Then they turn 18, go out on their own, and receive the shock of their lives when they are suddenly confronted with decisions they were never prepared to face. It's not a surprise that as young adults, they would engage in risky behavior like casual unprotected sex.
Plus, they have been told all their life that condoms and other contraceptions have no effect, which lead to the poor bugger asking why bother using them rather than "do not have sex", which I gather was the original intent.
Now there's a new one.
Who teaches that? Did you just make it up? Did you read it on an atheist website? Did an actual human being tell you that?
I was surprised to discover the rate of premarital pregnancy and divorce was actually HIGHER among church-going Christians then the general population.
It's not really a surprise when you think about it.
And something tells me you haven't. (I'll give you a hint: The abortion rates are much lower).
A lot of well-meaning (but naive) Christians raise their kids in a heavily sheltered environment. Then they turn 18, go out on their own, and receive the shock of their lives when they are suddenly confronted with decisions they were never prepared to face. It's not a surprise that as young adults, they would engage in risky behavior like casual unprotected sex.
Please tell me you're not that naive. A vast majority of the time, kids are already exposed to many of the ills of life ("like casual unprotected sex.") long before they turn 18. Those who have been taught otherwise are more likely to avoid those situations. There are exceptions, and parents who push too hard are more likely to get active rebellion.
But to pretend that this is something that magically happens at 18 is inane.
A laundry list of "dos and don'ts" doesn't build character or cultivate wisdom, it just prohibits.
This is true. The lack of laundry lists also doesn't cultivate wisdom.
It transmits little or no understanding and even less ability to reason through a situation and make good decisions.
Not on its own, it doesn't. It does provide a starting point for wise decisions, though. Even with an unwise parent who never explains why the rules exist, children will likely start thinking about "why" sooner than those whose parents never brought up the subject.
And parents who care enough to teach silly little moral rules are much, much more likely to expound on the importance of those rules than parents who don't. Granted, that only teaches the beginnings of wisdom to kids willing to listen.
Such religious prohibition combined with severe social stigma may have mostly worked during the 1950s, among the Puritans, and during the Victorian Era, but there aren't so many external restraints governing consenting adults anymore.
Please note that those weren't just religious prohibitions. They were transmitted that way, sure, but they wouldn't have survived any better than blood sacrifice if those societies didn't see wisdom in them. It has been said "If there is one thing to learn about history, it's that we learn nothing from history."
I consider that a good thing, but it doesn't produce good results if there is no internal decision-making that can plan ahead and evaluate risk.
Uh, yeah? No duh? And please note that you're talking about people taking risks with the lives of their unborn children. Unless they're prepared to do right by them, it's incredibly selfish and should bear a social stigma. I'm frequently amazed that people can't see why we have so many social problems.
If the inability to evaluate cause-and-effect in order to consider the ramifications of one's decisions is a disease, I say we are suffering a pandemic.
Those who grow up in religious households are far more likely (anecdotally) to learn about cause and effect in their personal lives. And yes, we do seem to be in a pandemic of sorts.
Doing whatever feels good in the moment with no thought to secondary and tertiary effects sounds great but it doesn't result in a life that most people would want to be stuck with.
You're preaching to the choir.
Speaking of your discovery, have you ever met a woman who is a pastor's daughter? They have quite the reputation. Sure it's a stereotype, but it has some basis in fact.
Yes it does, for two reasons. (1) Some pastors are idiots and push way
I've never seen a more egotistical person than someone who thinks God is on his side.
I agree, but I've also never seen anyone less egotistical than other people who think God is on their side. It greatly depends on how much one actually understands their religion and practices it.
You know, as someone who lost someone on 9/11, I disagree with your generalization that the TSA isn't viewed as having a purpose. Their skill and efficacy may be in question, but their purpose is to keep idiots from using our airlines as missiles again.
I do not intend any offense to you AC, but IMHO, your contention that we need TSA in order "to keep idiots from using our airlines as missiles again" is an incredibly offensive insult to the crew and passengers of Flight-93. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93)
And flights 11, 77, and 175? 3 out of 4 isn't bad... Well, actually it's quite evil, but you get my point. Flight 93 is irrelevant to the security theater excuses that we're seeing.
Frankly, I don't think he insulted 93. If anything, he insulted the other 3 flights. (No offence intended on my part.)
Let's see... You're right. I do need to see that one again. It's been a while, and I'm not certain I picked up everything of value from the film.
I fail to see what that has to do with Christian "fundamentalism", though. A hacker was unwise, the government way overreacted, the media tarred him (probably unfairly)... But religion? I just don't see it. Maybe there's something I'm just not remembering.
Speaking of which, I strongly dislike the term "fundamentalism". It's usually meant as "radical" or "extreme". It rarely addresses something-- well-- fundamental about the religion in question. It's a smear word masquerading as an impartial observation.
You never see this in Great Britain or Australia or any Western country.
The reason for that is not due to religious fervor. It's due to media control and/or idiot pandering. The Daily Show had a piece recently on Time Magazine. Apparently, their various foreign editions carry real news, but the domestic edition carries fluff. The American news media doesn't know how to treat us like rational adults. We might as well all be Junior High drop outs. No college graduates here. Nope, no market for it. There couldn't possibly be.
And why should politicians say anything intelligent? If they did, the news wouldn't air it. If it was aired, it would be taken out of context or otherwise slandered. I'm really surprised I haven't heard them resort to your-mama jokes.
But it is not bigotry to refuse to accept another person's intolerance.
That depends on how you go about it. Do you attack the belief, or just everyone vaguely associated with it? For instance, slavery is evil. White people are vaguely associated with slavery and are frequently vilified by the inner city gang culture. A college professor teaching about the ugly side of modern slavery isn't a bigot, but many gang-bangers are.
Mormons are largely anti-gay,
That depends on how you define "anti-gay". I'm guessing you'd also say Mormons are anti-alchoholic. Don't think alchoholism is an inherrent part of who a person is? Ask any longtime AA member. There are plenty of non-drinking alcoholics who are active Mormons. You'd also be hard pressed to say that Mormons hate, dispise, or descriminate against alchoholics. (You could, but it would be uncalled for.)
... and genuinely believe that theirs is the one true faith and that it is pretty damn important to convert to mormonism.
Yup. Which isn't to say that others don't have truth or do good things. That which leads a person to live a Christ-like life is good. That which leads away from it is bad. etc. etc.
Another rather zealous republican presidential candidate with a fecal frothy name
That's prejudicial. I don't care for the guy, but that attack is unfair. It tells me more about you than it does about him.
... just announced that half a billion protestants aren't sufficiently christian enough,...
I must have missed it. I see there is a rehash of somthing he said in '08 that was probably uncalled for, and he just fumbled an attack against Obama. Not sure what you're referencing.
... and has a career of statements full of bigoted anti-gay statements.
I haven't followed his career. I kinda doubt it, but it's entirely possible.
Catholic bishops have spent the last few weeks demanding that they be allowed to push their prejudicial agenda upon employees, even if they are not DIRECTLY FUNDING the item in question, although that should have no bearing whatsoever... It'd be a chaotic mess to let people selectively obey laws -- imagine the religious possibilities for rationalizing child labor, racism, slavery, killing infidels, ignoring zoning or safety laws, drug abuse, stripping employees of wages for absurd reasons, etc.
I think you have that a bit inside-out. The Catholics don't want to be forced to pay for something that they believe is evil. In the other corner, liberals want to prevent "unwanted pregnancy" which they believe is evil. The current counter attack is just a way to hide the forced spending, a mainstay of political guerilla warfare. It's just another aspect of the same old battle. We're decades (at least) from deciding a winner to the war of abortion... Oops, I meant "contraception". It's tricky out there with all the so-called-progressives that use those interchangeably.
All of the above people have other traits in common: All of these people have zero tolerance whatsoever for atheists,...
That's silly. I've got friends that are atheists.
and routinely push for eliminating religion-free (esp. governmental) charity.
Governments giving people money is charity? Oh, you're one of those people. Tell you what, donate all you want to charity, and let me do the same. 'K? You start taking money away from me and it's no longer charity. It may be for overall societal well being, but it isn't "charity".
They want to 'own' charity. Which makes a bit of sense -- Charity is an ideal time to catch someone at their weakest and make them forever supportive of the benefactor's ideals.
Your comments are intrinsically self-contradictory. You state “all religion is entirely bullshit” – which is preceded (and then ends with) a cautionary admonition which instructs us that we are bigots to think that way. You can’t have it both ways without impeaching the credibility of your position.
I can most certainly quote the person I'm responding to. Here look! I'm doing it again! I've put what you wrote in a "quote block" to signify that someone else wrote the comment, and now I'm responding to it. Hey, what do you know? It works great, and it hasn't impeached my position. Who'd a' thunk it?
(It would be nice if Slashdot had a better style sheet for quotes, but I'm hardly worried about it.)
If you look at any serious exegesis of history, you tend to find periods of so-called religious zealotry are almost always concomitant with – and, indeed, can be said to be etiologically linked to-- periods of regression, intolerance, ignorance and violence.
If you define zealotry as including violent radicalization, then you have a point. On the other hand, it does describe the zeitgeist of the middle east, but doesn't apply to anything mainstream in the west. To equate historical zealotry with modern cheer-leading (aka zealotry) is a misleading conflagration of terms.
American fundamentalist religiosity and the sharia-based judicial system of Iran are not entirely dissimilar: Both are predicated on superstition, intolerance and embody a philosophy which is inimical to human nature and antithetical to progress.
I think this will need to be dealt with a piece at a time.
"American fundamentalist religiosity and the sharia-based judicial system of Iran are not entirely dissimilar" -- You know what? Apples and oranges are also not entirely dissimilar. Same with Coke and Pepsi, daffodils and supernovae, diamonds and rotting banana peels.
"superstition" -- Not interested in this bait. It's a battle over tautologies. Unstoppable forces meeting unmovable objects, you get the idea.
"intolerance" -- Is a fact of human nature, and not an inherent part of religion. Look around. It's always "us versus them". In every facet of life, there is unhealthy competition between people. Individuals, groups, it doesn't matter. People judge the value of themselves by comparing themselves to others. How do you make yourself better? Tear someone else down. For a great many, tolerance is a behavior learned at church. Yes, some churches teach intolerance, but not that many. It has been my anecdotal experience that people are more tolerant who are active in their religion.
"inimical to human nature" -- You've got me confused here. Are you a gay rights evangelist? I think that's what you're saying, but it's hard to discern. The point is debatable, but ultimately irrelevant. It is also human nature to want to fornicate with anything that moves, get wasted, fight, lie, cheat, and steal. Again, something being human nature is entirely besides the point when discussing how to live a happy life, or how to structure society.
(Yes, the hyperbole is warranted if it wakes you up.)
"antithetical to progress" -- Churches are sometimes "antithetical to progress" and atheists are sometimes harbingers of regression.
Progress is as progress does. In every facet of political discussion one must wonder how to define "progress". It's a moving target and subject to the whim of the speaker. No two people will frame it in quite the same way. Thus, without context it is an empty word.
Your commentary also introduces and conflates political memes and shibboleths with an interesting but ultimately confusing amalgamation of both
I'm not sure you understand the meanings of the words you just strew together. You're certainly being obtuse by not explaining what things are conflated. You have an idea
I'm sorry, but you are a blind ideologue, and dangerously so.
Any time you have a shift in the fundamental construction of social values and institutions there will be those opposing the change, and there will be those pushing for change in unwise directions. American politics currently reflects that.
Equating any mainstream American Christianity with middle eastern Sharia Law Islam makes you look positively stupid. Compare your "encroaching" on "civil rights" to the Saudi practice of capital punishment for being raped. Or even this article of writing a program to upload photos...
To draw the inequality sign the wrong way is just sick.
Middle eastern radicalization (on the political level) is far more dangerous. If you want Americans to blame, blame the wealthy elite who buy laws and act with impunity abroad. They're the ones driving the real civil liberties crisis here and who stirred up the hornets nest over there.
On a level of personal opinion, I think all religion is entirely bullshit, and the world as a whole needs to focus on reality and planning for the future instead of arguing over some unimportant stories of the long-distant past.
You can go ahead and believe that, but be careful. The moment you start tarring all religion with the same brush, you become a bigot.
Not that I'm aware of. But what you described was an increase in spread, which would cause a decrease in actual liquidity. That seems at odds with what the general consensus seems to be. I'm aware that the spread must be increased minimally by an actual transaction, but everyone seems to think that competition in HFT is bringing spreads down. (Again, there seems to be something missing from this equation.)
In reality, they're actually probably reducing real liquidity.
Um, how so? I can understand fake-liquidity by HFT. I don't see how it would decrease real liquidity. By decreasing the spread, it would make a given security slightly more appealing, and thus slightly increase real liquidity.
(This probably means that you've seen something I don't know, which has sparked my curiosity.)
I could be wrong, but it seems to me the flash crash was caused by a corner case which caused one side of the algorithmic liquidity to seize up, while the other side spun its wheels wildly. (It was assuming cases based on data that did not reflect reality). You can't increase liquidity "one way". Each transaction must have a buyer and a seller. For HFT to really get out of hand, you need it on both sides of many, many transactions.
Regarding $0.01 - remember that this is $0.01 times billions. It results with hundreds of millions of dollars getting sucked off market by HFT operators instead of being directed into actual, productive investments (thing that stock markets are supposed to be created for). That this money is sucked off penny by penny does not matter. It's still real investments deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars every day by Goldman Sachs and its cronies.
You're right, or at least partly right. Let me play devils advocate, for a moment. Where do you think Goldman Sachs et al stash their "earnings"? In cash? No. They store it in securities and bonds. That money doesn't leave the market (right away), it just changes ownership (from small traders like pension funds to investment banks).
... Even if you apply a process you have learnt in the workplace to the development of your idea after hours (e.g. using some good coding tips you picked up at work, or engaging in independant peer review in a way similar to how it's done at work), then you have actually polluted your product with your company's IP, and your emplaoyer is quite within their rights to claim at least part-ownership of that product.
Not one bit. That doesn't mean that you won't have to fight it in court, but employees are expected to learn and grow on the job. Former employees are expected to have learned. New hires are expected to have learned from former employers.
If you use a specific patent, copyright or other documented intellectual property or contractual trade secret, then you're in trouble. If they can't make a legal claim on something against an arbitrary rival, then they can't make the claim against a former employee.
... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
Unalienable by who? By other people? Clearly that's not the case. People world wide are alienated from their unalienable rights every day. By "their Creator"? That presumes some degree of religion. Unalienable by western philosophy? Unalienable by UN declaration? By current convention? What then?
(I accept "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". That's my rationale. What's yours?)
"In loco parentis" does not apply to adults. Adults are supposed to be their own moral/ethical/rules council. (That's the theory, anyway). So long as the college students are legally adults, then this is a legal relationship between adults. Colleges have no more right to "parent" "adult" college students than parents have to put their adult children in "time-out". College students have every right that any other adult has (comparable to the rights of employees).
You either didn't understand what I wrote, or you're trolling. Not sure which.
My argument presumes innocence. An irrational application of that to foreign policy would have demanded we not invade.
Saddam wanted people to believe he had WMDs so he could bully his neighbors. He gambled that we would leave him alone. He lost the bet, his life, and we lost trillions of dollars, and international respect. Hindsight is 20/20.
Ok, I'll approach the issue from a different direction then. Can a defendant be ordered to take the stand in any case? If the prosecutor wished to establish a timeline, could they force the defendant to testify about events surrounding the crime? Wouldn't anything the prosecutor asked potentially make the defendant "witness against himself"? Is there any question on the stand that a defendant can't plead the fifth to, because it undoubtedly would be used as testimony against him?
Unless you can find a significant exception to the above (and explain it), how can that not extend to criminal discovery? How can someone be compelled to tell a cop where they buy their ammo? Stored their gun? Provide financial records? Can't all of that wind up in court as testimony against you? How can the fifth possibly not apply pre-trial?
If you're still with me, how can a defendant ever be compelled to act against himself in a criminal proceeding? I can see how he might be cajoled or enticed... but court ordered? The very premise seems unconstitutional to me.
And that still doesn't address my concern about requiring active participation in litigation against you. I just don't see why the fifth doesn't hold, even in the real world. Is it just another case of precedent overriding the Constitution? (SCOTUS has ruled that the clear intent of the Constitution is legally binding, even if something is omitted in the language - another slippery slope for another day.)
Yeah. Can you imagine what it would do to business if you're company file server was confiscated for years? It's just plain better business sense to comply. (unless the business is highly illegal anyway, or subject of a witch hunt)
They can order you to turn over documents, sure. If you don't, do they actually hold you in contempt while they start executing search warrants? I would have figured that the 5th would preclude requiring any active participation against yourself. (But then, that's just common sense. Lawyers have no need of that.)
Let me ask this (and display my ignorance): If I had a safe and a judge ordered it opened, and I claimed I'd lost the key, would I be held in contempt? Or would it just be forced open? Would this ever see the courtroom at all? Can lawful seizure require active participation of the accused?
If I claim to no longer be in possession of a piece of evidence, and don't know were it is, could I be held in contempt? Couldn't I plead the fifth? "You want to convict me? You go find it."
I'm trying to figure out the stare decisis on this topic (equal and consistent application of the law). It just seems so darn inconsistent.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus, they have been told all their life that condoms and other contraceptions have no effect, which lead to the poor bugger asking why bother using them rather than "do not have sex", which I gather was the original intent.
Now there's a new one.
Who teaches that? Did you just make it up? Did you read it on an atheist website? Did an actual human being tell you that?
I was surprised to discover the rate of premarital pregnancy and divorce was actually HIGHER among church-going Christians then the general population.
It's not really a surprise when you think about it.
And something tells me you haven't. (I'll give you a hint: The abortion rates are much lower).
A lot of well-meaning (but naive) Christians raise their kids in a heavily sheltered environment. Then they turn 18, go out on their own, and receive the shock of their lives when they are suddenly confronted with decisions they were never prepared to face. It's not a surprise that as young adults, they would engage in risky behavior like casual unprotected sex.
Please tell me you're not that naive. A vast majority of the time, kids are already exposed to many of the ills of life ("like casual unprotected sex.") long before they turn 18. Those who have been taught otherwise are more likely to avoid those situations. There are exceptions, and parents who push too hard are more likely to get active rebellion.
But to pretend that this is something that magically happens at 18 is inane.
A laundry list of "dos and don'ts" doesn't build character or cultivate wisdom, it just prohibits.
This is true. The lack of laundry lists also doesn't cultivate wisdom.
It transmits little or no understanding and even less ability to reason through a situation and make good decisions.
Not on its own, it doesn't. It does provide a starting point for wise decisions, though. Even with an unwise parent who never explains why the rules exist, children will likely start thinking about "why" sooner than those whose parents never brought up the subject.
And parents who care enough to teach silly little moral rules are much, much more likely to expound on the importance of those rules than parents who don't. Granted, that only teaches the beginnings of wisdom to kids willing to listen.
Such religious prohibition combined with severe social stigma may have mostly worked during the 1950s, among the Puritans, and during the Victorian Era, but there aren't so many external restraints governing consenting adults anymore.
Please note that those weren't just religious prohibitions. They were transmitted that way, sure, but they wouldn't have survived any better than blood sacrifice if those societies didn't see wisdom in them. It has been said "If there is one thing to learn about history, it's that we learn nothing from history."
I consider that a good thing, but it doesn't produce good results if there is no internal decision-making that can plan ahead and evaluate risk.
Uh, yeah? No duh? And please note that you're talking about people taking risks with the lives of their unborn children. Unless they're prepared to do right by them, it's incredibly selfish and should bear a social stigma. I'm frequently amazed that people can't see why we have so many social problems.
If the inability to evaluate cause-and-effect in order to consider the ramifications of one's decisions is a disease, I say we are suffering a pandemic.
Those who grow up in religious households are far more likely (anecdotally) to learn about cause and effect in their personal lives. And yes, we do seem to be in a pandemic of sorts.
Doing whatever feels good in the moment with no thought to secondary and tertiary effects sounds great but it doesn't result in a life that most people would want to be stuck with.
You're preaching to the choir.
Speaking of your discovery, have you ever met a woman who is a pastor's daughter? They have quite the reputation. Sure it's a stereotype, but it has some basis in fact.
Yes it does, for two reasons. (1) Some pastors are idiots and push way
I've never seen a more egotistical person than someone who thinks God is on his side.
I agree, but I've also never seen anyone less egotistical than other people who think God is on their side. It greatly depends on how much one actually understands their religion and practices it.
You know, as someone who lost someone on 9/11, I disagree with your generalization that the TSA isn't viewed as having a purpose. Their skill and efficacy may be in question, but their purpose is to keep idiots from using our airlines as missiles again.
I do not intend any offense to you AC, but IMHO, your contention that we need TSA in order "to keep idiots from using our airlines as missiles again" is an incredibly offensive insult to the crew and passengers of Flight-93. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93)
And flights 11, 77, and 175? 3 out of 4 isn't bad... Well, actually it's quite evil, but you get my point. Flight 93 is irrelevant to the security theater excuses that we're seeing.
Frankly, I don't think he insulted 93. If anything, he insulted the other 3 flights. (No offence intended on my part.)
Let's see... You're right. I do need to see that one again. It's been a while, and I'm not certain I picked up everything of value from the film.
I fail to see what that has to do with Christian "fundamentalism", though. A hacker was unwise, the government way overreacted, the media tarred him (probably unfairly)... But religion? I just don't see it. Maybe there's something I'm just not remembering.
Speaking of which, I strongly dislike the term "fundamentalism". It's usually meant as "radical" or "extreme". It rarely addresses something-- well-- fundamental about the religion in question. It's a smear word masquerading as an impartial observation.
You never see this in Great Britain or Australia or any Western country.
The reason for that is not due to religious fervor. It's due to media control and/or idiot pandering. The Daily Show had a piece recently on Time Magazine. Apparently, their various foreign editions carry real news, but the domestic edition carries fluff. The American news media doesn't know how to treat us like rational adults. We might as well all be Junior High drop outs. No college graduates here. Nope, no market for it. There couldn't possibly be.
And why should politicians say anything intelligent? If they did, the news wouldn't air it. If it was aired, it would be taken out of context or otherwise slandered. I'm really surprised I haven't heard them resort to your-mama jokes.
But it is not bigotry to refuse to accept another person's intolerance.
That depends on how you go about it. Do you attack the belief, or just everyone vaguely associated with it? For instance, slavery is evil. White people are vaguely associated with slavery and are frequently vilified by the inner city gang culture. A college professor teaching about the ugly side of modern slavery isn't a bigot, but many gang-bangers are.
Mormons are largely anti-gay,
That depends on how you define "anti-gay". I'm guessing you'd also say Mormons are anti-alchoholic. Don't think alchoholism is an inherrent part of who a person is? Ask any longtime AA member. There are plenty of non-drinking alcoholics who are active Mormons. You'd also be hard pressed to say that Mormons hate, dispise, or descriminate against alchoholics. (You could, but it would be uncalled for.)
... and genuinely believe that theirs is the one true faith and that it is pretty damn important to convert to mormonism.
Yup. Which isn't to say that others don't have truth or do good things. That which leads a person to live a Christ-like life is good. That which leads away from it is bad. etc. etc.
Another rather zealous republican presidential candidate with a fecal frothy name
That's prejudicial. I don't care for the guy, but that attack is unfair. It tells me more about you than it does about him.
... just announced that half a billion protestants aren't sufficiently christian enough,...
I must have missed it. I see there is a rehash of somthing he said in '08 that was probably uncalled for, and he just fumbled an attack against Obama. Not sure what you're referencing.
... and has a career of statements full of bigoted anti-gay statements.
I haven't followed his career. I kinda doubt it, but it's entirely possible.
Catholic bishops have spent the last few weeks demanding that they be allowed to push their prejudicial agenda upon employees, even if they are not DIRECTLY FUNDING the item in question, although that should have no bearing whatsoever... It'd be a chaotic mess to let people selectively obey laws -- imagine the religious possibilities for rationalizing child labor, racism, slavery, killing infidels, ignoring zoning or safety laws, drug abuse, stripping employees of wages for absurd reasons, etc.
I think you have that a bit inside-out. The Catholics don't want to be forced to pay for something that they believe is evil. In the other corner, liberals want to prevent "unwanted pregnancy" which they believe is evil. The current counter attack is just a way to hide the forced spending, a mainstay of political guerilla warfare. It's just another aspect of the same old battle. We're decades (at least) from deciding a winner to the war of abortion... Oops, I meant "contraception". It's tricky out there with all the so-called-progressives that use those interchangeably.
All of the above people have other traits in common: All of these people have zero tolerance whatsoever for atheists,...
That's silly. I've got friends that are atheists.
and routinely push for eliminating religion-free (esp. governmental) charity.
Governments giving people money is charity? Oh, you're one of those people. Tell you what, donate all you want to charity, and let me do the same. 'K? You start taking money away from me and it's no longer charity. It may be for overall societal well being, but it isn't "charity".
They want to 'own' charity. Which makes a bit of sense -- Charity is an ideal time to catch someone at their weakest and make them forever supportive of the benefactor's ideals.
Your comments are intrinsically self-contradictory. You state “all religion is entirely bullshit” – which is preceded (and then ends with) a cautionary admonition which instructs us that we are bigots to think that way. You can’t have it both ways without impeaching the credibility of your position.
I can most certainly quote the person I'm responding to. Here look! I'm doing it again! I've put what you wrote in a "quote block" to signify that someone else wrote the comment, and now I'm responding to it. Hey, what do you know? It works great, and it hasn't impeached my position. Who'd a' thunk it?
(It would be nice if Slashdot had a better style sheet for quotes, but I'm hardly worried about it.)
If you look at any serious exegesis of history, you tend to find periods of so-called religious zealotry are almost always concomitant with – and, indeed, can be said to be etiologically linked to-- periods of regression, intolerance, ignorance and violence.
If you define zealotry as including violent radicalization, then you have a point. On the other hand, it does describe the zeitgeist of the middle east, but doesn't apply to anything mainstream in the west. To equate historical zealotry with modern cheer-leading (aka zealotry) is a misleading conflagration of terms.
American fundamentalist religiosity and the sharia-based judicial system of Iran are not entirely dissimilar: Both are predicated on superstition, intolerance and embody a philosophy which is inimical to human nature and antithetical to progress.
I think this will need to be dealt with a piece at a time.
"American fundamentalist religiosity and the sharia-based judicial system of Iran are not entirely dissimilar" -- You know what? Apples and oranges are also not entirely dissimilar. Same with Coke and Pepsi, daffodils and supernovae, diamonds and rotting banana peels.
"superstition" -- Not interested in this bait. It's a battle over tautologies. Unstoppable forces meeting unmovable objects, you get the idea.
"intolerance" -- Is a fact of human nature, and not an inherent part of religion. Look around. It's always "us versus them". In every facet of life, there is unhealthy competition between people. Individuals, groups, it doesn't matter. People judge the value of themselves by comparing themselves to others. How do you make yourself better? Tear someone else down. For a great many, tolerance is a behavior learned at church. Yes, some churches teach intolerance, but not that many. It has been my anecdotal experience that people are more tolerant who are active in their religion.
"inimical to human nature" -- You've got me confused here. Are you a gay rights evangelist? I think that's what you're saying, but it's hard to discern. The point is debatable, but ultimately irrelevant. It is also human nature to want to fornicate with anything that moves, get wasted, fight, lie, cheat, and steal. Again, something being human nature is entirely besides the point when discussing how to live a happy life, or how to structure society.
(Yes, the hyperbole is warranted if it wakes you up.)
"antithetical to progress" -- Churches are sometimes "antithetical to progress" and atheists are sometimes harbingers of regression.
Progress is as progress does. In every facet of political discussion one must wonder how to define "progress". It's a moving target and subject to the whim of the speaker. No two people will frame it in quite the same way. Thus, without context it is an empty word.
Your commentary also introduces and conflates political memes and shibboleths with an interesting but ultimately confusing amalgamation of both
I'm not sure you understand the meanings of the words you just strew together. You're certainly being obtuse by not explaining what things are conflated. You have an idea
I'm sorry, but you are a blind ideologue, and dangerously so.
Any time you have a shift in the fundamental construction of social values and institutions there will be those opposing the change, and there will be those pushing for change in unwise directions. American politics currently reflects that.
Equating any mainstream American Christianity with middle eastern Sharia Law Islam makes you look positively stupid. Compare your "encroaching" on "civil rights" to the Saudi practice of capital punishment for being raped. Or even this article of writing a program to upload photos...
To draw the inequality sign the wrong way is just sick.
Middle eastern radicalization (on the political level) is far more dangerous. If you want Americans to blame, blame the wealthy elite who buy laws and act with impunity abroad. They're the ones driving the real civil liberties crisis here and who stirred up the hornets nest over there.
On a level of personal opinion, I think all religion is entirely bullshit, and the world as a whole needs to focus on reality and planning for the future instead of arguing over some unimportant stories of the long-distant past.
You can go ahead and believe that, but be careful. The moment you start tarring all religion with the same brush, you become a bigot.
Not that I'm aware of. But what you described was an increase in spread, which would cause a decrease in actual liquidity. That seems at odds with what the general consensus seems to be. I'm aware that the spread must be increased minimally by an actual transaction, but everyone seems to think that competition in HFT is bringing spreads down. (Again, there seems to be something missing from this equation.)
In reality, they're actually probably reducing real liquidity.
Um, how so? I can understand fake-liquidity by HFT. I don't see how it would decrease real liquidity. By decreasing the spread, it would make a given security slightly more appealing, and thus slightly increase real liquidity.
(This probably means that you've seen something I don't know, which has sparked my curiosity.)
Are you advertizing for zerohedge?
also it a crime to trade against the HFT machine so it really is a rigged casino.
This caught my attention. It's clearly not a whole truth, but it has the suspicious look of a half-truth. Can anyone elucidate?
I could be wrong, but it seems to me the flash crash was caused by a corner case which caused one side of the algorithmic liquidity to seize up, while the other side spun its wheels wildly. (It was assuming cases based on data that did not reflect reality). You can't increase liquidity "one way". Each transaction must have a buyer and a seller. For HFT to really get out of hand, you need it on both sides of many, many transactions.
Regarding $0.01 - remember that this is $0.01 times billions. It results with hundreds of millions of dollars getting sucked off market by HFT operators instead of being directed into actual, productive investments (thing that stock markets are supposed to be created for). That this money is sucked off penny by penny does not matter. It's still real investments deprived of hundreds of millions of dollars every day by Goldman Sachs and its cronies.
You're right, or at least partly right. Let me play devils advocate, for a moment. Where do you think Goldman Sachs et al stash their "earnings"? In cash? No. They store it in securities and bonds. That money doesn't leave the market (right away), it just changes ownership (from small traders like pension funds to investment banks).
It's because these middlemen use their position to extract more than their fare share of economic gains.
I'm sure it's a typo, but it's still funny.
(It implies not only that they're taking more than is fair, but they're extracting more than the upfront "ticket price"...)
Interesting, I had no idea "trade secret" was state law, and not federal. I just knew it was enforceable but limited in scope. Thanks.
... Even if you apply a process you have learnt in the workplace to the development of your idea after hours (e.g. using some good coding tips you picked up at work, or engaging in independant peer review in a way similar to how it's done at work), then you have actually polluted your product with your company's IP, and your emplaoyer is quite within their rights to claim at least part-ownership of that product.
Not one bit. That doesn't mean that you won't have to fight it in court, but employees are expected to learn and grow on the job. Former employees are expected to have learned. New hires are expected to have learned from former employers.
If you use a specific patent, copyright or other documented intellectual property or contractual trade secret, then you're in trouble. If they can't make a legal claim on something against an arbitrary rival, then they can't make the claim against a former employee.
Unalienable rights are unalienable by religions.
That's ironic.
... We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
Unalienable by who? By other people? Clearly that's not the case. People world wide are alienated from their unalienable rights every day. By "their Creator"? That presumes some degree of religion. Unalienable by western philosophy? Unalienable by UN declaration? By current convention? What then?
(I accept "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". That's my rationale. What's yours?)
"In loco parentis" does not apply to adults. Adults are supposed to be their own moral/ethical/rules council. (That's the theory, anyway). So long as the college students are legally adults, then this is a legal relationship between adults. Colleges have no more right to "parent" "adult" college students than parents have to put their adult children in "time-out". College students have every right that any other adult has (comparable to the rights of employees).
You either didn't understand what I wrote, or you're trolling. Not sure which.
My argument presumes innocence. An irrational application of that to foreign policy would have demanded we not invade.
Saddam wanted people to believe he had WMDs so he could bully his neighbors. He gambled that we would leave him alone. He lost the bet, his life, and we lost trillions of dollars, and international respect. Hindsight is 20/20.
Evidence does not count as facts,...
That is absurd. It does explain why you don't understand my argument, though.
Ok, I'll approach the issue from a different direction then. Can a defendant be ordered to take the stand in any case? If the prosecutor wished to establish a timeline, could they force the defendant to testify about events surrounding the crime? Wouldn't anything the prosecutor asked potentially make the defendant "witness against himself"? Is there any question on the stand that a defendant can't plead the fifth to, because it undoubtedly would be used as testimony against him?
Unless you can find a significant exception to the above (and explain it), how can that not extend to criminal discovery? How can someone be compelled to tell a cop where they buy their ammo? Stored their gun? Provide financial records? Can't all of that wind up in court as testimony against you? How can the fifth possibly not apply pre-trial?
If you're still with me, how can a defendant ever be compelled to act against himself in a criminal proceeding? I can see how he might be cajoled or enticed... but court ordered? The very premise seems unconstitutional to me.
*sigh* - misplaced then.
And that still doesn't address my concern about requiring active participation in litigation against you. I just don't see why the fifth doesn't hold, even in the real world. Is it just another case of precedent overriding the Constitution? (SCOTUS has ruled that the clear intent of the Constitution is legally binding, even if something is omitted in the language - another slippery slope for another day.)
Yeah. Can you imagine what it would do to business if you're company file server was confiscated for years? It's just plain better business sense to comply. (unless the business is highly illegal anyway, or subject of a witch hunt)
They can order you to turn over documents, sure. If you don't, do they actually hold you in contempt while they start executing search warrants? I would have figured that the 5th would preclude requiring any active participation against yourself. (But then, that's just common sense. Lawyers have no need of that.)
Let me ask this (and display my ignorance): If I had a safe and a judge ordered it opened, and I claimed I'd lost the key, would I be held in contempt? Or would it just be forced open? Would this ever see the courtroom at all? Can lawful seizure require active participation of the accused?
If I claim to no longer be in possession of a piece of evidence, and don't know were it is, could I be held in contempt? Couldn't I plead the fifth? "You want to convict me? You go find it."
I'm trying to figure out the stare decisis on this topic (equal and consistent application of the law). It just seems so darn inconsistent.