That is one of the things you consider "Christianity being stuffed down your throat?"
No, it is just a reminder, one of many, of where this nation stands.
Or do you wish it to be against the law for Citizens to say God Bless You?
Don't be a jackass. I'm a libertarian, and you can say whatever the hell you want.
I find it amusing that you only addressed one very minor issue I raised. How about "In God We Trust" on the money and the pledge? To me those are very severe.
Just so everyone knows, this moron does not speak for agnostics in general... YIKES.
To answer the original question, "And how is Christianity being stuffed down your throat?" let me say you would only really see how if you are not religious. You tend to notice things more.
I don't give people a hard time about it or make a fuss, but there are constant reminders that I am not your average person. "God bless you." "In God We Trust." "... under God, indivisible...", etc. 2/3 of those phrases are mandated by my government, which is supposed to keep religion separate from the government. (Let's go back to the original money and pledge, neither of which contained those phrases.)
Too many people raising their kids to think agnostics are heathens, we're going to hell, we have no morals, etc. I don't need a religion to give me a moral compass, but try explaining that to a kid who asks me where I go to church or what religion I am (I usually just lie and say I'm Catholic, since that is how I was raised).
Christianity is pervasive in America. We are made to feel as lesser men and women, by our presidents, and often by our Congress.
Bush (senior) once said, "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
I would need several pages to list all the condemning quotes from Bush jr.
Basically, the current US administration wants to hurt, as badly as is conveniently possible, and as often as is conveniently possible, any county that does not cooperate fully with the whims of the US government. Regardless of the convictions and ideals of the populace or the government.
Yeah, it's called looking out for your nation's best interests, and EVERY nation does it.
You may or may not have heard of this thing called DEFENSE. The U.S. military is pretty good at it. Since you might want to DEFEND a hugely expensive, probably dangerous fusion reactor from attack, it is nice to have a good military defense nearby.
But the worst are evangelical atheists. The only motivation there is for you to be godless just like them so you won't be happier than they are.
As an atheist, I think I can say that the ones that "evangelize" are just sick of having Christianity stuffed down their throats (at least here in America).
It's somewhat like someone playing the stock market really, really well in real life.
No, it's nothing like that, it is wealth created by a bug in the system. If the stock market systems had a similar bug, and you were able to take advantage of it like this, the money would absolutely be returned. What's more, if they could prove you took advantage of this bug to make money, you would likely go to jail.
Imagine going to an ATM, requesting $20 and getting $200. Once the bank finds out for sure, you will find a $180 deduction from your account.
speech that explicitly encourages genocide probably should be illegal.
1. I disagree.
2. This wasn't speech designed to encourage genocide, it was speech from fictional character(s) designed to make you kill members of a gang of Haitians.
Was it stupid for them to have something like that in the game? Probably. Was it a crime, should it be illegal? No-fucking-way.
He didn't manipulate his photos digitally, true. However, this statement is made apparantly to refute the idea that he manipulated the contrast, sharpness, brightness, etc, of his images -- which he does do.
I quote: "When I work with Cibachrome, I often utilize unique masking and printing techniques to adjust the contrast, sharpness, brightness levels, and relative weight of tones and colors."
His photos are great regardless of whether the subject actually looked like it does in the photo.
How would you apply your idea of noninterferance in a case where a wants 1000000$ from b because b watched his flowers and a considers that a breach of his privacy?
Because A would have to prove in a court of law that I harmed him by looking at his flowers. You can't just claim harm, you should have to prove it.
I can prove someone punching me has harmed me: look at my medical bills, consult with my medical doctors, examine my x-rays, etc.
I can prove that someone who plowed their car into my home has harmed me -- see this gaping hole here.
No one can prove someone looking at their flowers (which I presume are growing outside in full public view) has harmed them. No one can expect privacy when in full view of people on public property.
You need to work on your analogies, they are fucking horrible.
No, but something smarter than the Termite built the house, so how is so many people are sure the universe wasn't built by something smarter than us?
I don't know any scientific person that would say there isn't a smarter being out there that created the universe. However, a scientific person wouldn't ASSUME that is how it happened, and definitely wouldn't ASSUME that smarter being was God.
You're calling them anti-humanist, in other words, you're accusing them of not following the same moral code as you do. The very same thing you blame them of. Your arguement depends on the assumption that the reader agrees with your values. Circular logic.
No, he's not. The vital point you're missing is that his views are not affecting those he is addressing directly. Their views ARE affecting him directly.
It's a very real problem, how to deal with people who have mutually incompatible moral systems and the solution you suggest (non-interference) just doesn't work. Why?
Because one of the sides believes their viewpoint should be able to impact the other side?
Consider a situation of incompatible "fundamental rights". What if I consider it to be fundamental right that my property doesn't get violated (absolute no tresspassing) That doesn't sound so bad does it? Now what then if your house is in middle of my territory and you consider your right to travel freely to be the one that cant be violated by anyone. So, who has the stronger right?
This is just a plain dumb analogy based on a false pretense. If it is your property, someone else's house would not be in the middle of it.
And more importantly, who decides it? How can we have judges and laws if everyone carries their own laws and personal codes which are absolute?
It is very simple: The right to swing your fist ends at another man's nose.
While some scientists say that the life of the universe is growing and collapsing all the time, but that doesn't explain the very first beginning.
So you are left with a simple question:
Should you take the pragmatic approach, and resign yourself to the knowledge that there are things human beings cannot comprehend? Or will you take the other road, and assume if you can't explain it then God must have created it?
Can a termite comprehend that it is eating a thing called a "house"? No. Does that mean God built the house?
Why, whenever some political problem comes up, do the hordes on slashdot (and k5) automatically praise libertarianism?
Because the fundamental belief of individual freedom is persuasive prima facie?
Its achievements are even less successful than those of idealist Marxism
It is a lot easier to convince starving russians that the way out of their misery is marxism, than it is to convince comfortable people that there is a better way.
You never hear these people trumpeting their success in New Hampshire, or whatever state it was they were going to take over
Ummm, that could be because the state was just chosen and the people haven't begun to even move there yet?
The only way you're ever going to be able to live in a libertarian way is if you buy a remote island somewhere and never have to come into contact with others. As soon as you have to start sharing limited resources (like those found in a country) with other people you have to abandon some of your precious freedom, that's just life.
You clearly know nothing about libertarian ideals. We believe in free trade with other countries. We believe in charity, in building strong communities. We are not a bunch of loners -- we are united in fact. We stand behind the idea that a group of people with guns does not have the right to tell another group of people who are minding their own business, what to do and when to do it. (They key to that sentence is "minding their own business." Libertarians aren't into anarchy.)
Does 'safeguarding life' mean government should run a universal healthcare system?
I don't recall a libertarian saying the government's role was to 'safeguard life.' The purpose of the government is to enforce the law. The law should be there to prevent one person from harming another person. It couldn't be any clearer. Why does this lead to the government becoming a nanny that must take care of the sick when we have seen time and again private organizations doing a better job of it?
Publically funded sewers?
Another libertarian myth. Since we are against a huge federal government, we must be against all government, right? Wrong. Sewers are maintained by cities. City governments (i.e. community governments) are perfectly reasonable. I can move from a community whenever I wish, and still be protected by our great Constitution. The same is not true for the federal government's control over me.
I doubt many libertarians would agree - the whole movement is just an excuse for well-off old white men to whinge about taxation. Grow up!
Grow up? Is that like saying, drink this kool-aid the government has prepared? I don't understand why else the ideal of personal freedom scares people like you so much. Would the world really be such a horrible place if people were allowed to have real freedom?
The citizens are unable to analyse the cost of each policy proposal in the depth that a government can.
This may be a problem, it would depend on what typically is voted upon. However, I do not feel that our representatives have done a very good job at this anyway, so I don't see the harm in letting more people get involved.
Introducing complex voting systems to allay this issue will disenfranchise those without time to work out their preferences, and lead to less participation.
I don't think the better voting methods are necessarily more complex. One example is approval voting. You can vote for multiple items, the item with the most overall votes wins. Therefore you do not have to worry about voting for a potentially losing candidate or item. Just one alternative.
To reiterate: giving the cognitive load of government to part-timers (the public) does not work.
So you are implying that it is working now with the full-timers??
Corporations don't bother with as much overhead, but then again every now and again an accountant disappears to Mexico with a few hundred grand. Corps usually sweep this stuff under the rug (unlike the government which has to tell the world they've been ripped off).
If you actually believe that our current government is answerable to the people, you are incredibly naive, I am afraid.
I can sum up a your post in one incorrect statement: "Libertarians want anarchy." This is the primary incorrect thinking that all foes of personal freedom present and then argue against.
Clearly libertarians do not want anarchy. Libertarians are interested in personal freedom as contained within the Constitution. To have personal freedom you must have security. To have security you must have laws, law enforcement, and military protection. You must have jails for the violent offenders. It is reasonable that the citizens shall pay a tax to cover these things.
In your community, you may want to buy a house near paved roads, working sewers, and similar services. Therefore it is reasonable that you will pay taxes to your community (usually property taxes). Libertarians have no problem with this, we can move to another community that fits our needs more closely if we don't have to pay property taxes for these amenities.
It is also reasonable that the government not be allowed to redistribute your money to others under threat of force. To spend your hard earned money on entitlement programs not laid out in the Constitution, where private programs would work just as well or better. To force you to give to their mismanaged "charity" when you would rather give to the ones in your community.
Libertarians are reasonable people, not anarchists. So drop the rhetoric and address the real issues.
Slashdot Mirror
You get pissed when people say "God Bless You"?
Where did I ever say that?
That is one of the things you consider "Christianity being stuffed down your throat?"
No, it is just a reminder, one of many, of where this nation stands.
Or do you wish it to be against the law for Citizens to say God Bless You?
Don't be a jackass. I'm a libertarian, and you can say whatever the hell you want.
I find it amusing that you only addressed one very minor issue I raised. How about "In God We Trust" on the money and the pledge? To me those are very severe.
Just so everyone knows, this moron does not speak for agnostics in general... YIKES.
...", etc. 2/3 of those phrases are mandated by my government, which is supposed to keep religion separate from the government. (Let's go back to the original money and pledge, neither of which contained those phrases.)
To answer the original question, "And how is Christianity being stuffed down your throat?" let me say you would only really see how if you are not religious. You tend to notice things more.
I don't give people a hard time about it or make a fuss, but there are constant reminders that I am not your average person. "God bless you." "In God We Trust." "... under God, indivisible
Too many people raising their kids to think agnostics are heathens, we're going to hell, we have no morals, etc. I don't need a religion to give me a moral compass, but try explaining that to a kid who asks me where I go to church or what religion I am (I usually just lie and say I'm Catholic, since that is how I was raised).
Christianity is pervasive in America. We are made to feel as lesser men and women, by our presidents, and often by our Congress.
Bush (senior) once said, "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
I would need several pages to list all the condemning quotes from Bush jr.
This is life in America, land of the tolerant.
Basically, the current US administration wants to hurt, as badly as is conveniently possible, and as often as is conveniently possible, any county that does not cooperate fully with the whims of the US government. Regardless of the convictions and ideals of the populace or the government.
Yeah, it's called looking out for your nation's best interests, and EVERY nation does it.
You may or may not have heard of this thing called DEFENSE. The U.S. military is pretty good at it. Since you might want to DEFEND a hugely expensive, probably dangerous fusion reactor from attack, it is nice to have a good military defense nearby.
Just a guess.
But the worst are evangelical atheists. The only motivation there is for you to be godless just like them so you won't be happier than they are.
As an atheist, I think I can say that the ones that "evangelize" are just sick of having Christianity stuffed down their throats (at least here in America).
"I'll waive my rights."
Your analogy is horrible... prohibition didn't work because people want alcohol. The war on drugs doesn't work because people want drugs.
Nobody wants spam!
That is not to say the politicians are going about this the right way, but get a better analogy next time.
Prove it or shut up.
It's somewhat like someone playing the stock market really, really well in real life.
No, it's nothing like that, it is wealth created by a bug in the system. If the stock market systems had a similar bug, and you were able to take advantage of it like this, the money would absolutely be returned. What's more, if they could prove you took advantage of this bug to make money, you would likely go to jail.
Imagine going to an ATM, requesting $20 and getting $200. Once the bank finds out for sure, you will find a $180 deduction from your account.
speech that explicitly encourages genocide probably should be illegal.
1. I disagree.
2. This wasn't speech designed to encourage genocide, it was speech from fictional character(s) designed to make you kill members of a gang of Haitians.
Was it stupid for them to have something like that in the game? Probably. Was it a crime, should it be illegal? No-fucking-way.
I think he would have gone digital.
But apparantly only if a company paid him to do it...
He didn't manipulate his photos digitally, true. However, this statement is made apparantly to refute the idea that he manipulated the contrast, sharpness, brightness, etc, of his images -- which he does do.
I quote: "When I work with Cibachrome, I often utilize unique masking and printing techniques to adjust the contrast, sharpness, brightness levels, and relative weight of tones and colors."
His photos are great regardless of whether the subject actually looked like it does in the photo.
From the termite's perspective, that may very well be true.
That is my point. People that assume God created it because man can't explain it are as simple-minded as termites.
It's all relative, you know.
No, a person's viewpoint is relative. "It" is not relative, "it" is absolute.
How would you apply your idea of noninterferance in a case where a wants 1000000$ from b because b watched his flowers and a considers that a breach of his privacy?
Because A would have to prove in a court of law that I harmed him by looking at his flowers. You can't just claim harm, you should have to prove it.
I can prove someone punching me has harmed me: look at my medical bills, consult with my medical doctors, examine my x-rays, etc.
I can prove that someone who plowed their car into my home has harmed me -- see this gaping hole here.
No one can prove someone looking at their flowers (which I presume are growing outside in full public view) has harmed them. No one can expect privacy when in full view of people on public property.
You need to work on your analogies, they are fucking horrible.
No, but something smarter than the Termite built the house, so how is so many people are sure the universe wasn't built by something smarter than us?
I don't know any scientific person that would say there isn't a smarter being out there that created the universe. However, a scientific person wouldn't ASSUME that is how it happened, and definitely wouldn't ASSUME that smarter being was God.
You're calling them anti-humanist, in other words, you're accusing them of not following the same moral code as you do. The very same thing you blame them of. Your arguement depends on the assumption that the reader agrees with your values. Circular logic.
No, he's not. The vital point you're missing is that his views are not affecting those he is addressing directly. Their views ARE affecting him directly.
It's a very real problem, how to deal with people who have mutually incompatible moral systems and the solution you suggest (non-interference) just doesn't work. Why?
Because one of the sides believes their viewpoint should be able to impact the other side?
Consider a situation of incompatible "fundamental rights". What if I consider it to be fundamental right that my property doesn't get violated (absolute no tresspassing) That doesn't sound so bad does it? Now what then if your house is in middle of my territory and you consider your right to travel freely to be the one that cant be violated by anyone. So, who has the stronger right?
This is just a plain dumb analogy based on a false pretense. If it is your property, someone else's house would not be in the middle of it.
And more importantly, who decides it? How can we have judges and laws if everyone carries their own laws and personal codes which are absolute?
It is very simple: The right to swing your fist ends at another man's nose.
While some scientists say that the life of the universe is growing and collapsing all the time, but that doesn't explain the very first beginning.
So you are left with a simple question:
Should you take the pragmatic approach, and resign yourself to the knowledge that there are things human beings cannot comprehend? Or will you take the other road, and assume if you can't explain it then God must have created it?
Can a termite comprehend that it is eating a thing called a "house"? No. Does that mean God built the house?
You also can't have a police officer take out a criminal from 20 feet away using a bat.
It goes both ways.
I don't believe the guy who went and got the gun is evidence that FPS games encourage violence.
(A pro gun society is what has led to that in his case.)
So you don't believe one unprovable fallacy, but you believe another?
I find it more plausible that this person has mental problems, is immature, is uneducated, was under the influence of drugs, etc.
I tolerate advertising on billboards and on TV because it (allegedly) keeps prices down and pays for other things. Spam has none of these benefits.
... keeps those prices on bandwidth and hard drives down due to all the demand!
Sure it does
(You gotta look at the bright side.)
Maybe I wasn't clear ... I am talking about the federal government. Not your local city or state government, which decides those things you address.
Why, whenever some political problem comes up, do the hordes on slashdot (and k5) automatically praise libertarianism?
Because the fundamental belief of individual freedom is persuasive prima facie?
Its achievements are even less successful than those of idealist Marxism
It is a lot easier to convince starving russians that the way out of their misery is marxism, than it is to convince comfortable people that there is a better way.
You never hear these people trumpeting their success in New Hampshire, or whatever state it was they were going to take over
Ummm, that could be because the state was just chosen and the people haven't begun to even move there yet?
The only way you're ever going to be able to live in a libertarian way is if you buy a remote island somewhere and never have to come into contact with others. As soon as you have to start sharing limited resources (like those found in a country) with other people you have to abandon some of your precious freedom, that's just life.
You clearly know nothing about libertarian ideals. We believe in free trade with other countries. We believe in charity, in building strong communities. We are not a bunch of loners -- we are united in fact. We stand behind the idea that a group of people with guns does not have the right to tell another group of people who are minding their own business, what to do and when to do it. (They key to that sentence is "minding their own business." Libertarians aren't into anarchy.)
Does 'safeguarding life' mean government should run a universal healthcare system?
I don't recall a libertarian saying the government's role was to 'safeguard life.' The purpose of the government is to enforce the law. The law should be there to prevent one person from harming another person. It couldn't be any clearer. Why does this lead to the government becoming a nanny that must take care of the sick when we have seen time and again private organizations doing a better job of it?
Publically funded sewers?
Another libertarian myth. Since we are against a huge federal government, we must be against all government, right? Wrong. Sewers are maintained by cities. City governments (i.e. community governments) are perfectly reasonable. I can move from a community whenever I wish, and still be protected by our great Constitution. The same is not true for the federal government's control over me.
I doubt many libertarians would agree - the whole movement is just an excuse for well-off old white men to whinge about taxation. Grow up!
Grow up? Is that like saying, drink this kool-aid the government has prepared? I don't understand why else the ideal of personal freedom scares people like you so much. Would the world really be such a horrible place if people were allowed to have real freedom?
The citizens are unable to analyse the cost of each policy proposal in the depth that a government can.
This may be a problem, it would depend on what typically is voted upon. However, I do not feel that our representatives have done a very good job at this anyway, so I don't see the harm in letting more people get involved.
Introducing complex voting systems to allay this issue will disenfranchise those without time to work out their preferences, and lead to less participation.
I don't think the better voting methods are necessarily more complex. One example is approval voting. You can vote for multiple items, the item with the most overall votes wins. Therefore you do not have to worry about voting for a potentially losing candidate or item. Just one alternative.
To reiterate: giving the cognitive load of government to part-timers (the public) does not work.
So you are implying that it is working now with the full-timers??
Corporations don't bother with as much overhead, but then again every now and again an accountant disappears to Mexico with a few hundred grand. Corps usually sweep this stuff under the rug (unlike the government which has to tell the world they've been ripped off).
If you actually believe that our current government is answerable to the people, you are incredibly naive, I am afraid.
I love the strawmen, built all over the lawn.
I can sum up a your post in one incorrect statement: "Libertarians want anarchy." This is the primary incorrect thinking that all foes of personal freedom present and then argue against.
Clearly libertarians do not want anarchy. Libertarians are interested in personal freedom as contained within the Constitution. To have personal freedom you must have security. To have security you must have laws, law enforcement, and military protection. You must have jails for the violent offenders. It is reasonable that the citizens shall pay a tax to cover these things.
In your community, you may want to buy a house near paved roads, working sewers, and similar services. Therefore it is reasonable that you will pay taxes to your community (usually property taxes). Libertarians have no problem with this, we can move to another community that fits our needs more closely if we don't have to pay property taxes for these amenities.
It is also reasonable that the government not be allowed to redistribute your money to others under threat of force. To spend your hard earned money on entitlement programs not laid out in the Constitution, where private programs would work just as well or better. To force you to give to their mismanaged "charity" when you would rather give to the ones in your community.
Libertarians are reasonable people, not anarchists. So drop the rhetoric and address the real issues.