While I agree that being open-minded is certainly one of the best attributes that one can have, I do not believe that we can assume everything is automatically acceptable or correct because it is different from one's own point of view. There comes a time when one must simply say, "This is incorrect." If something does not make sense, then it does not make sense. If something contains an error in logic, then it contains an error in logic. It is a mistake. It is wrong (and not in the evil sense, but in the incorrect sense). Provided the evidence has been examined and given a rational analysis, then this is proper thing to do. Of course, we should be willing to question any knowledge that we've learned, and that includes anything put forth by religion AND science, because as we've seen many times in history, both can be wrong. As long as we do so and use our brains to remain open-minded, critical thinkers, then we will be better off.
I do not see the rejection of an institution of religion as absolvement for irrationality. Just because you reject certain dogma and do not approve of past abuses/atrocities does not mean that you are free and clear of irrational thought. You still accept the core beliefs and make the same basic assumptions as the church has regarding the existence of a god and its basic morality. Have you ever questioned those? Have you ever questioned the base axioms of religion, personal, institutional or otherwise?
Have you ever considered that perhaps religion's problems and past abuses are not the result of a corruption of the system, but the result of the values and beliefs that comprise the system's core? Have you ever questioned the core values behind religion? I use the term loosely to include all types of religion, including just a simple belief in the values of God/Allah/whatever outside of the institutional belief structure. Just because you don't buy into institutionalized dogma does not mean that you are not just selectively creating your own.
You have to be careful with your beliefs and assumptions so that you do not blind yourself to life and reality. You have to question yourself and your beliefs when presented with an argument that runs counter to your own thoughts on a subject. If by doing so, you find your beliefs are still valid, then good. Question them again the next time the chance presents itself. With time comes experience and with experience comes insight for those open-minded enough to pay attention to it. If you question them once and then never question them again, then I hope that you are absolutely certain in their veracity.
You cannot just slush off another's belief by calling them young and foolish. With age comes experience, true, but an 80-year old is every bit as capable of holding irrational beliefs as a 20-year old, a 10-year old or a 40-year old. In many cases, age works as a deterrent to open-mindedness when people become set in their ways and refuse to acknowledge that they may be wrong, which often happens with spiritual beliefs. The opening line: "When I was young, ignorant and closed minded, I used to believe the same as you. Then I grew up and learned how people really work." implies the same type of vague promise of future knowledge/enlightenment that was one of the grandparent's main complaints. What is more likely is that as you get older and have this argument time and time again, is that you get tired and stop fighting. You give in. This is not the knowledge of experienced wisdom; that is the cover-up of a quitter. Of course, maybe you have found a good reason why the logic of atheism is flawed. If so, I'd like to hear it. I'd be most interested.
As far as relative knowledge goes, being naked in the Amazon rain forest does not immediately invalidate your prior knowledge of anything. The knowledge that you had is not suddenly useless or wrong just because you're deep in the jungle. It just is not applicable in that particular situation. A person that is able to think critically and accept the reali
Agreed. Laissez-faire, to my understanding, means that government is not involved with business. Since that is clearly not the case here, we cannot call laissez-faire capitalism a "psychopath". Rather, it is this corporate/government hybrid that is causing the problem.
Perhaps when they rewrite the Constitution, in the part where they advocate the separation of church and state, they can add a part about the separation of business and state.
I am sure that they have indeed thought about that very concept. And I am also sure that they do not care, except in regards to the possibility of re-election (and even then, maybe not, if Bush's campaign of continually pushing terror continues).
I fail to understand why so many people believe that these guys give a crap about their country's shrinking level of freedom, when they have clearly demonstrated that they have no intention of stopping it, but rather, ensuring that it continues to shrink.
I'm not sure that I see the connection between Clemens and Rand. Clemens advocates a very cynical view of capitalism, where collecting a paycheque is more important than anything else. Rand, whatever her other faults, tends to advocate freedom and creativity, as much as she does capitalism. In fact, these first two form a good portion of the base on which her defense of capitalism stands.
I may be a crackpot but these first two principles would seem to be very much in keeping with open source software. After all, what could be more egocentric than creating something simply because you want to and it makes you happy? Add to that the fact that there is indeed money to be made in OSS and I think Aiden is more likely in line with Rand than Clemens.
The problems here are being caused by the rules laid down by government that restrict the free market. A market restricted by law cannot be considered free. The real problem stems from those unscrupulous characters within the business community, like the RIAA, that push for the restriction of the free market through law and then use it to expand their profits through racketeering. Lessening these restrictions, or doing away with them entirely would leave people like the RIAA with no leg to stand on.
Actually, I agree with Mr. Slippery, particularly in the matter of the Holocaust denial. Yes, it is a crackpot belief, but whose rights did it violate? It surely upset a lot of victims and it most definitely offended the majority of people, but in no case were any of their rights violated. They were upset, to be sure, but at no point were they ever denied their basic rights. We were all still free to do as we pleased within the limits of the law, without question (at least until our right to speak crackpot theories was taken away).
We, as a country, certainly didn't like his theories and they obviously didn't jive with the facts of the Holocaust, but unless a court could specifically show that the author knew he was lying, that's irrelevant. The bottom line is that although no one favoured his arguments and no one wanted him in the country, he did not violate anyone's rights. He offended us, but that alone is not enough to revoke someone's right to speak. In this case, we overreacted to something we didn't want to hear and took away another piece of our own freedom in the process.
The problem with allowing a society to restrict its citizen's core freedoms is that it inevitably will.
How is holding a poorly considered opinion a violation of someone else's rights? Yes, a bigot is certainly an asshole, but if he's just spouting off his moronic opinion, then he is just being offensive. He is not violating anyone's rights. Now, if he attacks someone, or he's the boss and he fires them because of those racist/sexist/homophobic opinions, then there's a problem. At this point, his opinions have led him to actions that are directly harming someone and depriving them of various rights, depending on the situation.
I shudder to think what a country we would have when our opinions can be considered a violation of human rights. (And seeing as how I live in Canada, I suppose I should shudder.) That being said, I would like to think that this country is open-minded enough in most cases to know that offending someone is not the same as violating their rights (although I am sure that others will beg to differ on specific cases).
Advocating something and actually doing it are entirely different beasts. Both can be reprehensible, but only one violates someone's rights.
It is indeed a very romantic notion, and also an accurate one.
Regardless of how submissive an person is to any given group or environment, the ultimate choice is still theirs. If their choice is to always blindly go along with the egomass, then that is still their choice. The fact that one has a choice does not presume what that choice will be.
I do not presume anything about the content or nature of a choice, only that there is one. I have made no claim that individuals automatically insist on that which gives them the most freedom, or that they even actively put in any effort to the choices that they make. I think that there are many millions of examples that we can point to in everyday life all over the world that attest to that.
My point is that the individual still has to make a choice - what choice that is or how much thought they put into it, or even how many options they have beyond yes or no (which will occur regardless of circumstance and regardless of how heavily one side may be favoured), has nothing to do with that. The choice is still there. What any given individual does with that choice is a different matter altogether.
Despite the ease with which some people submit and conform, it still rests within them to make a different choice, for better or worse, whether they know it or not. The content and context of any given decision is by no means inferred by the ability to choose. That ability only states that there is a decision, not how easily it was made or if it was made under duress or as the result of brainwashing or peer pressure, or with any kind of forethought at all.
The fact is that there is a choice, but what any given person does with it is a different matter altogether. Free will is a fact; the extent and manner in which it's used is another argument entirely.
There's a big difference between a muscle cell and a sentient human being. That muscle cell is capable only of doing what it is told by the brain. A human being, on the other hand, is inherently imbued with the ability to choose its own actions.
Those actions are affected by a number of outside factors like peer pressure and poor reasoning, but ultimately, the final choice is up to the individual. No one else's brain can make a decision for him. Now, what that end decision is can certainly be influenced by external factors, but the bottom line is that the final choice, whatever it is, rests with the individual alone.
A muscle doesn't have that kind of sentience. Of course, I'm probably just nitpicking.
Slashdot Mirror
And if it wasn't a joke, all I can say is... Wow.
I do not see the rejection of an institution of religion as absolvement for irrationality. Just because you reject certain dogma and do not approve of past abuses/atrocities does not mean that you are free and clear of irrational thought. You still accept the core beliefs and make the same basic assumptions as the church has regarding the existence of a god and its basic morality. Have you ever questioned those? Have you ever questioned the base axioms of religion, personal, institutional or otherwise? Have you ever considered that perhaps religion's problems and past abuses are not the result of a corruption of the system, but the result of the values and beliefs that comprise the system's core? Have you ever questioned the core values behind religion? I use the term loosely to include all types of religion, including just a simple belief in the values of God/Allah/whatever outside of the institutional belief structure. Just because you don't buy into institutionalized dogma does not mean that you are not just selectively creating your own.
You have to be careful with your beliefs and assumptions so that you do not blind yourself to life and reality. You have to question yourself and your beliefs when presented with an argument that runs counter to your own thoughts on a subject. If by doing so, you find your beliefs are still valid, then good. Question them again the next time the chance presents itself. With time comes experience and with experience comes insight for those open-minded enough to pay attention to it. If you question them once and then never question them again, then I hope that you are absolutely certain in their veracity.
You cannot just slush off another's belief by calling them young and foolish. With age comes experience, true, but an 80-year old is every bit as capable of holding irrational beliefs as a 20-year old, a 10-year old or a 40-year old. In many cases, age works as a deterrent to open-mindedness when people become set in their ways and refuse to acknowledge that they may be wrong, which often happens with spiritual beliefs. The opening line: "When I was young, ignorant and closed minded, I used to believe the same as you. Then I grew up and learned how people really work." implies the same type of vague promise of future knowledge/enlightenment that was one of the grandparent's main complaints. What is more likely is that as you get older and have this argument time and time again, is that you get tired and stop fighting. You give in. This is not the knowledge of experienced wisdom; that is the cover-up of a quitter. Of course, maybe you have found a good reason why the logic of atheism is flawed. If so, I'd like to hear it. I'd be most interested.
As far as relative knowledge goes, being naked in the Amazon rain forest does not immediately invalidate your prior knowledge of anything. The knowledge that you had is not suddenly useless or wrong just because you're deep in the jungle. It just is not applicable in that particular situation. A person that is able to think critically and accept the reali
Perhaps when they rewrite the Constitution, in the part where they advocate the separation of church and state, they can add a part about the separation of business and state.
I fail to understand why so many people believe that these guys give a crap about their country's shrinking level of freedom, when they have clearly demonstrated that they have no intention of stopping it, but rather, ensuring that it continues to shrink.
I may be a crackpot but these first two principles would seem to be very much in keeping with open source software. After all, what could be more egocentric than creating something simply because you want to and it makes you happy? Add to that the fact that there is indeed money to be made in OSS and I think Aiden is more likely in line with Rand than Clemens.
The problems here are being caused by the rules laid down by government that restrict the free market. A market restricted by law cannot be considered free. The real problem stems from those unscrupulous characters within the business community, like the RIAA, that push for the restriction of the free market through law and then use it to expand their profits through racketeering. Lessening these restrictions, or doing away with them entirely would leave people like the RIAA with no leg to stand on.
Intelligent, insightful relationship advice regarding women on /.
(Hold me, I'm scared...)
We, as a country, certainly didn't like his theories and they obviously didn't jive with the facts of the Holocaust, but unless a court could specifically show that the author knew he was lying, that's irrelevant. The bottom line is that although no one favoured his arguments and no one wanted him in the country, he did not violate anyone's rights. He offended us, but that alone is not enough to revoke someone's right to speak. In this case, we overreacted to something we didn't want to hear and took away another piece of our own freedom in the process.
The problem with allowing a society to restrict its citizen's core freedoms is that it inevitably will.
I shudder to think what a country we would have when our opinions can be considered a violation of human rights. (And seeing as how I live in Canada, I suppose I should shudder.) That being said, I would like to think that this country is open-minded enough in most cases to know that offending someone is not the same as violating their rights (although I am sure that others will beg to differ on specific cases).
Advocating something and actually doing it are entirely different beasts. Both can be reprehensible, but only one violates someone's rights.
Regardless of how submissive an person is to any given group or environment, the ultimate choice is still theirs. If their choice is to always blindly go along with the egomass, then that is still their choice. The fact that one has a choice does not presume what that choice will be.
I do not presume anything about the content or nature of a choice, only that there is one. I have made no claim that individuals automatically insist on that which gives them the most freedom, or that they even actively put in any effort to the choices that they make. I think that there are many millions of examples that we can point to in everyday life all over the world that attest to that.
My point is that the individual still has to make a choice - what choice that is or how much thought they put into it, or even how many options they have beyond yes or no (which will occur regardless of circumstance and regardless of how heavily one side may be favoured), has nothing to do with that. The choice is still there. What any given individual does with that choice is a different matter altogether.
Despite the ease with which some people submit and conform, it still rests within them to make a different choice, for better or worse, whether they know it or not. The content and context of any given decision is by no means inferred by the ability to choose. That ability only states that there is a decision, not how easily it was made or if it was made under duress or as the result of brainwashing or peer pressure, or with any kind of forethought at all.
The fact is that there is a choice, but what any given person does with it is a different matter altogether. Free will is a fact; the extent and manner in which it's used is another argument entirely.
Those actions are affected by a number of outside factors like peer pressure and poor reasoning, but ultimately, the final choice is up to the individual. No one else's brain can make a decision for him. Now, what that end decision is can certainly be influenced by external factors, but the bottom line is that the final choice, whatever it is, rests with the individual alone.
A muscle doesn't have that kind of sentience. Of course, I'm probably just nitpicking.