Why shouldn't you be allowed to vote? Because youve proven to society that you make bad descisions
And what gives you the right to say that they will make a "bad decision" at the ballot box? And in any case, I have a serious problem with removing someone's right to vote. Even ex-cons are entitled to political representation.
Of course, given the fundamentalism shown by the evangelical Christian movement in the US, I'm not sure how grown up it is
Well, I was going to point out that there aren't many Christian suicide bombers and even the evangelical movement obeys the law, but then I remembered this guy. Still, by and large, the evangelical movement has (so far) limited itself to non-violent means of persuasion. They scream very loudly and try to convince lawmakers to legislate their views. The former is definitely their right in the United States -- the latter is also their right, until such legislation violates the separation of church and state.
or so maybe it will have mellowed as much as Christianity has
I don't think time has mellowed Christianity as much as technological and societal progress has. Christians would probably be just as pissed off as Muslims if the geopolitical situation was reversed. Granted, there aren't many (any?) passages in the Bible that would condone suicide attacks, but it's not a far reach to see people falling for extremist doctrine (of any faith) if their lives were that shitty.
Purge the prison system of the MILLIONS of Americans who were WRONGLY locked-up on drug offenses
Indeed. I find it depressing that I can earn a longer sentence for selling you some weed (even though you are presumably an adult and made an educated decision to use it) then I can for raping my next door neighbor. I find it even more depressing that I can earn any sentence for merely using or possessing said illegal substance.
But we do have to be pragmatic.. I mean, Parole is designed not only to give the "rehabilitated" a second (third, fourth..) chance, but also to act as a swap file for the prison system.
Yeah, I do understand that. I guess the question is one of priorities. Should rapists and child molesters really get "swapped" out? As you said, release the drug offenders and we'd probably have lots of room. Give 'em a life sentence with the option of parole and if they are deemed to be low-risk, release them and have a parole officer keep watch over them. Notifications and residency restrictions are counter-productive because it makes it that much harder for them to re-join soceity.
Instead, all we do is punish them after the fact for committing a crime
Yes. And why is punishing them with a life sentence not an option? I can think of few crimes more horrific then rape and/or child molestation. One involves the forceful removal from an individual of his or her right to choose their sexual/reproductive partner. The other involves the abuse of a child to satisfy the desires of an adult.
Where we have no way to manage these men who are very likely to commit their crime again once released
Then don't release them. Problem solved. I have no problem with a life sentence for a child molester. Hell, I'd have no problem with a death sentence for them either, other then my general opposition to the death penalty (which stems from seeing people wrongly convicted -- not from any moral opposition).
There is no real good answer other then actually curing the man of his core issues that cause this behavior which is not something we have designed our system to do at all
I'd agree that there is no real answer. But I still have a serious problem with people being punished after they have served their sentence. I have a serious problem with the unintended side-effects (teenagers winding up on these lists because of age of consent laws for starters). I also think some of the laws (residency restrictions) are unconstitutional and anti-American, but I'm probably in the minority there.
but as a parent I like having tools like this because I don't trust the police to protect my family anymore. Their hands are tied with red tape
What should the police do about this, exactly? I think the fault lies with our criminal justice system that often sees sex offenders serving less time then non violent drug users/dealers. The police did their jobs, otherwise the individuals we are talking about never would have been caught in the first place.
I'm reasonably sure my social security number is not considered of public record.
No, it's not, because soceity recognizes that there are legitimate reasons for withholding it, even from public records. I filed bankruptcy a few years ago -- if you were so inclined you could go pull every single document and fling from my case off PACER -- but the SSN is redacted from all of them.
Likewise, I'd like to think that if you pay your debt to soceity (i.e: you aren't on parole or in prison) then soceity shouldn't judge you for your past actions. I'm also a member of the minority that thinks it's abhorrent to deny convicted felon's the right to vote -- after they have completed their sentences. Why the hell should you be disenfranchised from soceity for the rest of your life if the crime wasn't harsh enough to warrant a life sentence?
It's simply another symptom of American fear and ignorance about sex
I was with you up until then. I don't think this has anything to do with American's puritan attitudes towards sex, which in any case I think is overstated because the puritan's just happen to be louder then the rest of us.
This has everything to do with politicians exploiting a legitimate fear (c'mon, who with kids isn't afraid of child molesters?) of the public to distract them from other issues. Here in New York State, our sex offender registration act passed right around the time the state budget was late for the 20th or 21st year in a row. The year after that when the budget was late they managed to find the time to outlaw cellular phone use while driving. Same shit, different issue.
Shame on us
Yes, shame on us for letting these sick bastards out of prison to begin with. C'mon! Why the hell should rapists get out of prison? Short of murder I can't think of a worse crime. And child molesters? Somebody who takes advantage of a child to satisfy their own personal desires? They should rot in prison for the rest of their miserable lives. That would kind of make these lists a moot point and remove my main objection -- punishing someone after they have served their debt to soceity.
Note: I agree with you on the teenager thing -- it's absolute bullshit that two teenagers having consensual sex can be punished under the law because one or both of them are underage -- but the 30 year old man having sex with a 10 year old? He deserves nothing but contempt.
I think all public records should be easily accessible and searchable.
Cool! Do I have your permission then to go into your DMV file and obtain your social security number and address?
The point being of course that even public databases can have reasonable privacy protections in place. I fail to see why someones criminal record should be accessible to all after they have paid their debt to soceity. In the specific case of sex offenders, if they are so dangerous that we have to notify people when they move into the neighborhood, then why the fuck are they being released from prison?
Either they are that dangerous, in which case lock 'em up and throw away the key, or they aren't, in which case, WTF is up with being punished after you get out of prison?
I'd tend to be with the lock 'em up and throw away the key crowd as far as child molesters and rapists go.... but other sex "offenders" (teenagers having sex when one or both are under the age of consent) are also finding themselves on these lists. I don't see how any reasonable person can condone that.
Following the societal norm of the time is no excuse for unethical behavior let alone crime
Crime? How does crime enter into this discussion? What crimes did Jefferson commit?
Our acts are inherently good or bad
Define good and bad. One man's hero (the solider fighting in Vietnam) is another man's baby-killer. One man's terrorist (the guys who hijacked the jets on 9/11) is another man's freedom fighter/martyr. At the end of the day only society as a whole can be the judge of what is good and bad. Given that, I think it's pretty stupid to condemn somebody like Jefferson who was well within the accepted standards of normality for his day and age. Should we also condemn the ancient Greek philosophers? After all, if they were around today, most of them would be arrested for child molestation....
You claim morality is relative based on a difference of opinion (on the death penalty, on abortion), but that's assuming no one is wrong...
I'm all ears. Who is "wrong" when it comes to abortion and capital punishment?
that doesn't mean the physical law of gravity is relative
Gravity and morality are two completely different things. Gravity is a scientific theory that can be tested against. Morality defines how human beings interact with each other and societies ideas of "right and wrong" changes over time.
Social norms are relative, but the core of morality (not killing, not stealing...)
I can envision scenarios in which both killing and stealing are justified. That's why morality can't be codified. It isn't absolute. Would you kill to defend your children? Your spouse? Your parents? Would you steal to feed any of the above if you were poor? Would you steal medicines you needed but couldn't afford?
unique nature of man as a rational animal
Oh, c'mon! Man is rational because he has the luxury of being rational. Take a human being, remove the benefits and protection of civilization and throw him into a survival kill-or-be-killed situation and you'll see how quickly he stops being "rational". Beyond that, it's notexactlyhard to find examples in history of human beings being "less then rational" (to put it mildly). In fact, we often act worse then animals, as I'm hard pressed to think of an animal kingdom equivalent of the modern day serial killer.
I think sexual selection nowadays is a lot more complex than smart guy/dumb guy or good looking/bad looking.
Definitely. I was just looking to provide some starting points for discussion and dispel the myth of the sex starved/. junkie. I'm guessing that most/.'ers aren't as unappealing to the opposite sex as the stereotypes would have us believe.
All you're saying is that the nerd gets stuck raising the jock's kid though. That's a quite common and effective strategy for the female, but it's not good for the nerd.
Yeah, if only there was a way to know if the kid was yours or not.
Granted, that was (is?) a fairly effective strategy for the female of the species. But even evolution has provided for this -- I recall reading a theory somewhere that said this is why children often look like their fathers (at least as far as facial features go). And technology (the aforementioned link) is also a great tool.
Carried even further into the future, the extremely-dumb could never take care of themselves on their own. As soon as the extremely-smart decide to stop carrying them, they would be dead by their own incompetence.
Don't forget that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. If the stupid people outnumber the rest of us then we will be carrying them for as long as they are smart enough to vote.
Getting laid isn't what matters from an evolution standpoint, having children is
Agreed. And that's why I pointed out that the jock will likely "win" the one night stand at the bar, but the geek will likely "win" the marriage and the right to reproduce.
If quotes from the quran don't define islam, then what does ?
Ok, let's give that a try and see what happens.
"If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death" (Leviticus 20:9)
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10)
"If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house." (Deuteronomy 22:20-1)
"Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35)
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother..." (Matthew 10:34-35)
"Have you allowed all the women to live?" he [Moses] asked them.... "Now... kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." (Numbers 31:1-18)
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son... Then shall his father and his mother... bring him out unto the elders of his city... And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die." (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)
Do I really need to go on? The point here isn't to trash Christianity either. I'm attempting to point out that Christianity outgrew most of this stuff. One can hope that Islam will do the same and that a small number of violent extremists don't speak for all one billion of it's followers.
Of course, the more I read your posts, the more I'm starting to think that you are probably just a troll. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting something constructive.
I think at least a couple of slashdotters get laid, proving there is still a lot of female desperation out there. Unless of course evolution is favouring pale bodies radiated only by computer screens.
I know your probably only trying to be funny, but in all seriousness (stereotypes notwithstanding) most slashdotters are probably extremely attractive to the opposite sex.
Going on a primal level, the female seeks out a mate that can provide for her and her offspring. In times past this translated into the tough brute that could protect her from harm (predators and other males) and provide food/shelter. In modern times this translates into someone who is well off financially. In modern society the typical/. geek likely has a higher earning potential then the typical jock.
I'd also make the claim that intelligence is a huge aphrodisiac for both sexes. I love a woman with a brain on her head. Nothing is more disappointing to start talking to an attractive chick only to realize that she's a complete ditz. Granted, attractive idiots might be fun for awhile (for both men and women), but they probably aren't the person you are going to marry and have kids with.
You are a little naive surely - do you honestly believe women are now physically attracted to skinny/overweight pale men, rather than tall/strong/powerful men?
Umm, I didn't say that. The GP said that being fat won't let you laid. I said that's not 100% accurate. I know lots of fat people (hint: I'm one of them, BMI 31) getting laid. It's definitely not an advantage -- though I'd posit that being an overweight male (within reason) is more attractive to the opposite sex then being a skinny weakling. I don't know many women that go for anorexic males. I know of no women that go for men who weigh less then they do;)
In any case, most of my post was centered around the geek/jock battle for females and I stand by those statements. In this day and age the geek has as decent of a chance of getting that female (for the long term) as the jock does.
Uhh, I think it's going to take a little bit more then a hurricane to wipe out the human race. Short of the unexpected (major impact event) what event do you see happening that has a legitimate shot at wiping out the human race?
Even climate change won't be able to do it. It may change the World such that we won't be able to produce enough food to sustain the current population, but it's not going to change the World such that we won't be able to produce enough food to sustain a viable genetic pool. I'm quite sure I wouldn't want to live in such a World (worldwide famine would likely cause endless war until the global population was cut down to size) but the human race as a whole would survive.
And any muslim who doesn't want war is not a muslim (quran 2:219), this is to be interpreted literally (quran 3:7). Also did you know that you are "less than an animal" to any muslim (quran 8:55, again whoever disagrees with this is not a muslim, so speaks allah)
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Can I say that any Christian who engages in pre-martial sex is not a Christian? Maybe any Christian that charges interest on a loan isn't a Christian. And don't even get me started about all those people working on the sabbath....
You aren't going to isolate extremism by pulling those quotes out of the quran. You isolate extremism by convincing the average Muslim on the street that democracy has more to offer him then the Mullahs. And the way you do that is by treating them more as human beings and less as the people who exist to pump our oil.
Oey! I have my problems with Islam too (religion for that matter...) but I'm not ready yet to call for the war of civilizations that the likes of Osama Bin Ladin so desperately want to see.
All of what you say is true, but it's still unacceptable to not provide at least a basic provision for the cellular network to not operate during something as simple as a power outage.
I don't blame the carriers for my cell phone not working during Katrina (had I lived there). I do blame them for my cell phone not working during the 2003 blackout (this did happen to me). When companies with critical infrastructure and multi billion dollar market caps can't buy something as simple as UPS I start to get a little worried.
For better or worse, wireless service will largely replace the landline network for voice service. It needs to be treated as a utility and held to the same standards of reliability.
and since cellphone networks can easily be overwhelmed in emergencies where everybody gets on the phone at once
That's a design decision, not a limitation of the technology. They could provide enough slots on the network to handle that amount of load, they just don't want to spend the money on the required equipment (and spectrum licenses) that it would entail. It's also not unique to cellular -- POTS can max out just as easily as cellular, as anybody who has ever heard the words "all circuits are busy" knows.
It's also stupidity on the part of the masses -- during the 9/11 attacks I voluntarily restricted my calling activity. The few calls that I made were all local (i.e: within the same exchange) calls that shouldn't have imposed a load on the larger telephone network. I can understand pulling out the phone if you have family in the attacked (or disaster) area, but is it really necessary to call all your friends and family can say "Can you believe this?" over and over?
Umm, well obviously that's not 100% accurate, and in any case, how do you explain this.
sexual selection is churning along just fine, and it the geek that will not inherit the earth.:)
Says who? It may be the stereotypical jock that gets all the hot chicks at the bar for one night stands. But the geek stands a decent chance at getting the hot chick to marry him because the geek is stands a better chance at being gainfully employed and has the resources (money) to provide for that chick and her offspring.
In times past the jock would have won that "battle" (strength == ability to hunt and provide food), but in the modern age the playing field is slanted more towards the intellectual. Granted, some jocks can obviously provide for their families (this guy doesn't have any money issues...) but you can't deny that modern society rewards the typical geek more then the typical jock.
Well, I'm going to look at this from two different sides to try and be fair, but more then likely I'll just wind up pissing everybody off and being modded down all the same;)
because of it being an essential part of the muslim religion to execute critics
The obvious PC answer to this is that it's also an "essential" part of Judeo-Christianity to stone adulterers to death. I could also point out the various people that have used Christianity as a justification to deny equal rights to gays. Islam also has no history of being used for racial oppression that I'm aware of. Contrast that to Christianity, where many thought (and some extremists still do) that the African race was cursed with the mark of Ham and destined to be servants to the descendants of Japheth (i.e: Europeans).
All of the above is fair criticism of Christianity. But it's also fair to say that modern Christianity seems to be a lot less violent then modern Islam. Consider the fallout over those Danish cartoons. Yes, Islam says that you can't make idols of Muhammad. But that doesn't give you the right to override free speech and force the rest of us to follow your religious restrictions. That would be like Israel trying to tell the rest of the World that we can't eat pork.
Also consider the various death threats and attacks carried out in the name of Muhammad. Do I think this is representative of the whole faith? Certainly not. But it does happen and a lot more often then similar acts (in modern times) conducted in Jesus' name.
In muslim countries it is not an understatement to say that critical opinions will get you killed
You'd have done better to say "in certain muslim countries...." or even "in most muslim countries..." because I can think of at least a few (Turkey comes to mind) where this isn't the case. One would assume that if the Turks have been able to successfully build a secular representative democracy that the rest of the Muslim World will be able to do so sooner or later.
Then again, I don't know enough about the Muslim World to know if they even have democratic leanings and traditions and Turkey could be the exception rather then the rule. The Turks have certainly been influenced by proximity to Europe and have been heavily influenced by Western culture, going all the way back in time to the ancient Greeks. And Western culture has had democratic traditions and practices going all the way back to ancient Athens. Even during the age of kings there were democratic leanings, such as the Magna Carta, the rise of the Common Law, the French revolution, etc, etc.
I suppose only time will tell if secular democracy is compatible with Islam or not. The Western World (*cough* America *cough*) could certainly help it along by treating them less as a source of oil and more as equals. We could certainly help it along by trying to fairly mediate between the Palestinians and Israelis. We could help it along by adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy. They could help it along by renouncing terrorism and violence. They could help it along by understanding some of the concerns on this side of the fence (like why a nuclear armed Iran scares the hell of everybody). They could help it along by understanding why the Western tradition of free speech allows the publication of things they might deem to be offensive or blasphemous.
Bottom line: There seems to be lots of blame to go around on both sides here.
What do you mean by 'judge'? Because the GP seemed ready to condemn Jefferson because he owned slaves and the GP assumed that makes him a hypocrite (based on the wording of the US Declaration of Independence). I fail to see how you can condemn someone for following the societal norms of the time. Beyond that, the GP is either misinformed or choose to cherry-pick from history, because Jefferson did actually speak out against slavery.
the fact that accepted moral norms varied from culture to culture does not imply that morality itself is relative
Morality is relative. Some people think that capital punishment is just. Others think it's abhorrent and no civilized society should practice it. Ditto for abortion. Ditto for warfare. Some people think it's abhorrent to use animals for food, clothing and scientific purposes -- others see it as just fine and a natural extension of mankind being at the top of the food chain. I could go on all day but I trust that you get the point.
Morality can't be codified like a book of laws and regulations.
What we need in this country is more genuine shareholder activism
Right on! There's a chapter in Alan Greenspan's new book where he bemoans the fact that the modern Board of Directors has been reduced to a rubber-stamp for the CEO. In times past the Board would take an active role in managing the company and looking out for the best interests of the shareholders. Today they are little more then a rubber-stamp for the CEO. In fact, most of them are appointed by the CEO and probably spend their off-hours playing golf and drinking beer with him.
He didn't see a solution for this though. And I'd like to think he's a fairly smart guy when it comes to economics.
Slashdot Mirror
And what gives you the right to say that they will make a "bad decision" at the ballot box? And in any case, I have a serious problem with removing someone's right to vote. Even ex-cons are entitled to political representation.
Well, I was going to point out that there aren't many Christian suicide bombers and even the evangelical movement obeys the law, but then I remembered this guy. Still, by and large, the evangelical movement has (so far) limited itself to non-violent means of persuasion. They scream very loudly and try to convince lawmakers to legislate their views. The former is definitely their right in the United States -- the latter is also their right, until such legislation violates the separation of church and state.
or so maybe it will have mellowed as much as Christianity hasI don't think time has mellowed Christianity as much as technological and societal progress has. Christians would probably be just as pissed off as Muslims if the geopolitical situation was reversed. Granted, there aren't many (any?) passages in the Bible that would condone suicide attacks, but it's not a far reach to see people falling for extremist doctrine (of any faith) if their lives were that shitty.
Indeed. I find it depressing that I can earn a longer sentence for selling you some weed (even though you are presumably an adult and made an educated decision to use it) then I can for raping my next door neighbor. I find it even more depressing that I can earn any sentence for merely using or possessing said illegal substance.
But we do have to be pragmatic.. I mean, Parole is designed not only to give the "rehabilitated" a second (third, fourth..) chance, but also to act as a swap file for the prison system.Yeah, I do understand that. I guess the question is one of priorities. Should rapists and child molesters really get "swapped" out? As you said, release the drug offenders and we'd probably have lots of room. Give 'em a life sentence with the option of parole and if they are deemed to be low-risk, release them and have a parole officer keep watch over them. Notifications and residency restrictions are counter-productive because it makes it that much harder for them to re-join soceity.
Are you sure about that?
Instead, all we do is punish them after the fact for committing a crimeYes. And why is punishing them with a life sentence not an option? I can think of few crimes more horrific then rape and/or child molestation. One involves the forceful removal from an individual of his or her right to choose their sexual/reproductive partner. The other involves the abuse of a child to satisfy the desires of an adult.
Where we have no way to manage these men who are very likely to commit their crime again once releasedThen don't release them. Problem solved. I have no problem with a life sentence for a child molester. Hell, I'd have no problem with a death sentence for them either, other then my general opposition to the death penalty (which stems from seeing people wrongly convicted -- not from any moral opposition).
There is no real good answer other then actually curing the man of his core issues that cause this behavior which is not something we have designed our system to do at allI'd agree that there is no real answer. But I still have a serious problem with people being punished after they have served their sentence. I have a serious problem with the unintended side-effects (teenagers winding up on these lists because of age of consent laws for starters). I also think some of the laws (residency restrictions) are unconstitutional and anti-American, but I'm probably in the minority there.
but as a parent I like having tools like this because I don't trust the police to protect my family anymore. Their hands are tied with red tapeWhat should the police do about this, exactly? I think the fault lies with our criminal justice system that often sees sex offenders serving less time then non violent drug users/dealers. The police did their jobs, otherwise the individuals we are talking about never would have been caught in the first place.
Touché
No, it's not, because soceity recognizes that there are legitimate reasons for withholding it, even from public records. I filed bankruptcy a few years ago -- if you were so inclined you could go pull every single document and fling from my case off PACER -- but the SSN is redacted from all of them.
Likewise, I'd like to think that if you pay your debt to soceity (i.e: you aren't on parole or in prison) then soceity shouldn't judge you for your past actions. I'm also a member of the minority that thinks it's abhorrent to deny convicted felon's the right to vote -- after they have completed their sentences. Why the hell should you be disenfranchised from soceity for the rest of your life if the crime wasn't harsh enough to warrant a life sentence?
I was with you up until then. I don't think this has anything to do with American's puritan attitudes towards sex, which in any case I think is overstated because the puritan's just happen to be louder then the rest of us.
This has everything to do with politicians exploiting a legitimate fear (c'mon, who with kids isn't afraid of child molesters?) of the public to distract them from other issues. Here in New York State, our sex offender registration act passed right around the time the state budget was late for the 20th or 21st year in a row. The year after that when the budget was late they managed to find the time to outlaw cellular phone use while driving. Same shit, different issue.
Shame on usYes, shame on us for letting these sick bastards out of prison to begin with. C'mon! Why the hell should rapists get out of prison? Short of murder I can't think of a worse crime. And child molesters? Somebody who takes advantage of a child to satisfy their own personal desires? They should rot in prison for the rest of their miserable lives. That would kind of make these lists a moot point and remove my main objection -- punishing someone after they have served their debt to soceity.
Note: I agree with you on the teenager thing -- it's absolute bullshit that two teenagers having consensual sex can be punished under the law because one or both of them are underage -- but the 30 year old man having sex with a 10 year old? He deserves nothing but contempt.
Yes, because we all know that the police never abuse their authority. Any story suggesting that they have done so is obviously fake.
Cool! Do I have your permission then to go into your DMV file and obtain your social security number and address?
The point being of course that even public databases can have reasonable privacy protections in place. I fail to see why someones criminal record should be accessible to all after they have paid their debt to soceity. In the specific case of sex offenders, if they are so dangerous that we have to notify people when they move into the neighborhood, then why the fuck are they being released from prison?
Either they are that dangerous, in which case lock 'em up and throw away the key, or they aren't, in which case, WTF is up with being punished after you get out of prison?
I'd tend to be with the lock 'em up and throw away the key crowd as far as child molesters and rapists go.... but other sex "offenders" (teenagers having sex when one or both are under the age of consent) are also finding themselves on these lists. I don't see how any reasonable person can condone that.
Crime? How does crime enter into this discussion? What crimes did Jefferson commit?
Our acts are inherently good or badDefine good and bad. One man's hero (the solider fighting in Vietnam) is another man's baby-killer. One man's terrorist (the guys who hijacked the jets on 9/11) is another man's freedom fighter/martyr. At the end of the day only society as a whole can be the judge of what is good and bad. Given that, I think it's pretty stupid to condemn somebody like Jefferson who was well within the accepted standards of normality for his day and age. Should we also condemn the ancient Greek philosophers? After all, if they were around today, most of them would be arrested for child molestation....
You claim morality is relative based on a difference of opinion (on the death penalty, on abortion), but that's assuming no one is wrong...I'm all ears. Who is "wrong" when it comes to abortion and capital punishment?
that doesn't mean the physical law of gravity is relativeGravity and morality are two completely different things. Gravity is a scientific theory that can be tested against. Morality defines how human beings interact with each other and societies ideas of "right and wrong" changes over time.
Social norms are relative, but the core of morality (not killing, not stealing...)I can envision scenarios in which both killing and stealing are justified. That's why morality can't be codified. It isn't absolute. Would you kill to defend your children? Your spouse? Your parents? Would you steal to feed any of the above if you were poor? Would you steal medicines you needed but couldn't afford?
unique nature of man as a rational animalOh, c'mon! Man is rational because he has the luxury of being rational. Take a human being, remove the benefits and protection of civilization and throw him into a survival kill-or-be-killed situation and you'll see how quickly he stops being "rational". Beyond that, it's not exactly hard to find examples in history of human beings being "less then rational" (to put it mildly). In fact, we often act worse then animals, as I'm hard pressed to think of an animal kingdom equivalent of the modern day serial killer.
Cum sponges? ;)
I think sexual selection nowadays is a lot more complex than smart guy/dumb guy or good looking/bad looking.Definitely. I was just looking to provide some starting points for discussion and dispel the myth of the sex starved /. junkie. I'm guessing that most /.'ers aren't as unappealing to the opposite sex as the stereotypes would have us believe.
Yeah, if only there was a way to know if the kid was yours or not.
Granted, that was (is?) a fairly effective strategy for the female of the species. But even evolution has provided for this -- I recall reading a theory somewhere that said this is why children often look like their fathers (at least as far as facial features go). And technology (the aforementioned link) is also a great tool.
Don't forget that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. If the stupid people outnumber the rest of us then we will be carrying them for as long as they are smart enough to vote.
Agreed. And that's why I pointed out that the jock will likely "win" the one night stand at the bar, but the geek will likely "win" the marriage and the right to reproduce.
Ok, let's give that a try and see what happens.
Do I really need to go on? The point here isn't to trash Christianity either. I'm attempting to point out that Christianity outgrew most of this stuff. One can hope that Islam will do the same and that a small number of violent extremists don't speak for all one billion of it's followers.
Of course, the more I read your posts, the more I'm starting to think that you are probably just a troll. Feel free to prove me wrong by posting something constructive.
I know your probably only trying to be funny, but in all seriousness (stereotypes notwithstanding) most slashdotters are probably extremely attractive to the opposite sex.
Going on a primal level, the female seeks out a mate that can provide for her and her offspring. In times past this translated into the tough brute that could protect her from harm (predators and other males) and provide food/shelter. In modern times this translates into someone who is well off financially. In modern society the typical /. geek likely has a higher earning potential then the typical jock.
I'd also make the claim that intelligence is a huge aphrodisiac for both sexes. I love a woman with a brain on her head. Nothing is more disappointing to start talking to an attractive chick only to realize that she's a complete ditz. Granted, attractive idiots might be fun for awhile (for both men and women), but they probably aren't the person you are going to marry and have kids with.
Umm, I didn't say that. The GP said that being fat won't let you laid. I said that's not 100% accurate. I know lots of fat people (hint: I'm one of them, BMI 31) getting laid. It's definitely not an advantage -- though I'd posit that being an overweight male (within reason) is more attractive to the opposite sex then being a skinny weakling. I don't know many women that go for anorexic males. I know of no women that go for men who weigh less then they do ;)
In any case, most of my post was centered around the geek/jock battle for females and I stand by those statements. In this day and age the geek has as decent of a chance of getting that female (for the long term) as the jock does.
Uhh, I think it's going to take a little bit more then a hurricane to wipe out the human race. Short of the unexpected (major impact event) what event do you see happening that has a legitimate shot at wiping out the human race?
Even climate change won't be able to do it. It may change the World such that we won't be able to produce enough food to sustain the current population, but it's not going to change the World such that we won't be able to produce enough food to sustain a viable genetic pool. I'm quite sure I wouldn't want to live in such a World (worldwide famine would likely cause endless war until the global population was cut down to size) but the human race as a whole would survive.
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? Can I say that any Christian who engages in pre-martial sex is not a Christian? Maybe any Christian that charges interest on a loan isn't a Christian. And don't even get me started about all those people working on the sabbath....
You aren't going to isolate extremism by pulling those quotes out of the quran. You isolate extremism by convincing the average Muslim on the street that democracy has more to offer him then the Mullahs. And the way you do that is by treating them more as human beings and less as the people who exist to pump our oil.
Oey! I have my problems with Islam too (religion for that matter...) but I'm not ready yet to call for the war of civilizations that the likes of Osama Bin Ladin so desperately want to see.
All of what you say is true, but it's still unacceptable to not provide at least a basic provision for the cellular network to not operate during something as simple as a power outage.
I don't blame the carriers for my cell phone not working during Katrina (had I lived there). I do blame them for my cell phone not working during the 2003 blackout (this did happen to me). When companies with critical infrastructure and multi billion dollar market caps can't buy something as simple as UPS I start to get a little worried.
For better or worse, wireless service will largely replace the landline network for voice service. It needs to be treated as a utility and held to the same standards of reliability.
That's a design decision, not a limitation of the technology. They could provide enough slots on the network to handle that amount of load, they just don't want to spend the money on the required equipment (and spectrum licenses) that it would entail. It's also not unique to cellular -- POTS can max out just as easily as cellular, as anybody who has ever heard the words "all circuits are busy" knows.
It's also stupidity on the part of the masses -- during the 9/11 attacks I voluntarily restricted my calling activity. The few calls that I made were all local (i.e: within the same exchange) calls that shouldn't have imposed a load on the larger telephone network. I can understand pulling out the phone if you have family in the attacked (or disaster) area, but is it really necessary to call all your friends and family can say "Can you believe this?" over and over?
Umm, well obviously that's not 100% accurate, and in any case, how do you explain this.
sexual selection is churning along just fine, and it the geek that will not inherit the earth.Says who? It may be the stereotypical jock that gets all the hot chicks at the bar for one night stands. But the geek stands a decent chance at getting the hot chick to marry him because the geek is stands a better chance at being gainfully employed and has the resources (money) to provide for that chick and her offspring.
In times past the jock would have won that "battle" (strength == ability to hunt and provide food), but in the modern age the playing field is slanted more towards the intellectual. Granted, some jocks can obviously provide for their families (this guy doesn't have any money issues...) but you can't deny that modern society rewards the typical geek more then the typical jock.
Well, I'm going to look at this from two different sides to try and be fair, but more then likely I'll just wind up pissing everybody off and being modded down all the same ;)
because of it being an essential part of the muslim religion to execute criticsThe obvious PC answer to this is that it's also an "essential" part of Judeo-Christianity to stone adulterers to death. I could also point out the various people that have used Christianity as a justification to deny equal rights to gays. Islam also has no history of being used for racial oppression that I'm aware of. Contrast that to Christianity, where many thought (and some extremists still do) that the African race was cursed with the mark of Ham and destined to be servants to the descendants of Japheth (i.e: Europeans).
All of the above is fair criticism of Christianity. But it's also fair to say that modern Christianity seems to be a lot less violent then modern Islam. Consider the fallout over those Danish cartoons. Yes, Islam says that you can't make idols of Muhammad. But that doesn't give you the right to override free speech and force the rest of us to follow your religious restrictions. That would be like Israel trying to tell the rest of the World that we can't eat pork.
Also consider the various death threats and attacks carried out in the name of Muhammad. Do I think this is representative of the whole faith? Certainly not. But it does happen and a lot more often then similar acts (in modern times) conducted in Jesus' name.
In muslim countries it is not an understatement to say that critical opinions will get you killedYou'd have done better to say "in certain muslim countries...." or even "in most muslim countries..." because I can think of at least a few (Turkey comes to mind) where this isn't the case. One would assume that if the Turks have been able to successfully build a secular representative democracy that the rest of the Muslim World will be able to do so sooner or later.
Then again, I don't know enough about the Muslim World to know if they even have democratic leanings and traditions and Turkey could be the exception rather then the rule. The Turks have certainly been influenced by proximity to Europe and have been heavily influenced by Western culture, going all the way back in time to the ancient Greeks. And Western culture has had democratic traditions and practices going all the way back to ancient Athens. Even during the age of kings there were democratic leanings, such as the Magna Carta, the rise of the Common Law, the French revolution, etc, etc.
I suppose only time will tell if secular democracy is compatible with Islam or not. The Western World (*cough* America *cough*) could certainly help it along by treating them less as a source of oil and more as equals. We could certainly help it along by trying to fairly mediate between the Palestinians and Israelis. We could help it along by adopting a non-interventionist foreign policy. They could help it along by renouncing terrorism and violence. They could help it along by understanding some of the concerns on this side of the fence (like why a nuclear armed Iran scares the hell of everybody). They could help it along by understanding why the Western tradition of free speech allows the publication of things they might deem to be offensive or blasphemous.
Bottom line: There seems to be lots of blame to go around on both sides here.
What do you mean by 'judge'? Because the GP seemed ready to condemn Jefferson because he owned slaves and the GP assumed that makes him a hypocrite (based on the wording of the US Declaration of Independence). I fail to see how you can condemn someone for following the societal norms of the time. Beyond that, the GP is either misinformed or choose to cherry-pick from history, because Jefferson did actually speak out against slavery.
the fact that accepted moral norms varied from culture to culture does not imply that morality itself is relativeMorality is relative. Some people think that capital punishment is just. Others think it's abhorrent and no civilized society should practice it. Ditto for abortion. Ditto for warfare. Some people think it's abhorrent to use animals for food, clothing and scientific purposes -- others see it as just fine and a natural extension of mankind being at the top of the food chain. I could go on all day but I trust that you get the point.
Morality can't be codified like a book of laws and regulations.
Right on! There's a chapter in Alan Greenspan's new book where he bemoans the fact that the modern Board of Directors has been reduced to a rubber-stamp for the CEO. In times past the Board would take an active role in managing the company and looking out for the best interests of the shareholders. Today they are little more then a rubber-stamp for the CEO. In fact, most of them are appointed by the CEO and probably spend their off-hours playing golf and drinking beer with him.
He didn't see a solution for this though. And I'd like to think he's a fairly smart guy when it comes to economics.