. When I weigh the downside, I just don't see it as all that beneficial. If you use it, it's probably a good idea to verify every communication that may impact you through some other means.
Of course the soul can leave before the body in the case when the brain has no "activity" but the body is kept alive... and in the case where you decide to astral project yourself into the netherspace to fight psychic entities that threaten to destroy the earth by making people perfectly happy running nothing but an ipad.
I disagree with your assessment--you're using the term cult, but ignoring the negative connotations associated with it.
The 12 steps form a framework for posing social interraction. What makes it work for most people is that the addict can look to others who have navigated a similar path. Addicts help other addicts as part of the program. They do so, because they gain insights in so doing.
A better analogy than cult might be that it's like having a personal tutor in a subject you continue to fail. He makes you do some of the homework, but a good tutor will get to know you, what you're capable of, and help you apply what you are capable of doing to problem solving on your own. He doesn't do the homework for you, he helps you so you can pass the test on your own.
Many addicts fail AA because they don't have the social support. They need the addiction because it helps them cope. They may not even understand the "why" behind the addiction (imo, most addicts don't understand why... and often when they do, it isn't very compelling.) And they don't have the support of someone telling them that they're better than their addiction, and that if they conquer it that there's a better life awaiting them. So they give up.
AA is not just about creating an emotional high. It is about distilling in the addict ideas and actual tangible steps that they can work on. Unfortunately because addiction is often deeply ingrained in self-image/self-loathing, it sometimes comes across as more touchy-feely, but most people need some sort of training when it comes to emotional maturity. Over time, that's what comes of the program.
But don't discount support, it is an essential human motivator in most things we do. Imagine attempting to do anything momentous in your life without it... it just doesn't happen, unless you're oblivious to the way others motivate you and hopelessly narcissistic.
The Flaming Liberal, clearly he got what he deserves... 600 lashes and 7 years in prison will definitely change his mind and reform him about those wrong-headed ideas that the blessed Shariah Law-abiding Conservatives of Saudi Arabia are not too punative or quick to deal out harsh rulings.
I understand Microsoft's motivation to change things, because they're selling stuff, and by nature they're almost required to change things in order to make a profit. If they don't update the interface, people become too productive, and never buy another copy--they just use the one they have. With upgrades and security patches being free and automatic, Microsoft really HAS to change change things in order to continue to make a profit.
But why does Linux do it? Why not create an XP equivalent of an OS/GUI and then just administer patches for the rest of all eternity? I have yet to see a defacto GUI/Desktop that isn't going through some massive remod, which renders all the development you do on the older technology null and void.
It's too bad, too, because i think that constant flux causes some devs to avoid it. Or do something more desperate, like code in Java.:)
(spoilers below: if you haven't played the game...)
Who can forget the sense of dread they first encountered earth in a slave shield, or intimidated the Spathi Captain Fwiffo, or the last Shofixti's face when you give him his little gift, or discovering the Enigmatic Arilous in Quasi-Space, or encountering the Syreen for the first time... and that love scene! Ahem. Or when you first faced off against a black UrQuan ship... or tricked the Ilwrath into believing you were their god... or the Thraddash into annihilating their latest culture until they joined you... Or being chased by far too many enemy ships into Hyperspace!
The game had a lot of classic elements you still don't find today... ah well, one can only hope something new and as enticing comes along, but I suspect I'm more addicted to the sense of wonder it created back then, and the nostalgia I feel now, than what might be done today.
Of course the only game anyone remembers is SC2, because it broke out of the traditional SC I and III mold. The story is probably the best game story I've ever had the pleasure of playing through. it is the sort of thing that would be very difficult to construct today, mostly because it is so story based.
That said, I really enjoyed the mining/exploration aspects of SC2 as well, landing, capturing lifeforms, landing on varying plantes, finding crystal planets for Tzo Crystals. And the customizable ship/armada mechanic really lent itself to a game that even now I enjoy playing again and again.
In addition to the fun of taking on an UrQuan with an Arilou...;)
Filters are becoming more sophisticated. Originally they were known to filter a lot of sites that had innocuous content on them, but they are quite configurable these days and only getting better.
I don't have an issue with putting filters on "public" networks and machines that are publically accessible. You don't know who will be using the machine, and it should be illegal to show porn to young kids... they don't need that stuff in their minds. Everybody deserves a little bit of a childhood. Not to mention the psychologically addictive nature of much of this material.
I agree sex is natural and good, but porn hardly portrays it as such... much of it is about humilation, shame, objectification, and degrading people. It's hardly healthy for a young mind to see all people with whom they have physical attraction as such.
Besides, considering the traffic that is generated from porn, why not find a way to make those using it the most actually pay for the privilege, rather than making all the public support it?
Unfortunately these arguments are either all or nothing, and that's a shame because it will eventually end up robbing people of freedoms, because we continue to find middleground solutions that could satisfy both parties.
For someone advocating government overthrow, his latest utterances are hardly consistent. I think he more or less conceded the debate in his latest comments. If anything I'm more inclined to see his movie because he demonstrates a willingness to accept the ruling of the SCOTUS. So what if his motives are financial, if he advocates for peaceful acceptance of the inevitable?
They were doing what they thought would protect society. If you don't share that perspective then you're entitled to that perspective. The debate is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to do. Ad reductio arguments aside, OSC's point is that most of this debate is over now, all except the mandatory beatings of any and all that didn't end up on the winning side of the debate.
I think if people framed the discussion in terms of a desire to do what is best for society, we'd all be a lot more willing to live and let live... and then maybe, we won't destroy society by punishing one another relentlessly for having different viewpoints.
23 years ago, most of your favorite politicians were on record campaigning against these issues. Including liberal stalwarts... Times change, even OSC's comments appear to have been one of acceptance. I say that's a far cry from claiming the government should be overthrown. If anything we should support his acceptance of such inevitabilities. But it's always much funner to be able to beat on a few and cry "I told you so!" and "I was right before you!", because that makes us all that much better people.
I don't understand the need to pit religion against science, or for that matter the humanities. Admittedly I'm not an evangelical christian who's tethered to a literal interpretation of the Creation account in the Bible, but I have always found that science compliments my faith, and vice versa. They also serve two very different needs in my life. I also don't think the humanities are the only source for teaching you to question assumptions--all the best science courses I've taken have made that plenty evident. I also doubt the value of being subversive--imo that's just rhetoric to make it sound exciting to the current generation of kids who think they have to be activists. I have found that the humanities teach a person patient communication, the ability to take in many viewpoints, tolerance and balance, and yet think in new ways--perhaps finding ways to allow all to coexist. For example, I remember the first time I encountered debate and discovered that all my natural tendencies to debate had latin names like "ad hominem"... or "ad absurdum"...
Speaking purely from a pragmatist's approach, with the cost of education, taking classes that require me to spout what some disagreeable professor is thinking on his pet-topics, all in the name of some sort of false sophistication seems a waste of money. If the humanities teach valuable skills, relevant to today, they will survive, because they will give those graduates obtaining them an advantage in this era. If the intent is to be a naysayer for everything, then it's just as irrelevant as a doomsday religion that continues to readjust the date for the end of the world...
I don't think companies should be free to beat puppies in order to convince employees to join their company. I mean, that's like extortion, "If you don't scrum with us, we'll beat these puppies senseless!"
Slashdot Mirror
Now, now, those were heady days before we knew things like 9-11 and that Cisco wasn't the end-all company that she thought it was... or its mandatory firing of the bottom 10%... that she salivated over and tried to impose on a company that had never even seen a single lay-off.
Whacky fun.
The problem with teaching children in utero is the smarter ones hack mommy's system and that makes for a difficult pregnancy, with her constantly craving hot pockets, bacon flavored snacks and highly caffienated beverages.
One problem with math education is that it simply isn't the same thing as logic or computer linguistics. Even Discrete Mathematics uses a whole different set of terms, jargon and solves only a subset of the sorts of logical conditions one can expect to program in a computer. But then that's been a problem for mathematics since its inception--its application to real world issues and uses...
And very few schools actually teach programming, even at the High School level, let alone at lower level education. One reason is that a programmer generally gets paid better than a public school teacher, and so if you know how to program you've probably got a better paying job not at school. Further there's the question of what is a decent education in programming--and do you focus on programming at all with the limited time and access to computers--or teach them basic computer skills and be happy with it.
In a public school you can probably expect the computer science teacher to double as a coach, with his first love being coaching. My High School experience was a bunch of us "smart kids" (most of them were kids who had dads with computers and that had taught them a few things) figuring it out, while the teacher floundered to explain sorting algorithms and what recursion was. (He had no clue, though I didn't realize this until I got to College and what had taken months to study and explain was all explained in perfect clarity by a grad student in about an hour lecture...)
Agreed. It's less a jury and more a beauty contest, where the judges are all in the audience... and nobody has enough time to vett all the comments so the sooner you reply the more likely you are to get noticed.
I agree that some languages make Programming a very heartless and painful experience, but then others are just fun to get working. It's how I fell about Perl. I love that I can get to a solution via an assortment of different ways and that there's not just one way to do everything. It allows me to express my individuality and creativity and helps me maintain a sense of ownership. Sure, that's not always a top priority to your boss, but as a programmer, it makes you feel more than you're just another project resource... probably vanity or hubris, but sometimes you need something to have a little pride in doing--code that isn't just generated by next-year's code generator.
There aren't just three options, though.
There is the "I've experienced some unexplainable events in my life, and so I'm open to the possibility of God," group.
There is the "I've had bad experiences with religion, and so I'm not interested in any of it..."
There is the "I just want to party, be sarcastic, and mock anything that's an easy target" group.
There is the "I feel threatened by these people that don't share my personal beliefs, philosophy or antireligious sentiments" group.
There is the "I couldn't live by X religion's basic tenets, and so now I try to define discredit it" group.
There is the "I just want to be accepted by a group so I follow X religion" group.
There is the "I just want to be accepted by a group so I follow X philosophy or nonreligion or antireligious" group.
There is the "I was raised X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious), so I'm X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious)"
There is the "I was raised X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious), and now I'm X (religious, nonreligious or antireligious) because I've found personal evidence of it."
There are those who claim to have experienced direct and divine personal revelation regarding their religion, have tested it, and live it.
There are those who are naturally skeptical who never found any evidence convincing enough to enable them to commit to religious affiliation, all with varying degrees reaction to this failed search...
In reality, there are thousands of other ideas floating around out there, and we weakly associate one with another to form religious, nonreligious or antireligious groups... religions do have a powerful sway, they convey commonalities that many people feel are truth in their lives, and can be used to affect remarkable compassion and human decency. When threatened humans can also join as a group (religious, nonreligious or antireligious) and do terrible things...
The collander thing is clearly a faux religion, intended to make a mockery of human tendencies by ironically embracing the very thing it mocks.
A religious parody based upon the mockery of other religions, imo, is small-minded, and does nothing. One does not make one's own beliefs more true by mocking or tearing down the beliefs of others. Even if you were to completely and utterly disprove a body of religious thought, it would do not prove your own.
But in the same sense, if they wish to embrace a fabricated tasty cthonic diety my personal response is, "Meh."
Truth is personal. Most of us are in a constant state of flux, trying and learning and exploring different ideas and ideaologies as we age and wizen and mature. I've come to the conclusion that religious freedom is one of the most fundamentally sound and civil ideas that humanity has embraced. It is the ultimate freedom and for those who wish to control others, or must belong to the one and only true group of humans (religious, nonreligious or antireligious), the most threatening.
I agree. After reading it, I wondered which was the more pointless loony cheerleader, the ones in Silicon Valley, or this guy who's cheering to see them fail. There are no sure things, not even the most humane, charitable service-oriented, down-home, genuine, open, enviro-friendly green companies get that, and trying to build a company solely with values is not going to create any sort of sustainable margins.
I wondered the same thing. further there's a whole cadre of instrumentation that needs to be built up to create a valid launch range, and we already have that, so why spend all that money on something closer to D.C.? Is it the country's vision that every state needs its own launch pad?
Actually, Perception is a large part of the equation...if I'm healed by the power of placebo-positive thinking, I'm still healed... I got what I sought in the transaction.
Most products sold are based on this idea, and many have ethical tradeoffs... and they're perfectly legal and as long as you're happy with it as a customer, then you got your value out of it... Heck, we've sold all sorts of things to one another that are openly harmful, including fast food, daily caffeine dosages, cigarettes, gasoline for your car, plastic containers that don't biodegrade, etc. At a certain point, I believe tabacco sellers knew their products were killing people, and imo, when they attempted to suppress scientific evidence to prevent the loss of profits--at that point--they became scammers.
In most cases we don't even know we're doing potential harm one to another. Heck, next week you'll probably discover that Greek Yogurt is the bane of good health and that twinkies is a miracle cure for baldness...And as long as you believe it, then it's probably just "business" as usual, because at the time of the transaction everyone was being open, honest and thought they were performing a mutually beneficial service.
Scammers that openly deceive, and Twitter is rife with it (60% of all accounts created is a HUGE number of scammers!) do so with expressly criminal intent. The distinction between them entrepreneurs may be small. IMO when the intent is personal profit above the humanity of your neighbor/business partner, etc, you need to go to jail or be banned or need to go to your room for a timeout...
IMO, it's gaming in class during lectures given by ancient professors who could bore the paint off the walls on topics of study that are genetically predisposed to cause blindness by its very nature due to sheer boringness... Essentially you bring a device into class that has the potential to make your class less boring, but only in the sense that it keeps you from having to endure sheer boredom to the point where you force yourself to learn the material.
There's nothing wrong with doing business. Scamming occurs when one party in the negotiation (could be solicitor in some cases, but more often is the customer) leaves the exchange feeling jilted, decieved so as to give one party unfair advantage, or outright robbed.
Any business exchange where one party is not completely honest is suspect. Twitter is perfect for dishonesty because it's just a name on a screen that can be spoofed, hijacked, and misrepresented.
I personally have a hard time seeing anything on Twitter as serious news, business, social or otherwise, and with it being a vehicle for phishing and malware, it's a tool I just don't use. When I weigh the downside, I just don't see it as all that beneficial. If you use it, it's probably a good idea to verify every communication that may impact you through some other means.
Of course the soul can leave before the body in the case when the brain has no "activity" but the body is kept alive... and in the case where you decide to astral project yourself into the netherspace to fight psychic entities that threaten to destroy the earth by making people perfectly happy running nothing but an ipad.
I disagree with your assessment--you're using the term cult, but ignoring the negative connotations associated with it.
The 12 steps form a framework for posing social interraction. What makes it work for most people is that the addict can look to others who have navigated a similar path. Addicts help other addicts as part of the program. They do so, because they gain insights in so doing.
A better analogy than cult might be that it's like having a personal tutor in a subject you continue to fail. He makes you do some of the homework, but a good tutor will get to know you, what you're capable of, and help you apply what you are capable of doing to problem solving on your own. He doesn't do the homework for you, he helps you so you can pass the test on your own.
Many addicts fail AA because they don't have the social support. They need the addiction because it helps them cope. They may not even understand the "why" behind the addiction (imo, most addicts don't understand why... and often when they do, it isn't very compelling.) And they don't have the support of someone telling them that they're better than their addiction, and that if they conquer it that there's a better life awaiting them. So they give up.
AA is not just about creating an emotional high. It is about distilling in the addict ideas and actual tangible steps that they can work on. Unfortunately because addiction is often deeply ingrained in self-image/self-loathing, it sometimes comes across as more touchy-feely, but most people need some sort of training when it comes to emotional maturity. Over time, that's what comes of the program.
But don't discount support, it is an essential human motivator in most things we do. Imagine attempting to do anything momentous in your life without it... it just doesn't happen, unless you're oblivious to the way others motivate you and hopelessly narcissistic.
The Flaming Liberal, clearly he got what he deserves... 600 lashes and 7 years in prison will definitely change his mind and reform him about those wrong-headed ideas that the blessed Shariah Law-abiding Conservatives of Saudi Arabia are not too punative or quick to deal out harsh rulings.
I understand Microsoft's motivation to change things, because they're selling stuff, and by nature they're almost required to change things in order to make a profit. If they don't update the interface, people become too productive, and never buy another copy--they just use the one they have. With upgrades and security patches being free and automatic, Microsoft really HAS to change change things in order to continue to make a profit.
But why does Linux do it? Why not create an XP equivalent of an OS/GUI and then just administer patches for the rest of all eternity? I have yet to see a defacto GUI/Desktop that isn't going through some massive remod, which renders all the development you do on the older technology null and void.
It's too bad, too, because i think that constant flux causes some devs to avoid it. Or do something more desperate, like code in Java. :)
fan-spam away, the game deserves it!
(spoilers below: if you haven't played the game...)
Who can forget the sense of dread they first encountered earth in a slave shield, or intimidated the Spathi Captain Fwiffo, or the last Shofixti's face when you give him his little gift, or discovering the Enigmatic Arilous in Quasi-Space, or encountering the Syreen for the first time... and that love scene! Ahem. Or when you first faced off against a black UrQuan ship... or tricked the Ilwrath into believing you were their god... or the Thraddash into annihilating their latest culture until they joined you... Or being chased by far too many enemy ships into Hyperspace!
The game had a lot of classic elements you still don't find today... ah well, one can only hope something new and as enticing comes along, but I suspect I'm more addicted to the sense of wonder it created back then, and the nostalgia I feel now, than what might be done today.
Of course the only game anyone remembers is SC2, because it broke out of the traditional SC I and III mold. The story is probably the best game story I've ever had the pleasure of playing through. it is the sort of thing that would be very difficult to construct today, mostly because it is so story based.
That said, I really enjoyed the mining/exploration aspects of SC2 as well, landing, capturing lifeforms, landing on varying plantes, finding crystal planets for Tzo Crystals. And the customizable ship/armada mechanic really lent itself to a game that even now I enjoy playing again and again.
In addition to the fun of taking on an UrQuan with an Arilou... ;)
Filters are becoming more sophisticated. Originally they were known to filter a lot of sites that had innocuous content on them, but they are quite configurable these days and only getting better.
I don't have an issue with putting filters on "public" networks and machines that are publically accessible. You don't know who will be using the machine, and it should be illegal to show porn to young kids... they don't need that stuff in their minds. Everybody deserves a little bit of a childhood. Not to mention the psychologically addictive nature of much of this material.
I agree sex is natural and good, but porn hardly portrays it as such... much of it is about humilation, shame, objectification, and degrading people. It's hardly healthy for a young mind to see all people with whom they have physical attraction as such.
Besides, considering the traffic that is generated from porn, why not find a way to make those using it the most actually pay for the privilege, rather than making all the public support it?
Unfortunately these arguments are either all or nothing, and that's a shame because it will eventually end up robbing people of freedoms, because we continue to find middleground solutions that could satisfy both parties.
This is the UK we're talking about... so exactly WHAT sun do they see any way?
For someone advocating government overthrow, his latest utterances are hardly consistent. I think he more or less conceded the debate in his latest comments. If anything I'm more inclined to see his movie because he demonstrates a willingness to accept the ruling of the SCOTUS. So what if his motives are financial, if he advocates for peaceful acceptance of the inevitable?
They were doing what they thought would protect society. If you don't share that perspective then you're entitled to that perspective. The debate is a lot more complicated than you're making it out to do. Ad reductio arguments aside, OSC's point is that most of this debate is over now, all except the mandatory beatings of any and all that didn't end up on the winning side of the debate.
I think if people framed the discussion in terms of a desire to do what is best for society, we'd all be a lot more willing to live and let live... and then maybe, we won't destroy society by punishing one another relentlessly for having different viewpoints.
23 years ago, most of your favorite politicians were on record campaigning against these issues. Including liberal stalwarts... Times change, even OSC's comments appear to have been one of acceptance. I say that's a far cry from claiming the government should be overthrown. If anything we should support his acceptance of such inevitabilities. But it's always much funner to be able to beat on a few and cry "I told you so!" and "I was right before you!", because that makes us all that much better people.
Yeah, that sucks, then you get laid off... and have no skills worth mentioning and your resume' looks like a big neon sign that says "Don't hire me."
I don't understand the need to pit religion against science, or for that matter the humanities. Admittedly I'm not an evangelical christian who's tethered to a literal interpretation of the Creation account in the Bible, but I have always found that science compliments my faith, and vice versa. They also serve two very different needs in my life. I also don't think the humanities are the only source for teaching you to question assumptions--all the best science courses I've taken have made that plenty evident. I also doubt the value of being subversive--imo that's just rhetoric to make it sound exciting to the current generation of kids who think they have to be activists. I have found that the humanities teach a person patient communication, the ability to take in many viewpoints, tolerance and balance, and yet think in new ways--perhaps finding ways to allow all to coexist. For example, I remember the first time I encountered debate and discovered that all my natural tendencies to debate had latin names like "ad hominem"... or "ad absurdum"...
Speaking purely from a pragmatist's approach, with the cost of education, taking classes that require me to spout what some disagreeable professor is thinking on his pet-topics, all in the name of some sort of false sophistication seems a waste of money. If the humanities teach valuable skills, relevant to today, they will survive, because they will give those graduates obtaining them an advantage in this era. If the intent is to be a naysayer for everything, then it's just as irrelevant as a doomsday religion that continues to readjust the date for the end of the world...
I don't think companies should be free to beat puppies in order to convince employees to join their company. I mean, that's like extortion, "If you don't scrum with us, we'll beat these puppies senseless!"