The quotes are valid because the encapsulate tendencies of people in authority to abuse that authority. I don't understand why people, for example you, trust what a couple of Washington staffers believe to be necessary for "security" and "safety". A couple of guys get told "do something about security". They brainstorm one night, and we get the "boxcutter and shoe-bomb" warriors scenarios.
You're mistaken about two other things: it is not a "very" different world. Humans are still human, and power still corrupts. Don't sweat the technical issues - those can be worked out. Human nature (especially that particular category of human nature that gives people the desire for control and power) has always been, and continues to be the basis for tyranny and abuse. Also, you're not in a position to "gladly give up liberty". The elected (and appointed) officials will always try to *take* that liberty from you. Get it? You're not "giving it up". It's being "taken". Your job is to take it *back*.
The confusion that leads to your mistake, I believe, is that you are a reasonable person, who recognizes things like "limits". People with power want to retain that power. In a very real sense, they are psychologically disturbed, for they desire control of other people. Psychology of power is a very messed up thing. So - the people in a position to take your "liberty" are not reasonable men, like you. They are most *unreasonable*, and given any excuse, they will seek to control you and everyone else, mostly for the sake of pure control.
Oh, and quit worrying about the "eeevil terrorists who are coming to take our way of life". Relax, ok? Even without invasive ridiculous measures, security can work. You need to have people who are dedicated and aware. Replacing human understanding with more machines does not give you better security. Machines give you an illusion of security, after all "the machines are doing something, right?" This dulls the watchfulness of the human guards, who are ultimately the best avenue to handle the detection problem (look up how Israel has been training agents to watch travellers in airports to accomplish exactly this).
And finally, real terrorists are a small minority of the world population. Is it worth criminalizing *everyone* on the premise that some few of them might actually be terrorists? Look - what kind of life do you have when your government believes you are a terrorist, anarchist, communist, whatever, and treats you with fear and distaste? You think this doesn't breed resentment and eventually lead to more terrorism? Security exists to make life better (and safer is part of this better). The way security is being handled now makes life worse, and breeds the sort of anti-human tendency that characterises despotism. So, in a very real sense Franklin was, in fact, right.
I completely agree with you as to the unacceptability of slavery. But your appeal to logical and reason fails to make the point, I feel. I believe you are appealing to a sort of "absolute morality" - e.g. it's immoral to enslave people, or to kill them, or what have you. But moral absolutes don't really exist - there are just prevaling tendencies of the times. If there was anything like an absolutely moral action, we could try to isolate it by examining moral systems from all the cultures of earth and taking the intersection - identify those behaviours that are found moral in every ethical system. Unfortunately, the intersection is empty, null set. And you don't get to say 'let's chose the nice moralities' because that would be imposing your own view on what's "moral".
I am not familiar enough with Cultural Relativism to know whether it says "All cultures are equally ethical" or "all cultures have the right to their own ethic". The distinction I am trying to draw is this: for instance, Aztecs had human sacrifice. We would find it barbaric and atrocious. Does a CR say "It was moral for Aztecs to do it because that's how they thought", or does he say "Human sacrifice is moral because the Aztecs did it"? I can not agree with the second case, but I think I am forced to accept that the first case is accurate.
People will ultimately do what they can get away with. I doubt that the Aztec high priests thought "it's barbaric to have human sacrifice...I *like* it!". They probably thought it was ethical to slay people in the service of their god. And for them it worked. That doesn't mean I have to personally accept human sacrifice, or believe it ethical in a different context. Furthermore, my acceptance that it was moral for Aztecs to sacrifice humans doesn't mean I would be against destroying that culture for being brutal and disgusting. Similarly to Nazism - perhaps some Nazis genuinely thought that the herrenvolk (master race) doctrine was ethical. Ok. I can accept that as moral for them. But simultaneously, I believe it was moral for the rest of civilization to go to Germany and destroy that sort of thinking, and hang the people responsible. Because that's how *our* moral thinking works.
Hence - people do what they can get away with, and that becomes the norm, and becomes ``moral''. For example, I believe brainwashing children with religous nonsense is abominable. But many people in the US do it, and so such brainwashing (religious instruction, Sunday school) is considered ``moral'' here. In consideration of this, I support the GP's claim that if ``this many people are for something, then it's probably moral'' stance.
Not that there was anyting great in Nazi dictatorship but
Look up the definition of the word "understatement", please.
Stalin was planning an invasion to Western Europe
That's a brilliant argument, because proving it's negation is so very difficult. After all, how can anyone truly *prove* that no such plans existed? Only circumstantially, and circumstantial evidence is ever so much weaker. But consider this: not all armies are created equal. Invasionary armies (e.g. Nazi Germany) have to focus on things like mobility. The country's military-support structure must be geared toward handling supply lines stretched thin by distances. The type of intelligence gathering you do is specific toward expansion. Conversely, defensive armies focus on defense-in-depth - supply bases throughout conflict territory, lesser emphasis on high mobility. These considerations affect everything - airplane and tank construction, armaments, etc.. The Red Army, as it existed in 1940 was not of an invasion type. There were no built-up depots for rapid offensives into enemy territory. There was little to no mechanized infantry, etc..
An invasion doesn't take a day to create. Hitler worked on it from roughly 1933 onwards. First offensive operations were in 1939. Throughout 1933-1937 Nazi Germany was not a creditable military threat, yet we see no buildup of invasionary armies in the Soviet Union. Thus: had Stalin had plans for invading Europe, invasionary armies would have been created in this time, and further, had such plans existed, Germany would not have stood in the way. The emergency war preparations that took place roughly between 1936 and 1941, when war between Germany and Russia broke out, created an army intended to defend Russia in the coming conflict. Stalin, realizing that Hitler's Herrenvolk doctrine would eventually lead to a war involving the SU prepared the country for a defensive war. And to address everyone's favorite complaint, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was not an honorble one, but it did by the SU what it badly needed - time. Stalin was prepared to hold off hostilities for as long as possible to gain time to prepare a defense.
Now, to address the underlying emotional point of your statements - it amounts to no more than a categorical hatred of Stalin, irrespective of his actions or motives. This comes from the fact that America hates Communism more than it does Fascism. I would go so far as to say America doesn't really have a problem with Fascism. Never mind that the Nazi ideology, which people seem to believe as being relevant advocated racial supremacy and genocide. After all, they were only killing "inconvenient" people, right? This is why American businesses kept up trade with Nazi Germany, and basically got slapped on the wrist for it (remember Prescott Bush, anyone). This is why Allen Dulles wanted to negotiate with Himmler for a separatist surrender of Germany to America, so that the war could be turned against the allied Soviet Union. This is why Nazis got respected positions in the scientific community in America.
I won't try to claim that Stalin's actions were not brutal. They almost certainly were. However, the fact is this: his methods won the war, and it's certainly not up to some armchair strategist to claim, 60 years later, that things could have been done diffirently with the same victorious result. Maybe America would be ok with Nazi Germany runnin Europe - after all, they paid on time. But somehow, the rest of the world wasn't so much ok with it. And the history has been re-written so much, that without a thorough re-examination of the evidence, your arguments amount to parroting American propoganda, which, under the circumstances is more than a little self-serving.
Saying something that is widely believed to be true but is, in fact, false, is not an example of European thinking. That is an example of a fairly common human failing. I know this might come as a shock, better sit down here, but....some Americans have done it too. Don't tell anyone, though;-) Oh, and I heard a few Asian people have occasionally made such statements as well, but you can't ever tell, what with their wacko Asiastan languages and what not. And Africa? Probably, but hey, let's face, who cares about Africa anyway. Unless they've got like slaves, or diamonds or uranium or something. [/sarcasm]
Look - because you're American, don't generalize stupidity to be a European phenomenon. That will just invite too many invidious comparisons with your own countrymen.
You're quite right. I meant my post in a more or less humorous fashion. (The Brits can be really scary with their "security" ideas. London is the most CCTVed city in the world. And one of the British ministers (I think the defense one) said that the government needs to "rethink" the role of privacy for citizens, in the face of global terror. Scary.) However, you've pointed out the really serious part - that easily verifiable information can be usefully obtained via torture. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before some US senator brings this up on the floor. Personally, I just love Bruce Schneier's use of the phrase "Rubber Hose Attack", though.:-)
Seriously, they have the guy for 90 days! It takes alot less to just beat his password out of him.
What's that I hear you say? You can't do that in a free country? Holding a person for 90 days without charging him with anything is a new and interesting definition of the word "free".
"Freedom. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"
Ever wonder why Orwell set 1984 in GB? Now you know.
Yes you can. Accountants do it regularly. I recall hearing somewhere that $10M is the standard price for a human life, when you're computing financial cost relative to risk. And this is on the high range.
Another way to figure the price of human life - what does a gun, and a single bullet cost? Or, if you're desperate, a nice, sturdy piece of string?
Another way to compute it: what's the price of a woman spending nine months and giving birth to a new "life".
True, some individuals are worth "more". But there are very few of them. They're vastly outnumbered by the "unwashed masses".
Finally, why only "human" life? Why not other kinds of life? What's made you think that humanity is so holy that the lives of humans are worth more than the lives of some animals? You insesitive anthropocentric clod!
And finally, on the intuitive level - there's tons of human life around. Most of the time, throughout most of history, the majority of humanity has been busy with it's favorite past time - reducing the amount of humanity around. Usually retail, but every so often wholesale.
Sorry buddy. You can easily put a price on human life. And that price is pretty small.
I did say "could have expressed himself more delicately", though you certainly provide better examples:-) It's true, I did not specify "attack the idea, not launch an ad hominem attack". However, given the context, I do not believe the teacher was making a personal attack on the parents. It was that part of your argument that I disagreed with.
Hmmm....while I agree that he could have expressed himself more delicately, the absolutism of your statement forms a screaming challenge. And I can not agree that says "what your parents are teaching you is crap" to be "making fun of". So here goes:
If the parent tells a child that math is "wrong" because it is not divinely ordained, that is "crap", and should be clearly labeled as such.
If the parent tells a child that it's ok to malign one's teachers for no reason, that is "crap", and should likewise be challenged.
I think what you're failing to see is that the man came from a different time - when being direct and straightforward versus worrying about childrens' fragile bruised little egoes was the norm. Unfortunately, today we have to worry about that shit (bruised egoes), but he clearly had decided to maintain his position by force of personality alone. And honestly, given his experience, I think he was entitled to it. His intention was obviously not to hurt the kid. He wanted to shock them into a bit of independent thinking. And then human rights defenders jump on him for "making fun of his parents". Oh no, it's much better to have spineless, brainless, pathetic morons for teachers who'll knuckle under local public opinion and parental pressure. That's what you've got nowdays, in large part, in schools. Enjoy!
Recall Telemachus, son of Odysseus. Tele- distance. Machus (mach-) to slay or kill. Telemachus thus means "One who slays from afar". Also recall Titanomachia - War of the Giants in the Greek Theogony.
I think our dear considerate friends in Kansas have missed a few points - so long as they are busy re-writing the curriculum, and all that:
1) Humans are important, humans live on earth => earth is more important than anything else => in particular, more important than the sun => sun revolves around the earth. Isn't that what an Intelligent Creator would do? This is the theory of Intelligent Spin.
3) Intelligent Mathematics. Math is complicated. Therefore it must have been Intelligently designed. In particular, irrational numbers can't exist. An intelligent creator wouldn't invent them. After all, can you hold pi apples in your hand? No? Didn't think so. Therefore they don't exist
4) Intelligent Quantum Mechanics - all them particle things - see, they're not doing quantum mechanics. No electron shall decay to a stable orbit unless God's finger pushes it there.
5) Intelligent Chaos. Chaos is complicated. Hence it must have been Intelligently Designed.
6) Walking and chewing gum at the same time is complicated (for a proponent of ID). Clearly then, walking/chewing gum were Intelligently Designed activities.
7) Intelligent Thermodynamics - heat doesn't just "flow". It is "pushed" along by Angels of the Lord.
8) Intelligent Osmosis - particles are pushed through a cell membrane by the finger of the Lord.
*sigh* This is too depressing. I don't want to give those *string of contemptuous expletives deleted* any more new ideas.
If an attempt can be made to legislate pi to be rational, why not redefine science? Oh yeah, because the pi thing happened in the 19th century and this is the 21st?
Original poster here. In light of some comments, I feel I should clarify something: my statement "Ladies and Gentlemen: There Is No God" was meant along the lines of an exhortation - an emotional appeal.
As posters have pointed out, neither I, nor anyone else, has proof that God does or does not exist (the "big-rock" argument is quite nice, but I think would ultimately fail as a conclusive "proof"). However, that's not the point I'm trying to make. The first point is that claiming a belief in God, from a practical standpoint (remember: the claimer can't prove God exists!), is equivalent to schizophrenia (inability to distinguish real and imaginary things). The second point should, perhaps, be elaborated on:
As a self-aware creature, Man owes a responsibility to that self-awareness. Being a true human being, being Man, means, effectively, the same thing as being an adult - accepting final responsibility for your actions. Thus, if humans decide to start a nuclear armageddon, god's not going to step in and stop the rockets. If humans decide to turn the Earth into a biohazard wasteland, god's not going to hand us a new planet. Final responsibility is ours - we can't shoulder it off on god. That's being an adult.
Conversely, saying "I believe in God, so he'll forgive me", is the whining of a small child who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. The excuse that "God's mercy is infinite", and "it'll be better in the afterlife", or "God wants me to do this", are the symptoms of humans with stunted development - like children who refuse to grow up. And unless a given person can throw off this yoke of belief, he will forever be denying his own heritage, his gift as a self-aware rational creature.
As should be obvious, it is "belief" I disagree with, not existence of God. I think Man should stand firmly on his own feet, and admit that he's out there clawing his way to survival by his own efforts. Then, and only then, can humanity look in the mirror and say "we are adults". Trying to have "faith" is perhaps compatible with this, but I find that hard to believe.
Ultimately, consider this - suppose God really does exist. What does he want from his creatures? To see them forever sniveling and making mud pies, or does he want to one day regard his creation and look proudly at their achievements, to admire them for the adults they've become? Isn't that the goal of a parent? (Cause let's face it, guys - thus far our actions, especially motivated by religion are the equivalent of bullying little children, lieing, and torturing insects.) Whether God exists or not, belief in him stunts the development of Man. If God truly exists, then perhaps denying this existence is the ultimate act of faith, for it allows you to become worthy of being His (or Her) child by your own efforts. And if God truly does not exist, then you'd look really stupid bowing to a figment of someone's imagination. Either way, rejection of belief in God is, I believe, fundamental to an individual becoming an adult socially, and humanity becoming an adult species as a whole.
Picture this: your friend Tom comes to tell you about his friend "Bob". Now, you've never met Bob. For some reason Bob is never around, and Tom has never introduced him to you. But Tom tells you that Bob exists, and they hang out, and talk, and things like that. Frequently, Bob will have these amazing things that Tom doesn't, and Tom will excitedly tell you about them. Sometimes Tom relates things that Bob has told him, or opinions he has based on something Bob says.
Now, what kind of behavior is that? If Tom is 8, we call that "having an imaginary friend". If Tom is 30, he's probably hallucinating, or schizophrenic (or experiencing some psychosis). But....if Tom is 30, and we replace "Bob" with "God", and this is said in the context of "faith and community" then Tom is a fundamentalist christian who has a "personal relationship with God".
So, what's the difference? What's the difference between a serial killer who "hears voices in his head" telling him to go into McDonalds and let loose with an Uzi, and a drunk frat boy hearing the voice of God saying "You will be president", and staging a couple of wars? It's only a question of degree, yet the first is clearly a candidate for a white jacket and a padded cell, while the latter is the "Leader of the Free World (tm)".
Ladies and Gentlemen: There Is No God. None. Nada. He ain't there. Nobody home. Get it? Stop using your insecurity and inadequacy, and face the world for what it is - a harsh, brutal, and sometimes beautiful place. It's harder this way, but at least you are an adult human being, not a kid hiding behind an "imaginary friend". Any form of belief that starts out with "there's an invisible man who did X" is utter madness and self-dulsion. This is the 21st century! How did 300 years of progress and science and rational thinking pass you by? ID is crap not because it's not consistent, or because it's not a theory, but because it presupposes the existence of a god. Stop whining, get off your knees, and quit talking to yourself - no one's listening. Whipe your own butt and face reality like Monday morning - it's tough, and you're tired, but when you get up you are a Man.
I realize this may not be well received in this forum, but here goes: the FA is written by a psychobabbling baboon. The Star Wars trilogy (in six parts) that he attempts to postmodernistically disect is likewise the wailing of an incoherent, attention-seeking egomaniac.
Look, as a kid I loved the series (especially SW V). It was awesome. I built lego X-wings. And then I grew up, and I look back on it, and what do I see, honestly? With the exception of a few fun scenes (carried chiefly on the shoulders of Harrison Ford), it's mostly a badly-acted space opera. Yes, they added tons of special effects (in the newer series), but that does not a great movie make.
Let's look carefully at what Star Wars really represents - the original (Ep. 4) was a space opera, with a modern (i.e. 90's) approach to action, but made in 1977. It was pure, mindless fun, but much more dynamic fun than they were making in the 70's. (And for this I give Lucas ample credit, btw. This is something he actually did innovate) The kids loved it, and the parents got dragged along, and it was just fun enough to be enjoyable without being a kid's movie.
But that's it. It was not a discussion of postmodernistic visions in the starry night. It was not an essay on "Force as Film". It was not an exposition of a "new mythology". It was not an exploration of the deeper values of human society. It was not an objectifying narrative deconstruction of the patriarchal jedi paradigm within the neodialectic context of the Force. (for partial reference, see the Postmodernism Generator).
It was *described* as that when the movie became tremendously successful (success owing to it's overt mindless fun), and Lucas wanted to make himself appear more creditable - after all, you can get alot further with a fun movie and a legion of media whores singing postmodernist deconstruction eulogies to you than you can with just a fun movie.
Thus, the article, and all other publications that attempt to find "real meaning" in the works of Lucas are misguided - they are in the proverbial pitch-dark cellar, at midnight, looking for a black cat that isn't there. The only "real meaning" is the egomaniacal pursuit of M-O-N-E-Y. Oh, and I use "egomaniac" quite intentionally - Lucas knew damn well that the movie was just for fun. He even said so, in the earliest interviews. Afterwards, when every two-bit journalist started blowing him for being such a genius, he put on that hypocritically benevolent smile, and started discussing how he is a prophet among men with his "new mythology".
So please, let's stop discussing Star Wars as an article of either faith, religion, or artistic genius. It's just fun (assuming listening to Christian Hayden's acting in Ep 3 is your idea of fun.:-) ). In that context, Star Wars is great. But if you decide to be honest with yourself, you'll see that it's nothing more than that, and attempts to make it out to be something grander fall flat on their collective face.
While the CEO is a clueless, inarticulate jackass (or at least tries to come across as a good ol' boy), the distinction he is trying to make may be the following: Ma Bell provides Internet connectivity to customers and also provides phone services (it's traditional market). Now, the CEO mentiones Google, but also Vonage, which, if I am not mistaken, is a VoIP service. They charge money for a service competing with one of Ma Bell's markets. That's probably what's sticking in the guy's craw. Google's services don't directly compete with Ma Bell (most of their stuff like search, gmail, maps, scholar, etc. is free) and they don't do VoIP (yet). So, Google was probably mentioned just for name recognition.
I think the mention of Vonage is the big hint as to what's got that bunch of monopolistic losers riled up - by providing things like VoIP, alternatives to what Ma Bell wants to monopolize (i.e. providing competition, innovation, all those great supposed benefits of the Free Market (tm)), those other nasty companies are clearly threatening to destroy the American Way of Life (tm) by taking away Ma Bells' ability to bleed customers white with impunity. Clearly, those companies should be made to pay through the nose for their temerity. ``Legislate, not Innovate'' - the age-old corporate motto.:-)
I have heard of one political idea that is very democratic, but quite radical. It could, perhaps, be a solution.
The idea is simple - we elect officials, but aside from truly rare occurrences, such as impeachment or recall, we have no way to control them. Hence the suggestion: when we elect the official for the next turn (e.g. president in 2008), we also give an evaluation of the work of the departing president (George W. Bush). Basically, the evaluation is Yes/No - did the officeholder do a good job or not (whatever your personal criterion). If the majority says "Yes", he's a hero, gets benefits/rewards of a national hero. If the vote is "No", he goes to jail for however long he held office - in W.'s case for 4 years for the 2004-2008 term. Yes. Federal, pound me in the ass prison. A federal position is certainly high enough that local jails would be inappropriate. A "No" vote basically means the person has failed the public trust. He was granted (I use the term loosely in Bush's case) power to wield on behalf of the people. If he then sells out to corporations and does horrible things, he deserve to get punished with a severity proportionate to his crime. Same thing right down the line - Senators, Congressmen, state officials, the lot.
Politics needs accountability to the voters, not to some "Senate Oversight Committee" that's staffed by...guess who....politicians. This system would provide for one, would be simple to institute, and would represent the "Negative Feedback" that the current system sorely lacks.
Slashdot Mirror
Does that mean they pay me to use windows?
It'll mean the Blue Screen of Death (try Viagra, new from our sponsors!)
Clippy: It looks like you're trying to write a letter. Would you like to buy "Letter Writing For Dummies" by our Amazon partner? Click here!
And of course:
Error: Your computer has performed an illegal operation. Our FBI partners will be down shortly to collect you.
The quotes are valid because the encapsulate tendencies of people in authority to abuse that authority. I don't understand why people, for example you, trust what a couple of Washington staffers believe to be necessary for "security" and "safety". A couple of guys get told "do something about security". They brainstorm one night, and we get the "boxcutter and shoe-bomb" warriors scenarios.
You're mistaken about two other things: it is not a "very" different world. Humans are still human, and power still corrupts. Don't sweat the technical issues - those can be worked out. Human nature (especially that particular category of human nature that gives people the desire for control and power) has always been, and continues to be the basis for tyranny and abuse. Also, you're not in a position to "gladly give up liberty". The elected (and appointed) officials will always try to *take* that liberty from you. Get it? You're not "giving it up". It's being "taken". Your job is to take it *back*.
The confusion that leads to your mistake, I believe, is that you are a reasonable person, who recognizes things like "limits". People with power want to retain that power. In a very real sense, they are psychologically disturbed, for they desire control of other people. Psychology of power is a very messed up thing. So - the people in a position to take your "liberty" are not reasonable men, like you. They are most *unreasonable*, and given any excuse, they will seek to control you and everyone else, mostly for the sake of pure control.
Oh, and quit worrying about the "eeevil terrorists who are coming to take our way of life". Relax, ok? Even without invasive ridiculous measures, security can work. You need to have people who are dedicated and aware. Replacing human understanding with more machines does not give you better security. Machines give you an illusion of security, after all "the machines are doing something, right?" This dulls the watchfulness of the human guards, who are ultimately the best avenue to handle the detection problem (look up how Israel has been training agents to watch travellers in airports to accomplish exactly this).
And finally, real terrorists are a small minority of the world population. Is it worth criminalizing *everyone* on the premise that some few of them might actually be terrorists? Look - what kind of life do you have when your government believes you are a terrorist, anarchist, communist, whatever, and treats you with fear and distaste? You think this doesn't breed resentment and eventually lead to more terrorism? Security exists to make life better (and safer is part of this better). The way security is being handled now makes life worse, and breeds the sort of anti-human tendency that characterises despotism. So, in a very real sense Franklin was, in fact, right.
Or you could the CustomizeGoogle extension for firefox. It has a checkbox under GMail for "switch to https".
p ?id=743
Extension link:
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.ph
I completely agree with you as to the unacceptability of slavery. But your appeal to logical and reason fails to make the point, I feel. I believe you are appealing to a sort of "absolute morality" - e.g. it's immoral to enslave people, or to kill them, or what have you. But moral absolutes don't really exist - there are just prevaling tendencies of the times. If there was anything like an absolutely moral action, we could try to isolate it by examining moral systems from all the cultures of earth and taking the intersection - identify those behaviours that are found moral in every ethical system. Unfortunately, the intersection is empty, null set. And you don't get to say 'let's chose the nice moralities' because that would be imposing your own view on what's "moral".
I am not familiar enough with Cultural Relativism to know whether it says "All cultures are equally ethical" or "all cultures have the right to their own ethic". The distinction I am trying to draw is this: for instance, Aztecs had human sacrifice. We would find it barbaric and atrocious. Does a CR say "It was moral for Aztecs to do it because that's how they thought", or does he say "Human sacrifice is moral because the Aztecs did it"? I can not agree with the second case, but I think I am forced to accept that the first case is accurate.
People will ultimately do what they can get away with. I doubt that the Aztec high priests thought "it's barbaric to have human sacrifice...I *like* it!". They probably thought it was ethical to slay people in the service of their god. And for them it worked. That doesn't mean I have to personally accept human sacrifice, or believe it ethical in a different context. Furthermore, my acceptance that it was moral for Aztecs to sacrifice humans doesn't mean I would be against destroying that culture for being brutal and disgusting. Similarly to Nazism - perhaps some Nazis genuinely thought that the herrenvolk (master race) doctrine was ethical. Ok. I can accept that as moral for them. But simultaneously, I believe it was moral for the rest of civilization to go to Germany and destroy that sort of thinking, and hang the people responsible. Because that's how *our* moral thinking works.
Hence - people do what they can get away with, and that becomes the norm, and becomes ``moral''. For example, I believe brainwashing children with religous nonsense is abominable. But many people in the US do it, and so such brainwashing (religious instruction, Sunday school) is considered ``moral'' here. In consideration of this, I support the GP's claim that if ``this many people are for something, then it's probably moral'' stance.
Look up the definition of the word "understatement", please.
Stalin was planning an invasion to Western Europe
That's a brilliant argument, because proving it's negation is so very difficult. After all, how can anyone truly *prove* that no such plans existed? Only circumstantially, and circumstantial evidence is ever so much weaker. But consider this: not all armies are created equal. Invasionary armies (e.g. Nazi Germany) have to focus on things like mobility. The country's military-support structure must be geared toward handling supply lines stretched thin by distances. The type of intelligence gathering you do is specific toward expansion. Conversely, defensive armies focus on defense-in-depth - supply bases throughout conflict territory, lesser emphasis on high mobility. These considerations affect everything - airplane and tank construction, armaments, etc.. The Red Army, as it existed in 1940 was not of an invasion type. There were no built-up depots for rapid offensives into enemy territory. There was little to no mechanized infantry, etc..
An invasion doesn't take a day to create. Hitler worked on it from roughly 1933 onwards. First offensive operations were in 1939. Throughout 1933-1937 Nazi Germany was not a creditable military threat, yet we see no buildup of invasionary armies in the Soviet Union. Thus: had Stalin had plans for invading Europe, invasionary armies would have been created in this time, and further, had such plans existed, Germany would not have stood in the way. The emergency war preparations that took place roughly between 1936 and 1941, when war between Germany and Russia broke out, created an army intended to defend Russia in the coming conflict. Stalin, realizing that Hitler's Herrenvolk doctrine would eventually lead to a war involving the SU prepared the country for a defensive war. And to address everyone's favorite complaint, the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was not an honorble one, but it did by the SU what it badly needed - time. Stalin was prepared to hold off hostilities for as long as possible to gain time to prepare a defense.
Now, to address the underlying emotional point of your statements - it amounts to no more than a categorical hatred of Stalin, irrespective of his actions or motives. This comes from the fact that America hates Communism more than it does Fascism. I would go so far as to say America doesn't really have a problem with Fascism. Never mind that the Nazi ideology, which people seem to believe as being relevant advocated racial supremacy and genocide. After all, they were only killing "inconvenient" people, right? This is why American businesses kept up trade with Nazi Germany, and basically got slapped on the wrist for it (remember Prescott Bush, anyone). This is why Allen Dulles wanted to negotiate with Himmler for a separatist surrender of Germany to America, so that the war could be turned against the allied Soviet Union. This is why Nazis got respected positions in the scientific community in America.
I won't try to claim that Stalin's actions were not brutal. They almost certainly were. However, the fact is this: his methods won the war, and it's certainly not up to some armchair strategist to claim, 60 years later, that things could have been done diffirently with the same victorious result. Maybe America would be ok with Nazi Germany runnin Europe - after all, they paid on time. But somehow, the rest of the world wasn't so much ok with it. And the history has been re-written so much, that without a thorough re-examination of the evidence, your arguments amount to parroting American propoganda, which, under the circumstances is more than a little self-serving.
Saying something that is widely believed to be true but is, in fact, false, is not an example of European thinking. That is an example of a fairly common human failing. I know this might come as a shock, better sit down here, but....some Americans have done it too. Don't tell anyone, though ;-) Oh, and I heard a few Asian people have occasionally made such statements as well, but you can't ever tell, what with their wacko Asiastan languages and what not. And Africa? Probably, but hey, let's face, who cares about Africa anyway. Unless they've got like slaves, or diamonds or uranium or something. [/sarcasm]
Look - because you're American, don't generalize stupidity to be a European phenomenon. That will just invite too many invidious comparisons with your own countrymen.
I think I know what you're referring to.
I believe this is one of the implementations of this idea, the so-called "Phone Book Encryption"
http://www.freenet.org.nz/python/phonebook/
You're quite right. I meant my post in a more or less humorous fashion. (The Brits can be really scary with their "security" ideas. London is the most CCTVed city in the world. And one of the British ministers (I think the defense one) said that the government needs to "rethink" the role of privacy for citizens, in the face of global terror. Scary.) However, you've pointed out the really serious part - that easily verifiable information can be usefully obtained via torture. I'm sure it's just a matter of time before some US senator brings this up on the floor. Personally, I just love Bruce Schneier's use of the phrase "Rubber Hose Attack", though. :-)
Seriously, they have the guy for 90 days! It takes alot less to just beat his password out of him.
What's that I hear you say? You can't do that in a free country? Holding a person for 90 days without charging him with anything is a new and interesting definition of the word "free".
"Freedom. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"
Ever wonder why Orwell set 1984 in GB? Now you know.
In Soviet Russia, the code tampers with *YOU*.
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the veal.
I don't know about *your* cats, but I know mine are sentient. :-)
Yes you can. Accountants do it regularly. I recall hearing somewhere that $10M is the standard price for a human life, when you're computing financial cost relative to risk. And this is on the high range.
Another way to figure the price of human life - what does a gun, and a single bullet cost? Or, if you're desperate, a nice, sturdy piece of string?
Another way to compute it: what's the price of a woman spending nine months and giving birth to a new "life".
True, some individuals are worth "more". But there are very few of them. They're vastly outnumbered by the "unwashed masses".
Finally, why only "human" life? Why not other kinds of life? What's made you think that humanity is so holy that the lives of humans are worth more than the lives of some animals? You insesitive anthropocentric clod!
And finally, on the intuitive level - there's tons of human life around. Most of the time, throughout most of history, the majority of humanity has been busy with it's favorite past time - reducing the amount of humanity around. Usually retail, but every so often wholesale.
Sorry buddy. You can easily put a price on human life. And that price is pretty small.
I did say "could have expressed himself more delicately", though you certainly provide better examples :-) It's true, I did not specify "attack the idea, not launch an ad hominem attack". However, given the context, I do not believe the teacher was making a personal attack on the parents. It was that part of your argument that I disagreed with.
Hmmm....while I agree that he could have expressed himself more delicately, the absolutism of your statement forms a screaming challenge. And I can not agree that says "what your parents are teaching you is crap" to be "making fun of". So here goes:
If the parent tells a child that math is "wrong" because it is not divinely ordained, that is "crap", and should be clearly labeled as such.
If the parent tells a child that it's ok to malign one's teachers for no reason, that is "crap", and should likewise be challenged.
I think what you're failing to see is that the man came from a different time - when being direct and straightforward versus worrying about childrens' fragile bruised little egoes was the norm. Unfortunately, today we have to worry about that shit (bruised egoes), but he clearly had decided to maintain his position by force of personality alone. And honestly, given his experience, I think he was entitled to it. His intention was obviously not to hurt the kid. He wanted to shock them into a bit of independent thinking. And then human rights defenders jump on him for "making fun of his parents". Oh no, it's much better to have spineless, brainless, pathetic morons for teachers who'll knuckle under local public opinion and parental pressure. That's what you've got nowdays, in large part, in schools. Enjoy!
Machiaphobia - fear of war http://www.islandnet.com/~egbird/dict/m.htm
Recall Telemachus, son of Odysseus. Tele- distance. Machus (mach-) to slay or kill. Telemachus thus means "One who slays from afar". Also recall Titanomachia - War of the Giants in the Greek Theogony.
I think our dear considerate friends in Kansas have missed a few points - so long as they are busy re-writing the curriculum, and all that:
1) Humans are important, humans live on earth => earth is more important than anything else => in particular, more important than the sun => sun revolves around the earth. Isn't that what an Intelligent Creator would do? This is the theory of Intelligent Spin.
2) The Intelligent Falling Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Falling
3) Intelligent Mathematics. Math is complicated. Therefore it must have been Intelligently designed. In particular, irrational numbers can't exist. An intelligent creator wouldn't invent them. After all, can you hold pi apples in your hand? No? Didn't think so. Therefore they don't exist
4) Intelligent Quantum Mechanics - all them particle things - see, they're not doing quantum mechanics. No electron shall decay to a stable orbit unless God's finger pushes it there.
5) Intelligent Chaos. Chaos is complicated. Hence it must have been Intelligently Designed.
6) Walking and chewing gum at the same time is complicated (for a proponent of ID). Clearly then, walking/chewing gum were Intelligently Designed activities.
7) Intelligent Thermodynamics - heat doesn't just "flow". It is "pushed" along by Angels of the Lord.
8) Intelligent Osmosis - particles are pushed through a cell membrane by the finger of the Lord.
*sigh* This is too depressing. I don't want to give those *string of contemptuous expletives deleted* any more new ideas.
If an attempt can be made to legislate pi to be rational, why not redefine science? Oh yeah, because the pi thing happened in the 19th century and this is the 21st?
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html
The discussion about virtual castles recalled to me this quote:
Neurotics build castles in the air. Psychotics live in them. But the Psychiatrist collects the rent.
Original poster here. In light of some comments, I feel I should clarify something: my statement "Ladies and Gentlemen: There Is No God" was meant along the lines of an exhortation - an emotional appeal.
As posters have pointed out, neither I, nor anyone else, has proof that God does or does not exist (the "big-rock" argument is quite nice, but I think would ultimately fail as a conclusive "proof"). However, that's not the point I'm trying to make. The first point is that claiming a belief in God, from a practical standpoint (remember: the claimer can't prove God exists!), is equivalent to schizophrenia (inability to distinguish real and imaginary things). The second point should, perhaps, be elaborated on:
As a self-aware creature, Man owes a responsibility to that self-awareness. Being a true human being, being Man, means, effectively, the same thing as being an adult - accepting final responsibility for your actions. Thus, if humans decide to start a nuclear armageddon, god's not going to step in and stop the rockets. If humans decide to turn the Earth into a biohazard wasteland, god's not going to hand us a new planet. Final responsibility is ours - we can't shoulder it off on god. That's being an adult.
Conversely, saying "I believe in God, so he'll forgive me", is the whining of a small child who's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar. The excuse that "God's mercy is infinite", and "it'll be better in the afterlife", or "God wants me to do this", are the symptoms of humans with stunted development - like children who refuse to grow up. And unless a given person can throw off this yoke of belief, he will forever be denying his own heritage, his gift as a self-aware rational creature.
As should be obvious, it is "belief" I disagree with, not existence of God. I think Man should stand firmly on his own feet, and admit that he's out there clawing his way to survival by his own efforts. Then, and only then, can humanity look in the mirror and say "we are adults". Trying to have "faith" is perhaps compatible with this, but I find that hard to believe.
Ultimately, consider this - suppose God really does exist. What does he want from his creatures? To see them forever sniveling and making mud pies, or does he want to one day regard his creation and look proudly at their achievements, to admire them for the adults they've become? Isn't that the goal of a parent? (Cause let's face it, guys - thus far our actions, especially motivated by religion are the equivalent of bullying little children, lieing, and torturing insects.) Whether God exists or not, belief in him stunts the development of Man. If God truly exists, then perhaps denying this existence is the ultimate act of faith, for it allows you to become worthy of being His (or Her) child by your own efforts. And if God truly does not exist, then you'd look really stupid bowing to a figment of someone's imagination. Either way, rejection of belief in God is, I believe, fundamental to an individual becoming an adult socially, and humanity becoming an adult species as a whole.
Guys (and the occasional girl),
Picture this: your friend Tom comes to tell you about his friend "Bob". Now, you've never met Bob. For some reason Bob is never around, and Tom has never introduced him to you. But Tom tells you that Bob exists, and they hang out, and talk, and things like that. Frequently, Bob will have these amazing things that Tom doesn't, and Tom will excitedly tell you about them. Sometimes Tom relates things that Bob has told him, or opinions he has based on something Bob says.
Now, what kind of behavior is that? If Tom is 8, we call that "having an imaginary friend". If Tom is 30, he's probably hallucinating, or schizophrenic (or experiencing some psychosis). But....if Tom is 30, and we replace "Bob" with "God", and this is said in the context of "faith and community" then Tom is a fundamentalist christian who has a "personal relationship with God".
So, what's the difference? What's the difference between a serial killer who "hears voices in his head" telling him to go into McDonalds and let loose with an Uzi, and a drunk frat boy hearing the voice of God saying "You will be president", and staging a couple of wars? It's only a question of degree, yet the first is clearly a candidate for a white jacket and a padded cell, while the latter is the "Leader of the Free World (tm)".
Ladies and Gentlemen: There Is No God. None. Nada. He ain't there. Nobody home. Get it? Stop using your insecurity and inadequacy, and face the world for what it is - a harsh, brutal, and sometimes beautiful place. It's harder this way, but at least you are an adult human being, not a kid hiding behind an "imaginary friend". Any form of belief that starts out with "there's an invisible man who did X" is utter madness and self-dulsion. This is the 21st century! How did 300 years of progress and science and rational thinking pass you by? ID is crap not because it's not consistent, or because it's not a theory, but because it presupposes the existence of a god. Stop whining, get off your knees, and quit talking to yourself - no one's listening. Whipe your own butt and face reality like Monday morning - it's tough, and you're tired, but when you get up you are a Man.
The floggings will continue until morale improves.
I realize this may not be well received in this forum, but here goes: the FA is written by a psychobabbling baboon. The Star Wars trilogy (in six parts) that he attempts to postmodernistically disect is likewise the wailing of an incoherent, attention-seeking egomaniac.
:-) ). In that context, Star Wars is great. But if you decide to be honest with yourself, you'll see that it's nothing more than that, and attempts to make it out to be something grander fall flat on their collective face.
Look, as a kid I loved the series (especially SW V). It was awesome. I built lego X-wings. And then I grew up, and I look back on it, and what do I see, honestly? With the exception of a few fun scenes (carried chiefly on the shoulders of Harrison Ford), it's mostly a badly-acted space opera. Yes, they added tons of special effects (in the newer series), but that does not a great movie make.
Let's look carefully at what Star Wars really represents - the original (Ep. 4) was a space opera, with a modern (i.e. 90's) approach to action, but made in 1977. It was pure, mindless fun, but much more dynamic fun than they were making in the 70's. (And for this I give Lucas ample credit, btw. This is something he actually did innovate) The kids loved it, and the parents got dragged along, and it was just fun enough to be enjoyable without being a kid's movie.
But that's it. It was not a discussion of postmodernistic visions in the starry night. It was not an essay on "Force as Film". It was not an exposition of a "new mythology". It was not an exploration of the deeper values of human society. It was not an objectifying narrative deconstruction of the patriarchal jedi paradigm within the neodialectic context of the Force. (for partial reference, see the Postmodernism Generator).
It was *described* as that when the movie became tremendously successful (success owing to it's overt mindless fun), and Lucas wanted to make himself appear more creditable - after all, you can get alot further with a fun movie and a legion of media whores singing postmodernist deconstruction eulogies to you than you can with just a fun movie.
Thus, the article, and all other publications that attempt to find "real meaning" in the works of Lucas are misguided - they are in the proverbial pitch-dark cellar, at midnight, looking for a black cat that isn't there. The only "real meaning" is the egomaniacal pursuit of M-O-N-E-Y. Oh, and I use "egomaniac" quite intentionally - Lucas knew damn well that the movie was just for fun. He even said so, in the earliest interviews. Afterwards, when every two-bit journalist started blowing him for being such a genius, he put on that hypocritically benevolent smile, and started discussing how he is a prophet among men with his "new mythology".
So please, let's stop discussing Star Wars as an article of either faith, religion, or artistic genius. It's just fun (assuming listening to Christian Hayden's acting in Ep 3 is your idea of fun.
So...this being slashdot and all that, I am forced to ask two questions:
;-P (as I said, this *is* /.)
1) (OB) Is this a real flesh-and-blood girlfriend?
2) Did you break up with her over this?
While the CEO is a clueless, inarticulate jackass (or at least tries to come across as a good ol' boy), the distinction he is trying to make may be the following: Ma Bell provides Internet connectivity to customers and also provides phone services (it's traditional market). Now, the CEO mentiones Google, but also Vonage, which, if I am not mistaken, is a VoIP service. They charge money for a service competing with one of Ma Bell's markets. That's probably what's sticking in the guy's craw. Google's services don't directly compete with Ma Bell (most of their stuff like search, gmail, maps, scholar, etc. is free) and they don't do VoIP (yet). So, Google was probably mentioned just for name recognition.
:-)
I think the mention of Vonage is the big hint as to what's got that bunch of monopolistic losers riled up - by providing things like VoIP, alternatives to what Ma Bell wants to monopolize (i.e. providing competition, innovation, all those great supposed benefits of the Free Market (tm)), those other nasty companies are clearly threatening to destroy the American Way of Life (tm) by taking away Ma Bells' ability to bleed customers white with impunity. Clearly, those companies should be made to pay through the nose for their temerity. ``Legislate, not Innovate'' - the age-old corporate motto.
I have heard of one political idea that is very democratic, but quite radical. It could, perhaps, be a solution.
The idea is simple - we elect officials, but aside from truly rare occurrences, such as impeachment or recall, we have no way to control them. Hence the suggestion: when we elect the official for the next turn (e.g. president in 2008), we also give an evaluation of the work of the departing president (George W. Bush). Basically, the evaluation is Yes/No - did the officeholder do a good job or not (whatever your personal criterion). If the majority says "Yes", he's a hero, gets benefits/rewards of a national hero. If the vote is "No", he goes to jail for however long he held office - in W.'s case for 4 years for the 2004-2008 term. Yes. Federal, pound me in the ass prison. A federal position is certainly high enough that local jails would be inappropriate. A "No" vote basically means the person has failed the public trust. He was granted (I use the term loosely in Bush's case) power to wield on behalf of the people. If he then sells out to corporations and does horrible things, he deserve to get punished with a severity proportionate to his crime. Same thing right down the line - Senators, Congressmen, state officials, the lot.
Politics needs accountability to the voters, not to some "Senate Oversight Committee" that's staffed by...guess who....politicians. This system would provide for one, would be simple to institute, and would represent the "Negative Feedback" that the current system sorely lacks.