Hang on, the faithful aren't necessarily irrational. Faith as defined by modern philosophers is definately irrational :
"Belief without knowledge"
But that's a new definition, and causing a lot of confusion. The proper religious definition of faith (for most religions) is
"Believing because God has revealed it" [to the individual, obviously, as otherwise it's worthless].
Nothing irrational about that.
That goes for all religions that are defined as revelation religions: look up 'theophany'. Setting aside the issue of the actual mechanism of revelation, this qualifies as 'proof' and beats the pants off evidence. In anycase apart from this there is no such thing as proof, except in a loose sense. "The Matrix" is a good illustration of that. It also goes to explain why certain christians tenaciously stick to their position despite all the evidence against them (ie. creationists). Nevertheless.......
It might interest you to know that most christians are not bound to a creationist interpretation of the Bible. The orthodox, catholics, anglicans etc have never been biblical literalists, and are open to the possibility that God might have used metaphor and analogy when telling Moses of the creation of the world. In addition the number 7 ("and God rested on the 7th day") is the biblical number that denotes alot of something, ie. a long time. As a catholic myself I find evolution theologically excellent. The single significant biblical literalist in the catholic world, Origen, was later denounced as a heretic.
Politicians legislate and execute. Judges interpret legislation, and experts (scientists in this case) give counsel to both.
By protesting this legislation the experts are effectively asking for political power since the politicians are only clarifying their natural position in regard to experts. I would rather the experts didn't have such power, even if I don't much like politicians.
Further, if you believe in democracy (and there are plenty of mathematical reasons not to - 'arrows' theorem) then the opinion of the experts needs to be tempered either by subjecting the experts to direct democratic process, like politicians, or having politicians.
So effectively the experts in this case are indirectly calling for a tyranny, ruled by themselves.
The mark of a politician/ruler who has sold out to a lower authority is that who "accept all the recommendations" of the experts. It happens in the UK all the time. In the UK we are becoming a nation of slaves to these experts. And in addition we have the bane of secret courts on our own soil. Tyranny is already upon us.
The only defense I can think of for the scientists/experts to insist on such power is that science gives objective truth. However in the first place that is highly improbable (ref: Karl Popper: falsifiability etc) and in the second, even if 'science' holds objective truth, 'scientists' don't: they are as prone to pride and bribery as anyone.
I've installed firefox on a 600Mhz win98 machine, and it has been working fine for the last year or so. I even got Opera handling the emailing so that I could 'disappear' both IE and Outlook Express to reduce the chance of an infection as the machine has no anti-virus.
My theory is that there is too much division of labour and no one believes in property any longer : so we build bits of things for non-personal entities whose representatives torture us with their praise and saturday barbeques.
The answer might be a certain kind of independence and self-sufficiency. But the laws in my country, and most nearby, are increasingly stacked hugely against such marvelous aspirations.
Absolutely not. There are weak minded people who would otherwise have happy lives except that we decide to indulge ourselves with such games, and they are exposed to the same games. And it tips them over the edge so that they harm themselves and others where they otherwise would not. One of the tasks of the strong is to protect the weak, which we would be failing, and damaging ourselves in ot the bargain. We aren't just talking about a few crazy people made crazier. Yes, they exist and I agree that it would be a poor justification : we are talking about causes also.
The central object of this discussion - the game - has no purpose proportionate to the deaths it may cause. It's like smoking : the reason it is being banned everywhere when only a very few are effected by passive smoking is because it serves no real purpose. It cannot be justified.
If a purposeless game is inciting to violence then there is no defense: it should be banned. Just like smoking: all it takes to justify its banning is 1 potential death.
Neither this game, nor smoking, make for a richer human experience: they are redundant and are substitutes for the real thing, while also causing death. Ban them!
Because of trust: experience goes some way to helping the trust problem. He may have important information but how can I trust the bearer when he is 11 years old.
In work situations wherever possible my preference is for text communication because it is easier for *me* to focus on the task at hand by removing the personal element from the people I am working with.
Yup, when work is what it's all about then it's better to be a robot, or something like one. Henry Ford pioneered that one.
It's a new kind of slavery. Personally I prefer people. Work is going to be for the enjoyment of people....one day.
Freedom comes from the ability to choose, not the choice you make.
That is a particular definition of freedom, and really it is confusing freedom with choice, which are not the same thing.
Ask yourself : if a person has a desire to do something, and to resist and deny that desire would be painful then who is the free-er: the one who is capable of resisting the desire, or the one isn't capable.
One day you'll find yourself in a situation where to do the right thing involves a lot of pain, and then you'll find out how free you are.
The only choice here is whether or not to be free. Your definition of freedom leads straight to slavery. In sexual terms: a slavery to your body.
I was talking about definitions of freedom, specifically self-control. You then started talking about happiness.
In anycase that idea of freedom is seriously lacking. What if the other doesn't want to have sex? Seems like you aren't so free after all. Freedom defined as being able to do whatever you like is a mirage. Self-control is a tried and tested formula of freedom, and the West barely even knows of it any longer. And it isn't easy.
Ironically your formula of freedom is only suited to the weak-willed: those that give in to desire, peer pressure, greater intelligences, status, cheap thrills, easy gratification etc. They are slaves not only to their peers but also of themselves.
When those Islamic nutters threaten the West with being conquered because "you are so weak and soft", unfortunately they are correct. There is barely a straight spine left: even when we love we do it selfishly.
There is nothing wrong with any of that. If you presume the non-existence of God then fine, there's a problem, but that would not be to take the Bible on its own terms, in which case the reader has a bias.
But if God exists, and he says jump, then you better had - after all he is a Lord of infinite power: and the dictator of reality.....if he exists.
But it is unfair to say, at this time, that the bible mandates unjust violence since no one has yet found a way to prove the non-existence of God. And logically it looks to be impossible (ie. a lack of evidence doesn't actually prove that he doesn't exist).
Just to point out what should be obvious : an eye for an eye is usually called 'Justice': a fair exchange. Turn the other cheek, which Jesus Christ asked of his disciples, is called 'Mercy', but it isn't compulsory: most legal systems don't concern themselves with mercy but with justice, though generally the other eye will end up being translated in to jail-time.
Someone tried that rape one before : but I can assure you that it isn't a clear case of rape. Find it and quote it.
Except the only way to know if something incites violence is to wait and see if it incites violence.
I forgot to add: the statement above is pretty silly. If a fellow says to enother : "Go on, rape her", then I don't think much more than common sense, however slippery a concept that is, is needed to see that the fellow is inciting the other.
By your thinkin you would wait until your daughter were raped.
It's very ironic that my post has been moderated flaimbait when it is obviously not, as I don't believe in free speech but the moderator probably thinks that he himself does but is trying to (unjustly) deny me that 'speech'.
Where I live people get beaten up on trains, robbed and occasionally killed. The problem isn't in my head: it is a reality.
However I do agree with certain of your points. Fear, by itself, isn't a reason to ban things, or to remove freedom. But I wasn't talking about fear in isolation, rather I was talking about its causes. It is those that I want removed. Having the fear removed would be a nice side-effect.
There is evidence that contradicts that, as mentioned. Furthermore, there are bound to be a few (or even maybe very many) for whom the fantasy feeds the reality, and for which these games may be the encouragement, or the trigger or even the cause.
Your mental distinction is neat, but it doesn't reflect flesh and blood and brains reality.
It rather depends on how you define freedom. I don't recognise being free to incite violence as a valid freedom. It will inevitably tread on someone elses freedom, thereby exposing the fact that to describe such an allowance as a 'freedom' is actually to contradict oneself.
Further a liberal's idea of freedom is being able to persue one's desires. However most cultures and religions define freedom as over-coming one's own desires, rather than being a slave to them, and also the pressures of the world around you. Who is stronger : the one who gives in to desire and loses their virginity or the one who resists and waits for the arrival of the beloved?
Freedom isn't as simple as you think.
As for tyrants : you should study the mongol empire. It is a fasinating example of the benefit of strong leadership, exchanging one type of freedom to gain another, and arguably a better form. Pity that so many had to die though.
BUT, "personally engaged in acting out the fantasy", I don't believe that this is any more harmfull than movies.
I really had in mind that whereas in a movie one is not necessarily identifying with the source of violence in a game such as this one is explicitly identified with it, maybe to a lesser or greater degree, but nevertheless it is inescapable. True enough, a movie may also encourage one to identify with nastiness, in which case I agree with you, and would ban that too.
And no, I don't believe in free speech. Nor democracy, for that matter.
The bible doesn't encourage rape and unjust violence despite non-religious assertions to the contrary. Why does shooting dogs have to be animal cruelty? 'To Kill a Mockingbird' doesn't compare to violent video games and has more reason to exist than pure 'recreation'. I think perhaps you are frothing at the mouth, like a mad dog.
And thanks for the presumption that I haven't done anything about the thugs in my locality.
It's easy for you to just jump on trains and beat up anyone that looks nasty with a baseball bat: must be your huge physique. I suspect, however, that you are sickly, skinny computer nerd who likes to sound tough : "fucking pussy" indeed. How old are you : 15? Do you have any idea what it is like to live in the real world? We might have been able to expel unsavoury elements from out communities a long time ago, but now they have 'rights', and the existence of police forces allowed for the removal of that power from us.
Would you blame a guy for inciting another to violence? The problem with these games is that there is evidence that they negatively influence us. Further, unlike a film, which is abd enough, we are personally engaged in acting out the fantasy.
There is huge potential for danger in that. I am personally fed up of being afraid on the trains where I live, and would be happy for a lot of things to be banned to try to improve the situation.
These games may be inadvertently inciting violence and worse. It may not be the intent of the developers, but, like smoking, the game isn't necessary and the potential for hazard too great.
It isn't being banned to protect the gamer, but the gamers future victims.
I reckon the reason I cannot trust your opinion is your use of the word 'unleashed'. Sorry, buddy, but I couldn't read past it, and will continue to take Drupal seriously.
Ubuntu does not bother with backwards compatability. Out of commercial necessity Windows goes to great pains (often ours) to stretch in to the past. I myself prefer a system that forces everyone, right from the beginning, to keep themselves up to date, as needed, and thereby enforces the (good) discipline of only ever keeping systems that can always be updated.
But for that you need 'available source' and 'available personel' (as distinct from open source) which carries with it significant cost, for everyone - not just Microsoft. So far history would seem to indicate that lower immediate cost is more immediately attractive, and so backwards compatability, and Windows, is here to stay. In the context of 'lost source', and non-existent personel for proven systems - a reality that the open-source world does not acknowledge - the backwards compatability argument becomes compelling.
And in the meantime comparing Ubuntu and Windows is like comparing pink ladies and egremont russets. I still find the latter slicker and smoother for all its warts.
Slashdot Mirror
Hang on, the faithful aren't necessarily irrational. Faith as defined by modern philosophers is definately irrational :
"Belief without knowledge"
But that's a new definition, and causing a lot of confusion. The proper religious definition of faith (for most religions) is
"Believing because God has revealed it" [to the individual, obviously, as otherwise it's worthless].
Nothing irrational about that.
That goes for all religions that are defined as revelation religions: look up 'theophany'. Setting aside the issue of the actual mechanism of revelation, this qualifies as 'proof' and beats the pants off evidence. In anycase apart from this there is no such thing as proof, except in a loose sense. "The Matrix" is a good illustration of that. It also goes to explain why certain christians tenaciously stick to their position despite all the evidence against them (ie. creationists). Nevertheless.......
It might interest you to know that most christians are not bound to a creationist interpretation of the Bible. The orthodox, catholics, anglicans etc have never been biblical literalists, and are open to the possibility that God might have used metaphor and analogy when telling Moses of the creation of the world. In addition the number 7 ("and God rested on the 7th day") is the biblical number that denotes alot of something, ie. a long time. As a catholic myself I find evolution theologically excellent. The single significant biblical literalist in the catholic world, Origen, was later denounced as a heretic.
...I wouldn't by now.
By protesting this legislation the experts are effectively asking for political power since the politicians are only clarifying their natural position in regard to experts. I would rather the experts didn't have such power, even if I don't much like politicians.
Further, if you believe in democracy (and there are plenty of mathematical reasons not to - 'arrows' theorem) then the opinion of the experts needs to be tempered either by subjecting the experts to direct democratic process, like politicians, or having politicians.
So effectively the experts in this case are indirectly calling for a tyranny, ruled by themselves.
The mark of a politician/ruler who has sold out to a lower authority is that who "accept all the recommendations" of the experts. It happens in the UK all the time. In the UK we are becoming a nation of slaves to these experts. And in addition we have the bane of secret courts on our own soil. Tyranny is already upon us.
The only defense I can think of for the scientists/experts to insist on such power is that science gives objective truth. However in the first place that is highly improbable (ref: Karl Popper: falsifiability etc) and in the second, even if 'science' holds objective truth, 'scientists' don't: they are as prone to pride and bribery as anyone.
"The Windows XP theme seems to be "worth" about 200MB ram and 500MHz CPU."
Wow! That *is* interesting.
I've installed firefox on a 600Mhz win98 machine, and it has been working fine for the last year or so. I even got Opera handling the emailing so that I could 'disappear' both IE and Outlook Express to reduce the chance of an infection as the machine has no anti-virus.
My theory is that there is too much division of labour and no one believes in property any longer : so we build bits of things for non-personal entities whose representatives torture us with their praise and saturday barbeques.
The answer might be a certain kind of independence and self-sufficiency. But the laws in my country, and most nearby, are increasingly stacked hugely against such marvelous aspirations.
The central object of this discussion - the game - has no purpose proportionate to the deaths it may cause. It's like smoking : the reason it is being banned everywhere when only a very few are effected by passive smoking is because it serves no real purpose. It cannot be justified.
If a purposeless game is inciting to violence then there is no defense: it should be banned. Just like smoking: all it takes to justify its banning is 1 potential death.
Neither this game, nor smoking, make for a richer human experience: they are redundant and are substitutes for the real thing, while also causing death. Ban them!
Because of trust: experience goes some way to helping the trust problem. He may have important information but how can I trust the bearer when he is 11 years old.
Yup, when work is what it's all about then it's better to be a robot, or something like one. Henry Ford pioneered that one.
It's a new kind of slavery. Personally I prefer people. Work is going to be for the enjoyment of people....one day.
That is a particular definition of freedom, and really it is confusing freedom with choice, which are not the same thing.
Ask yourself : if a person has a desire to do something, and to resist and deny that desire would be painful then who is the free-er: the one who is capable of resisting the desire, or the one isn't capable.
One day you'll find yourself in a situation where to do the right thing involves a lot of pain, and then you'll find out how free you are.
The only choice here is whether or not to be free. Your definition of freedom leads straight to slavery. In sexual terms: a slavery to your body.
But incitement and free-speech have been pitched against each other by the supremes, and so, at least in the US, the issue is clouded.
In anycase that idea of freedom is seriously lacking. What if the other doesn't want to have sex? Seems like you aren't so free after all. Freedom defined as being able to do whatever you like is a mirage. Self-control is a tried and tested formula of freedom, and the West barely even knows of it any longer. And it isn't easy.
Ironically your formula of freedom is only suited to the weak-willed: those that give in to desire, peer pressure, greater intelligences, status, cheap thrills, easy gratification etc. They are slaves not only to their peers but also of themselves.
When those Islamic nutters threaten the West with being conquered because "you are so weak and soft", unfortunately they are correct. There is barely a straight spine left: even when we love we do it selfishly.
But if God exists, and he says jump, then you better had - after all he is a Lord of infinite power: and the dictator of reality. ....if he exists.
But it is unfair to say, at this time, that the bible mandates unjust violence since no one has yet found a way to prove the non-existence of God. And logically it looks to be impossible (ie. a lack of evidence doesn't actually prove that he doesn't exist).
Just to point out what should be obvious : an eye for an eye is usually called 'Justice': a fair exchange. Turn the other cheek, which Jesus Christ asked of his disciples, is called 'Mercy', but it isn't compulsory: most legal systems don't concern themselves with mercy but with justice, though generally the other eye will end up being translated in to jail-time.
Someone tried that rape one before : but I can assure you that it isn't a clear case of rape. Find it and quote it.
I forgot to add: the statement above is pretty silly. If a fellow says to enother : "Go on, rape her", then I don't think much more than common sense, however slippery a concept that is, is needed to see that the fellow is inciting the other.
By your thinkin you would wait until your daughter were raped.
No it isn't: it is who is free and who isn't free. You've changed the subject.
The rest of your reply would appear to have completely ignored what I said about freedom: who are you replying to exactly?
I love it.
However I do agree with certain of your points. Fear, by itself, isn't a reason to ban things, or to remove freedom. But I wasn't talking about fear in isolation, rather I was talking about its causes. It is those that I want removed. Having the fear removed would be a nice side-effect.
Your mental distinction is neat, but it doesn't reflect flesh and blood and brains reality.
Further a liberal's idea of freedom is being able to persue one's desires. However most cultures and religions define freedom as over-coming one's own desires, rather than being a slave to them, and also the pressures of the world around you. Who is stronger : the one who gives in to desire and loses their virginity or the one who resists and waits for the arrival of the beloved?
Freedom isn't as simple as you think.
As for tyrants : you should study the mongol empire. It is a fasinating example of the benefit of strong leadership, exchanging one type of freedom to gain another, and arguably a better form. Pity that so many had to die though.
I really had in mind that whereas in a movie one is not necessarily identifying with the source of violence in a game such as this one is explicitly identified with it, maybe to a lesser or greater degree, but nevertheless it is inescapable. True enough, a movie may also encourage one to identify with nastiness, in which case I agree with you, and would ban that too.
And no, I don't believe in free speech. Nor democracy, for that matter.
The bible doesn't encourage rape and unjust violence despite non-religious assertions to the contrary. Why does shooting dogs have to be animal cruelty? 'To Kill a Mockingbird' doesn't compare to violent video games and has more reason to exist than pure 'recreation'. I think perhaps you are frothing at the mouth, like a mad dog. And thanks for the presumption that I haven't done anything about the thugs in my locality. It's easy for you to just jump on trains and beat up anyone that looks nasty with a baseball bat: must be your huge physique. I suspect, however, that you are sickly, skinny computer nerd who likes to sound tough : "fucking pussy" indeed. How old are you : 15? Do you have any idea what it is like to live in the real world? We might have been able to expel unsavoury elements from out communities a long time ago, but now they have 'rights', and the existence of police forces allowed for the removal of that power from us.
Would you blame a guy for inciting another to violence? The problem with these games is that there is evidence that they negatively influence us. Further, unlike a film, which is abd enough, we are personally engaged in acting out the fantasy.
There is huge potential for danger in that. I am personally fed up of being afraid on the trains where I live, and would be happy for a lot of things to be banned to try to improve the situation.
These games may be inadvertently inciting violence and worse. It may not be the intent of the developers, but, like smoking, the game isn't necessary and the potential for hazard too great.
It isn't being banned to protect the gamer, but the gamers future victims.
I reckon the reason I cannot trust your opinion is your use of the word 'unleashed'. Sorry, buddy, but I couldn't read past it, and will continue to take Drupal seriously.
Ubuntu does not bother with backwards compatability. Out of commercial necessity Windows goes to great pains (often ours) to stretch in to the past. I myself prefer a system that forces everyone, right from the beginning, to keep themselves up to date, as needed, and thereby enforces the (good) discipline of only ever keeping systems that can always be updated.
But for that you need 'available source' and 'available personel' (as distinct from open source) which carries with it significant cost, for everyone - not just Microsoft. So far history would seem to indicate that lower immediate cost is more immediately attractive, and so backwards compatability, and Windows, is here to stay. In the context of 'lost source', and non-existent personel for proven systems - a reality that the open-source world does not acknowledge - the backwards compatability argument becomes compelling.
And in the meantime comparing Ubuntu and Windows is like comparing pink ladies and egremont russets. I still find the latter slicker and smoother for all its warts.
What about poison? Another lot of weird chemicals that even the flame of Anor couldn't destroy.