If your parents are letting you get whatever you want (presumably with their money) then no number of black stickers is going to make a difference. It is their responsibility to raise you. The stickers are just a parenting aid.
(Or was that just a Tipper troll? It's hard to tell sometimes.)
There may be zealots in the environmentalist movement, but they're not anti-intellectual. That's something else entirely. An anti-intellectual is trying to debunk the scientific process and show that knowledge is not acquired by reason but by faith.
A Global Warming zealot actually agrees with science. They may be fanatical, but they view science as an ally on the one true path. Hence they are not anti-intellectual.
Most of those who fanatically oppose environmentalism are anti-intellectual, however. Sadly, some have responded to them by becoming zealots themselves. It's to be expected, given the political climate.
In conclusion, pro-science zealotry is bad, but not as bad as anti-intellectual zealotry.
I'm advocating that we shut up about "belief" and "denial" and "consensus" and just try to figure the thing out.
The whole point is that politicians aren't equipped to figure it out. If you ignore the consensus and trust the politicians to figure it out on their own, you'll end up with something very far from the truth and very close to the politicians' agenda.
With so many ways a vegetarian can get proper nutrition, is there any reason why we should publicly fund a practice that millions of people consider murder? All publications from the FDA should be rewritten to exclude meat as a potential source of food. All meat certifications and health inspections should cease. After all, the government has no business funding meat research at all... and even less so, given its controversy.
Still want to change your government's policy to pander to an irrational minority?
Something can be highly innovative, yet be crap in a million other aspects: crap story, crap plot, crap delivery, crap mechanics, etc.
We're not talking about story, plot, delivery, or mechanics. We're talking about FF XII being an "uninspired EverQuest clone". How can a game be simultaneously innovative, uninspired, and a clone?
hey, I'm building this house out of bundles of old newspapers, and painting it with human shit. It's so innovative, right? Hey, noone made one like that before.
Would you call your house an uninspired clone? If not, then you must be a fanboy. Right?
Does it then follow that every company must increase their own competition? No. It is the incentives of the market that create competition.
When the market fails and produces a monopoly, something must be done. When copyrights fail and stifle progress, something must be done. I don't know how you feel about monopolies, but I would guess that you don't consider them a necessary evil. What makes the copyright system any different? Why should we tolerate the stifling of progress but not the stifling of competition?
There isn't that correlation in the US. In fact, gun groups like the NRA are usually at odds with civil liberty groups like the ACLU. So if anything there's a reverse correlation in the US. Can you back up your thesis in any way? Because it seems to me that the erosion of rights in Britain has more to do with the so-called "War on Terror" than gun issues.
As indicated by a couple of the replies to your post, one problem seems to be willful ignorance. Some people are willing to put absolute trust and faith in Cheney. They think it's just a spectacular coincidence that the administration is pouring vast amounts of our money into Halliburton. These are the people who believe that the Commander-in-Chief has military authority over all the population, and should never be disobeyed.
We need the education to ensure that these people are always in the minority, and we need the vigilance to make sure their voices never drown out the majority ever again.
If some parents prefer a religious school, is it that big of a deal?
If a private school is going to push an agenda then it doesn't deserve any tax money at all. Parents shouldn't have the right to deny their children education any more than they have the right to deny them decent medical attention. So having competition for the parents' vouchers might actually lower the standards of education in this country. (Imagine the piles of money spent on marketing instead of actual education.) What we really need is quality. If we can use "choice and competition" (McCain's words) to increase the quality of education then I'm all for it. However, what you've described will not have that effect, and I fear that the OP is correct in suspecting that McCain's motives are not pure.
When was the last time christian extremists did something because their religion said so?
Is that a serious question? You don't think Christians do anything because of their religion? Or are you referring to something violent?
Note that I never said religious extremists are always violent, only that it's especially bad if they are. Whether they're campaigning against science, waving bloody pictures in our faces, or voting for candidates on the basis of a single issue alone, extremists are a drain on society. I'm not saying they all need to be imprisoned, of course.
Finally, I didn't assume that the poster was either Christian or an owner of an assault weapon. I was joking.
Well, the backbone of the Republican party is angry Christians. (Sorry, but it's true. I'm not trying to troll.) Without having them whipped into a frenzy over abortion, homosexuality, and other sex issues the Republican party would be doomed. So the challenge for them is to keep as many moderates on board without sacrificing their hard-liners.
The Democrats are not as radical as the Republicans. They're moderate (too moderate sometimes), which might make it more difficult to rally behind an agenda. But being moderate means that they enjoy the consistent support of people who aren't looking for a spiritual revolution and just want to live their lives in peace.
You seem to be suggesting that a strong left-wing party could replace the Democrats. I find it more likely that the Republicans will lose too many moderates, and be forced to further marginalize themselves by relying more and more on the religious base (as we've seen happen recently). Then maybe a new center-right party could form.
No, the armies of Satan are not marching. Put down your assault weapon, and put down your bible too. You've bought into another over-hyped threat. The *real* enemies, as far as I'm concerned, are the criminals in the government. Yes, I said criminals. They break laws. Not just stupid laws like circumventing copyright measures or jaywalking - real laws meant to protect you and me from oppression. I don't care what party they're from. I want them *all* rounded up and brought to justice. Otherwise, what will prevent future leaders - of any party - from doing the same thing? I don't get how people can sit around and talk about compromise while this is going on. Nothing our government does, from Iraq to Immigration, is going to be done right unless this problem is addressed.
Yeah, religious extremists are bad, especially when they get violent. I agree that many politicians don't seem to be on the right side of that issue. We should be fighting *all* religious extremism - foreign and domestic. Too many would pander to the religious nuts in this country while pretending to oppose those in other countries (and of course wasting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars in the process). But it's not the Armageddon scenario you're painting.
I noticed that too. Just how dumb do they think we are? Anyone who reads the first few lines of the bill knows that it comes from a Wyoming Republican.
Why would I defend Zimbabwe? Find someone else to take up that particular cause.
Thanks for explaining the argument about UN censorship though. It seems a little unfair to criticize them for something they never did, but my knowledge of this subject is not sufficient to carry out a debate.
What a pathetic excuse for UN-bashing. I challenge you to explain how UN control would affect state censorship of the internet one way or the other. Keep in mind that it's already happening even though the UN doesn't have control.
Exactly! Someone once told me that the US is occupying Iraq, but that's clearly ridiculous. Imagine the *entire* US occupying Iraq! Insane! We wouldn't fit!
You're saying that Bush, on a hunch, decided to spend hundreds of billions of our dollars and get tens of thousands of people killed. I would not want a president to be that stupid, and I sincerely hope you don't either.
If I were a Bush apologist, I would rather be arguing that it's okay for Bush to lie because he's the big boss. (This is the view of most conservatives.) You're taking the angle that Bush is an idiot who does whatever Putin and Chalabi say without thinking. What does that say about his skills as a leader?
Excuse me, but no government agency may make any determination one way or another as to what is, and what is not a religion.
That's a bit naive. You might also think that no government agency can decide what is, and what is not a marriage. They do decide just that, establishment clause be damned.
No, both Scientology and Christianity have nonsensical mythologies. (It's not politically correct to say that, but it is true to the best of my knowledge.) There is no evidence of alien space ships. There is also no evidence of angels, demons, or gods.
There certainly was a Roman Empire. They did crucify people. There was probably a Jesus. But, there is also no dispute that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. None of that has any bearing on whether the magical stuff really happened.
If you're convinced by that argument then you're not a libertarian. You could just as easily argue that trees have spirits that no one has the right to kill. (Wouldn't the Greens love that?) A country where you can't do anything for fear of harming something the State recognizes as a life is hardly a libertarian utopia.
In short, there is no logical reason why you should force other people to adopt your personal views regarding abortion.
You've gotta respect the guy for having clear, thought-out views and sticking with 'em.
Except when it comes to abortion, of course, where he's as far from a libertarian as he could possibly be. No one is perfect, but it's bad news when you start compromising your ideals in the name of religion.
I'm not saying he's selling out to the Religious Right. It's likely that he doesn't even recognize the contradiction in his views. However, it is undeniable that he wants to increase the power of the State on this issue. One has to wonder what other exceptions he's willing to make to his small government ideal.
Nope, the Spaniards were vastly outnumbered when they invaded the New World. Their technology was instrumental in their victory, but don't fool yourself about a supposed "superior culture". Their primary cultural advantage was their religion, which kept the grunts in line, justified brutality, and prevented the native culture from influencing the Spaniards. But their deadliest weapons were the contagious diseases they carried with them (which were believed to be the wrath of God against the heathens).
Calling that a "superior culture" is like calling Islamic extremism superior because they aren't afraid to die in service of their masters.
I'm not sure what this has to do with Louisiana though.
There might not be anything he can do about getting released and investigated, but that doesn't justify either event. People in his position have a right to be upset about frivolous firings, and citizens have a right to complain about police resources being wasted on obviously false leads.
To be fair, those issues are difficult if not impossible to resolve without some level of cooperation with the administrative branch of the government. Until 2009, the best we can hope for is that congress and the president deadlock, preventing further disaster. If that means that we don't get another Iraq War spending bill passed then so be it. I'm sure the American people can put the money to better use than Bush can.
Slashdot Mirror
If your parents are letting you get whatever you want (presumably with their money) then no number of black stickers is going to make a difference. It is their responsibility to raise you. The stickers are just a parenting aid.
(Or was that just a Tipper troll? It's hard to tell sometimes.)
There may be zealots in the environmentalist movement, but they're not anti-intellectual. That's something else entirely. An anti-intellectual is trying to debunk the scientific process and show that knowledge is not acquired by reason but by faith.
A Global Warming zealot actually agrees with science. They may be fanatical, but they view science as an ally on the one true path. Hence they are not anti-intellectual.
Most of those who fanatically oppose environmentalism are anti-intellectual, however. Sadly, some have responded to them by becoming zealots themselves. It's to be expected, given the political climate.
In conclusion, pro-science zealotry is bad, but not as bad as anti-intellectual zealotry.
The whole point is that politicians aren't equipped to figure it out. If you ignore the consensus and trust the politicians to figure it out on their own, you'll end up with something very far from the truth and very close to the politicians' agenda.
With so many ways a vegetarian can get proper nutrition, is there any reason why we should publicly fund a practice that millions of people consider murder? All publications from the FDA should be rewritten to exclude meat as a potential source of food. All meat certifications and health inspections should cease. After all, the government has no business funding meat research at all... and even less so, given its controversy.
Still want to change your government's policy to pander to an irrational minority?
We're not talking about story, plot, delivery, or mechanics. We're talking about FF XII being an "uninspired EverQuest clone". How can a game be simultaneously innovative, uninspired, and a clone?
Would you call your house an uninspired clone? If not, then you must be a fanboy. Right?
When the market fails and produces a monopoly, something must be done. When copyrights fail and stifle progress, something must be done. I don't know how you feel about monopolies, but I would guess that you don't consider them a necessary evil. What makes the copyright system any different? Why should we tolerate the stifling of progress but not the stifling of competition?
I'll let you do the endorsement research. Let's just say they don't often concur.
There isn't that correlation in the US. In fact, gun groups like the NRA are usually at odds with civil liberty groups like the ACLU. So if anything there's a reverse correlation in the US. Can you back up your thesis in any way? Because it seems to me that the erosion of rights in Britain has more to do with the so-called "War on Terror" than gun issues.
As indicated by a couple of the replies to your post, one problem seems to be willful ignorance. Some people are willing to put absolute trust and faith in Cheney. They think it's just a spectacular coincidence that the administration is pouring vast amounts of our money into Halliburton. These are the people who believe that the Commander-in-Chief has military authority over all the population, and should never be disobeyed.
We need the education to ensure that these people are always in the minority, and we need the vigilance to make sure their voices never drown out the majority ever again.
If a private school is going to push an agenda then it doesn't deserve any tax money at all. Parents shouldn't have the right to deny their children education any more than they have the right to deny them decent medical attention. So having competition for the parents' vouchers might actually lower the standards of education in this country. (Imagine the piles of money spent on marketing instead of actual education.) What we really need is quality. If we can use "choice and competition" (McCain's words) to increase the quality of education then I'm all for it. However, what you've described will not have that effect, and I fear that the OP is correct in suspecting that McCain's motives are not pure.
Is that a serious question? You don't think Christians do anything because of their religion? Or are you referring to something violent?
Note that I never said religious extremists are always violent, only that it's especially bad if they are. Whether they're campaigning against science, waving bloody pictures in our faces, or voting for candidates on the basis of a single issue alone, extremists are a drain on society. I'm not saying they all need to be imprisoned, of course.
Finally, I didn't assume that the poster was either Christian or an owner of an assault weapon. I was joking.
Well, the backbone of the Republican party is angry Christians. (Sorry, but it's true. I'm not trying to troll.) Without having them whipped into a frenzy over abortion, homosexuality, and other sex issues the Republican party would be doomed. So the challenge for them is to keep as many moderates on board without sacrificing their hard-liners.
The Democrats are not as radical as the Republicans. They're moderate (too moderate sometimes), which might make it more difficult to rally behind an agenda. But being moderate means that they enjoy the consistent support of people who aren't looking for a spiritual revolution and just want to live their lives in peace.
You seem to be suggesting that a strong left-wing party could replace the Democrats. I find it more likely that the Republicans will lose too many moderates, and be forced to further marginalize themselves by relying more and more on the religious base (as we've seen happen recently). Then maybe a new center-right party could form.
No, the armies of Satan are not marching. Put down your assault weapon, and put down your bible too. You've bought into another over-hyped threat. The *real* enemies, as far as I'm concerned, are the criminals in the government. Yes, I said criminals. They break laws. Not just stupid laws like circumventing copyright measures or jaywalking - real laws meant to protect you and me from oppression. I don't care what party they're from. I want them *all* rounded up and brought to justice. Otherwise, what will prevent future leaders - of any party - from doing the same thing? I don't get how people can sit around and talk about compromise while this is going on. Nothing our government does, from Iraq to Immigration, is going to be done right unless this problem is addressed.
Yeah, religious extremists are bad, especially when they get violent. I agree that many politicians don't seem to be on the right side of that issue. We should be fighting *all* religious extremism - foreign and domestic. Too many would pander to the religious nuts in this country while pretending to oppose those in other countries (and of course wasting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars in the process). But it's not the Armageddon scenario you're painting.
I noticed that too. Just how dumb do they think we are? Anyone who reads the first few lines of the bill knows that it comes from a Wyoming Republican.
Why would I defend Zimbabwe? Find someone else to take up that particular cause.
Thanks for explaining the argument about UN censorship though. It seems a little unfair to criticize them for something they never did, but my knowledge of this subject is not sufficient to carry out a debate.
What a pathetic excuse for UN-bashing. I challenge you to explain how UN control would affect state censorship of the internet one way or the other. Keep in mind that it's already happening even though the UN doesn't have control.
Exactly! Someone once told me that the US is occupying Iraq, but that's clearly ridiculous. Imagine the *entire* US occupying Iraq! Insane! We wouldn't fit!
You're saying that Bush, on a hunch, decided to spend hundreds of billions of our dollars and get tens of thousands of people killed. I would not want a president to be that stupid, and I sincerely hope you don't either.
If I were a Bush apologist, I would rather be arguing that it's okay for Bush to lie because he's the big boss. (This is the view of most conservatives.) You're taking the angle that Bush is an idiot who does whatever Putin and Chalabi say without thinking. What does that say about his skills as a leader?
That's a bit naive. You might also think that no government agency can decide what is, and what is not a marriage. They do decide just that, establishment clause be damned.
No, both Scientology and Christianity have nonsensical mythologies. (It's not politically correct to say that, but it is true to the best of my knowledge.) There is no evidence of alien space ships. There is also no evidence of angels, demons, or gods.
There certainly was a Roman Empire. They did crucify people. There was probably a Jesus. But, there is also no dispute that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. None of that has any bearing on whether the magical stuff really happened.
If you're convinced by that argument then you're not a libertarian. You could just as easily argue that trees have spirits that no one has the right to kill. (Wouldn't the Greens love that?) A country where you can't do anything for fear of harming something the State recognizes as a life is hardly a libertarian utopia.
In short, there is no logical reason why you should force other people to adopt your personal views regarding abortion.
Except when it comes to abortion, of course, where he's as far from a libertarian as he could possibly be. No one is perfect, but it's bad news when you start compromising your ideals in the name of religion.
I'm not saying he's selling out to the Religious Right. It's likely that he doesn't even recognize the contradiction in his views. However, it is undeniable that he wants to increase the power of the State on this issue. One has to wonder what other exceptions he's willing to make to his small government ideal.
Nope, the Spaniards were vastly outnumbered when they invaded the New World. Their technology was instrumental in their victory, but don't fool yourself about a supposed "superior culture". Their primary cultural advantage was their religion, which kept the grunts in line, justified brutality, and prevented the native culture from influencing the Spaniards. But their deadliest weapons were the contagious diseases they carried with them (which were believed to be the wrath of God against the heathens).
Calling that a "superior culture" is like calling Islamic extremism superior because they aren't afraid to die in service of their masters.
I'm not sure what this has to do with Louisiana though.
There might not be anything he can do about getting released and investigated, but that doesn't justify either event. People in his position have a right to be upset about frivolous firings, and citizens have a right to complain about police resources being wasted on obviously false leads.
To be fair, those issues are difficult if not impossible to resolve without some level of cooperation with the administrative branch of the government. Until 2009, the best we can hope for is that congress and the president deadlock, preventing further disaster. If that means that we don't get another Iraq War spending bill passed then so be it. I'm sure the American people can put the money to better use than Bush can.