> Wrong: The inverse of right; anything that harms > the species as a whole, or actions that, if > everyone took them, would harm the species.
I disagree. Wrong is simply not right. There is nothing in between. By your definitions of right and wrong, if I gratuitously tortured one person, but in an unrelated incident I saved two people from gratuitous torture, then the aggregate of my actions is right (as my actions have promoted the common good). However, I believe that this aggregate was not right, because there was a better possible course of action.
Security of what? When my freedoms have been taken away, I have a little less to enjoy my security with.
Total security is unattainable. You would have to give up a lot more than what you think of as your freedoms to achieve total security. Total security would involve never cosuming anything not prescribed to you, never leaving home alone *or* after dark and never using motor vehicles or routes used by motor vehicles. Even then, you would not be safe from age or violence. Face it. Recent security scares concern a threat that is inevitable, while recent security 'improvements' seek to achieve something that is not possible.
This is not to say that all security measures are bad, just that the costs involved should also be considered. For example, security loopholes for domestic flights in the US have been closed. Even if there is no benefit from this, it does not matter, because nobody is severely inconvenienced by the measures. However, invasive privacy violating searches based on weak suspicions can only be justified if they achieve a level of success that is just not possible.
> When the Guvmint proclaims "we need to do this in > the name of security," you can bet your freedoms > will be trampled in the process.
So governments should not be trusted to talk about security truthfully, or to attatch so much value to it. They intended to remove our freedoms anyway, security just provides a useful justification.
> I... suspect that my mythical "PrivacyBancorp" > would be less profitable for its shareholders, and > would soon be bought out by a more profitable bank,
Right. This might not be achievable through the traditional shareholder-owned banking model. In any case, trusting an organisation that works for someone else (shareholders, not cutomers) seems... um... brave.
However, there are alternatives. If a bank was owned by the state or by the customers, then even if providing a good service hurt its profitability, then there might not be an oppotunity for a rival to take it over.
If a bank (or something like one) was owned and run by the state, then it ought to be run in the interests of voters, which will include most customers. If it is run in the interests of voters, then it can afford lower profits than private sector competitors. It can consider the value of providing good service in its own right, rather than guaging success by profit, even though it will be expected to contirbute to state funds. Here in the UK we have the National Savings Bank (http://www.nationalsavings.co.uk/). Unfortunately, they don't lend money (governments themselves always want to borrow), and government is the source of much of our privacy worries, so perhaps this is not the solution.
Cooperative organisations (owned by customers) have no goals other than serving their customers. Unless doing so prevents the service from being provided, customers are able to make a cooperatively owned finacial organisation protect their privacy. Selling of personal information can certainly be stopped. Of course, less money will be made this way, but all of the profit are kept by the customers. The result is that even if a bank offers you the privacy you desire, it will come at a financial cost. However, if a cooperatively owned 'bank' protects your privacy, then you still get better value than you would from a bank, because you get the profits as well (while a bank would take profits for shareholders by setting less generous interest rates). Here in the UK, we have cooperative 'banks'. They are called 'building societies'. Traditionally, they have not provided credit cards and cheque books, but some now do. I believe they provide unsecured loans, mortgages and savings products with better value than banks.
I'd mod you up if I could, but instead I'll disagree with you.
One of the effects of fossil fuel use is CO2 production. How fast we use our (assuming nobody else wants them) fossil fuels effects not only how quickly we have to find an alternative, but also CO2 concentrations in the intervening time.
If we burn all of our fossil fuels this year, then air quality would worsen dramatically. I think you are right that in the long term it will make very little difference. However, if this is the case, it also seems likely that burning fossil fuel very gradually will have little environmental impact (as the environment will compensate or adapt). Therefore, it would be preferable to slow fossil fuel use.
Also there is the option of not using fossil fuels at all. If alternatives (with sufficient power) are possible, then why not stop burning fossil fuels now? What if the best alternatives that we can think of also pollute? We could burn ethanol and wood, both of which are renewable, but which also release CO2 when burned. Then we must also reduce fuel consumption, as we do not have the answer that you give: that the fuel will be used up (and its damage done) eventually.
> I don't mind if people protest, but do not deface > property and infringe on my rights.
There is a war on, you know.
Consider this: I don't mind if people wage war, but do not damage property and infringe my rights. Of course in times of war, involvement is not a choice (unless your representative chose to go to war). Asking not to be involved is like Saddam asking for the opposing armies to have their war without him.
You wouldn't advocate war for something that you weren't personally prepared to die for would you? I would be prepared to die fighting Saddam, but I oppose this war because of the costs (like causing more terrorism). Many soldiers and middle eastern civilians (not only in Iraq) are facing far worse than inconvenience. Remember that, just as the US army are trying to kill people, some foreigners may want to kill you (not murder, an act of war). Only protestors are good patriots. They are trying to protect you from yourself.
> Yesterday, in Boston, protesters sat down and > blocked the Mass Ave Bridge, a major 4 way > bridge. They also blocked people from getting to > work at the Boston Stock Exchange and government > buildings. Why prevent people from getting into > work that have nothing to do with the war? Let > them earn their living. What if an ambulance or > emergency crew need to get over the bridge? Why > are you drawing our police away from homeland > security issues?
The war depends on the authority of the government. The authority of the government depends on legislating and proving law enforcement in such a way that a sufficient number can comply and agree with. If the actions of the government are thought to be wrong, then reasonable law breaking is the most powerful method of resistance. Protestors feel that laws such as those covering breeching the peace (making a noise, it may have a different name in the US), unlawful congregation, and obstructing public highways are reasonable casualties of war. They would never dream of using violence, or even destroying/stealing property.
> I have also seen a lot of graffitti- notably > defacing of said Mass Ave Bridge with permanent > spray paint. I have also seen private business > buildings hit with the "no war" graffitti.
If it's not artistic, then it's not graffiti. What you describe sounds like vandalism. I do not support it. Political protest must involve accepting responsibility for your actions, not hiding or running away. Civil disobience as protest, however, I have no problem with. Also, I think that genuine graffiti is a good thing. "Cleaning" it away is a real crime (unless the location was chosen poorly, like on private property whose appearance has been actively chosen).
> I > think some protesters are just in it to get on TV > and know very little about what they're > protesting.
I think that some people who support the war no very little about it, but everyone should be consulted.
> Feel free to protest, but don't infringe on my > rights when doing so.
Remember that the protesters believe that something is seriously rotton, and they are willing to be prosecuted for taking action about it. If they are correct, then they are behaving admirably and courageously.
> Do you think that the US Gov't is spending the > lives of its soldiers cheaply?
It depends what you believe to be valuable. Bush, presumably, has some reason for fighting this war, and achieveing it will cost some US lives and many foreign lives. It might be good value for him.
The outcomes of the war that I anticipate are not things that I value. Other countries will feel the need to arm, international relations will be damaged, the threat of terrorism will be increased and the plight of the Iraqi people will not be improved.
> It just doesnt seem like the smartest thing to > do, defacing your own national websites.
Unless they are not your national websites (i.e. you are a foreign national). You are at war, don't be surprised if you come under fire.
> Hey, our troops are fighting for us across the > ocean, lets not support them.
I support the troops. I don't want them to die for nothing. I am fighting for there right to come home and live to see a just war.
> You voted, your leader chose to go to war, what > is your problem?
I am British, and I voted against Bliar's party. Even if I had voted for him, I would have had reason to be quite surprised at his current policy on Iraq. It is an area of policy that nobody campaigned on, so nobody is wrong to protest.
> If you want to protest a war, have a PEACEFUL > protest. Protesting a war by doing illegal and > hurtful things is the pot calling the kettle > black.
The authority of government allows the war to go ahead. People who would usually defend the authority of government now feel justified in breaking the law. There is nothing unpeaceful (as in non-violent) about standing up for what you believe in and getting arrest (or even beaten) for making a noise, joining a crowd, or stopping traffic.
> These people lose all public respect and support > by doing stupid, negative things.
Assuming that the public backs the war, there was very little respect for them in the first place. They are not losing my respect.
I have been on several anti-war protests (all in recent months). I have never seen any violence on them, and I refuse to take responsibility for any violence that has occurred. Occasionally the police use violence, maybe you were thinking of that.
Remember, the media have their own agendas. They value some things more highly than informing you (and maybe even more highly than telling you what you want to hear).
Right Chirac cannot be trusted because he is corrupt and is linked to business interests in Iraq. He should not be trusted to make decisions about going to war there. How is he different from Bush? Bush has campaign donations from corporate interests which support the war and there are economic reasons (which are not good moral reasons) why it would be good for the US to go to war.
I'll tell you what the difference is. Bush's electoral mandate is shakey and he is spending the lives of members of the US forces and Iraqis. Chirac's way of dishonestly making his country wealthier does not involve killing anyone.
You are corrct if you mean that we need someone impartial (if that is possible) to decide who gets to go to war.
> All I can see here is people giving Saddam (or > what's left of his regime) fuel for his fight.
They despise Saddam. When the US plays the international diplomacy game fairly, the people of the world will fight with it, and not against it. Until then, the US government and military are considered by many (including myself) to be even worse than Saddam (they put him there, and even now they turn a blind eye to the Saddams of the future).
The war is likely to fail to defend the rights of Iraqis, reduce terrorism, encourage disarmament, or strengthen the UN. We can turn our attention to other issues (including the plight of Iraqis) when the US government stops aggrevating the situation.
> So you think that just because there isn't anything > being done militarily about North Korea NOW, that > we shouldn't do anything about Iraq?
No. The argument is that the moral(ly acceptable) justification for attack North Korea is as good as the justification for attacking Iraq. Supposing this to be the case (I'm not saying that I do) my conclusion is that the same action ought to be taken against both nations. As the Bush government does not take the same action against both, I would be led to suspect that Bush has an extra motive for attacking Iraq that does not apply to North Korea.
Whether you agree is up to you, but don't misinterpret their argument just becuase they disagree with you.
Both sides? You say that like there are only two. Even assuming that the US and allied forces are perfectly united, there are Iraqi civilians (some not on the side of any forces) and most likely soon there will be Turkish forces trying to prevent the Kurds achieving freedom (or maintaining the freedom that they have now in Iraq). I see this conflict very much as civilians versus military, but the two sided view is not compatible with the idea that some of the military action is justified.
> Impossible, > you got to choose a team.
Yes, but I hope that no more suffering than absolutely necessary to stop them is experienced by those whose actions I oppose.
> let's hope this nightmare > is over soon, for civilazation has not advanced > very much to (at minimum) provide us with peace.
It is a nightmare. It is now unreasonable to expect there to be no casualties, but there is a best possible case. We can pray that there are few deaths, that depleted uranium, cluster bombs and daisy cutters are not used, that Bush keeps his word, ending the terror of the Iraqi people, and that there is no retaliation for the military action. This is not praying for one side or the other, it is praying for the best possible outcome.
> a lot of us really believe that the world will be a > far better place without Saddam in it
All of the anti-war movement (except a tiny minority of the population of Iraq) want to remove Saddam. Do you feel unable to argue for war without misrepresenting the anti-war argument?
Some of us also want to remove dictators from many other countries. This is an aim that the people responsible for the war (but not the bulk the pro-war movement) seem to lack.
It is a very difficult time, but all positions on war are partisan (unless there is a consensus against war, arguably). If you are for war, then you have to reject the conclusions of the anti-war movement, which would be partisan. Even if there was a pro war consensus, then opinion would be partisan, because if people weren't unhappy with the policies of the other side, then there would be nothing to fight about.
> Great. Then let those other countries observe > them when dealing with _their_ military > procedures or judicial processes. I'm not > talking about other countries here.
If constitutions are so good, then why are they not treated according to the constitutions of *both* the US *and* their home country? If a foreign military saw fit to detain and try you (innocent people can be tried, after all why try anyone if they are known to be guilty?), then you (I hope) would want all of the rights of an American citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen of your detainer. You should feel aggrieved if your rights were not protected.
>> Those people are suspects. They might not have >> done anything.
> Then again, they might have. They might have > been responsible for setting up the act of > killing over 3000 innocent civilians in a few > hours a year and a half ago.
I don't think that the severity of the crime is a good reason for mistreating those accused. I hope that you don't think it anti-American of me to value the lives of non-Americans just as highly. I also get upset over the unnecessary deaths of innocent Palestinians. We might take prisoners (including some Americans) for similar attrocities all over the world, but I don't believe that this is the way forward.
> Sorry. They arent > being terribly mistreated.
The are if they have done nothing wrong.
> They are being > released if it is proven they are not involved.
They should not have to prove their innocence. The prosecution should have to prove their guilt.
> And it is far better treatment than was given to > the people they were in control of or the > military arm over in the country they came from. > They should really count their blessings.
That they could be treated worse (even by a regime that they advocate) does not justify treating them wrong. Anyway, I don't think that these terrorists (if these people are terrorists) are in power in any country.
> Don't forget.. the "rights" of the "subhumans" > (women, christians, jews, etc) that we have in > this country are one of the things the > fundamentalist nutbark muslims are pissed off at > us for in the first place.
Just because they are (if they are) people who do bad things, there is no reason for us to behave badly ourselves. It would be a good opportunity to earn the moral high ground (nobody has it by right) by not treaing them as subhuman. Treating some people as subhuman is no more essential to Islam than it is to Christianity or Judaism (not meaning that Christianity or Judaism are bad, but that Islam can be good). Prejudice against Islam or Arabs is no better than anti-Americanism.
> Why apply something to them that they hate so?
Because we (or the people who represent us) make the rules. 'We' includes good Muslims, good Christians, good Jews, libertarians, Democrats, social democrats, Marxists, anarchists and others. What matters is not what they would do to us, but what we believe to be the inalienable rights of all people. This is also what the American constitution is for.
> Due process is an element of the constitution. It > applies _only_ to american citizens. If you arent > an american, you dont automatically get full > constitutional protection.
Other countries have constitutions.
The UK, for example, has a constitution which has been built up slowly (starting with the Magna Carta), rather than formally written in a single document. The British monarchy is a constitutional monarchy.
> I love the fact that pinko liberals are whining > about the "rights" of people who have been > opressing others in their own countries, even to > the point of mass genocide in some instances,
Even people who behave *really* badly have rights. In fact, they have all of the same rights as you or I. However, I think that most people (including 'pinko liberals') are concerned with the rights of those who have not opressed others.
> yet tend to ignore the gravity of the situation > of what these people did for a living before > ending up in camp Xray.
Those people are suspects. They might not have done anything.
If you want nuclear power stations, then prepare for weapons inspections. The reason that nuclear power is popular (despite the danger and unsustainable waste production) is that it is useful for making weapons. That is also why the US government doesn't want 'rogue states' using nuclear power stations, and why I don't want the US using nuclear power stations.
Perhaps alcohol powered cars is the solution (until fusion power becomes efficient).
We cannot reach a consensus about what morality is. However, there is an objective truth of morality, about which our beliefs may be correct or incorrect.
The post to which you reply is right that we cannot be 100% well behaved. Whether virute should be calculated by biblical rules, Kantian categorical imperative, or maximum utility, our actions cannot be perfect. However, we can exercise Kant's 'good will' (sincere intention to do good things) all of the time.
I think that Kant's 'good will' is among the few correct parts of his moral philosophy, and it applies to other accounts of duty as well as his own (utilitarians could value the mere intention to maximize utility, or Jews, Christians and Muslims could value the mere intention to follow their respective holy books).
What makes you think that AL Qaeda members would not speak with an Amercian accent? Three British nationals were detained at Guantanamo Bay. Many other nations (includinng the US) provide Al Qaeda members. It's not just Afganistan and Iraq.
Part of the beauty of Free Software is that anyone may use it. Because of the difficulty in deciding which uses are bad, this is a good thing. Publishers of software that is not freely redistributable have a duty to ensure that their software is not used for morally wrong purposes, as they already discrimmate between potential users. Where Free Software (and other freely redistributable software) is one of the tools of people who behave badly, we should find another tool that we can restrict their use of.
After all, freely redistributable software is delibrately not scarce, while software that is not freely redistributable is artificially scarce. If a 'bad person' requires air and weapons in order to be bad, then we should stop selling them weapons, rather than try to prevent them obtaining air. This is because this is just easier to prevent them from getting weapons than to prevent them getting air.
Alternatively, I could vet everybody who I distribute GPL software to, without violating the GPL (unless I am also distributing binaries indiscrimminately), and hope that other people do the same.
Re:Move the onus from the recipient to the sender.
on
IETF to Look at Spam
·
· Score: 1
> With POP3, until that point, the person has no > knowledge of the e-mail, so from their point of > view they do not have it. If the user chooses to > download it onto her hard drive, you've now > defeated the purpose of IM 2000.
I assume that mail is stored on the sending server until you look for it, at which point you move it, either to an IMAP like mailbox, or to your disc. The crucial thing is that you don't have to download it to filter it.
> I suppose just knowing that it comes from yahoo, > hotmail, or the IRS is enough, eh?:-)
In order to be trusted, Yahoo and Hotmail will have to filter outgoing mail. Hopefully this will put spammers off using their services (or open relays). Mail from senders which do not filter will not be read, so spammers will be put off this too.
Slashdot Mirror
> Wrong: The inverse of right; anything that harms
> the species as a whole, or actions that, if
> everyone took them, would harm the species.
I disagree. Wrong is simply not right. There is nothing in between. By your definitions of right and wrong, if I gratuitously tortured one person, but in an unrelated incident I saved two people from gratuitous torture, then the aggregate of my actions is right (as my actions have promoted the common good). However, I believe that this aggregate was not right, because there was a better possible course of action.
> Security and Freedom are mutually exclusive.
Security of what? When my freedoms have been taken away, I have a little less to enjoy my security with.
Total security is unattainable. You would have to give up a lot more than what you think of as your freedoms to achieve total security. Total security would involve never cosuming anything not prescribed to you, never leaving home alone *or* after dark and never using motor vehicles or routes used by motor vehicles. Even then, you would not be safe from age or violence. Face it. Recent security scares concern a threat that is inevitable, while recent security 'improvements' seek to achieve something that is not possible.
This is not to say that all security measures are bad, just that the costs involved should also be considered. For example, security loopholes for domestic flights in the US have been closed. Even if there is no benefit from this, it does not matter, because nobody is severely inconvenienced by the measures. However, invasive privacy violating searches based on weak suspicions can only be justified if they achieve a level of
success that is just not possible.
> When the Guvmint proclaims "we need to do this in
> the name of security," you can bet your freedoms
> will be trampled in the process.
So governments should not be trusted to talk about security truthfully, or to attatch so much value to it. They intended to remove our freedoms anyway, security just provides a useful justification.
> I ... suspect that my mythical "PrivacyBancorp"
> would be less profitable for its shareholders, and
> would soon be bought out by a more profitable bank,
Right. This might not be achievable through the traditional shareholder-owned banking model. In any case, trusting an organisation that works for someone else (shareholders, not cutomers) seems... um... brave.
However, there are alternatives. If a bank was owned by the state or by the customers, then even if providing a good service hurt its profitability, then there might not be an oppotunity for a rival to take it over.
If a bank (or something like one) was owned and run by the state, then it ought to be run in the interests of voters, which will include most customers. If it is run in the interests of voters, then it can afford lower profits than private sector competitors. It can consider the value of providing good service in its own right, rather than guaging success by profit, even though it will be expected to contirbute to state funds. Here in the UK we have the National Savings Bank (http://www.nationalsavings.co.uk/). Unfortunately, they don't lend money (governments themselves always want to borrow), and government is the source of much of our privacy worries, so perhaps this is not the solution.
Cooperative organisations (owned by customers) have no goals other than serving their customers. Unless doing so prevents the service from being provided, customers are able to make a cooperatively owned finacial organisation protect their privacy. Selling of personal information can certainly be stopped. Of course, less money will be made this way, but all of the profit are kept by the customers. The result is that even if a bank offers you the privacy you desire, it will come at a financial cost. However, if a cooperatively owned 'bank' protects your privacy, then you still get better value than you would from a bank, because you get the profits as well (while a bank would take profits for shareholders by setting less generous interest rates). Here in the UK, we have cooperative 'banks'. They are called 'building societies'. Traditionally, they have not provided credit cards and cheque books, but some now do. I believe they provide unsecured loans, mortgages and savings products with better value than banks.
I'd mod you up if I could, but instead I'll disagree with you.
One of the effects of fossil fuel use is CO2 production. How fast we use our (assuming nobody else wants them) fossil fuels effects not only how quickly we have to find an alternative, but also CO2 concentrations in the intervening time.
If we burn all of our fossil fuels this year, then air quality would worsen dramatically. I think you are right that in the long term it will make very little difference. However, if this is the case, it also seems likely that burning fossil fuel very gradually will have little environmental impact (as the environment will compensate or adapt). Therefore, it would be preferable to slow fossil fuel use.
Also there is the option of not using fossil fuels at all. If alternatives (with sufficient power) are possible, then why not stop burning fossil fuels now? What if the best alternatives that we can think of also pollute? We could burn ethanol and wood, both of which are renewable, but which also release CO2 when burned. Then we must also reduce fuel consumption, as we do not have the answer that you give: that the fuel will be used up (and its damage done) eventually.
> I don't mind if people protest, but do not deface
> property and infringe on my rights.
There is a war on, you know.
Consider this: I don't mind if people wage war, but do not damage property and infringe my rights. Of course in times of war, involvement is not a choice (unless your representative chose to go to war). Asking not to be involved is like Saddam asking for the opposing armies to have their war without him.
You wouldn't advocate war for something that you weren't personally prepared to die for would you? I would be prepared to die fighting Saddam, but I oppose this war because of the costs (like causing more terrorism). Many soldiers and middle eastern civilians (not only in Iraq) are facing far worse than inconvenience. Remember that, just as the US army are trying to kill people, some foreigners may want to kill you (not murder, an act of war). Only protestors are good patriots. They are trying to protect you from yourself.
> Yesterday, in Boston, protesters sat down and
> blocked the Mass Ave Bridge, a major 4 way
> bridge. They also blocked people from getting to
> work at the Boston Stock Exchange and government
> buildings. Why prevent people from getting into
> work that have nothing to do with the war? Let
> them earn their living. What if an ambulance or
> emergency crew need to get over the bridge? Why
> are you drawing our police away from homeland
> security issues?
The war depends on the authority of the government. The authority of the government depends on legislating and proving law enforcement in such a way that a sufficient number can comply and agree with. If the actions of the government are thought to be wrong, then reasonable law breaking is the most powerful method of resistance. Protestors feel that laws such as those covering breeching the peace (making a noise, it may have a different name in the US), unlawful congregation, and obstructing public highways are reasonable casualties of war. They would never dream of using violence, or even destroying/stealing property.
> I have also seen a lot of graffitti- notably
> defacing of said Mass Ave Bridge with permanent
> spray paint. I have also seen private business
> buildings hit with the "no war" graffitti.
If it's not artistic, then it's not graffiti. What you describe sounds like vandalism. I do not support it. Political protest must involve accepting responsibility for your actions, not hiding or running away. Civil disobience as protest, however, I have no problem with. Also, I think that genuine graffiti is a good thing. "Cleaning" it away is a real crime (unless the location was chosen poorly, like on private property whose appearance has been actively chosen).
> I
> think some protesters are just in it to get on TV
> and know very little about what they're
> protesting.
I think that some people who support the war no very little about it, but everyone should be consulted.
> Feel free to protest, but don't infringe on my
> rights when doing so.
Remember that the protesters believe that something is seriously rotton, and they are willing to be prosecuted for taking action about it. If they are correct, then they are behaving admirably and courageously.
> Do you think that the US Gov't is spending the
> lives of its soldiers cheaply?
It depends what you believe to be valuable. Bush, presumably, has some reason for fighting this war, and achieveing it will cost some US lives and many foreign lives. It might be good value for him.
The outcomes of the war that I anticipate are not things that I value. Other countries will feel the need to arm, international relations will be damaged, the threat of terrorism will be increased and the plight of the Iraqi people will not be improved.
> It just doesnt seem like the smartest thing to
> do, defacing your own national websites.
Unless they are not your national websites (i.e. you are a foreign national). You are at war, don't be surprised if you come under fire.
> Hey, our troops are fighting for us across the
> ocean, lets not support them.
I support the troops. I don't want them to die for nothing. I am fighting for there right to come home and live to see a just war.
> You voted, your leader chose to go to war, what
> is your problem?
I am British, and I voted against Bliar's party. Even if I had voted for him, I would have had reason to be quite surprised at his current policy on Iraq. It is an area of policy that nobody campaigned on, so nobody is wrong to protest.
> If you want to protest a war, have a PEACEFUL
> protest. Protesting a war by doing illegal and
> hurtful things is the pot calling the kettle
> black.
The authority of government allows the war to go ahead. People who would usually defend the authority of government now feel justified in breaking the law. There is nothing unpeaceful (as in non-violent) about standing up for what you believe in and getting arrest (or even beaten) for making a noise, joining a crowd, or stopping traffic.
> These people lose all public respect and support
> by doing stupid, negative things.
Assuming that the public backs the war, there was very little respect for them in the first place. They are not losing my respect.
I have been on several anti-war protests (all in recent months). I have never seen any violence on them, and I refuse to take responsibility for any violence that has occurred. Occasionally the police use violence, maybe you were thinking of that.
Remember, the media have their own agendas. They value some things more highly than informing you (and maybe even more highly than telling you what you want to hear).
Right Chirac cannot be trusted because he is corrupt and is linked to business interests in Iraq. He should not be trusted to make decisions about going to war there. How is he different from Bush? Bush has campaign donations from corporate interests which support the war and there are economic reasons (which are not good moral reasons) why it would be good for the US to go to war.
I'll tell you what the difference is. Bush's electoral mandate is shakey and he is spending the lives of members of the US forces and Iraqis. Chirac's way of dishonestly making his country wealthier does not involve killing anyone.
You are corrct if you mean that we need someone impartial (if that is possible) to decide who gets to go to war.
> All I can see here is people giving Saddam (or
> what's left of his regime) fuel for his fight.
They despise Saddam. When the US plays the international diplomacy game fairly, the people of the world will fight with it, and not against it. Until then, the US government and military are considered by many (including myself) to be even worse than Saddam (they put him there, and even now they turn a blind eye to the Saddams of the future).
The war is likely to fail to defend the rights of Iraqis, reduce terrorism, encourage disarmament, or strengthen the UN. We can turn our attention to other issues (including the plight of Iraqis) when the US government stops aggrevating the situation.
> So you think that just because there isn't anything
> being done militarily about North Korea NOW, that
> we shouldn't do anything about Iraq?
No. The argument is that the moral(ly acceptable) justification for attack North Korea is as good as the justification for attacking Iraq. Supposing this to be the case (I'm not saying that I do) my conclusion is that the same action ought to be taken against both nations. As the Bush government does not take the same action against both, I would be led to suspect that Bush has an extra motive for attacking Iraq that does not apply to North Korea.
Whether you agree is up to you, but don't misinterpret their argument just becuase they disagree with you.
No. It's a metaphysical point. What he means is that it is in principle possible.
I happen to disagree with him, but he might be correct even if the tools to do this *never* exist.
But there is nothing that I can learn about a language from directly experiencing it that I cannot learn from written and spoken word.
This is how a language can be preserved.
> How is it possible to pray for both sides?
Both sides? You say that like there are only two. Even assuming that the US and allied forces are perfectly united, there are Iraqi civilians (some not on the side of any forces) and most likely soon there will be Turkish forces trying to prevent the Kurds achieving freedom (or maintaining the freedom that they have now in Iraq). I see this conflict very much as civilians versus military, but the two sided view is not compatible with the idea that some of the military action is justified.
> Impossible,
> you got to choose a team.
Yes, but I hope that no more suffering than absolutely necessary to stop them is experienced by those whose actions I oppose.
> let's hope this nightmare
> is over soon, for civilazation has not advanced
> very much to (at minimum) provide us with peace.
It is a nightmare. It is now unreasonable to expect there to be no casualties, but there is a best possible case. We can pray that there are few deaths, that depleted uranium, cluster bombs and daisy cutters are not used, that Bush keeps his word, ending the terror of the Iraqi people, and that there is no retaliation for the military action.
This is not praying for one side or the other, it is praying for the best possible outcome.
> The military can only function if everyone follow
> orders.
That's why orders should not be followed. If you have to use force in order to get peace/freedom/democracy, then you have already failed.
> a lot of us really believe that the world will be a
> far better place without Saddam in it
All of the anti-war movement (except a tiny minority of the population of Iraq) want to remove Saddam. Do you feel unable to argue for war without misrepresenting the anti-war argument?
Some of us also want to remove dictators from many other countries. This is an aim that the people responsible for the war (but not the bulk the pro-war movement) seem to lack.
> It's just partisan politics at the wrong time.
It is a very difficult time, but all positions on war are partisan (unless there is a consensus against war, arguably). If you are for war, then you have to reject the conclusions of the anti-war movement, which would be partisan. Even if there was a pro war consensus, then opinion would be partisan, because if people weren't unhappy with the policies of the other side, then there would be nothing to fight about.
Please do not interpret this comment as partisan.
>> Other countries have constitutions
> Great. Then let those other countries observe
> them when dealing with _their_ military
> procedures or judicial processes. I'm not
> talking about other countries here.
If constitutions are so good, then why are they not treated according to the constitutions of *both* the US *and* their home country? If a foreign military saw fit to detain and try you (innocent people can be tried, after all why try anyone if they are known to be guilty?), then you (I hope) would want all of the rights of an American citizen, and all of the rights of a citizen of your detainer. You should feel aggrieved if your rights were not protected.
>> Those people are suspects. They might not have
>> done anything.
> Then again, they might have. They might have
> been responsible for setting up the act of
> killing over 3000 innocent civilians in a few
> hours a year and a half ago.
I don't think that the severity of the crime is a good reason for mistreating those accused. I hope that you don't think it anti-American of me to value the lives of non-Americans just as highly. I also get upset over the unnecessary deaths of innocent Palestinians. We might take prisoners (including some Americans) for similar attrocities all over the world, but I don't believe that this is the way forward.
> Sorry. They arent
> being terribly mistreated.
The are if they have done nothing wrong.
> They are being
> released if it is proven they are not involved.
They should not have to prove their innocence. The prosecution should have to prove their guilt.
> And it is far better treatment than was given to
> the people they were in control of or the
> military arm over in the country they came from.
> They should really count their blessings.
That they could be treated worse (even by a regime that they advocate) does not justify treating them wrong. Anyway, I don't think that these terrorists (if these people are terrorists) are in power in any country.
> Don't forget.. the "rights" of the "subhumans"
> (women, christians, jews, etc) that we have in
> this country are one of the things the
> fundamentalist nutbark muslims are pissed off at
> us for in the first place.
Just because they are (if they are) people who do bad things, there is no reason for us to behave badly ourselves. It would be a good opportunity to earn the moral high ground (nobody has it by right) by not treaing them as subhuman. Treating some people as subhuman is no more essential to Islam than it is to Christianity or Judaism (not meaning that Christianity or Judaism are bad, but that Islam can be good). Prejudice against Islam or Arabs is no better than anti-Americanism.
> Why apply something to them that they hate so?
Because we (or the people who represent us) make the rules. 'We' includes good Muslims, good Christians, good Jews, libertarians, Democrats, social democrats, Marxists, anarchists and others. What matters is not what they would do to us, but what we believe to be the inalienable rights of all people. This is also what the American constitution is for.
> Due process is an element of the constitution. It
> applies _only_ to american citizens. If you arent
> an american, you dont automatically get full
> constitutional protection.
Other countries have constitutions.
The UK, for example, has a constitution which has been built up slowly (starting with the Magna Carta), rather than formally written in a single document. The British monarchy is a constitutional monarchy.
> I love the fact that pinko liberals are whining
> about the "rights" of people who have been
> opressing others in their own countries, even to
> the point of mass genocide in some instances,
Even people who behave *really* badly have rights. In fact, they have all of the same rights as you or I. However, I think that most people (including 'pinko liberals') are concerned with the rights of those who have not opressed others.
> yet tend to ignore the gravity of the situation
> of what these people did for a living before
> ending up in camp Xray.
Those people are suspects. They might not have done anything.
> As for the SUVs funding terrorism, it's been said
> many times, you're late to the party.
Because it has been said before it's not true?
> That doesn't
> mean that drugs can't also fund terrorism. They're
> not mutually exclusive.
The point is that oil funds terrorism at a comparable level (if not, then more than) drugs do.
If you want nuclear power stations, then prepare for weapons inspections. The reason that nuclear power is popular (despite the danger and unsustainable waste production) is that it is useful for making weapons. That is also why the US government doesn't want 'rogue states' using nuclear power stations, and why I don't want the US using nuclear power stations.
Perhaps alcohol powered cars is the solution (until fusion power becomes efficient).
We cannot reach a consensus about what morality is. However, there is an objective truth of morality, about which our beliefs may be correct or incorrect.
The post to which you reply is right that we cannot be 100% well behaved. Whether virute should be calculated by biblical rules, Kantian categorical imperative, or maximum utility, our actions cannot be perfect. However, we can exercise Kant's 'good will' (sincere intention to do good things) all of the time.
I think that Kant's 'good will' is among the few correct parts of his moral philosophy, and it applies to other accounts of duty as well as his own (utilitarians could value the mere intention to maximize utility, or Jews, Christians and Muslims could value the mere intention to follow their respective holy books).
What makes you think that AL Qaeda members would not speak with an Amercian accent? Three British nationals were detained at Guantanamo Bay. Many other nations (includinng the US) provide Al Qaeda members. It's not just Afganistan and Iraq.
Part of the beauty of Free Software is that anyone may use it. Because of the difficulty in deciding which uses are bad, this is a good thing. Publishers of software that is not freely redistributable have a duty to ensure that their software is not used for morally wrong purposes, as they already discrimmate between potential users. Where Free Software (and other freely redistributable software) is one of the tools of people who behave badly, we should find another tool that we can restrict their use of.
After all, freely redistributable software is delibrately not scarce, while software that is not freely redistributable is artificially scarce. If a 'bad person' requires air and weapons in order to be bad, then we should stop selling them weapons, rather than try to prevent them obtaining air. This is because this is just easier to prevent them from getting weapons than to prevent them getting air.
Alternatively, I could vet everybody who I distribute GPL software to, without violating the GPL (unless I am also distributing binaries indiscrimminately), and hope that other people do the same.
> With POP3, until that point, the person has no
:-)
> knowledge of the e-mail, so from their point of
> view they do not have it. If the user chooses to
> download it onto her hard drive, you've now
> defeated the purpose of IM 2000.
I assume that mail is stored on the sending server until you look for it, at which point you move it, either to an IMAP like mailbox, or to your disc. The crucial thing is that you don't have to download it to filter it.
> I suppose just knowing that it comes from yahoo,
> hotmail, or the IRS is enough, eh?
In order to be trusted, Yahoo and Hotmail will have to filter outgoing mail. Hopefully this will put spammers off using their services (or open relays). Mail from senders which do not filter will not be read, so spammers will be put off this too.