"Yeah, yeah, make it black and white like that. That's another symptom."
Yeah, I know; scary! Now it's Black and White, but the next symptom is seeing computers getting working again because my ESP powers kick in!;-p
"Right. You've just used magical dragons, invisible tooth fairies, and little green magical men as examples. Not pixie dust, though. Thank Jehova you didn't go for the pixie dust!"
Lol. Well, the magical dragon example was from Carl Sagan, actually, but it's clear you don't have any grasp what was meant by it. It's not about the analogies themselves, it's about *the reasoning* behind sustaining and upholding notions of things that are 'unmeasurable'.
Ok, this has degraded to childish bickering. But I'll give it another try, maybe things have to be defined more clearly about what we both are talking about.
You're getting pedantic. The 'sense' I mentionned has nothing to do with anything supernatural; I just meant I made that assumption based on your recurrent theme that 'science doesn't know everything'. Surely, this must have some significance to your argumentation, since you repeatedly use it in your posts as if it were a counter-argument. I also suspect (no, not ESP again;-) that you knew full well what I meant by 'sense', so you deliberatly making it an issue is rather weak. It may be that my judgement was wrong; contrary to you, I have no trouble adjusting my conclsusion, and I'm open for new input from you to prove me wrong. But you DID use the argument about 'science doesn't know everything' several times; if it's not in support of your viewpoint, why did you say it, then? Just as a general remark? Well, in that case; yes, I agree, science doesn't know everything. And? If it has no relevance to the discussed topic, why bring it up? If it does have relevance, what do you imply with it?
"Anyway, your line of mocking explanations is irrelevant. I've never tried to explain, just observe. That's the, what, fourth time I've said that? I've not made a hypothesis. Except I how hypothesize that you're a troll."
That hypothesis would be false too.;-)
But, you did say: "This odd effect I have on machines has happened so often, for decades, that I can't really deny it. It's subtle, but it's been observed by people around me, for as long as I can remember." With that sentence you indicated that it is a *real* thing, and that it is observable. How does this rime with your claim it's not measurable? Surely, if it's been happening for decades, and people have observed it, it *is* observable? You are making a statement that you *have* such odd effects, and you imply that the cause is supernatural. You made a conclusion from your observations, you didn't make just the observations, which is contrary of what you're claiming you said now. Furthermore, you said that it's unmeasurable, yet people seem to have noticed it. This is one other example of a contradictio in terminis.
I think you're not being honest here, and you never really responded to this: is it your claim that you *have* such powers, or not? From your first post, one must conclude you have, from your later ones, one might conclude you were just talking about your anecdotal observations, without making (or implying) any conclusions about it. Alas, you can not deny that saying 'this odd effect I have' is a clear conclusion that you actually possess such powers, not that you are just retelling your experiences and leave everything open as to the possible causes of it.
So, which is it? Do you claim to have such powers, or not? It's quit a simple question to answer, and it goes to the core of this thread, because if you're truelly just talking about your observations and the fact they aren't measurable, I will concede that point gladly.
"Yeah, you seem to be trapped in that."
Lol. Yes, I'm trapped in thinking a meaningful discussion should be based on logical reasonings supported by rational arguments. My fault!:-)
"Carry on."
I will. The only strawman here, is perhaps the one you set up. Saying "I've never tried to explain, just observe. That's the, what, fourth time I've said that?" is obviously false, seen your earlier statement that you had those powers. You apparently reached that conclusion based on your observations, so you can't claim you didn't make any hypothesis (it's obvious your hypothesis is, that the observations you made are caused by a super-natural power that you have, since you've stated as much).
So you see, saying it 4 times does not actually make it more reliable...it just means it was 4 times not true. You DID make a conclusion, and that claim was made as if it was f
My argument was that that was the real point of discussion. This is not specious at all, unless you want to claim that the sole purpose of your post(s) was to argument that your experiences are not measurable.
I fail to see the relevance of your example in this context.
"Thanks for making my point."
You're welcome, since it was my point too.;-)
"100 years ago it was magic. 50 years ago it was pseudo science. Now it's well accepted science."
No, even 100 years ago, it wasn't magic; Golgi and Ramón y Cajal shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1906 for their extensive observations, descriptions and categorizations of neurons throughout the brain.
I'm beginning to sense that you equate the lack of understanding everything (scientifically) with some sort of 'support' that your anecdotal experiences and supernatural explanation will be proven right, someday. As said earlier; that might be. It might be that science one day can discern invisible tooth fairies too.. but how much value do YOU give THAT? Unless something more substantial is provided, with a possibility of scientific falsifation, it is ludicrous to go deeper into the matter, because there is an infinite number of possible causes that can be claimed to be true, if no measurement of truth is needed. If I say little green magical men actually did it when you arrived, can that be exluded to be true neither? No. If I tell you I'm God, and it's me that fixed all the computers you went near, just so we could have this discussion - God can be an asshole too, after all - can you exlude this as being possibly true too? No.
The discussion becomes meaningless, without further proof, because ALL hypothesis have EQUAL truth if they don't need a standard to adher to, which ultimately means they have no worth at all. Saying science doesn't know everything is in no way supporting the original argument. Maybe it doesn't know everything about the tooth fairies, little green magical men and god neither?
"How many times do I need to repeat myself? I don't expect anyone to accept it. I hope they're not assholes about it. You seem incapable of grasping this. You apparently are better at talking than listening."
Well, I don't know about the 'apparent'; it seems to me I could as well say you appear not to be good at both things; talking AND listening.
But I think it's best if we stop this thread: obviously, we're talking aside eachother. I had the impression you implied that ESP really existed, due to your anecdotal observations. If it was just your personal opinion about some hypothesis without any bearing to anything that exists outside your own opinion, then obviously the point is mute. Rational debate is meaningless if the rationale itself for comming to a meaningful conclusion is disputed.
On itself, one opinion is as much worth as the next (which is, next to nothing, because any discussion becomes futile if only ones' personal opinion counts).
I had the impression you actually meant that there was an *actual* case to be made for ESP, based on your anecdotal observations. If you only wanted to say it's your personal opinion, without it needing any support or have any bearings in reality, than I could have spared me the discussion, indeed.
"Google is using copyrighted material to turn a profit"
Of course, it's copyrighted material, even if they don't make a profit. I mean, you are aware that copyright handles the right to copy, and not whether you make a dime of it? For instance, if I was copying a book and gave it away for free, it STILL would be copyright-infringement, and the authors still could sue me.
Therefor, I'm glad to see you are a staunch believer in protecting copyrights. This post you are reading, btw, is also copyrighted. And your browser just made a copy of it.
Feel free to pay me 2,6 euro for the copyrights of this post. Thank you!:-)
"I've already said twice that my experiences aren't measurable."
If that was *all* that you meant to say, then I wouldn't have even bothered responding, because that's obviously true: your experiences aren't measurable. The real point of discussion here, however, is not about the fact that they aren't measurable, it's the fact you imply they are existent in the first place (with super-natural explanations as the cause), *even when* they aren't measurable.
What I've tried to make clear is that that conclusion is unwarranted and unvalid.
"Something formerly related to crazies and wingnuts could actually become a reality."
Not at all. The fact that thoughts (such as for the movement of a limb) can be detected (and maybe even used to help handicapt people) is well established, and has nothing to do with ESP or anything supernatural. Neurological activity, and the ways to measure it, are well-imbedded in current scientific knowledge, even though we don't know everything about the brain-functions. At the very least, the results are not explained by super-natural causes, and the experiments are reproducable and are prone to scientific falsification.
Therefor, your question is rethorical: of course, science has not discovered everything there is to discover. This does not mean, however, that science must accept everything a person claims. It's quite simple: if an effect can not be demonstrated in a scientific way, science can't do anything with it. That's why science can't really say anything about god. Only when one claims god (or ESP, etc.) has a real effect on our physical world, it must be shown to *have* such an effect, for the claim to be worth something. If there is none, or if it is 'undectable', then there is no basis to claim the source for those non-detectable effects is there neither. You don't NEED an existing source or cause to explain things that are un-detectable.
No need to become personal (nor offensive). You do understand the 'fruitcake'-part was meant as a joke, right? The smiley and the 'and now serious' should have given it away. I just thought you had more sense of self-mockery then you apparently have.
And, ermm...you cared enough to respond;-p
I'm not sure what response you wanted or expected, actually. If you agree that personal anecdotal observations do not constitute a real basis for concluding the truthfulness of a conclusion ('like ESP exists'), then merely by the fact that you experienced such observations one CAN NOT draw the concusion there is anything going on that can't be explained by more down-to-earth explanations (Occams' razor, indeed). It's strange that you would use Occam's Razor to defend your position, but the fact is, it's far more reasonable to assume already known biases (in biased remembering, in incorrect turving, in taking correlation to mean causality, etc.) then to come up with a completely unknown and unsupported (at least in a scientific sense) sort of energy or physics or whatevber you want to call it, to explain your anecdotal observations.
Occam's razor does not mean: 'just keep it as simple as possible', after all. If that were the case, one could just say it's all comming from god. The late Carl Sagan already explained this issue very well in his books, especially with the 'magical dragon in the garage' example. and the conclusion is; even if you were right; even if you have meticulously noted every time a computer worked when you arrived, and when it not worked, even if you have statistically analysed that the number of times it did work suddenly when you arrived is significantly more then just a fluke, etc.... if it's not reproducable or notable by others *under controlled* circumstances (a 'double blind' falsification') then still we can't do anything with it.
It might be difficult for you to understand this reasoning, convinced as you are that there IS something 'weird' going on, but try to visualise it like this:
Imagine, some guy claims he has some invisible tooth fairies who often magically repair stuff he gets near to. He's making a post on slashdot about it. No doubt he will be mocked a bit; maybe this is not nice, especially if he feels offended by it (low level of self-mockery, for instance), but then again, it might be expected. In any case, he calls the skeptics assholes, because they point out there are far more easier, normal ways of explaining what he has encountered, without invoking fairies.
Now, can one actually totally exclude that guy isn't helped by invisible tooth-fairies? No. Does it make more sense to support his fairy-tale because he believes it and 'has observed' it? No. As Carl Sagan said: extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary proof. when that guy only supports his claims by personal anecdotes/observations, then we can not give much credibility to him, ot his tooth-fairies.
The same goes for you.
Yes, I know: you're not claiming tooth-fairies exist. The point and the principle remains the same, however: you do not provide any proof, only anecdotes. Anecdotal 'evidence' in not scientifically-controlled (and reproducable) experiments or without statistical analysis have no sway whatsoever; they are worth next to nothing in providing a solid conclusion for a true effect. That's just the way it is. If you think that is unreasonable, then you also find it unreasonable that a dude believing fairies help him should provide a bit more proof then just him saying he's seen the fairies repair stuff when he arrives. From the stance of an objective third party, your claim is as unsubstatiated as one claiming fairies help him out, you must realise this. (And, in fact, I've seen posts on slashdot from people who actually claim they can bend spoons by just looking at it, and some even claimed they could see right through walls and what not... all those claims are equally worthless, if they are not susbstantiated - and that's irre
lol...so much for anonymity; you are now the official fruitcake of Slashdot!;-)
That said, I just *knew* there was going to be a post like this in this thread, so maybe I'm psychic too!
And look at your high number; 5551! that's...well, that corresponds to...something, I'm sure.
And now back to being serious: even if you believe in what you say, it doesn't mean it's actually true. It's a well known factor in human psychology that people remeber the eventful moments better then the uneventfull. So maybe computers sometimes start working when you arrive... they have done so for me too. No, seriously; they have. But then again, I'm in the IT departement, so I come in contact with *a lot* of computers. And I have had many that just borked the same way whether I'm there or not - are you saying you never had computers which didn't magically start working again, even if you were showing up? That rather seems doubtful.
And thus, if I just remembered the times (which I do best too, btw) where things suddenly started to work when I arrived, without noting the times when they didn't, I might come to the same conclusion as you. But I don't. I never turved the times computers just started to work versus the times they didn't, so I have no idea wether or not it is statistically significant. Even if they were, one would have to reproduce the effect under controlled circumstances, to come to any scientific conclusion (and to rule out it's just a fluke, even IF you had a string of magical-working-computers).
All in all, it's a very human tendency to think that 'anecdotal evidence' is proof of something real, but, in fact, it isn't at all. The use of homeopathic 'medicine' is proof of how widespread this sort of erroneous thinking is. "But it really works; my kids had a cold, and after 4 days taking that homeopathic stuff they were healthy again" and that sort of nonsense. It's not that those parents deliberatly lie, it's just that they wrongly connect a correlation (or even imagine there is one) with being a causality.
You correlate your subjective rememberance of the computers that started working (which feels weird, I agree) with a causality: that YOU are the reason that they started working, or have an influence on it. But, statisctically spoken, you can't even be sure there is a correlation at all, let alone a causality.
If you really analyse it, there is only one right, and this is the right of those that are/is in power.
ALL the other rights, even the 'natural' ones are abritrary distinctions made by people (which usually have a wide consensus, but are still arbitrary). If you have a society where one elite reserves all rights for themselves just because they are the elite (by birth, for instance), then one can make a completely internally valid reasoning where even the 'natural' rights are only reserved to the elite, and not to the non-elite.
This issue is only a topic of debate in a philosophical sense (this is where Locke comes in) because of people *agreeing* that there are such things as 'natural' and 'non-natural' rights, or even THAT there are universal rights at all. When you have people that don't agree with that basic premise, and those have the power, then all philosophing amounts to nothing.
In short, it amounts to the question of a social contract (thus, ppl agreeing on basic premises), even when it comes down to things as the right to live for everybody, and the right on private property, etc. Once one has concluded that, one can see that health care is another part of such social contract, and people can as validly see that as a 'basic right' as much as the other rights already mentionned.
"we are also denying people who aren't going to commit any crime the possibility of proving their innocence.""
That's strange, I didn't know people had to prove their innocence when they weren't going to commit any crime. In most normal countries the legal practise is, one is presumed innocent, untill proven otherwise. Some recent exeptions that are becomming aparent in USA 'justice' not withstanding, it's not necessary to prove anything about one's thoughts about something, as long as one didn't act on it.
So, I fail to see the validity of that claim in support of implementing thought-watching, unless the justice departement already went wrong and had thrown away current legal rights. And if that's the case, thought-police will only make things more totalitarian anyway.
In that case, the US should definitaly start talking with north-Korea, instead of urging a total boycot of that country.
And, what if the poison pill could be neutralised by using an anti-dote (in this case, a.eu/uk/de domain)? Since your argument is derived from the threat ICANN can do, when that threat is eliminated, there is no reason to do so anymore.
And if your argument is not based on potential threat/might, then it makes no sense neither; it would mean any corporation should be subjected to any court of any country, whether they did business there or not. It would, in effect, mean that you abolish the notion of sovereignity. No country, and certainly not the US, would accept that.
Let's say Iranian courts convict USA corporations of "lewd behaviour" or any such thing which is illegal there. Do you actually think USA corporations should go to Iran and defend themselves in court?
Would it be stupidity and arrogance not to defend themselves in every country they get sued, regardless whether they actually do bussiness in that country or not... or would that be just good and common sense?
USA courts have no jurisdiction over companies in other countries, it's as simple as that. The USA itself would be the first to make an international fuss about it, if it happend to THEM.
If he ONLY exercised his free speech, he didn't deserve it, how reprehensable his writings might have been.
The problem with nazism was exactly that which I try to convey with my parent post: they didn't allow any other views than what THEY deemed appropriate.
Censorship, therefor, is the halmark sign of a totalitarian regime, not that of an open democracy. And the more we censor, the more we act like those that we despise.
This is a copy of a post I made some time ago, but still is worth mentionning because it directly relates to free speech, of which, you will notice, I am a stark proponent in the finest (cough) libertarian sense:
Well, this may be a bit off topic, but what the heck. I've just been out with some friends, and, as always when we get moderately drunk, we talked about politics, religion, philosophy etc. (when we are real drunk or when no babes are present, we usually talk about sex;-)
Well, anyhow, being all european, and all friends (birds of a feather) we fully agreed on a lot of topics. Israel, Iraq, USA, etc...opinions didn't differ much there. But then it came to a typical european concept of free speech, which, I presume, may strike USA-citizens as a bit weird. While, seen at large, we have the same concept of free speech as in the USA, this opinion, curiously, always seem to shift to a more restricted idea of free speech when it concerns things as racism. In this respect (one of the few, I might add), I think the usa concept of it is much more honest and fair. This has undoubtably to do with our historic heritage, notably WWII.
I was argumenting that revisionistic books, as an expression of an opinion, should be allowed. Thus, not agreeing with the law(s) in most euro-countries, where such books are forbidden. To my astonishment, many of my friends agreed with this censorship, however. This is something I do not understand; you CAN NOT claim to be for free speech and expression of opinion, and then say "exept when it's *that* opinion". Allowing free speech only if you agree with it, but forbid it when you totally disagree with it, is not allowing free speech at all. I've tried to argument it, but it just didn't seem to get through to them; they started with the premise that it's wrong, and therefor it should be forbidden, whatever. The fact that this leads to hypocrytical contradictions was something they ignored too. One said: 'it's a fact, and thus it shouldn't be disputed' another said 'it hurts the jews'...but, are that, on itself, enough reasons to forbid an opinion? Is there a 'fact' so absolute, it can't be disputed? Can't anyone feel hurt be an opinion of another dude, and should we thus, forbid everything that someone claims is hurting their feelings?
These arguments do not make any sense, and what's more, to forbid an opinion is EXACTLY what ultra-right wing or despotic governments would do with the opinions that my friends (and I myself) hold dear; that of being non-racist, etc. The difference is, they start with the presumtion that they (the idea they have about it) are right, and thus oposing views can be forbidden, while I think people are allowed to have racist opinions, even when I totally disagree with them... After all, that is EXACTLY what a dictator (or ultra-right-winged-government) would do, if he ever got the power: claim something is a 'fact' and forbid oposing views. The REAL difference, thus, between a democracy and a dictatorship is that that the one alows (or should allow) diffirent opinions, while the other does not. Thus, in conclusion, this is a treat, not of democraccy, but of a dictatorship, and unworthy to be used in a democracy, IMHO. It also shows that laws are not always justified, and, again IMHO, should not ALWAYS be regarded as an absolutism, something that should be followed blindly. (Of course, it happens to be my opinion that revisionists are telling crap too, but the point is I think they have a right to express that opinion).
I got a bit worked up about it, really, because, after all, it restricts other people, because of the mere opinion of others, who think they have the right to forbid it (and have the power - which is the dangerous part, because; what if the power shifts?). Why am I writing all this? Well, because it made it clear to me again, why I'm doing all this trouble for a project such as Freenet. Sometimes, with all the tech babble and the problems and all that, I ask myself why I'm doing all this. And I gues
Well, not really. I thought this post to be the most clear in explaining your thoughts.
In a more abstract way, I can agree (at least partially) with many of your ideas and claims.
However, I do feel that a reaction was in order, whether it was 'helpful' or not. Because the 'helpful' depends on who was helped by it and why. I can understand what you say about getting defensive, but foreign comments should not make a difference if the american people itself think it's wrong. I *do* understand the reaction of getting defensive, however, since most people have the same reaction when they (or their country) is criticised. However, in all honesty: I don't think it would have mattered a iota regarding the attitude and actions of your government. They would just have gone the same way, whoever roasted them. And I mean, one can not expect europeans to agree with what the USA did, just because it theorethically might have boosted internal opposition (which seemed readily disgarded by the USA government anyway). If we agreed with the actions of the USA just for that reason, we would have lost all credibility in the world as well. In the end, one has to stand up for ones believes and the right course of action, regardless of hypothetical benefits that might, or might not, materialise, and which usefulness (the invasion would have happend anyway, and the middle east would have considered europeans as bad as the USA) is disputable.
Also, I find it hard to accept the notion that "it's not in the best interest to europe, so you'd better help". I can accept the statement on itself: a civil war is in no-ones interest - but it still reeks of emperialism. The most important question should be, not what is in our/your interest, but what is in the interest of the Iraqi people. Using logic, one can hardly claim a civil war is the best thing for them neither, but...it's a position YOU brought us in. It's just TOO easy to mess things up, and then say: "well, now that we messed things up, surely you agree that it's in everyones best interest if you help to clean the mess up". (if that was still possible, which I doubt).
This stinks of some hypocrite doubletalk; normally, when I teach kids how to take responsability for their own actions, I let them clean up the mess they make themselves (like, when they spoil coke on the table, or something). If a kid would tell me: "well, things would go faster if you helped me", I would agree with his statement (just as I do with yours) on itself, but that would be an utter hypocritical and unfair request, especially if he did it on purpose, and I warned him in front not to do it. In general, when people make a mess, it's good to let them clean it up themselves, because then, they learn some responsability for their own actions. If they can mess things up, and then ask others to help clean it up, one never learns anything, and can go on happily with screwing things up.
Frankly, I think it's more important that the USA gets burned, and burned badly. This may sound harsh, but maybe they will finally learn to stop meddling in such an imperialistic way, and on the whole the world will be better of THAT way. It's not that I'm gleefull about it, like some might do, but it's because I really think the USA could use some humility, and they will not learn that untill they get the door banged on their nose quite hard. I mean, be honest: if Iraq becomes a total disaster for the USA (and it looks like it will), it WILL make it more difficult for them to invade another country in the same manner, true? You can't keep your emperialistic expansion going when you get a bloody nose everytime, can you?
So, you see, in the grand scheme of things, it's not clear cut what is best, because best for who? For the USA? For Europe? For the world? For Iraq? For the future? Nobody really knows what is best. I mean, who can know if things wouldn't have improved safety far more, if the USA hadn't invaded Iraq, but instead spend the same amount of money on a dipl
"LOL. Like the French apologizing for the mess that they left in Africa? (They haven't)"
Well, no doubt there are myriads of things they didn't apologised for, but they did apologise for their colonial misbehaviour. So did the Netherlands, and so did Belgium (for their brutal actions in congo).
But once again, my point is not that countries, and certainly empires do not behave hypocritcal, militaristic, expansionistic and arogant; almost all nations/empires did at one time. The point I'm making (and which we are disagreeing on) is that this kind of mentality is less and less tolerated, and certainly not condoned enough anymore, for the USA to keep holding onto its emperialistic tendencies.
I'm well aware that you try to say that human nature is bend on conquering and overpowering others (for their resources, or simply to exercise power or what not), but sadly enough, while the majority of my post existed out of counter-arguments, you hardly responded on any of them.
"If you won't even agree with me that humanity has an empire streak built-in, then I fail to see how we will attack the problem."
You must severly have misunderstood my arguments. I agreed partially that there are human tendencies like you describe; I only claimed your viewpoint, based only on that aspect, is too limited and simplistic. Humans have myriads of (sometimes conflicting) urges and tendencies, and it depends on the 'nurture' part which direction they will take. As long as nominal tresholds for raw survival are not at stake, most of these directions will remain in place.
If there was a total collapse of society in all its aspects, then I believe you would be right, and many 'gentlemen' agreements and rules would be discarded. But even there and then, you would always have different elements in play; as I said earlier, humans are social beings as well, and survival often betters when one cooperates also, so even in the event of a total disater where society breaks down, it wouldn't necessarily boil down, to, say, warmongering among EU-countries, for instance.
The difference being that this would be an extreme condition, where survival is at stake. The USA apparently thinks a perceived loss of geo-political influence, or the benefit of some american corporations, are already enough to set aside any country or international rule. I'm not saying they're the only one ever to have done that, but they do it now, and with an imperialistic zeal that only made sense in the mentality of 200 years ago.
Also, I want to stress, again, that this is no excuse, even if every country in the entire history of the hulan race has done it. I mean, slavery has been considered normal in many civilisations, also almost during our entire history. In your reasoning, would it now be justified if the USA started to have slaves again, because 'other countries have done the same'? Whether others have done the same or not, says nothing about the morality of the matter. Besides, the fact that the notion of 'slavery' is not any longer accepted, may also indicate that your pessimistic viewpoint about how people are bound to their lust for power, may be a bit TOO negative.
I counted the start from the Roman empire untill the end of it, including the eastern empire. We could both have good arguments for our positions, since 'they did well' is a rather subjective measurement. While the sphere of influence may have changed over time, it was still civilisation it brought with it, even when only the east-roman empire remained.
Well...I was going to respond point by point, but I see another poster (abcd) already answered you very poignantly.
The only thing I'm going to elaberate on, is the fact you seem to have a rather negative viewpoint of humanity, "bound" to its biology or genetics. While one could question this viewpoint on itself, even when one would accept it, it is oversimplified.
I could agree it is in the nature of humans to gather power, and exercise that power; but genetics/biology/evolution does not define HOW we're going about in gathering and exercising that power. Point in fact: europe is now, after of hundreds of years trying to force it in a unity manu military, truelly becomming a unity (of some sorts, at least). This time, it seems to be succeeding far better, yet: while there are still people (politicians included;-) that gather and exercise power, the manner in which they do so is completely different then in all the centuries before. Countries have to *want* to be in the EU, for starters.
Speaking purely from your biological viewpoint, it would be rather unlikely that our biology suddenly changed in Europe, so the change in mentality that happend is proof that things *can* be done differently, regardless of our biology. This is partly due to the oversimplification you make. While it is true that human nature has a side which wants to have power over others, it is equally true that this doesn't constitute the entirety of a human being, nor that it is the sole, or even the main drive of humans. For instance, aside from 'tribalism' that 'runs in our blood' (I'll take this concept as true, for arguments' sake), humans are also social animals, and will cooperate with eachother to achieve things. In fact, humans are damn complex beings, with different drives and urges from their genetic/biological nature (which can level eachother out), and, on top of that, a capability of reasoning unsurpassed in the rest of nature which, indeed, makes it possible to get above our 'animal instincts', at least to some degree.
Cooperation (say, on a world-scale) is made a lot more difficult, however, when another country still behaves as were building an empire still feasable today. While biology may not have changed, the mentality of people and the technology has: we now have weapons to annihilate eachother completely, we have the notion of basic human rights, we have the UN: all things that were unheard of in the time of the Romans. (Which, btw, wasn't romanticised: I said 'beside their destruction'. But we *do* realise they brought us many good things to, aside from the bad - which is why Caesar gets statues here, even when he actually murdered a quarter of our population. The point was not to excuse the emperialistic behaviour, it was to demonstrate that at least they DID bring culture and civilisation - something which can hardly be said of the USA.)
The whole question about "The US is the only country to support dictators?" is, as the other poster already mentionned, not something I claimed, nor would - because it's rethorical in nature. I already said 'also, like all empires'...and this obviously included european ones, like the Britisch Empire. The whole point, however, is that we know it was wrong: to my knowledge, every european country that had colonies, already apologised for its colonial past, and acknowledged its wrongdoings. And now, we're actively trying to solve problems the diplomatic way, wich, at least within the EU, has known great succes.
In contrast, the USA isn't apologising for anything, and they still *continue* the way the european empires acted 200 years ago. I'm still waiting for Dubja (or the USA as a whole, for that matter) to apologise for invading Iraq, for instance, or for acknowledging he was wrong in doing so.
Aside of that, even when my own government *would* behave like that of the USA today, I would be the first to condemn it, instead of claiming it's 'in our nature', or 'it comes with the territory'. It's exactly those kind of remarks that typifies the hypocritical and arrogant attitude of the USA, and only serves as apologetic excuses for emperialistic behaviour.
"As an American, I just hope that the next empire is as kind to the US as the US has been toward the last empire."
Ah...for a moment there, I thought you were going to end with "towards Iraq".
"I'd love to live in Europe right now and enjoy empire living standards without having to do any of the dirty work."
Dirty hands, you mean. Yes, obviously, it's thanks to the imperialistic tendencies and unilateral arrogant attitudes on worldlevel, that Europe enjoys good living standards. If you hadn't supported rebels - though now described as terrorists - and dicators alike, where would we be?
Didn't the US do some good as well? Certainly, just like any other country. Alas, also just like all empires before it, it also behaves like it owns the world. the problem with that is:
a)They aren't very good at it (at least the Romans made an effort to bring culture and civilisation, aside from destruction, AND they were also politically adept, AND they endured for a thousand years)
b)The time of empires has passed, and it seems the US didn't get the memo. This imperialistic, military and arrogant behaviour belongs to another era, and the USA is like a dinosaur acting like it still can control the world the way a budding empire did hundreds of years ago. And not only that, it thinks it has the god-given right to do so, moral superiour as they think they are, or 'a shining example for all'. You know: freedom, democracy, all that - well, unless a country goes against USA interests, of course.
Anti-americanism exists all right, even in europe. But what you fail to realise is, that it's been born and it has grown as a result from your own hypocritic actions. It might be funny in a south-park episode, but it isn't in real life, if USA citizens are unaware of the reason why people dislike the USA so much. And for fucks' sake, it isn't because we're "jealous of your freedom" or because america is the pinacle that the West has to offer, or any such self-deluging flattery that you people invent to try to keep your own narcistic illusion in place.
The downside is, most of the populace are viewing the matter in generalised terms, and in black and white. And anti-americanism gets a too broad a stroke to my taste. I'm anti-american myself, though I only interpret that in a limited way: I do not dislike the USA population as a whole (as is becomming more and more the current mentality), because, as individuals, I know you have some swell persons living there. (The late) Carl Sagan comes to mind, and a lot of others. But, your current government deserves all the flack it gets, and THEY present the USA on the world-stage (and, in all honesty, at least half of the populace voted for Buja - well, the second time, anyway - and thus, half earns the miscontempt it gets)
Anti-americanism, based on the actions of your government, and those that kept that same government in place, is justified and well deserved, me thinks.
It's about the education, I don't say anything about fundamentalism here.
Maybe you were mistaken with 'TFA'; this was a reference about *THIS* FA (on slashdot), obviously. BOTH things contribute to the poor performance of science in the USA, however.
I'm rather surprised an american (you are from the USA I presume) dares so openly to say what you just said. It could have come from me - but then, I'm european;-)
Nice to see someone from over there saying the same things, and reaching the same conclusion: it's actually a sign not everybody is lame-assed over the big dipper. (Not that I had to be convinced of individual USA greateness; Carl Sagan always had my respect).
Though we're constantly being called european elitists and our education 'snobbery', the fact is, education is far worse in the USA then in alot of other countries (and certainly compared by European standards).
The reasons are many, but basically come down to this: the schoolsystem and education-mechanism sucks, and, as TFA says, science and knowledge as a whole gets corrupted by christian fundamentalism (like Muslim fundamentalism does in some near-east countries) and politics.
No surprise, then, that more then 10% of the american populace can't find their own country on a worldmap...and it's not like it's a *small* country.
Christian fundamentalism and the 'politically correct' mentality (often also influenced by the same bible-driven nonsense) will see to it that the USA keeps losing ground in matters of education, science, and eventually in technology. The only thing keeping this from happening already, is the sheer amount of money that is being spend; but money alone will not solve this.
Mind you, the downfall is already under way: I remember another article on slashdot saying that the last years, articles in scientific papers came less and less from the USA, and more and more from Europe and Asia. Every year, the comparison with USA children with others from western countries gets more and more negative for the USA, etc.
All in all, it's a bit sad, really, though with those redneck-bible-belt states, I can't say it's really a surprise. We have fought for centuries to get rid of the christian dogma's, the church and biblical 'truths'...and you guys are embracing it again voluntarily! Now, that's nuts!
Slashdot Mirror
"Yeah, yeah, make it black and white like that. That's another symptom."
;-p
- Candle-Dark/dp/0345409469
Yeah, I know; scary! Now it's Black and White, but the next symptom is seeing computers getting working again because my ESP powers kick in!
"Right. You've just used magical dragons, invisible tooth fairies, and little green magical men as examples. Not pixie dust, though. Thank Jehova you didn't go for the pixie dust!"
Lol. Well, the magical dragon example was from Carl Sagan, actually, but it's clear you don't have any grasp what was meant by it. It's not about the analogies themselves, it's about *the reasoning* behind sustaining and upholding notions of things that are 'unmeasurable'.
Here you go, in the off-chance you really are interested in improving your logical reasoning skills (and if not, it's still a worthwile read): http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-Science
"Really? Over the wire, from thousands of miles away, you 'sensed' my intentions. Seems pretty spooky to me..."
;-)
:-)
9 61402 in stead of actually trying to make a sensible discussion. My fault!
Yeah, I know. It's called 'the internet', and it uses an arcane and mysterious force called 'interpreting what people write'.
"Yes, that's it in a nutshell."
Hey, if you wanted to just ignore any logic and rationale in this discussion, and thus just spout nonsense, you could have said so 3 posts ago!
But, yeah, ok, I should have made a response like the one at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=221684&cid=17
Ok, this has degraded to childish bickering. But I'll give it another try, maybe things have to be defined more clearly about what we both are talking about.
;-) that you knew full well what I meant by 'sense', so you deliberatly making it an issue is rather weak. It may be that my judgement was wrong; contrary to you, I have no trouble adjusting my conclsusion, and I'm open for new input from you to prove me wrong. But you DID use the argument about 'science doesn't know everything' several times; if it's not in support of your viewpoint, why did you say it, then? Just as a general remark? Well, in that case; yes, I agree, science doesn't know everything. And? If it has no relevance to the discussed topic, why bring it up? If it does have relevance, what do you imply with it?
;-)
:-)
You're getting pedantic. The 'sense' I mentionned has nothing to do with anything supernatural; I just meant I made that assumption based on your recurrent theme that 'science doesn't know everything'. Surely, this must have some significance to your argumentation, since you repeatedly use it in your posts as if it were a counter-argument. I also suspect (no, not ESP again
"Anyway, your line of mocking explanations is irrelevant. I've never tried to explain, just observe. That's the, what, fourth time I've said that? I've not made a hypothesis. Except I how hypothesize that you're a troll."
That hypothesis would be false too.
But, you did say: "This odd effect I have on machines has happened so often, for decades, that I can't really deny it. It's subtle, but it's been observed by people around me, for as long as I can remember." With that sentence you indicated that it is a *real* thing, and that it is observable. How does this rime with your claim it's not measurable? Surely, if it's been happening for decades, and people have observed it, it *is* observable? You are making a statement that you *have* such odd effects, and you imply that the cause is supernatural. You made a conclusion from your observations, you didn't make just the observations, which is contrary of what you're claiming you said now. Furthermore, you said that it's unmeasurable, yet people seem to have noticed it. This is one other example of a contradictio in terminis.
I think you're not being honest here, and you never really responded to this: is it your claim that you *have* such powers, or not? From your first post, one must conclude you have, from your later ones, one might conclude you were just talking about your anecdotal observations, without making (or implying) any conclusions about it. Alas, you can not deny that saying 'this odd effect I have' is a clear conclusion that you actually possess such powers, not that you are just retelling your experiences and leave everything open as to the possible causes of it.
So, which is it? Do you claim to have such powers, or not? It's quit a simple question to answer, and it goes to the core of this thread, because if you're truelly just talking about your observations and the fact they aren't measurable, I will concede that point gladly.
"Yeah, you seem to be trapped in that."
Lol. Yes, I'm trapped in thinking a meaningful discussion should be based on logical reasonings supported by rational arguments. My fault!
"Carry on."
I will. The only strawman here, is perhaps the one you set up. Saying "I've never tried to explain, just observe. That's the, what, fourth time I've said that?" is obviously false, seen your earlier statement that you had those powers. You apparently reached that conclusion based on your observations, so you can't claim you didn't make any hypothesis (it's obvious your hypothesis is, that the observations you made are caused by a super-natural power that you have, since you've stated as much).
So you see, saying it 4 times does not actually make it more reliable...it just means it was 4 times not true. You DID make a conclusion, and that claim was made as if it was f
"This argument is specious."
;-)
My argument was that that was the real point of discussion. This is not specious at all, unless you want to claim that the sole purpose of your post(s) was to argument that your experiences are not measurable.
I fail to see the relevance of your example in this context.
"Thanks for making my point."
You're welcome, since it was my point too.
"100 years ago it was magic. 50 years ago it was pseudo science. Now it's well accepted science."
No, even 100 years ago, it wasn't magic; Golgi and Ramón y Cajal shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1906 for their extensive observations, descriptions and categorizations of neurons throughout the brain.
I'm beginning to sense that you equate the lack of understanding everything (scientifically) with some sort of 'support' that your anecdotal experiences and supernatural explanation will be proven right, someday. As said earlier; that might be. It might be that science one day can discern invisible tooth fairies too.. but how much value do YOU give THAT? Unless something more substantial is provided, with a possibility of scientific falsifation, it is ludicrous to go deeper into the matter, because there is an infinite number of possible causes that can be claimed to be true, if no measurement of truth is needed. If I say little green magical men actually did it when you arrived, can that be exluded to be true neither? No. If I tell you I'm God, and it's me that fixed all the computers you went near, just so we could have this discussion - God can be an asshole too, after all - can you exlude this as being possibly true too? No.
The discussion becomes meaningless, without further proof, because ALL hypothesis have EQUAL truth if they don't need a standard to adher to, which ultimately means they have no worth at all. Saying science doesn't know everything is in no way supporting the original argument. Maybe it doesn't know everything about the tooth fairies, little green magical men and god neither?
"How many times do I need to repeat myself? I don't expect anyone to accept it. I hope they're not assholes about it. You seem incapable of grasping this. You apparently are better at talking than listening."
Well, I don't know about the 'apparent'; it seems to me I could as well say you appear not to be good at both things; talking AND listening.
But I think it's best if we stop this thread: obviously, we're talking aside eachother. I had the impression you implied that ESP really existed, due to your anecdotal observations. If it was just your personal opinion about some hypothesis without any bearing to anything that exists outside your own opinion, then obviously the point is mute. Rational debate is meaningless if the rationale itself for comming to a meaningful conclusion is disputed.
On itself, one opinion is as much worth as the next (which is, next to nothing, because any discussion becomes futile if only ones' personal opinion counts).
I had the impression you actually meant that there was an *actual* case to be made for ESP, based on your anecdotal observations. If you only wanted to say it's your personal opinion, without it needing any support or have any bearings in reality, than I could have spared me the discussion, indeed.
"Google is using copyrighted material to turn a profit"
:-)
Of course, it's copyrighted material, even if they don't make a profit. I mean, you are aware that copyright handles the right to copy, and not whether you make a dime of it? For instance, if I was copying a book and gave it away for free, it STILL would be copyright-infringement, and the authors still could sue me.
Therefor, I'm glad to see you are a staunch believer in protecting copyrights. This post you are reading, btw, is also copyrighted. And your browser just made a copy of it.
Feel free to pay me 2,6 euro for the copyrights of this post. Thank you!
"I've already said twice that my experiences aren't measurable."
If that was *all* that you meant to say, then I wouldn't have even bothered responding, because that's obviously true: your experiences aren't measurable. The real point of discussion here, however, is not about the fact that they aren't measurable, it's the fact you imply they are existent in the first place (with super-natural explanations as the cause), *even when* they aren't measurable.
What I've tried to make clear is that that conclusion is unwarranted and unvalid.
"Something formerly related to crazies and wingnuts could actually become a reality."
Not at all. The fact that thoughts (such as for the movement of a limb) can be detected (and maybe even used to help handicapt people) is well established, and has nothing to do with ESP or anything supernatural. Neurological activity, and the ways to measure it, are well-imbedded in current scientific knowledge, even though we don't know everything about the brain-functions. At the very least, the results are not explained by super-natural causes, and the experiments are reproducable and are prone to scientific falsification.
Therefor, your question is rethorical: of course, science has not discovered everything there is to discover. This does not mean, however, that science must accept everything a person claims. It's quite simple: if an effect can not be demonstrated in a scientific way, science can't do anything with it. That's why science can't really say anything about god. Only when one claims god (or ESP, etc.) has a real effect on our physical world, it must be shown to *have* such an effect, for the claim to be worth something. If there is none, or if it is 'undectable', then there is no basis to claim the source for those non-detectable effects is there neither. You don't NEED an existing source or cause to explain things that are un-detectable.
No need to become personal (nor offensive). You do understand the 'fruitcake'-part was meant as a joke, right? The smiley and the 'and now serious' should have given it away. I just thought you had more sense of self-mockery then you apparently have.
;-p
... if it's not reproducable or notable by others *under controlled* circumstances (a 'double blind' falsification') then still we can't do anything with it.
And, ermm...you cared enough to respond
I'm not sure what response you wanted or expected, actually. If you agree that personal anecdotal observations do not constitute a real basis for concluding the truthfulness of a conclusion ('like ESP exists'), then merely by the fact that you experienced such observations one CAN NOT draw the concusion there is anything going on that can't be explained by more down-to-earth explanations (Occams' razor, indeed). It's strange that you would use Occam's Razor to defend your position, but the fact is, it's far more reasonable to assume already known biases (in biased remembering, in incorrect turving, in taking correlation to mean causality, etc.) then to come up with a completely unknown and unsupported (at least in a scientific sense) sort of energy or physics or whatevber you want to call it, to explain your anecdotal observations.
Occam's razor does not mean: 'just keep it as simple as possible', after all. If that were the case, one could just say it's all comming from god. The late Carl Sagan already explained this issue very well in his books, especially with the 'magical dragon in the garage' example. and the conclusion is; even if you were right; even if you have meticulously noted every time a computer worked when you arrived, and when it not worked, even if you have statistically analysed that the number of times it did work suddenly when you arrived is significantly more then just a fluke, etc.
It might be difficult for you to understand this reasoning, convinced as you are that there IS something 'weird' going on, but try to visualise it like this:
Imagine, some guy claims he has some invisible tooth fairies who often magically repair stuff he gets near to. He's making a post on slashdot about it. No doubt he will be mocked a bit; maybe this is not nice, especially if he feels offended by it (low level of self-mockery, for instance), but then again, it might be expected. In any case, he calls the skeptics assholes, because they point out there are far more easier, normal ways of explaining what he has encountered, without invoking fairies.
Now, can one actually totally exclude that guy isn't helped by invisible tooth-fairies? No. Does it make more sense to support his fairy-tale because he believes it and 'has observed' it? No. As Carl Sagan said: extra-ordinary claims need extra-ordinary proof. when that guy only supports his claims by personal anecdotes/observations, then we can not give much credibility to him, ot his tooth-fairies.
The same goes for you.
Yes, I know: you're not claiming tooth-fairies exist. The point and the principle remains the same, however: you do not provide any proof, only anecdotes. Anecdotal 'evidence' in not scientifically-controlled (and reproducable) experiments or without statistical analysis have no sway whatsoever; they are worth next to nothing in providing a solid conclusion for a true effect. That's just the way it is. If you think that is unreasonable, then you also find it unreasonable that a dude believing fairies help him should provide a bit more proof then just him saying he's seen the fairies repair stuff when he arrives. From the stance of an objective third party, your claim is as unsubstatiated as one claiming fairies help him out, you must realise this. (And, in fact, I've seen posts on slashdot from people who actually claim they can bend spoons by just looking at it, and some even claimed they could see right through walls and what not... all those claims are equally worthless, if they are not susbstantiated - and that's irre
"Prudes of the worlds, unite!" ;-)
Well...ummmm...don't brilliant minds think alike? ;-)
lol...so much for anonymity; you are now the official fruitcake of Slashdot! ;-)
That said, I just *knew* there was going to be a post like this in this thread, so maybe I'm psychic too!
And look at your high number; 5551! that's...well, that corresponds to...something, I'm sure.
And now back to being serious: even if you believe in what you say, it doesn't mean it's actually true. It's a well known factor in human psychology that people remeber the eventful moments better then the uneventfull. So maybe computers sometimes start working when you arrive... they have done so for me too. No, seriously; they have. But then again, I'm in the IT departement, so I come in contact with *a lot* of computers. And I have had many that just borked the same way whether I'm there or not - are you saying you never had computers which didn't magically start working again, even if you were showing up? That rather seems doubtful.
And thus, if I just remembered the times (which I do best too, btw) where things suddenly started to work when I arrived, without noting the times when they didn't, I might come to the same conclusion as you. But I don't. I never turved the times computers just started to work versus the times they didn't, so I have no idea wether or not it is statistically significant. Even if they were, one would have to reproduce the effect under controlled circumstances, to come to any scientific conclusion (and to rule out it's just a fluke, even IF you had a string of magical-working-computers).
All in all, it's a very human tendency to think that 'anecdotal evidence' is proof of something real, but, in fact, it isn't at all. The use of homeopathic 'medicine' is proof of how widespread this sort of erroneous thinking is. "But it really works; my kids had a cold, and after 4 days taking that homeopathic stuff they were healthy again" and that sort of nonsense. It's not that those parents deliberatly lie, it's just that they wrongly connect a correlation (or even imagine there is one) with being a causality.
You correlate your subjective rememberance of the computers that started working (which feels weird, I agree) with a causality: that YOU are the reason that they started working, or have an influence on it. But, statisctically spoken, you can't even be sure there is a correlation at all, let alone a causality.
My two euros.
If you really analyse it, there is only one right, and this is the right of those that are/is in power.
ALL the other rights, even the 'natural' ones are abritrary distinctions made by people (which usually have a wide consensus, but are still arbitrary). If you have a society where one elite reserves all rights for themselves just because they are the elite (by birth, for instance), then one can make a completely internally valid reasoning where even the 'natural' rights are only reserved to the elite, and not to the non-elite.
This issue is only a topic of debate in a philosophical sense (this is where Locke comes in) because of people *agreeing* that there are such things as 'natural' and 'non-natural' rights, or even THAT there are universal rights at all. When you have people that don't agree with that basic premise, and those have the power, then all philosophing amounts to nothing.
In short, it amounts to the question of a social contract (thus, ppl agreeing on basic premises), even when it comes down to things as the right to live for everybody, and the right on private property, etc. Once one has concluded that, one can see that health care is another part of such social contract, and people can as validly see that as a 'basic right' as much as the other rights already mentionned.
"we are also denying people who aren't going to commit any crime the possibility of proving their innocence.""
That's strange, I didn't know people had to prove their innocence when they weren't going to commit any crime. In most normal countries the legal practise is, one is presumed innocent, untill proven otherwise. Some recent exeptions that are becomming aparent in USA 'justice' not withstanding, it's not necessary to prove anything about one's thoughts about something, as long as one didn't act on it.
So, I fail to see the validity of that claim in support of implementing thought-watching, unless the justice departement already went wrong and had thrown away current legal rights. And if that's the case, thought-police will only make things more totalitarian anyway.
Really? So might makes right?
.eu/uk/de domain)? Since your argument is derived from the threat ICANN can do, when that threat is eliminated, there is no reason to do so anymore.
In that case, the US should definitaly start talking with north-Korea, instead of urging a total boycot of that country.
And, what if the poison pill could be neutralised by using an anti-dote (in this case, a
And if your argument is not based on potential threat/might, then it makes no sense neither; it would mean any corporation should be subjected to any court of any country, whether they did business there or not. It would, in effect, mean that you abolish the notion of sovereignity. No country, and certainly not the US, would accept that.
Let's say Iranian courts convict USA corporations of "lewd behaviour" or any such thing which is illegal there. Do you actually think USA corporations should go to Iran and defend themselves in court?
Would it be stupidity and arrogance not to defend themselves in every country they get sued, regardless whether they actually do bussiness in that country or not... or would that be just good and common sense?
USA courts have no jurisdiction over companies in other countries, it's as simple as that. The USA itself would be the first to make an international fuss about it, if it happend to THEM.
If he ONLY exercised his free speech, he didn't deserve it, how reprehensable his writings might have been.
The problem with nazism was exactly that which I try to convey with my parent post: they didn't allow any other views than what THEY deemed appropriate.
Censorship, therefor, is the halmark sign of a totalitarian regime, not that of an open democracy. And the more we censor, the more we act like those that we despise.
This is a copy of a post I made some time ago, but still is worth mentionning because it directly relates to free speech, of which, you will notice, I am a stark proponent in the finest (cough) libertarian sense :
;-)
Well, this may be a bit off topic, but what the heck. I've just been out with some friends, and, as always when we get moderately drunk, we talked about politics, religion, philosophy etc. (when we are real drunk or when no babes are present, we usually talk about sex
Well, anyhow, being all european, and all friends (birds of a feather) we fully agreed on a lot of topics. Israel, Iraq, USA, etc...opinions didn't differ much there. But then it came to a typical european concept of free speech, which, I presume, may strike USA-citizens as a bit weird. While, seen at large, we have the same concept of free speech as in the USA, this opinion, curiously, always seem to shift to a more restricted idea of free speech when it concerns things as racism. In this respect (one of the few, I might add), I think the usa concept of it is much more honest and fair. This has undoubtably to do with our historic heritage, notably WWII.
I was argumenting that revisionistic books, as an expression of an opinion, should be allowed. Thus, not agreeing with the law(s) in most euro-countries, where such books are forbidden. To my astonishment, many of my friends agreed with this censorship, however. This is something I do not understand; you CAN NOT claim to be for free speech and expression of opinion, and then say "exept when it's *that* opinion". Allowing free speech only if you agree with it, but forbid it when you totally disagree with it, is not allowing free speech at all. I've tried to argument it, but it just didn't seem to get through to them; they started with the premise that it's wrong, and therefor it should be forbidden, whatever. The fact that this leads to hypocrytical contradictions was something they ignored too. One said: 'it's a fact, and thus it shouldn't be disputed' another said 'it hurts the jews'...but, are that, on itself, enough reasons to forbid an opinion? Is there a 'fact' so absolute, it can't be disputed? Can't anyone feel hurt be an opinion of another dude, and should we thus, forbid everything that someone claims is hurting their feelings?
These arguments do not make any sense, and what's more, to forbid an opinion is EXACTLY what ultra-right wing or despotic governments would do with the opinions that my friends (and I myself) hold dear; that of being non-racist, etc. The difference is, they start with the presumtion that they (the idea they have about it) are right, and thus oposing views can be forbidden, while I think people are allowed to have racist opinions, even when I totally disagree with them... After all, that is EXACTLY what a dictator (or ultra-right-winged-government) would do, if he ever got the power: claim something is a 'fact' and forbid oposing views. The REAL difference, thus, between a democracy and a dictatorship is that that the one alows (or should allow) diffirent opinions, while the other does not. Thus, in conclusion, this is a treat, not of democraccy, but of a dictatorship, and unworthy to be used in a democracy, IMHO. It also shows that laws are not always justified, and, again IMHO, should not ALWAYS be regarded as an absolutism, something that should be followed blindly. (Of course, it happens to be my opinion that revisionists are telling crap too, but the point is I think they have a right to express that opinion).
I got a bit worked up about it, really, because, after all, it restricts other people, because of the mere opinion of others, who think they have the right to forbid it (and have the power - which is the dangerous part, because; what if the power shifts?). Why am I writing all this? Well, because it made it clear to me again, why I'm doing all this trouble for a project such as Freenet. Sometimes, with all the tech babble and the problems and all that, I ask myself why I'm doing all this. And I gues
"Christ now I'm rambling."
Well, not really. I thought this post to be the most clear in explaining your thoughts.
In a more abstract way, I can agree (at least partially) with many of your ideas and claims.
However, I do feel that a reaction was in order, whether it was 'helpful' or not. Because the 'helpful' depends on who was helped by it and why. I can understand what you say about getting defensive, but foreign comments should not make a difference if the american people itself think it's wrong. I *do* understand the reaction of getting defensive, however, since most people have the same reaction when they (or their country) is criticised. However, in all honesty: I don't think it would have mattered a iota regarding the attitude and actions of your government. They would just have gone the same way, whoever roasted them. And I mean, one can not expect europeans to agree with what the USA did, just because it theorethically might have boosted internal opposition (which seemed readily disgarded by the USA government anyway). If we agreed with the actions of the USA just for that reason, we would have lost all credibility in the world as well. In the end, one has to stand up for ones believes and the right course of action, regardless of hypothetical benefits that might, or might not, materialise, and which usefulness (the invasion would have happend anyway, and the middle east would have considered europeans as bad as the USA) is disputable.
Also, I find it hard to accept the notion that "it's not in the best interest to europe, so you'd better help". I can accept the statement on itself: a civil war is in no-ones interest - but it still reeks of emperialism. The most important question should be, not what is in our/your interest, but what is in the interest of the Iraqi people. Using logic, one can hardly claim a civil war is the best thing for them neither, but...it's a position YOU brought us in. It's just TOO easy to mess things up, and then say: "well, now that we messed things up, surely you agree that it's in everyones best interest if you help to clean the mess up". (if that was still possible, which I doubt).
This stinks of some hypocrite doubletalk; normally, when I teach kids how to take responsability for their own actions, I let them clean up the mess they make themselves (like, when they spoil coke on the table, or something). If a kid would tell me: "well, things would go faster if you helped me", I would agree with his statement (just as I do with yours) on itself, but that would be an utter hypocritical and unfair request, especially if he did it on purpose, and I warned him in front not to do it. In general, when people make a mess, it's good to let them clean it up themselves, because then, they learn some responsability for their own actions. If they can mess things up, and then ask others to help clean it up, one never learns anything, and can go on happily with screwing things up.
Frankly, I think it's more important that the USA gets burned, and burned badly. This may sound harsh, but maybe they will finally learn to stop meddling in such an imperialistic way, and on the whole the world will be better of THAT way. It's not that I'm gleefull about it, like some might do, but it's because I really think the USA could use some humility, and they will not learn that untill they get the door banged on their nose quite hard. I mean, be honest: if Iraq becomes a total disaster for the USA (and it looks like it will), it WILL make it more difficult for them to invade another country in the same manner, true? You can't keep your emperialistic expansion going when you get a bloody nose everytime, can you?
So, you see, in the grand scheme of things, it's not clear cut what is best, because best for who? For the USA? For Europe? For the world? For Iraq? For the future? Nobody really knows what is best. I mean, who can know if things wouldn't have improved safety far more, if the USA hadn't invaded Iraq, but instead spend the same amount of money on a dipl
"LOL. Like the French apologizing for the mess that they left in Africa? (They haven't)"
Well, no doubt there are myriads of things they didn't apologised for, but they did apologise for their colonial misbehaviour. So did the Netherlands, and so did Belgium (for their brutal actions in congo).
But once again, my point is not that countries, and certainly empires do not behave hypocritcal, militaristic, expansionistic and arogant; almost all nations/empires did at one time. The point I'm making (and which we are disagreeing on) is that this kind of mentality is less and less tolerated, and certainly not condoned enough anymore, for the USA to keep holding onto its emperialistic tendencies.
I'm well aware that you try to say that human nature is bend on conquering and overpowering others (for their resources, or simply to exercise power or what not), but sadly enough, while the majority of my post existed out of counter-arguments, you hardly responded on any of them.
"If you won't even agree with me that humanity has an empire streak built-in, then I fail to see how we will attack the problem."
You must severly have misunderstood my arguments. I agreed partially that there are human tendencies like you describe; I only claimed your viewpoint, based only on that aspect, is too limited and simplistic. Humans have myriads of (sometimes conflicting) urges and tendencies, and it depends on the 'nurture' part which direction they will take. As long as nominal tresholds for raw survival are not at stake, most of these directions will remain in place.
If there was a total collapse of society in all its aspects, then I believe you would be right, and many 'gentlemen' agreements and rules would be discarded. But even there and then, you would always have different elements in play; as I said earlier, humans are social beings as well, and survival often betters when one cooperates also, so even in the event of a total disater where society breaks down, it wouldn't necessarily boil down, to, say, warmongering among EU-countries, for instance.
The difference being that this would be an extreme condition, where survival is at stake. The USA apparently thinks a perceived loss of geo-political influence, or the benefit of some american corporations, are already enough to set aside any country or international rule. I'm not saying they're the only one ever to have done that, but they do it now, and with an imperialistic zeal that only made sense in the mentality of 200 years ago.
Also, I want to stress, again, that this is no excuse, even if every country in the entire history of the hulan race has done it. I mean, slavery has been considered normal in many civilisations, also almost during our entire history. In your reasoning, would it now be justified if the USA started to have slaves again, because 'other countries have done the same'? Whether others have done the same or not, says nothing about the morality of the matter. Besides, the fact that the notion of 'slavery' is not any longer accepted, may also indicate that your pessimistic viewpoint about how people are bound to their lust for power, may be a bit TOO negative.
Well, yes, I disagree.
I counted the start from the Roman empire untill the end of it, including the eastern empire. We could both have good arguments for our positions, since 'they did well' is a rather subjective measurement. While the sphere of influence may have changed over time, it was still civilisation it brought with it, even when only the east-roman empire remained.
Well...I was going to respond point by point, but I see another poster (abcd) already answered you very poignantly.
;-) that gather and exercise power, the manner in which they do so is completely different then in all the centuries before. Countries have to *want* to be in the EU, for starters.
The only thing I'm going to elaberate on, is the fact you seem to have a rather negative viewpoint of humanity, "bound" to its biology or genetics. While one could question this viewpoint on itself, even when one would accept it, it is oversimplified.
I could agree it is in the nature of humans to gather power, and exercise that power; but genetics/biology/evolution does not define HOW we're going about in gathering and exercising that power. Point in fact: europe is now, after of hundreds of years trying to force it in a unity manu military, truelly becomming a unity (of some sorts, at least). This time, it seems to be succeeding far better, yet: while there are still people (politicians included
Speaking purely from your biological viewpoint, it would be rather unlikely that our biology suddenly changed in Europe, so the change in mentality that happend is proof that things *can* be done differently, regardless of our biology. This is partly due to the oversimplification you make. While it is true that human nature has a side which wants to have power over others, it is equally true that this doesn't constitute the entirety of a human being, nor that it is the sole, or even the main drive of humans. For instance, aside from 'tribalism' that 'runs in our blood' (I'll take this concept as true, for arguments' sake), humans are also social animals, and will cooperate with eachother to achieve things. In fact, humans are damn complex beings, with different drives and urges from their genetic/biological nature (which can level eachother out), and, on top of that, a capability of reasoning unsurpassed in the rest of nature which, indeed, makes it possible to get above our 'animal instincts', at least to some degree.
Cooperation (say, on a world-scale) is made a lot more difficult, however, when another country still behaves as were building an empire still feasable today. While biology may not have changed, the mentality of people and the technology has: we now have weapons to annihilate eachother completely, we have the notion of basic human rights, we have the UN: all things that were unheard of in the time of the Romans. (Which, btw, wasn't romanticised: I said 'beside their destruction'. But we *do* realise they brought us many good things to, aside from the bad - which is why Caesar gets statues here, even when he actually murdered a quarter of our population. The point was not to excuse the emperialistic behaviour, it was to demonstrate that at least they DID bring culture and civilisation - something which can hardly be said of the USA.)
The whole question about "The US is the only country to support dictators?" is, as the other poster already mentionned, not something I claimed, nor would - because it's rethorical in nature. I already said 'also, like all empires'...and this obviously included european ones, like the Britisch Empire. The whole point, however, is that we know it was wrong: to my knowledge, every european country that had colonies, already apologised for its colonial past, and acknowledged its wrongdoings. And now, we're actively trying to solve problems the diplomatic way, wich, at least within the EU, has known great succes.
In contrast, the USA isn't apologising for anything, and they still *continue* the way the european empires acted 200 years ago. I'm still waiting for Dubja (or the USA as a whole, for that matter) to apologise for invading Iraq, for instance, or for acknowledging he was wrong in doing so.
Aside of that, even when my own government *would* behave like that of the USA today, I would be the first to condemn it, instead of claiming it's 'in our nature', or 'it comes with the territory'. It's exactly those kind of remarks that typifies the hypocritical and arrogant attitude of the USA, and only serves as apologetic excuses for emperialistic behaviour.
"As an American, I just hope that the next empire is as kind to the US as the US has been toward the last empire."
Ah...for a moment there, I thought you were going to end with "towards Iraq".
"I'd love to live in Europe right now and enjoy empire living standards without having to do any of the dirty work."
Dirty hands, you mean. Yes, obviously, it's thanks to the imperialistic tendencies and unilateral arrogant attitudes on worldlevel, that Europe enjoys good living standards. If you hadn't supported rebels - though now described as terrorists - and dicators alike, where would we be?
Didn't the US do some good as well? Certainly, just like any other country. Alas, also just like all empires before it, it also behaves like it owns the world. the problem with that is:
a)They aren't very good at it (at least the Romans made an effort to bring culture and civilisation, aside from destruction, AND they were also politically adept, AND they endured for a thousand years)
b)The time of empires has passed, and it seems the US didn't get the memo. This imperialistic, military and arrogant behaviour belongs to another era, and the USA is like a dinosaur acting like it still can control the world the way a budding empire did hundreds of years ago. And not only that, it thinks it has the god-given right to do so, moral superiour as they think they are, or 'a shining example for all'. You know: freedom, democracy, all that - well, unless a country goes against USA interests, of course.
Anti-americanism exists all right, even in europe. But what you fail to realise is, that it's been born and it has grown as a result from your own hypocritic actions. It might be funny in a south-park episode, but it isn't in real life, if USA citizens are unaware of the reason why people dislike the USA so much. And for fucks' sake, it isn't because we're "jealous of your freedom" or because america is the pinacle that the West has to offer, or any such self-deluging flattery that you people invent to try to keep your own narcistic illusion in place.
The downside is, most of the populace are viewing the matter in generalised terms, and in black and white. And anti-americanism gets a too broad a stroke to my taste. I'm anti-american myself, though I only interpret that in a limited way: I do not dislike the USA population as a whole (as is becomming more and more the current mentality), because, as individuals, I know you have some swell persons living there. (The late) Carl Sagan comes to mind, and a lot of others. But, your current government deserves all the flack it gets, and THEY present the USA on the world-stage (and, in all honesty, at least half of the populace voted for Buja - well, the second time, anyway - and thus, half earns the miscontempt it gets)
Anti-americanism, based on the actions of your government, and those that kept that same government in place, is justified and well deserved, me thinks.
Only 987.000.000 to go!
"the fact is, education is far worse in the USA then in alot of other countries (and certainly compared by European standards)."
3 8 [go.com] ) and hear it from a USA compatriot. ;-)"
and
"But hey, don't believe me; go watch 'stupid in america' ( http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=15003
It's about the education, I don't say anything about fundamentalism here.
Maybe you were mistaken with 'TFA'; this was a reference about *THIS* FA (on slashdot), obviously. BOTH things contribute to the poor performance of science in the USA, however.
I'm rather surprised an american (you are from the USA I presume) dares so openly to say what you just said. It could have come from me - but then, I'm european ;-)
Nice to see someone from over there saying the same things, and reaching the same conclusion: it's actually a sign not everybody is lame-assed over the big dipper. (Not that I had to be convinced of individual USA greateness; Carl Sagan always had my respect).
No surprise there!
3 8 ) and hear it from a USA compatriot. ;-)
Though we're constantly being called european elitists and our education 'snobbery', the fact is, education is far worse in the USA then in alot of other countries (and certainly compared by European standards).
But hey, don't believe me; go watch 'stupid in america' ( http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=15003
The reasons are many, but basically come down to this: the schoolsystem and education-mechanism sucks, and, as TFA says, science and knowledge as a whole gets corrupted by christian fundamentalism (like Muslim fundamentalism does in some near-east countries) and politics.
No surprise, then, that more then 10% of the american populace can't find their own country on a worldmap...and it's not like it's a *small* country.
Christian fundamentalism and the 'politically correct' mentality (often also influenced by the same bible-driven nonsense) will see to it that the USA keeps losing ground in matters of education, science, and eventually in technology. The only thing keeping this from happening already, is the sheer amount of money that is being spend; but money alone will not solve this.
Mind you, the downfall is already under way: I remember another article on slashdot saying that the last years, articles in scientific papers came less and less from the USA, and more and more from Europe and Asia. Every year, the comparison with USA children with others from western countries gets more and more negative for the USA, etc.
All in all, it's a bit sad, really, though with those redneck-bible-belt states, I can't say it's really a surprise. We have fought for centuries to get rid of the christian dogma's, the church and biblical 'truths'...and you guys are embracing it again voluntarily! Now, that's nuts!