It doesn't matter - he's saying that the tech exists out there now, and there is a need for communications - if the internet as we know it shut down today, a new system would immediately be implemented that served the same purpose.
I'm not perfect, and there are certainly conflicts in those things that I take for granted - but when I discover those conflicts, I work to resolve them and reconcile my position.
As opposed to the liberal belief that killing a violent criminal is bad, but killing an unborn child is good.
I like how you folks twist arguments around, and then believe your own bull.
a) Nobody thinks that killing an unborn child "is good". People only think that having a right to do so if the situation demands it is good. Everybody agrees that such situations are far from ideal. You should understand your rights vs. the state's rights to interfere with your life if at all you're any kind of a good Objectivist libertarian you claim to be. And stop twisting words. The word "killing" in "killing a violent criminal" and in "killing an unborn child" is used in completely different contexts. If you're too dumb to understand that, don't try to argue about it or base a belief on it.
The state has no moral right to interfere in an individual's rights, period, provided they are not causing violence against another individual. Further, whether or not you argue that a fetus is a child, I don't see how you can rationally argue that it is not alive.
I did not state a belief on abortion in my post.
b) When there is no agreement on when a fetus becomes a "child", you can't place an arbitrary definition on it and expect people to buy your arguments before debating that through. Makes your claim of having your beliefs based on rationality ridiculous, unless you call blocking your years and screaming your ideology "rational".
This is one reason that I hesitate to use the term "Objectivist" sometimes - because there are those who take Rand's books as gospel and Ayn herself as a god. I'm not one of them. While I've broken from most of Christianity over time, I cannot come to the firm conclusion that there is no creator, because there is indeed evidence that suggests that there is.
A fetus is a child - whether they are entitled to the full legal protections of a person is somewhat debatable, but it is clearly a child.
My choice of words in dealing with abortion was poor, but my point still stands - the parent of my post was calling conservatives inconsistent, while liberals are no less inconsistent.
Yes, I clarified this point in a response to another reply.
I split from the conservative movement a long time ago due to issues like this. Truthfully, I've not made my mind up about abortion, because I can't objectively nail down when a child should be considered a human life.
It bothers me that so many people hold positions on issues of great importance based on how they "feel", rather than seeking to find the truth.
Perhaps it was the current President of the United States, who ran on the Democratic Party ticket, stating that a young lady shouldn't be "punished" with a child. Logically, if bearing an unplanned child is a punishment, avoiding said punishment is desirable.
Besides, I wasn't taking a moral stance on either issue, I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in the beliefs of many leftists. If you'd like to modify it as "... killing a violent criminal should be unlawful, but killing an unborn child should be lawful."
I appreciate the link, but the improper and confusing use of a word throughout history doesn't make it correct. Even the author of the article you linked decries the use of the word in a confusing manner.
As opposed to the liberal belief that killing a violent criminal is bad, but killing an unborn child is good. Or that problems created by government intervention are best solved by additional government intervention.
I'm an Objectivist libertarian, and my beliefs are in fact based on rationality. Both sides of mainstream American politics are equally inconsistent, though the right tends to get things right slightly more often than the left - say, a 60/40 split or so.
You probably do it too much, though, as you obviously have never spent any time with a dictionary. If you did, you would realize that you just stated that certain shows show intent to physically harm your brain.
Please use the word "literally" literally in the future.
The guiding principles of western democracies are Liberté, égalité, and fraternité.
That would be the guiding principles of the French Revolution. While it certainly influenced the American system, we are not merely a copy, and our reasons were somewhat different. Specifically, "brotherhood" is not something that I would identify with our system of government.
The parent poster and I agree that those legal protections should not exist in the first place. Rather than extend them to another group, we seek to abolish those protections entirely.
Historically, marriage licenses were required only to marry someone who your were otherwise prohibited from marrying - such as someone of another race. With the civil rights movement, marriage licenses began to be required by all, rather than simply abolishing them.
The system we have today has its roots in racism, and is now being used to discriminate against another class of people. Instead of seeking inclusion for those people, how about getting rid of the system that has historically been used to discriminate?
Yeah, we disagree, and that's not a bad thing. At least we can be rational about it, which is rare.
I guess it just doesn't bother me to be dismissed as much as it does some people. I feel like my ideas have merit, and if someone chooses not to listen to them, it has not harmed me in any way, and could potential cause problems for them.
Stereotypes aren't rigid, they are mutable. They're a different class of attributes - anyone who is aware of the fact that they have stereotypes by definition doesn't let them overrule their judgment.
I know that I have stereotypes based on gender, race, economic status, dress, language, and many other attributes. Those don't stop me from weighing everyone's input.
It would probably help to know that I'm an Objectivist. All of these issues are solved by market forces, as someone who dismisses a portion of the knowledge base available to them will by extension be unable to compete in the market. I don't see the need for a concerted effort to prevent something that is already counterproductive, and any legislation to that effect is in fact damaging to the cause.
"Why can't we just take everybody as they are, and not try to explain their decisions as 'that's because they are a [group]'?"
Because that is how human being operate. We lump people into groups, whether based on sec, race, gender, hair color, manner of speech - anything. It is a survival mechanism.
Stereotypes serve a purpose from an evolutionary standpoint - if you lived in England in the Dark Ages every person you ever met with red hair was a Norseman who wanted to rape, kill, and pillage, you're not going to have a very good opinion on red-heads, now are you?
The examples aren't as harsh in modern life, but we all form stereotypes based on our own experiences.
I don't understand why people think it is a bad think. I certainly don't fit the typical male stereotype in a lot of ways; my wife and I often joke that I am the "woman" of the relationship, because I am far more emotional than she is. Why can't we accept that someone is different without all this overhead of insisting that everyone be treated the same? If someone doesn't treat you how you'd like to be treated... stop hanging around them!
It is now socially unacceptable, and therefore relegated to isolated communities of people. No longer is systemic racism or sexism an issue for my generation.
I realize that one's perception is one's reality, but that doesn't change everyone else's reality.
Cries of sexism and racism, in my own personal experience, are used far more often as a weapon than as a means to gain equality.
But I suppose that depends on your definition of "equality" - do you mean equal opportunity, or equal results? They are not the same thing, and trying to enforce the latter is immoral.
Its not a coincidence at all - they have a causative factor. Women are genetically predisposed to nurture, while men are genetically predisposed to competition and protection.
That doesn't make on sex better than the other at either of these roles. The drive for a man to provide for his family has a common root with the drive to mate and create that family in the first place. We are not unthinking animals, though, and we can control out biological impulses - we can not have children, or we can arrive at a workable (or better) arrangement for caring and providing for a family based upon rationality.
Slashdot Mirror
You have to give them credit for their attention to detail on the case design.
It doesn't matter - he's saying that the tech exists out there now, and there is a need for communications - if the internet as we know it shut down today, a new system would immediately be implemented that served the same purpose.
Especially from all those fools who are stocking piling thousands upon thousands of rounds. They don't realize that they can't carry that much,
If if comes to that, that's what the deuce-and-a-half is for.
they're not in a place that can withstand a siege,
Yes, I am.
and that if they start trying to use it all themselves they're likely going to become dead in very short order.
Maybe if you manage to acquire artillery.
And they'll drop lots of ammo and guns.
Good luck with that :)
Researching some, it seems von Mises agrees with you, but Rand doesn't:
Patents and copyrights are the legal implementation of the base of all property rights: a man’s right to the product of his mind.
I'm not passing judgment on our current copyright system, but the concept of copyright, on its face, is not anti-libertarian.
Hangin' with Pandas.
No, copyright is legal protection for the result of intellectual labor. There is no problem with that.
I call bs. If you'd said he'd shot up the place and fled, I'd have believed you.
Koala: noun. A large bear, found in China. Eats, shoots, and leaves.
Then challenge me.
I'm not perfect, and there are certainly conflicts in those things that I take for granted - but when I discover those conflicts, I work to resolve them and reconcile my position.
That was my point.
We aren't speaking of zygotes or embryos, we're speaking of fetuses.
A fetus is not an individual. A fetus requires another life form physically connected with it to continue to live.
So, according to your definition, someone who has lost kidney function is no longer an individual? How about conjoined twins which share major organs?
The issue isn't nearly as black-and-white as you make it out to be, and that's why we struggle with it.
As opposed to the liberal belief that killing a violent criminal is bad, but killing an unborn child is good.
I like how you folks twist arguments around, and then believe your own bull.
a) Nobody thinks that killing an unborn child "is good". People only think that having a right to do so if the situation demands it is good. Everybody agrees that such situations are far from ideal. You should understand your rights vs. the state's rights to interfere with your life if at all you're any kind of a good Objectivist libertarian you claim to be. And stop twisting words. The word "killing" in "killing a violent criminal" and in "killing an unborn child" is used in completely different contexts. If you're too dumb to understand that, don't try to argue about it or base a belief on it.
The state has no moral right to interfere in an individual's rights, period, provided they are not causing violence against another individual. Further, whether or not you argue that a fetus is a child, I don't see how you can rationally argue that it is not alive.
I did not state a belief on abortion in my post.
b) When there is no agreement on when a fetus becomes a "child", you can't place an arbitrary definition on it and expect people to buy your arguments before debating that through. Makes your claim of having your beliefs based on rationality ridiculous, unless you call blocking your years and screaming your ideology "rational".
This is one reason that I hesitate to use the term "Objectivist" sometimes - because there are those who take Rand's books as gospel and Ayn herself as a god. I'm not one of them. While I've broken from most of Christianity over time, I cannot come to the firm conclusion that there is no creator, because there is indeed evidence that suggests that there is.
A fetus is a child - whether they are entitled to the full legal protections of a person is somewhat debatable, but it is clearly a child.
My choice of words in dealing with abortion was poor, but my point still stands - the parent of my post was calling conservatives inconsistent, while liberals are no less inconsistent.
Yes, I clarified this point in a response to another reply.
I split from the conservative movement a long time ago due to issues like this. Truthfully, I've not made my mind up about abortion, because I can't objectively nail down when a child should be considered a human life.
It bothers me that so many people hold positions on issues of great importance based on how they "feel", rather than seeking to find the truth.
Perhaps it was the current President of the United States, who ran on the Democratic Party ticket, stating that a young lady shouldn't be "punished" with a child. Logically, if bearing an unplanned child is a punishment, avoiding said punishment is desirable.
Besides, I wasn't taking a moral stance on either issue, I was merely pointing out the inconsistency in the beliefs of many leftists. If you'd like to modify it as "... killing a violent criminal should be unlawful, but killing an unborn child should be lawful."
My point stands.
I appreciate the link, but the improper and confusing use of a word throughout history doesn't make it correct. Even the author of the article you linked decries the use of the word in a confusing manner.
I really did like the article, though :)
As opposed to the liberal belief that killing a violent criminal is bad, but killing an unborn child is good. Or that problems created by government intervention are best solved by additional government intervention.
I'm an Objectivist libertarian, and my beliefs are in fact based on rationality. Both sides of mainstream American politics are equally inconsistent, though the right tends to get things right slightly more often than the left - say, a 60/40 split or so.
You probably do it too much, though, as you obviously have never spent any time with a dictionary. If you did, you would realize that you just stated that certain shows show intent to physically harm your brain.
Please use the word "literally" literally in the future.
Which is why marriage licenses were first put in place - to allow interracial marriage only on a limited basis.
Why homosexuals want to be governed by a system intended to limit "undesirable" marriages is beyond me.
The guiding principles of western democracies are Liberté, égalité, and fraternité.
That would be the guiding principles of the French Revolution. While it certainly influenced the American system, we are not merely a copy, and our reasons were somewhat different. Specifically, "brotherhood" is not something that I would identify with our system of government.
Yes, it is rather horrible.
The parent poster and I agree that those legal protections should not exist in the first place. Rather than extend them to another group, we seek to abolish those protections entirely.
Historically, marriage licenses were required only to marry someone who your were otherwise prohibited from marrying - such as someone of another race. With the civil rights movement, marriage licenses began to be required by all, rather than simply abolishing them.
The system we have today has its roots in racism, and is now being used to discriminate against another class of people. Instead of seeking inclusion for those people, how about getting rid of the system that has historically been used to discriminate?
Yeah, we disagree, and that's not a bad thing. At least we can be rational about it, which is rare.
I guess it just doesn't bother me to be dismissed as much as it does some people. I feel like my ideas have merit, and if someone chooses not to listen to them, it has not harmed me in any way, and could potential cause problems for them.
Stereotypes aren't rigid, they are mutable. They're a different class of attributes - anyone who is aware of the fact that they have stereotypes by definition doesn't let them overrule their judgment.
I know that I have stereotypes based on gender, race, economic status, dress, language, and many other attributes. Those don't stop me from weighing everyone's input.
It would probably help to know that I'm an Objectivist. All of these issues are solved by market forces, as someone who dismisses a portion of the knowledge base available to them will by extension be unable to compete in the market. I don't see the need for a concerted effort to prevent something that is already counterproductive, and any legislation to that effect is in fact damaging to the cause.
"Why can't we just take everybody as they are, and not try to explain their decisions as 'that's because they are a [group]'?"
Because that is how human being operate. We lump people into groups, whether based on sec, race, gender, hair color, manner of speech - anything. It is a survival mechanism.
Stereotypes serve a purpose from an evolutionary standpoint - if you lived in England in the Dark Ages every person you ever met with red hair was a Norseman who wanted to rape, kill, and pillage, you're not going to have a very good opinion on red-heads, now are you?
The examples aren't as harsh in modern life, but we all form stereotypes based on our own experiences.
I don't understand why people think it is a bad think. I certainly don't fit the typical male stereotype in a lot of ways; my wife and I often joke that I am the "woman" of the relationship, because I am far more emotional than she is. Why can't we accept that someone is different without all this overhead of insisting that everyone be treated the same? If someone doesn't treat you how you'd like to be treated... stop hanging around them!
Would it help if I clarified it to this?:
The impact of racism is essentially dead.
It is now socially unacceptable, and therefore relegated to isolated communities of people. No longer is systemic racism or sexism an issue for my generation.
I realize that one's perception is one's reality, but that doesn't change everyone else's reality.
Cries of sexism and racism, in my own personal experience, are used far more often as a weapon than as a means to gain equality.
But I suppose that depends on your definition of "equality" - do you mean equal opportunity, or equal results? They are not the same thing, and trying to enforce the latter is immoral.
Its not a coincidence at all - they have a causative factor. Women are genetically predisposed to nurture, while men are genetically predisposed to competition and protection.
That doesn't make on sex better than the other at either of these roles. The drive for a man to provide for his family has a common root with the drive to mate and create that family in the first place. We are not unthinking animals, though, and we can control out biological impulses - we can not have children, or we can arrive at a workable (or better) arrangement for caring and providing for a family based upon rationality.