Is it ever moral for one society to impose its will on another, through any means (economic or military) ? In the case of Michigan vs Texas, would it be moral for Texas to dictate that Michigan should start the death penalty ? (or vice versa). Why or why not ? In the same vein, is it therefore ok that the US impose it's moral framework on any other culture (such as Iraq's) ?
Do both systems co-exist in the World because they fit inside the social framework of the World ?
Great ! Lets bring up WWII. Because, really Saddam was obviously bent on world conquest and genocide. His forces had already rolled over most of the middle east and were encroaching on Russia and Europe as we speak.
If we were to take a leaf from the US populace of that time, we should have waited until Saddams allies had bombed US soil before getting involved.
To suggest that the elected representatives truly account for all the opinions of their constituency on every subject is fairly naive. How do you account for a change in direction during a term ? If I elect someone during a time of plenty and during his term, the stock market crashes and the country is assailed by external forces, can I be assured that a) my opinions on government policy don't change under these stresses ? and b) that my representative will react in a fashion I desire during those times? And furthermore - that this holds true for all those who voted for that representative ?
Of course not.
And lets not even get into the problems inherent in a system where lobby groups and money dictates far more of our representatives actions than the wishes of the average voter..
As Sir Winston Churchill is often quoted: ".. it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried..."
though, I would argue that if a sufficient percentage (80 or so) of the populace agree, then that is moral, since society decides what is moral and what is not moral.
Interesting. Moral relativism, hmm. So where do you draw your majority from ? What is the minimum sample size ? Is it a country ? A city ? A town ? Just you ? Or is it the whole planet ? If two countries disagree on what is moral, is the larger the correct one ? Or can you say it's limited to the culture you were brought up in ? What if you're raised in an isolated commune that advocates mass suicide ? Is that moral then?
Of course, the other extreme (absolute morality) says that there is some inalienable, unarguable, moral benchmark against which we are all measured. But the only people who claim to know where this benchmark is found tend to rely on religion to tell them. Since there are many competing religions, and with differing claims of absolute morality, I can't really lend credence to this. I guess there's another absolute morality camp - that of "self-evident" absolute morality. I don't know much about them.
In any case, pure moral relativism doesn't seem very useful in deciding what is right - which I put fairly succinctly in my first post.
Or as Churchill also said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
I admit it. It was only mildly transparent, because the underlying feeling (facts notwithstanding) is still mine.
What gets me is the number of people who quibble over the details (the war isn't about oil, the WMD are really there, though noone can find them etc etc) and ignore the bigger picture.
What picture ? The one where the US administration comes off looking like an aggressive power that couldn't care less about the sovereign rights of other nations, or the opinions of its allies.
The picture where thousands of soldiers on both sides of an (unnecessary?) war are dying, and for what reason ?
Perhaps we need to wonder why it's become fashionable to bash the US ? Maybe it's because the honourable "United We Stand" response to 9/11 has become a darkly tainted mandate for invading foreign powers. And maybe not everyone is so happy with that idea anymore.
Whether or not your intentions are good (I think so) doesn't aid your incredibly weak attempt at an argument
No... but it seems to have worked as a troll, don't you think ?:)
No. The US doesn't invade it's neighbours. It invades complete strangers on the other side of the planet.
It's easier to get the funding through Congress that way.
Of course, if South America were overflowing with oil, well I'm sure someone would come up with a nice excuse. It's not like South America doesn't have its share of dictators and civil rights violations we couldn't use as justifcation.
Perhaps I should explain. My initial comment was a flippant remark concerning the moral compass of a society.
It was meant to illustrate that democracy and the will of the majority, while probably the best option for governance of a group, doesn't necessarily say anything at all about what is right or moral. What if the majority believed that slaughtering all girls one year or younger was a good idea ? Does that make it right ?
Furthermore, in the case of a near-evenly divided election, can you say the resulting leader really has the mandate of the people? If not, then are the actions he takes truly representative of a successful democratic sytem ?
Plutonium is not "waste". The transuranics and actinides can be used to produce more energy. The only reason plutonium is not reinserted (as in breeder reactors) is the US governments stance on transuranics as weapons fuel. Most plutonium isn't "weapons grade" but even so, it is required to be stored separately and controlled by the gov't.
Other countries have a less wasteful policy.
For an informative look at some of the common Nuclear Energy Myths - take a look here
You're not drawing the distinction between the manner in which the research was conducted, and the research itself. If one were to perform similar tests on volunteers (with full disclosure of the nature of the tests), would you have as much of a dilemma with the research ?
Hell, you could end up with a brother who is 100 years older than your *mother*.
I think there was a Philip K Dick book called "Outnumbering the Dead" that dealt with this scenario. The number of people currently alive outnumbered the entire number of people who had died throughout time. There were also a few "ephemerals" on whom the congenital treatments did not work. These poor souls were destined to die at a "normal" age (80 years). It was an interesting book.
Agreed. Furthermore, if your mother was hired for her expertise to appraise the desk, and then bought an item for below it's true value, she has breached her fiduciary duty to her client and probably committed fraud.
Lets assume you're not trolling, When you run a red light, there is direct evidence that you have done so. Even after that, you then have the opportunity to go to court and fight that evidence, either with mitigating circumstances (the truck barrelling down on you from behind that pushed you into the intersection) or conflicting evidence (your car was being driven by a different person, because it was stolen or simply because you lent it to your fiance).
So while the evidence is gathered by camera and processed by computer, the decision is still in the hands of a human.
In this case, the DMCA allows a company to order you to Cease and Desist, and moreover, require your ISP to shut you down, without a human review. The only humans involved are the victims (you) and the ISP, who probably won't make trouble for themselves by resisting the C&D.
If you've got one single item of large expense (and rarity), you want to be assured of it's delivery.
If you've got a small, cheap, fragile, and possibly unreliable delivery system, then you want to have lots of them, with cheap warheads to maximize your chances of a successful strike.
So what about this did you take issue with ? The person you replied to suggested that it is not the place of the court to assume guilt in the event it might be "possible" that he fabricated the alibi. So the burden on the prosecution would be to prove that the alibi was fabricated in order to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt". The defense merely has to introduce the alibi as reasonable.
If the terrorists have a suitcase nuke, then you're already in trouble. And they're not going to risk losing that payload by attaching it to a model aircraft. No, such a thing will be hand-delivered straight to you by some hapless fanatic eager to enter the kind of heaven where 777 virgins cater to your every whim.
Agreed. As the review informs us... introverts aren't always shy or socially inept. Nor are they necessarily smarter. In fact, I would suggest that a socially inept extrovert is more than a possibility. The key to social skills is being able to "fit in". Running around begging for attention in a loud and annoying fashion is not socially adroit ! However, such a person is still extroverted, in the sense that they are "energizing" from the attention. If I understand correctly, the introvert is exhausted by excessive social contact and "re-energizes" from solitude.
Neither type requires one to be more socially skilled or intelligent than the other.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it ever moral for one society to impose its will on another, through any means (economic or military) ?
In the case of Michigan vs Texas, would it be moral for Texas to dictate that Michigan should start the death penalty ? (or vice versa).
Why or why not ?
In the same vein, is it therefore ok that the US impose it's moral framework on any other culture (such as Iraq's) ?
Do both systems co-exist in the World because they fit inside the social framework of the World ?
Great ! Lets bring up WWII. Because, really Saddam was obviously bent on world conquest and genocide. His forces had already rolled over most of the middle east and were encroaching on Russia and Europe as we speak.
If we were to take a leaf from the US populace of that time, we should have waited until Saddams allies had bombed US soil before getting involved.
You can't have it both ways.
To suggest that the elected representatives truly account for all the opinions of their constituency on every subject is fairly naive. How do you account for a change in direction during a term ? If I elect someone during a time of plenty and during his term, the stock market crashes and the country is assailed by external forces, can I be assured that a) my opinions on government policy don't change under these stresses ? and b) that my representative will react in a fashion I desire during those times?
: ..."
:
And furthermore - that this holds true for all those who voted for that representative ?
Of course not.
And lets not even get into the problems inherent in a system where lobby groups and money dictates far more of our representatives actions than the wishes of the average voter..
As Sir Winston Churchill is often quoted
".. it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried
though, I would argue that if a sufficient percentage (80 or so) of the populace agree, then that is moral, since society decides what is moral and what is not moral.
Interesting. Moral relativism, hmm. So where do you draw your majority from ? What is the minimum sample size ? Is it a country ? A city ? A town ? Just you ?
Or is it the whole planet ? If two countries disagree on what is moral, is the larger the correct one ? Or can you say it's limited to the culture you were brought up in ? What if you're raised in an isolated commune that advocates mass suicide ? Is that moral then?
Of course, the other extreme (absolute morality) says that there is some inalienable, unarguable, moral benchmark against which we are all measured. But the only people who claim to know where this benchmark is found tend to rely on religion to tell them. Since there are many competing religions, and with differing claims of absolute morality, I can't really lend credence to this.
I guess there's another absolute morality camp - that of "self-evident" absolute morality. I don't know much about them.
In any case, pure moral relativism doesn't seem very useful in deciding what is right - which I put fairly succinctly in my first post.
Or as Churchill also said
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
I admit it. It was only mildly transparent, because the underlying feeling (facts notwithstanding) is still mine.
What gets me is the number of people who quibble over the details (the war isn't about oil, the WMD are really there, though noone can find them etc etc) and ignore the bigger picture.
What picture ?
The one where the US administration comes off looking like an aggressive power that couldn't care less about the sovereign rights of other nations, or the opinions of its allies.
The picture where thousands of soldiers on both sides of an (unnecessary?) war are dying, and for what reason ?
Perhaps we need to wonder why it's become fashionable to bash the US ? Maybe it's because the honourable "United We Stand" response to 9/11 has become a darkly tainted mandate for invading foreign powers. And maybe not everyone is so happy with that idea anymore.
That's just what they *want* you to think !
Whether or not your intentions are good (I think so) doesn't aid your incredibly weak attempt at an argument :)
No... but it seems to have worked as a troll, don't you think ?
No. The US doesn't invade it's neighbours. It invades complete strangers on the other side of the planet.
It's easier to get the funding through Congress that way.
Of course, if South America were overflowing with oil, well I'm sure someone would come up with a nice excuse. It's not like South America doesn't have its share of dictators and civil rights violations we couldn't use as justifcation.
You mean you've already seen Episode III as well ?
Perhaps I should explain.
My initial comment was a flippant remark concerning the moral compass of a society.
It was meant to illustrate that democracy and the will of the majority, while probably the best option for governance of a group, doesn't necessarily say anything at all about what is right or moral. What if the majority believed that slaughtering all girls one year or younger was a good idea ? Does that make it right ?
Furthermore, in the case of a near-evenly divided election, can you say the resulting leader really has the mandate of the people? If not, then are the actions he takes truly representative of a successful democratic sytem ?
That's what I was going to say !
I guess slashdot isn't a great random number generator after all.
Plutonium is not "waste". The transuranics and actinides can be used to produce more energy. The only reason plutonium is not reinserted (as in breeder reactors) is the US governments stance on transuranics as weapons fuel. Most plutonium isn't "weapons grade" but even so, it is required to be stored separately and controlled by the gov't.
Other countries have a less wasteful policy.
For an informative look at some of the common Nuclear Energy Myths - take a look here
Surely the sequal to the XBOX is the "Y-Box?" .
Well, that sure is reading between the lines, isn't it?
While you were putting words in my mouth, I hope you were sucking cock with yours.
You're not drawing the distinction between the manner in which the research was conducted, and the research itself.
If one were to perform similar tests on volunteers (with full disclosure of the nature of the tests), would you have as much of a dilemma with the research ?
Because, as we all know, majority rule determines exactly what is right and moral.
That's because the purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.
They are totally sweet !
Don't believe me ?
Hell, you could end up with a brother who is 100 years older than your *mother*.
I think there was a Philip K Dick book called "Outnumbering the Dead" that dealt with this scenario. The number of people currently alive outnumbered the entire number of people who had died throughout time. There were also a few "ephemerals" on whom the congenital treatments did not work. These poor souls were destined to die at a "normal" age (80 years).
It was an interesting book.
what ? you mean, like this one ? :)
Agreed.
Furthermore, if your mother was hired for her expertise to appraise the desk, and then bought an item for below it's true value, she has breached her fiduciary duty to her client and probably committed fraud.
I hope you're proud of her.
Lets assume you're not trolling,
When you run a red light, there is direct evidence that you have done so.
Even after that, you then have the opportunity to go to court and fight that evidence, either with mitigating circumstances (the truck barrelling down on you from behind that pushed you into the intersection) or conflicting evidence (your car was being driven by a different person, because it was stolen or simply because you lent it to your fiance).
So while the evidence is gathered by camera and processed by computer, the decision is still in the hands of a human.
In this case, the DMCA allows a company to order you to Cease and Desist, and moreover, require your ISP to shut you down, without a human review. The only humans involved are the victims (you) and the ISP, who probably won't make trouble for themselves by resisting the C&D.
The Computer is Your Friend!
Trust the Computer.
Exactly my point though.
If you've got one single item of large expense (and rarity), you want to be assured of it's delivery.
If you've got a small, cheap, fragile, and possibly unreliable delivery system, then you want to have lots of them, with cheap warheads to maximize your chances of a successful strike.
So what about this did you take issue with ?
The person you replied to suggested that it is not the place of the court to assume guilt in the event it might be "possible" that he fabricated the alibi.
So the burden on the prosecution would be to prove that the alibi was fabricated in order to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt".
The defense merely has to introduce the alibi as reasonable.
So the parent poster is correct.
If the terrorists have a suitcase nuke, then you're already in trouble.
And they're not going to risk losing that payload by attaching it to a model aircraft. No, such a thing will be hand-delivered straight to you by some hapless fanatic eager to enter the kind of heaven where 777 virgins cater to your every whim.
Interplanetary trips rarely require tight maneuvring.
I mean, it's not like you're dodging traffic on a motorcycle.
Agreed. ... introverts aren't always shy or socially inept. Nor are they necessarily smarter.
As the review informs us
In fact, I would suggest that a socially inept extrovert is more than a possibility. The key to social skills is being able to "fit in". Running around begging for attention in a loud and annoying fashion is not socially adroit ! However, such a person is still extroverted, in the sense that they are "energizing" from the attention.
If I understand correctly, the introvert is exhausted by excessive social contact and "re-energizes" from solitude.
Neither type requires one to be more socially skilled or intelligent than the other.