What's the point? The GP says "I don't want to live in a Police State"; and you reply with "I don't want to live in an anarchy". How about the middle ground where most societies currently exist? Where the police or not too limited and not too powerful?
Also, you're quote from Hobbes is only relevant to the discussion if lack of effective police effort entails a chaotic free-for-all. That's an incrediblly pessimistic view of humanity, and not born out by careful observation. Culture, trade, public works, etc. all existed long before there was even a concept of a "police force". Just visit the archaeology and ethnography sections of your local library, and you can find books and books full of descriptions of relevant cultures.
Besides Hobbes wrote that from the perspective of someone who had witnessed a major upheaval in the basic precepts of English law and government. He wasn't talking about run-of-the-mill crime.
Besides, doesn't He have better things to do than kill time on/.?:-)
Given that He's omnipotent, I suspect He can past on/., digg, and Kuro5hin, all at the same time--and still have time to attach meaning to the fall of every sparrow.
The real question is: How often does He get modded as a troll for claiming He created the world in seven days?
First, get every student a copy of "The Elements of Style". It's a very small book originally written around WWI. It points out the most frequent mistakes in writing. It's an excellent book, following the tips within will make anyone a better writer.
I'll probably be the lone voice of dissent on this point. I hate this book. I am a linguist, which means I'm a pedantic grammarian. The Elements of Style is simply wrong on most grammatical advice it gives, and is frequently misguided about stylistic advice. Almost none of the great works of literature follow their rules: Shakespeare, Conrad, Twain, Poe, Hawthorne, Elliot--even the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence are faulty by the standards of that book! Even they don't follow their own advice! The sooner this book stops being pushed on students, the better.
[Elements of Style is] a horrid little compendium of unmotivated prejudices (don't use ongoing), arbitrary stipulations (don't begin a sentence with however), and fatuous advice ("Be clear"), ridiculously out of date in its positions on appropriate choices among grammatical variants, deeply suspect in its style advice and grotesquely wrong in most of the grammatical advice it gives.
Work with lazy and dumb students who disrupt class, yet can not be kicked out or even (except in Texas) spanked. Get stuck doing odd jobs like minding the bus loading/unloading area and trying to stop food fights.
My father was the local high school programming teacher for a while in the 80s. He quit about 89/90, and he now earns >$100K. But he didn't leave because of the students. He always said that if you treated students with respect, they were easy to deal with. His lab was constantly full of students, so he was probably right. He actually left because he was tired of dealing with parents--treating them with respect didn't make much of a difference, and he wasn't paid enough to put up with their crap.
My mother has taught K-3 since 1974. She has basically the same opinion. Students are great. Parents suck!
I'd only get maybe $10-20 back on a book that cost me $100 at the beginning of the semester
Yeah, but those $10 bucks can help poor college students avoid end-of-the-month dinners of rice, hot dogs, and soysauce; or peanut butter on pizza crust.
But more likely they'll spend it on a six pack and some twinkies.
Not that I know anything about that kind of behavior....
I'm at a loss. The envolopes were clearly intelligently designed. But they appear to have evolved to match the current pressures of cost and safety applied by their environment.
Only a pointless flame war can guide me through this conundrum. That's why I'm turning to you, O Wise Slashdotters.
The first was a lawsuit over not being able to get your money back when you don't agree with the EULA. That's not about EULAs being legally binding at all. And that case is over with the result that the companies settled and made the EULAs readable online.
As for the EFF article, you missed some crucial sentences:
Although there has been some controversy over whether these agreements are enforceable, several courts have upheld their legitimacy.
That means that at least some EULAs are legally binding. Match that with quotes like:
They [consumers] also click away their right to customize or even repair their devices
That goes along with the claim that some terms of some EULAs (at least) are binding. One of the few bits that match your interpretation is:
There are countless terms written into EULAs that could potentially harm consumers, or that may be downright unlawful.
That doesn't mean EULAs are not legally enforceable, it means some parts of some EULAs may be unenforcable. That's true of any legally binding contract. Let's end with this quote:
Many people treat EULAs with the same reverence they do the tags on mattresses that say, "Do not remove this tag under penalty of law." They scoff at the idea that anyone could enforce such a bizarre rule. Increasingly, however, we are seeing consumers and software developers threatened with lawsuits for engaging in the digital equivalent of ripping tags off a mattress.
Irrelevant. Legality has nothing to do with ethics, unfortunately. You can choose to ignore a law to make a point, but you should be aware when you are doing so.
or practically
Irrelevant. That just means you aren't likely to get prosecuted. You're just playing the odds.
So, once again, true shrink wrap EULAs have been tested in most major jurisdictions and are valid contracts, subject to certain limitations. Terms of Service contracts, like the "EULA" found in MMOGs, are simply enforceable. There is a common perception that EULAs have not been tested in court. This is incorrect. They have been.
Like all appeals to authority, it depends on who you appeal to.
Merriam Websters: censorship Noun 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring censor Transitive Verb to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
American Heritage: censorship Noun: 1. The act, process, or practice of censoring. censor Transitive Verb: To examine and expurgate.
Oxford English Dictionary: [subscription required] censorship n. 2. a. The office or function of a censor; official supervision. censor n. 2. a. One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct. censor v. trans. To act as censor to
Let me know what the title is and I will check it out.
It's called Breaking the Spell. It's not a perfect book by any stretch of the imagination, but it is quite interesting. Most but not all of the negative reviews you can see on Amazon appear to be by people who didn't actually get his main point--the possibility and importance of the scientific study of religion.
I have access to a copy of "By the Hand of Mormon". I've read the Introduction and most of the first chapter. I don't know when I'll have time to read it all (though maybe you have recommendations of good chapters), but at least some parts of it intrigued me--though perhaps not for the kinds of reasons you might want. (E.g., if the image of the Anthon Script on p. 29 is in fact what Harris showed Anthon, then all hope for the Book of Mormon's authenticity goes out the window.)
Not to sound arrogant, but I imagine I could give you better answers than any of what your bishops were able to if it comes to intellectual questions about Mormonism.
I believe you could have. Your comments in this thread have already been of a higher caliber than the kinds of comments I ever got from a Mormon leader. Regardless, it wasn't their short-comings that drove me from the Church. It was their short-comings that made me seek my own answers. (There's a Buddhist saying: When someone points at the moon, you don't look at their fingertip.) My decision to leave was based on what I learned, both intellectually and spiritually.
I've read stuff by Hugh Nibley, though never a full book. I've read a lot of the FARMS publications, especially about language. My specialization in linguistics is in American Indian languages (BA and MA theses, and PhD dissertation). Not just book work--I spent, and still spend, hours every week (sometimes even days) working with tribe members face-to-face, learning their languages, and less so their cultures and religions. That includes tribes originally from the Missouri area, across the Southwest, and communities down in Central Mexico. That's how far my quest for understanding took me.
I don't have any grudge towards Mormonism as a result of this. The most intense intellectual and spiritual experiences of my life have been because of my work with members of these tribes; and I never would have started on this road without prodding from my religious doubts.
I think that while your logic about standing the test of time makes sense, you're unaware of the dangers.
To the contrary, I am quite aware of the dangers. I am also aware of the dangers of pointless questioning. Sciences have always have dogmatic followers of particular ideas. That has always been true and always will be, unfortunately. (I could give you plenty of examples from my own field of linguistics. The decipherment of Mayan hieroglyphics was delayed by decades because of dogmatism.) However, when people start needlessly questioning settled issues, it slows the progress of the field, usually without much benefit.
I'm not saying that we each need to go and verify Newton's or Galileo's results ourselves, but I *AM* saying that we should reserve the right - at any time - to question those results as we do all others.
I don't know any scientist that would disagree with this. There might be some, but I've never met them. (And I'm at a major research institution.) However, simply questioning because you feel like it, or because it does not fit your worldview is not acceptible behavior, because it is not productive. If you have data that does not fit in the model, bring it up. Otherwise, keep quiet. Without data, you won't convince anyone; you'll just waste their time and annoy them. The reason the classics are rarely challenged, and people react poorly when they are, is because at this point it would take an extraordinary amount of evidence to overturn those models, and nobody questioning these models provides such evidence.
But he's referring explicitly to the Nicene Creed and more generally to those religions which magnify the mysterious aspects of theology. [snip] Furthermore I find his implicit faith in experts disturbing.
No offense intended, but you clearly haven't read his recent work.
Not that it matters much, but I was raised a Mormon. I left the church when I was in my early 20's. Part of the reaons was that the leaders I talked to either could not give me reasonable answers, or gave me answers that were wrong. (There were spiritual issues as well, but they aren't relevant here.) There is a lot of belief in mysteriousness of God among Mormon leaders, they just phrase it differently. I learned that I could not trust to the understanding of my priesthood leaders, bishops, or stake presidents. Hence, I find myself largely in agreement with Dennet's position on this issue. (Read his book for a more elaborated discussion of his views. They are well worth the time.)
I've enjoyed most your posts in this thread, and I tend to agree with you. And I've been very amused that people are so stuck in their classification of the world that they can't even follow your argument. However, you are wrong on this point:
No - the greatness of these men was not in the conclusions they reached but in that essential act of unbridled questioning.
This is not why they are great. They are great because their questioning and pursuit of answers lead them to conclusions that have stood the test of time. These conclusions changed the way we understand the world. My father shares the trait of unbridled questioning, but his conclusions are closer to conspiracy theory than anything that will stand the test of time.
The grandparent was right. We don't read those works because they have stood the test of time. They have been challenged time and again, and they have come out on top. It's not a betrayal of their heritage to trust their conclusions without reading them. It is a testament to the quality of their work that we are confident enough to stand on their shoulders to gain a better view without fearing they will move from beneath us. Don't mistake that confidence for dogmatic belief.
Now to add my $.02. I think Dennet did a very good job of articulating why I trust scientific authorities but not religious authorities when he said (2006, p. 220):
It is only because I am confident that the experts really do understand the formulas that I can honestly and unabashedly cede the responsibility of pinning down the propositions (and hence understanding them) to them. In religion [...] [t]he fundamental incomprehensibility of God is insisted upon as a central tenet of faith, and the propositions in question are themselves declared to be systematically elusive to everybody.... These matters are mysterious to everybody, experts and laypeople alike.
how is any religious belief not based on 'blind faith'?
Go read The Universe in a Nutshell by the Dalai Lama. You'll see a major religious leader following an intellectually honest approach to comparing his scientific understanding and his religious belief. Sometimes he says tenets of his religion must be changed. Other times he says he finds the scientific case lacking--often he has good (not necessarily correct, but good) reasons for his skepticism.
More religious people should read his work and learn from his example. Also, more scientists should read his stuff to see that religious people can be very reasonable people. He demonstrates quite well that religion and science are not necessary opposing viewpoints.
It's a popular modern quirk to consider ones time so unique and so different from any other time, but the reality is that people are people and we haven't really changed.
True, but an old observation:
mentioning "our days" as people of limited intelligence are fond of doing, imagining that they have discovered and appraised the peculiarities of "our days" and that human characteristics change with the times
It only takes a handful of radicals to lead a greater moderate majority into doing some of the worst atrocities of all time. Just because the majority is moderate, doesn't mean that they will go along wiht the extremists.
I'm quite aware of the facts you cite, and they are part of why I think Muslim radicals are a problem (as I said in my original post) that needs to be addressed. In that sense, I agree with you.
But that wasn't my point. My point was that we shouldn't condemn an entire community of people for the actions of "a few bad apples". We don't want Muslims condemning America and Britain for what a few immoral soldiers have done, because their behavior does not reflect our actual values. Likewise, we should not condemn all Muslims for the actions of the few radicals. Those radicals need to be dealt with appropriately before they have a chance to cause the kinds of problems the Nazis did. Condemning all (or most) of Islam will only push moderates towards identifying and sympathizing with the radicals over us.
find this rather insulting, and rather telling. It saddens him the most that the media is forming the image? How about the freaking TERRORISTS that form the image? And it doesn't "sadden him the most" that there is so much arab radicalism that causes all arabs to be painted with the same brush?
Basic math skills will show that the vast majority of Muslims are not involved in this radical behavior. Try this: Total Number of Suspected Terrorists in the Muslim World divided by Total Population of Muslims. Then compare that with: Total Number of American Incarcerated for Violent Crime divided by American Population. You'll find that the second number is larger than the first. Do you go around saying that Americans are blood-thirsty savages? Do you talk about the Irish the way you talk about Muslims based on the behaviour of the IRA? How about the Basque because of the ESA?
Note I'm not saying Muslim radicalism isn't a problem. I'm saying it is unfair to criticize Muslims in general for the actions of a small minority. To paraphrase Ann Frank: "What one Christian does is his own responsibility, what one Muslim does is thrown back at all Muslims."
When does grey become black? When does day become night? When does the Herring gull become the Less Black-backed gull.
Redshift shows us that colors are not fundamentally distinct entities. Ring species show us that species are not fundamentally discrete populations. Dusk and dawn show us that night and day are not fundamentally distinct times. In exactly the same way, the lives of embryos and adults are not completely distinct things.
The body first has blood flowing through at approximately the 40th day, so using these extremely young blastocysts means that the stem cells aren't living people, thus we can't murder them.
From a strictly biological perspective...
...multicellular living things are the result of the growth and development from one cell.... In this process of development, to what extent is its life that of the cell, and from whence comes the life of the living thing as a whole? There is no distinct boundary. The organic integrated body which grows and develops with an indistinct cell-body boundary is a living thing. Although a fertilized ovum is only one cell, this is the living thing in the nascent stages of the embryo. When people talk about the birth of living things, when the seed sprouts a bud, or the egg hatches, or a baby is born, they regard life as having been added to the body of a living thing. This is just a convenient manner of speaking. In reality, just as the living body does not suddenly appear, the life of a living thing does not abruptly emerge.
Then quit the denial, and buy yourself a copy of Strunk & White, The Elements of Style. It's very short (65 pages!), and cheap ($5.95 retail!), and written in a manner that geeks can appreciate.
I'm a grammarian by training and vocation, and it is my professional opinion that The Elements of Style should be discontinued as a reference for proper grammar and style. It is terrible. They simply made up rules to suit their idiosyncratic ideas. To illustrate the point: here's a passage from the Declaration of Independence that Strunk & White (wrongly) say is incorrect:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,...
Can you see the "error"? (Hint: it involves the word "which").
The grammar is, of course, different from English, but many children learn multiple languages growing up. So long as you're exposed to fluent speakers and forced to use the languages, anyone can pick up a language.
But kids don't spontaneously pick up on writing. What you are asking these deaf children to do is learn ASL (which is basically not written), and the written form of a foreign language. That's like only hearing English (no writing) and only seeing written Chinese (no speaking). That's tricky to learn, and almost impossible to do without extensive training.
Then please enlighten us all to why Tom is such a quintessential part of the books?
Tom is the Anti-Sauron--not in the sense that he opposes Sauron, but in the sense that he is his opposite. Sauron has massive amounts of power, but wants more; Tom has massive amount of power, and is satisfied. Sauron is concerned with control over other things; Tom does not desire control over anything. Sauron is focused and driven; Tom is carefree. Both have power over life and death, but one uses the power to capture souls (Ringwraiths) while the other uses it to free souls (Barrow-wights). Tom shows us that there are beings in the world that rival Sauron in power, but who do not seek to dominate or control. It is because Tom is so completely unconcerned about the affairs of the world (as opposed to Sauron trying to control all affairs of the world) that the ring cannot be given to him for safe keeping.
Granted, Tom is quintessential to the story from a philosophical or thematic perspective, not a plot perspective. That's why he is usually cut from adaptations.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, you're quote from Hobbes is only relevant to the discussion if lack of effective police effort entails a chaotic free-for-all. That's an incrediblly pessimistic view of humanity, and not born out by careful observation. Culture, trade, public works, etc. all existed long before there was even a concept of a "police force". Just visit the archaeology and ethnography sections of your local library, and you can find books and books full of descriptions of relevant cultures.
Besides Hobbes wrote that from the perspective of someone who had witnessed a major upheaval in the basic precepts of English law and government. He wasn't talking about run-of-the-mill crime.
Given that He's omnipotent, I suspect He can past on /., digg, and Kuro5hin, all at the same time--and still have time to attach meaning to the fall of every sparrow.
The real question is: How often does He get modded as a troll for claiming He created the world in seven days?
I'll probably be the lone voice of dissent on this point. I hate this book. I am a linguist, which means I'm a pedantic grammarian. The Elements of Style is simply wrong on most grammatical advice it gives, and is frequently misguided about stylistic advice. Almost none of the great works of literature follow their rules: Shakespeare, Conrad, Twain, Poe, Hawthorne, Elliot--even the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence are faulty by the standards of that book! Even they don't follow their own advice! The sooner this book stops being pushed on students, the better.
Don't just take my word for it. Here's the opinion of one of the authors of one of the most complete and accurate grammars of the English Language ever written:
Work with lazy and dumb students who disrupt class, yet can not be kicked out or even (except in Texas) spanked. Get stuck doing odd jobs like minding the bus loading/unloading area and trying to stop food fights.
My father was the local high school programming teacher for a while in the 80s. He quit about 89/90, and he now earns >$100K. But he didn't leave because of the students. He always said that if you treated students with respect, they were easy to deal with. His lab was constantly full of students, so he was probably right. He actually left because he was tired of dealing with parents--treating them with respect didn't make much of a difference, and he wasn't paid enough to put up with their crap.
My mother has taught K-3 since 1974. She has basically the same opinion. Students are great. Parents suck!
Yeah, but those $10 bucks can help poor college students avoid end-of-the-month dinners of rice, hot dogs, and soysauce; or peanut butter on pizza crust.
But more likely they'll spend it on a six pack and some twinkies.
Not that I know anything about that kind of behavior....
Only a pointless flame war can guide me through this conundrum. That's why I'm turning to you, O Wise Slashdotters.
The first was a lawsuit over not being able to get your money back when you don't agree with the EULA. That's not about EULAs being legally binding at all. And that case is over with the result that the companies settled and made the EULAs readable online.
As for the EFF article, you missed some crucial sentences:
Although there has been some controversy over whether these agreements are enforceable, several courts have upheld their legitimacy.
That means that at least some EULAs are legally binding. Match that with quotes like:
They [consumers] also click away their right to customize or even repair their devices
That goes along with the claim that some terms of some EULAs (at least) are binding. One of the few bits that match your interpretation is:
There are countless terms written into EULAs that could potentially harm consumers, or that may be downright unlawful.
That doesn't mean EULAs are not legally enforceable, it means some parts of some EULAs may be unenforcable. That's true of any legally binding contract. Let's end with this quote:
Many people treat EULAs with the same reverence they do the tags on mattresses that say, "Do not remove this tag under penalty of law." They scoff at the idea that anyone could enforce such a bizarre rule. Increasingly, however, we are seeing consumers and software developers threatened with lawsuits for engaging in the digital equivalent of ripping tags off a mattress.
Source please.
ethically
Irrelevant. Legality has nothing to do with ethics, unfortunately. You can choose to ignore a law to make a point, but you should be aware when you are doing so.
or practically Irrelevant. That just means you aren't likely to get prosecuted. You're just playing the odds.
So, once again, true shrink wrap EULAs have been tested in most major jurisdictions and are valid contracts, subject to certain limitations. Terms of Service contracts, like the "EULA" found in MMOGs, are simply enforceable. There is a common perception that EULAs have not been tested in court. This is incorrect. They have been.
Don Shelkey
Merriam Websters:
censorship Noun 1 a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring
censor Transitive Verb to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable
American Heritage:
censorship Noun: 1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.
censor Transitive Verb: To examine and expurgate.
Oxford English Dictionary: [subscription required]
censorship n. 2. a. The office or function of a censor; official supervision.
censor n. 2. a. One who exercises official or officious supervision over morals and conduct.
censor v. trans. To act as censor to
So, war is peace?
It's called Breaking the Spell . It's not a perfect book by any stretch of the imagination, but it is quite interesting. Most but not all of the negative reviews you can see on Amazon appear to be by people who didn't actually get his main point--the possibility and importance of the scientific study of religion.
I have access to a copy of "By the Hand of Mormon". I've read the Introduction and most of the first chapter. I don't know when I'll have time to read it all (though maybe you have recommendations of good chapters), but at least some parts of it intrigued me--though perhaps not for the kinds of reasons you might want. (E.g., if the image of the Anthon Script on p. 29 is in fact what Harris showed Anthon, then all hope for the Book of Mormon's authenticity goes out the window.)
Not to sound arrogant, but I imagine I could give you better answers than any of what your bishops were able to if it comes to intellectual questions about Mormonism.
I believe you could have. Your comments in this thread have already been of a higher caliber than the kinds of comments I ever got from a Mormon leader. Regardless, it wasn't their short-comings that drove me from the Church. It was their short-comings that made me seek my own answers. (There's a Buddhist saying: When someone points at the moon, you don't look at their fingertip.) My decision to leave was based on what I learned, both intellectually and spiritually.
I've read stuff by Hugh Nibley, though never a full book. I've read a lot of the FARMS publications, especially about language. My specialization in linguistics is in American Indian languages (BA and MA theses, and PhD dissertation). Not just book work--I spent, and still spend, hours every week (sometimes even days) working with tribe members face-to-face, learning their languages, and less so their cultures and religions. That includes tribes originally from the Missouri area, across the Southwest, and communities down in Central Mexico. That's how far my quest for understanding took me.
I don't have any grudge towards Mormonism as a result of this. The most intense intellectual and spiritual experiences of my life have been because of my work with members of these tribes; and I never would have started on this road without prodding from my religious doubts.
To the contrary, I am quite aware of the dangers. I am also aware of the dangers of pointless questioning. Sciences have always have dogmatic followers of particular ideas. That has always been true and always will be, unfortunately. (I could give you plenty of examples from my own field of linguistics. The decipherment of Mayan hieroglyphics was delayed by decades because of dogmatism.) However, when people start needlessly questioning settled issues, it slows the progress of the field, usually without much benefit.
I'm not saying that we each need to go and verify Newton's or Galileo's results ourselves, but I *AM* saying that we should reserve the right - at any time - to question those results as we do all others.
I don't know any scientist that would disagree with this. There might be some, but I've never met them. (And I'm at a major research institution.) However, simply questioning because you feel like it, or because it does not fit your worldview is not acceptible behavior, because it is not productive. If you have data that does not fit in the model, bring it up. Otherwise, keep quiet. Without data, you won't convince anyone; you'll just waste their time and annoy them. The reason the classics are rarely challenged, and people react poorly when they are, is because at this point it would take an extraordinary amount of evidence to overturn those models, and nobody questioning these models provides such evidence.
But he's referring explicitly to the Nicene Creed and more generally to those religions which magnify the mysterious aspects of theology. [snip] Furthermore I find his implicit faith in experts disturbing.
No offense intended, but you clearly haven't read his recent work.
Not that it matters much, but I was raised a Mormon. I left the church when I was in my early 20's. Part of the reaons was that the leaders I talked to either could not give me reasonable answers, or gave me answers that were wrong. (There were spiritual issues as well, but they aren't relevant here.) There is a lot of belief in mysteriousness of God among Mormon leaders, they just phrase it differently. I learned that I could not trust to the understanding of my priesthood leaders, bishops, or stake presidents. Hence, I find myself largely in agreement with Dennet's position on this issue. (Read his book for a more elaborated discussion of his views. They are well worth the time.)
No - the greatness of these men was not in the conclusions they reached but in that essential act of unbridled questioning.
This is not why they are great. They are great because their questioning and pursuit of answers lead them to conclusions that have stood the test of time. These conclusions changed the way we understand the world. My father shares the trait of unbridled questioning, but his conclusions are closer to conspiracy theory than anything that will stand the test of time.
The grandparent was right. We don't read those works because they have stood the test of time. They have been challenged time and again, and they have come out on top. It's not a betrayal of their heritage to trust their conclusions without reading them. It is a testament to the quality of their work that we are confident enough to stand on their shoulders to gain a better view without fearing they will move from beneath us. Don't mistake that confidence for dogmatic belief.
Now to add my $.02. I think Dennet did a very good job of articulating why I trust scientific authorities but not religious authorities when he said (2006, p. 220):
Go read The Universe in a Nutshell by the Dalai Lama. You'll see a major religious leader following an intellectually honest approach to comparing his scientific understanding and his religious belief. Sometimes he says tenets of his religion must be changed. Other times he says he finds the scientific case lacking--often he has good (not necessarily correct, but good) reasons for his skepticism.
More religious people should read his work and learn from his example. Also, more scientists should read his stuff to see that religious people can be very reasonable people. He demonstrates quite well that religion and science are not necessary opposing viewpoints.
True, but an old observation:
--Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace (1869)I'm quite aware of the facts you cite, and they are part of why I think Muslim radicals are a problem (as I said in my original post) that needs to be addressed. In that sense, I agree with you.
But that wasn't my point. My point was that we shouldn't condemn an entire community of people for the actions of "a few bad apples". We don't want Muslims condemning America and Britain for what a few immoral soldiers have done, because their behavior does not reflect our actual values. Likewise, we should not condemn all Muslims for the actions of the few radicals. Those radicals need to be dealt with appropriately before they have a chance to cause the kinds of problems the Nazis did. Condemning all (or most) of Islam will only push moderates towards identifying and sympathizing with the radicals over us.
Basic math skills will show that the vast majority of Muslims are not involved in this radical behavior. Try this: Total Number of Suspected Terrorists in the Muslim World divided by Total Population of Muslims. Then compare that with: Total Number of American Incarcerated for Violent Crime divided by American Population. You'll find that the second number is larger than the first. Do you go around saying that Americans are blood-thirsty savages? Do you talk about the Irish the way you talk about Muslims based on the behaviour of the IRA? How about the Basque because of the ESA?
Note I'm not saying Muslim radicalism isn't a problem. I'm saying it is unfair to criticize Muslims in general for the actions of a small minority. To paraphrase Ann Frank: "What one Christian does is his own responsibility, what one Muslim does is thrown back at all Muslims."
Redshift shows us that colors are not fundamentally distinct entities. Ring species show us that species are not fundamentally discrete populations. Dusk and dawn show us that night and day are not fundamentally distinct times. In exactly the same way, the lives of embryos and adults are not completely distinct things.
From a strictly biological perspective...
-- A Japanese View of Nature, pp. 16-17You're right, the appendix should be the first to go.
I'm a grammarian by training and vocation, and it is my professional opinion that The Elements of Style should be discontinued as a reference for proper grammar and style. It is terrible. They simply made up rules to suit their idiosyncratic ideas. To illustrate the point: here's a passage from the Declaration of Independence that Strunk & White (wrongly) say is incorrect:
Can you see the "error"? (Hint: it involves the word "which").
But kids don't spontaneously pick up on writing. What you are asking these deaf children to do is learn ASL (which is basically not written), and the written form of a foreign language. That's like only hearing English (no writing) and only seeing written Chinese (no speaking). That's tricky to learn, and almost impossible to do without extensive training.
Then please enlighten us all to why Tom is such a quintessential part of the books?
Tom is the Anti-Sauron--not in the sense that he opposes Sauron, but in the sense that he is his opposite. Sauron has massive amounts of power, but wants more; Tom has massive amount of power, and is satisfied. Sauron is concerned with control over other things; Tom does not desire control over anything. Sauron is focused and driven; Tom is carefree. Both have power over life and death, but one uses the power to capture souls (Ringwraiths) while the other uses it to free souls (Barrow-wights). Tom shows us that there are beings in the world that rival Sauron in power, but who do not seek to dominate or control. It is because Tom is so completely unconcerned about the affairs of the world (as opposed to Sauron trying to control all affairs of the world) that the ring cannot be given to him for safe keeping.
Granted, Tom is quintessential to the story from a philosophical or thematic perspective, not a plot perspective. That's why he is usually cut from adaptations.
^e,^e',^e''[Ev(e)=reporting & time(e)=NOW & agent(e)="Slyck news" & theme(e)=e' & Ev(e')=banning & time(e')=NOW & theme(e')="this client" & source="these communities" & Ev(e'')=recognition & time(e'')=NOW & experiencer(e'')=BitComet & theme(e'')="private flag" & CAUSE(NOT(e''),e')]