Actually the barbaric people have a huge advantage, because they are less impeded by moral codices. The will attack first, they will strike hard and they will fight to win. Being civilized is required to form large groups and holding them together. This has nothing to do with being smart or not.
Considering into how much trouble one could, by asking the wrong questions and pointing out flaws in the established teachings, I would say MUCH longer. I would guess basically since the dawn of human societies.
You do know that the Muslims "Sky Daddy" as you put it, is the same one the Christians and the Jews pray to? It is mind blowing how much hate can come from so little difference and so much in common.
Each and every religion (or idea) has fanatics, hypocrites and idiots. The is usually also a majority of decent people, but these tend to be less vocal.
None of the major religions gets the "good guys" label. Given opportunity all of them condoned violent enforcement of their moral codes. The christian based countries are at this time in history more tolerant and open minded than others, but at that was the other way around not that long ago. Given opportunity and power I'm pretty sure some more fanatical christian subgroups would just love to put people in jail (or to death) for not conforming to their morals.
The current problems the West faces with some Muslim countries is not based on religious principles, there are far better reasons. Religion is just used as a powerful weapon to channel hate and build a us vs. them common identity.
Let's try a little thought experiment: Imagine all the countries in the Middle East to be some kind of Christians. Do you really think we wouldn't have the very same problems, only in a slightly different flavor?
I am against violence and I am really disgusted by people using (any) religion to preach hate. Being it hate against infidels, women, gays, critical thinkers, different opinions or other religions.
By the way, Atheists aren't completely immune either, because people tend to replace religion with ideologies that aren't much better.
Moderation, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness and not turning of your brain might get us a lot further, than this us vs. them thinking.
fun times. That reminds me of the (far less lasting) joke of sending a raytracer written in postsrcipt to the printer. Took about half an hour for the single page to print.
We don't trust "a person", we trust several representatives from different parties/candidates/groups to watch over each other. And because we don't trust them completely we keep the original ballots after counting, so we can recount them. For paper ballots it is rather complicated to mess with them on a grand scale without raising suspicion.
With computers/voting machines it takes only one person to change the data and no one will be able to prove foul play.
While they are at it, why not introduce a direct popular vote for presidential elections? The current system put a very unhealthy focus on swing states' issues and ignores the problems of large parts of the country because they'll won't/will vote for the candidate anyway.
I don't believe you know what any of those words mean.
Not that I can read the OP's mind, but most of these words (actually all but "Libertarians") are rather simple to understand.
Our principles are eminently practical. Other people are not your property: don't rob them, kill them, or attempt to force them to obey you. Violate those principles, and violence ensues.
-jcr
But who's going to stop other people from ganging up against you? What about threats that can't be answered with violence?
And why wait till some company or group messes up your life (drug companies and monopolies come to mind) and then react by suing (or violence) instead of getting someone neutral (hopefully) to check on them before they poison rivers or kill people with dangerous drugs?
People will always lie, steal, betray and cheat for profit. We are not nice. That's by the way the reason why communism doesn't work beyond village scale either.
As far as I'm considered regulations are intended to keep the shit away from the fan, while a lawsuit is intended to scrape it of the walls. Neither will work all the time, so it might be a good idea to use both. With a strong focus on the first, because it's way less messy.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the barbaric people have a huge advantage, because they are less impeded by moral codices. The will attack first, they will strike hard and they will fight to win. Being civilized is required to form large groups and holding them together. This has nothing to do with being smart or not.
Longer ...
Considering into how much trouble one could, by asking the wrong questions and pointing out flaws in the established teachings, I would say MUCH longer. I would guess basically since the dawn of human societies.
You do know that the Muslims "Sky Daddy" as you put it, is the same one the Christians and the Jews pray to? It is mind blowing how much hate can come from so little difference and so much in common.
Each and every religion (or idea) has fanatics, hypocrites and idiots. The is usually also a majority of decent people, but these tend to be less vocal.
None of the major religions gets the "good guys" label. Given opportunity all of them condoned violent enforcement of their moral codes. The christian based countries are at this time in history more tolerant and open minded than others, but at that was the other way around not that long ago. Given opportunity and power I'm pretty sure some more fanatical christian subgroups would just love to put people in jail (or to death) for not conforming to their morals.
The current problems the West faces with some Muslim countries is not based on religious principles, there are far better reasons. Religion is just used as a powerful weapon to channel hate and build a us vs. them common identity.
Let's try a little thought experiment: Imagine all the countries in the Middle East to be some kind of Christians. Do you really think we wouldn't have the very same problems, only in a slightly different flavor?
I am against violence and I am really disgusted by people using (any) religion to preach hate. Being it hate against infidels, women, gays, critical thinkers, different opinions or other religions.
By the way, Atheists aren't completely immune either, because people tend to replace religion with ideologies that aren't much better.
Moderation, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness and not turning of your brain might get us a lot further, than this us vs. them thinking.
When "everybody wins" everybody looses.
He was just intimidated by people who were smarter than him. He had no idea why.
Because people fear what they cannot understand or control. Fear often leads to violence, because violence gives you back the feeling of control.
You seem to have missed the entire US election.
He sez: Homeland security be disbanded. CIA an FBI are cool froods and shoulda be funded.
I am rather sure this is not the Queen's English you are using.
Just check if the machine shuts you down and you will know.
There is that joke, that in order to destroy humanity, all they had to do was to enable women to read men's minds.
That reminds me of the Monty Python episode with the manipulated dictionary. Wonderful idea.
The last body is actually a battle robot.
It is Japan, people.
How many of these robots does it take to stop Godzilla? Actually that seems like a decent idea for a new SI unit: The GSP or Godzilla Stopping Power.
They should be very careful about rounded edges though.
"gross" describes Papa John's "Pizza" quite adequately.
fun times. That reminds me of the (far less lasting) joke of sending a raytracer written in postsrcipt to the printer. Took about half an hour for the single page to print.
We don't trust "a person", we trust several representatives from different parties/candidates/groups to watch over each other. And because we don't trust them completely we keep the original ballots after counting, so we can recount them. For paper ballots it is rather complicated to mess with them on a grand scale without raising suspicion.
With computers/voting machines it takes only one person to change the data and no one will be able to prove foul play.
Just as an edit, I'm not certain the votes came back 51% win from the lost votes. I heard that, but I can't confirm it.
We're such amateurs. Hated dictators usually get 100% of the vote.
You meant "loved leader" didn't you? Because otherwise these gentleman in dark trench-coats would like to have a little conversation with you.
While they are at it, why not introduce a direct popular vote for presidential elections? The current system put a very unhealthy focus on swing states' issues and ignores the problems of large parts of the country because they'll won't/will vote for the candidate anyway.
One could limit preferential voting to three (or five) levels without reducing the benefits it has over first past the post.
Oh, I just got a hardon imagining a Beholder with boobies on all it's tentacles instead of eyes...
So beauty would in the boob of the beholder?
Your mind seems to be a strange place. Interesting, but strange.
When it's wet, the clouds go down
...you should never assume that capturing photons flying through public spaces is illegal. Ever.
Tell that to the photon liberation front...
Libertarians are childish and dangerous.
I don't believe you know what any of those words mean.
Not that I can read the OP's mind, but most of these words (actually all but "Libertarians") are rather simple to understand.
Our principles are eminently practical. Other people are not your property: don't rob them, kill them, or attempt to force them to obey you. Violate those principles, and violence ensues.
-jcr
But who's going to stop other people from ganging up against you? What about threats that can't be answered with violence?
And why wait till some company or group messes up your life (drug companies and monopolies come to mind) and then react by suing (or violence) instead of getting someone neutral (hopefully) to check on them before they poison rivers or kill people with dangerous drugs?
People will always lie, steal, betray and cheat for profit. We are not nice. That's by the way the reason why communism doesn't work beyond village scale either.
As far as I'm considered regulations are intended to keep the shit away from the fan, while a lawsuit is intended to scrape it of the walls. Neither will work all the time, so it might be a good idea to use both. With a strong focus on the first, because it's way less messy.
What about Eastern Germany? As far as I remember the Stasi did a fairly decent job to enforce a police state.