I get what you are stating, perhaps I didn't do a good enough job explaining why I have a problem with TFA. The presumption that you should be able to have publicly available data be private is a contradiction.
It's kind of like claiming I want a public web site to be private access. The two things are both possible, but you don't get both at the same time (I realize this is a simple scenario, making it abstract does not change the point).
P2P takes numerous forms. TFA covers an incident with only one of these scenarios, but claims that all should be technical feasible simultaneously.
Where nobody bitches or gets prosecuted is a secure tunnel sharing mechanism (or SSH if you prefer). Them and a friend can have a closed link and can share all the pr0n they want, nobody should know. Hell, have a video link and a virtual circle jerk. Good for them.
The next level would be similar, but covering more than 2 people. This would be like a VPN, or a closed auth HTTPS service requiring key exchanges, etc.. Again, nobody should know unless the owners decided to give keys to someone they didn't know. I think this is what TFA expects of all P2P, without doing the work. It can't be safe, obviously. If they are all on the big ole circle jerk video link, nobody would know unless someone gave away the key to the door.
Lastly, we have what the TFA has concerned with. A public web site that everyone can see which showed the circle jerk to everyone that looked. The only difference here is that it was not browser based, but required a specific P2P client. Still, it had no controls. The cops saw them all whackin it and busted them. Shame on them for having a circle jerk in a public building with a wide open door! They had two other options that would not have gotten them busted, even though they were doing or dealing with illegal materials.
I'm really not sure why all this crap is being stung together. I can already establish a tunnel between my computer and another computer, so P2P networks can already be "secured" in a reasonable way for reasonable use. If the police tried to break into that line, it's called wire tapping. If they have no warrant, evidence gathered is mutable to not admissible (depending on jurisdiction and crimes).
In the case of the pr0n operators, they were not just sharing files between sick friends. They were advertising these files to others on a P2P service to anyone that wanted them.
Now I agree that IP/MAC spoofing, routing through insecure routers, etc.. is possible. That's not what happened here. I have no confidence at all that routing data alone would lead to a warrant, let alone an arrest. They found these guys by P2P services advertising, then tracked them down to arrest them. The nail in the proverbial legal coffin will be admission of their confiscated computers showing that they housed the files being shared. Without all of those things, it would be hard to get to trial. Prosecutors don't go to trial based on hunches or nothing (well, some do but..). They go to trial when they reach a certain level of confidence with a conviction.
I surely can see why a person that disagrees with proven facts posts anonymously. Outside of that, you carry on about the technology after you post "Although the Polygraph can be beat". Nothing passed that should be stated.
If it can be skewed in one direction, it is not a scientific test. The direction of the skewing does not matter.
What you are trying to claim is that water dowsing works. Bob the Dowser found water over here last year. I know he missed finding the last few wells, but he was right once so it has to be real.
Correlating that to your belief that this is science may be difficult, but I have confidence you can do so. Just remember, much of what people tell you is "science" is not science.
How does "adoption of technology" equate to "developing technology"? It does not! The Government could not have made the mandate use of a technology that didn't exist. I agreed several times that the Laws have increased the use by consumers, but in no way does that mean that the Government developed or improved technology.
The technology mostly existed in the 1960s and not in the US. Chemical Air Bag patents were (and perhaps still are) owned by a person in Japan. Original air-bags were compressed air with patents owned by a person in Germany.
The US didn't invent the technology, nor was it a major developer of the technology until working parts were being built by foreign companies. The main contribution from the US was modifying the crash sensors that triggered the air-bags. All of these things were already working and being sold in Japanese and German made cars.
The only way you could be correct that the government advanced the technology is if 1) The US was the sole developer and no other automakers existed, or 2) The US funded all of the science in Germany and Japan that we adopted for use. Neither 1 or 2 is correct.
The false dilemma you present does not change my point. An invading force requiring drones in response is just as likely as an invading force requiring F-16s.
As someone below sagely pointed out, would it not make sense to close the base if we are no longer under such threats? I have no issues with that path if the DOD deems us safe enough to do so. I'm simply questioning the obvious, since the gear being run does not match the role of the ANG.
I can see closing the ANG base and reducing the staff if we deem it's no longer worth having such a big Air National Guard. No complaint here. Manning the ANG with drones simply makes no sense in their given role. Each Reaper is actually 4 drones and C&C gear at close to a 60million dollar price tag. They have not saved that much money to convert, and the gear simply does not match with what they are supposed to be doing.
The preliminary questions that they claimed would be the "base line" really don't work because the system is flawed. It's kind of like claiming that meditation before the tea leaf reading makes reading tea leaves work.
40 years ago, we knew it was flawed (we knew long before your statement of 20 years). Certain agencies of Government (including Military) trained agents/soldiers to beat the Polygraph. It's a bit more than simply not believing in the machine's ability to catch a lie, mostly adding in relaxation and breathing techniques. Leaks of that training could have something to do with public knowledge about how to beat the polygraph, the techniques are the same. This is why certain government agencies (did|do) not use just a polygraph, they used a narcotics selection to reduce your rational thinking ability, induce emotion, and increase your heart rate. (you may have heard of LSD, Sodium pentothol, etc..)
Even with the narcotics selections, the Polygraph was beatable however. To most agencies, the polygraph became a fear technique long ago and was not seen as a real scientific tool like it was thought to be in the 50s and 60s. If they can scare you into thinking you will be caught in a lie, you may confess. They don't want the public to know that it's mumbo-jumbo though, because it's cheap and easy to use this old garbage to collect a confession.
Now what I don't get is why they are trying to bust people that are making the voodoo public knowledge. It was bound to happen sooner or later, and them busting people does not make the polygraph magically valid science. That part is what the scientific community should be outraged over, and petitioning the Government to end it's use and persecution of people exposing the fraud.
The drone was attached to the New York Air National Guard’s 174th Fighter Wing – the first fighter squadron to be converted from piloted F-16s to an all-drone force.
Wait, what? An F-16 capable of carrying near 18,000 lbs of weapons and flying at mach 2+ is replaced by a drone flying at 240Mph carrying 3800lbs? Well, I'll be danged if someone in the DOD should not be fired for that decision. I could see it if they replace a squadron of A-10s with hundreds of these for close air support, but F-16s?
There have been numerous previous crashes of Reaper drones. Drones are expected to see much wider civilian use in the United States when the first federal permits are issued, which is expected in 2015, and regulators are keenly examining such crashes as they develop safety guidelines. The international market for drones is also expanding.
Okay, so they don't have a good safety record and we accept that since it's Defense. I'm good with this, but then they state...
“I have quite a bit of confidence in the safety of the airplane,” he said. “If you compare it to other platforms or aircraft that are flown by the Air Force You’ll see that it’s a much safer platform.”
So they have a higher crash record than any manned platform, no feedback for what is going wrong, yet somehow they are a "safer platform"? I guess that depends on what you are keeping safe. Pilots, okay. Tax money? Nope. Our borders? Nope, not that either.
As long as they hype the drones, people ignore why we have those for "Defending our borders". The ANG role is the last line of defense against an invading air-force. Reapers and Predators can't shoot down a MIG or SU of any type. Seems like a huge conflict of interest to man the ANG with these.
Amazing that someone with a 3 digit ID can't read a dictionary. Either that or you are so defensive to your asinine belief that you refuse to look at simple fact.
bias
bs/
noun
noun: bias;plural noun: biases
1.
prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
No more nicety, no more discussion. Go pound some sand bigot!
I read Am I biased? You bet I am. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. and I have to laugh. You admit that you are biased so your vision of right and wrong is by definition skewed. Your appeal to emotion and denial of your own words shows how delusional bias can make a person.
I have no patience for bigots that deny facts to support their beliefs. Have fun in what ever fantasy land you are living in.
This! It's like the new commercial running in California that claims 1 in 5 people are killed by tobacco. It's a nonsense statistic that some dip shit got paid to make up, but has no basis in reality.
I'm curious as to why people think these bogus statistics are helpful. Anyone with a 10th grade education can understand that these statistics are wrong, so they end up ignoring the messages completely. Which may have the adverse effect and cause people to use the internet and driving, perhaps to research these dumb ass statistics they come out with.
Stop spewing your anti-Capitalism garbage. Seeing the same anonymous cowards spew the same false message over and over gets tiring. Go read what Adam Smith wrote! Capitalism requires regulation. Lack of regulation is what he attributes to be the failures of the mercantile economic system. It allowed for monopolization, false scarcities, price fixing and gouging. The same shit we have today under Capitalism, but not because of Capitalism. It's due to corruption, lack of regulation, allowed monopolization, allowed false scarcities, etc...
After you read Adam Smith, go read what other Economists said as the Government kept deregulating and passing anti Capitalist laws like "The Business Process Patent reform.
There are countless people that still believe the charade that their Government works for them and their citizens, not the same corrupt fuckers that "that other Government" works for. The people in power will keep trying to hold up the curtains until they are removed from social influence (which will eventually happen).
If you take my rudder vs. ship example you can see the issue I have with your arguments. That people are convinced that Government needs to be a big ship does not make it correct. People need to understand the rudder analogy and push for those changes to reign in what we have now in Government. If people have been duped over a long period of time or a short period of time makes no difference. The purpose needs to go back to being a rudder.
So the Philosophical question "Does the Universe require a Creator?" is nonsense, irrational, has no purpose, or has been answered? Perhaps you have no interest in the question, however that question does have bearing on ethics and morality. Theology at least from the perspective of "The Noble Lie" is a valid line of questioning and reason.
Sounds like you have a lot of bias and would not be able to discuss these concepts fairly, so I won't go further than pointing out that your statement is full of bias.
Was it Roman law that it was 12? Curious to your resource if that is true since I have never seen the Roman Law on age. Most other societies near the time of Rome had no fixed age for marriage. Jewish society said that "Children" could not be married, but then as now the onset of puberty varies which would have marked a person as a "youth".
No, we are not talking about a different "n". You claimed that every Catholic was learning by example that pedophilia was "right". Now you moved the mark and claimed it was just the priests, which would still be incorrect as there are probably a million or so priests and the majority had no idea the crimes were happening. Many priests left the clergy when they found out what was happening, and the majority of clergy was just as outraged as the rest of us when the can of worms was opened.
Your logic would still be wrong for all of the Bishops and Cardinals where there are many tens of thousands of those, and a very small percentage (less than.1%) was complicit in the cover up and knowledge of what was happening.
Reread your last statement, its nonsense as written. I gave a correct analogy which you did not or can not counter. A person can not learn by osmosis, which is what you are still trying to claim. You don't have to like the fact, but the fact is that you are biased to a point of being irrational. If you don't like being irrational, you can work to change it. Hell, I have spent decades contemplating my own biases and trying to get rid of them (with a reasonable amount of success).
I'm not really nitpicking, but pointing out some very obvious issues with your points. Studying is a time consuming task, but important for the debate. If you study the concepts of Capitalism and the US form of Government your arguments are simply incorrect.
I was trying to make a point that government is not working well because it relies too much on the people in it being ethical.
Would this statement not be true for _any_ government to work for the benefit of the members of society instead of the minority in power? British Parliament for example has the same reliance on ethical people holding votes as the US does.
My opinion is that the type of government we currently have is not necessarily a total failure. Instead of drastically downsizing it and cutting social programs, we should consider introducing more checks against corruption.
Those two sentences contradict each other. Our Government worked for a long time because it was designed where the Federal Government was very small and easy to have oversight on. Our "type" of Government is based on Socrates definition of "The Republic" as recorded by Plato. If you study that work, then read the Federalist Papers, Constitution, and Bill of Rights things should make sense.
In other words, out Government currently is not the "type" it was designed to be. Our Government was designed as the rudder of a ship, and what we have now is the Government trying to be the whole ship and most of the water the ship is sitting in. It can't work that way and remain a Democratic Republic. You don't fix it by simply adding more checks to the system. We already have checks in Government and those also have become too big to be effective. The whole purpose of the GSA for example is accountability. Maybe you heard about these guys throwing lavish parties on your tax dollars, and if not, well, you can read up on it.
I kind of know what to expect from the libertarians here on Slashdot, so I'm not eagerly awaiting the alternative opinion (or more flame). That path has been tread many times before on this site.
I'm not sure how it's expected to be a rational debate when there is little to no rational arguments. If you had given more accurate information people would have difficulty flaming you. Where people on both sides turn to the flame wars is because neither side relies on the truth in their arguments, but rather false information, fabricated history, and wild fallacies.
Under pure Capitalism there is no such thing as a minimum wage or most other rules that make employment expensive. A minimum wage is the primary cause of unemployment, which can lead to not having enough money to feed oneself.
WHAT? Where did this insane idea that Capitalism is a free for all without regulation come from? It's surely not in Adam Smith's work when he defined the economic system. Adam Smith was very clear that the Government must be a regulator for Capitalism to work.
You are also absolutely wrong about minimum wage being the primary cause of unemployment. I was trying to think of an analogy to show how wrong that was, and I can't because it's a very bizarre thing to say. I guess it's kind of like claiming that having dimes causes the devaluation of currency. I'm sure I can come up with some arguments to try and show that statement is valid. If you spend a couple seconds to consider the complexity of the subject you should realize that my arguments, even if true, don't mean that if we did away with dimes devaluation would suddenly vanish.
Trade deficits without penalties or tariffs on imports cause much more unemployment than having a minimum wage. No cap on salaries and bonuses for executives cause more unemployment than minimum wage. The unfair tax system causes more unemployment than having a minimum wage. Those are three starter topics, but the complexity of unemployment currently is much more than the four items mentioned. I'm just trying to show where your statement is wrong.
Both historically and theoretically Capitalism provides the greatest food production.
So we tried to build a public institution that would help all the citizens achieve their full potential: a large, sophisticated government.
Your joke isn't funny.
That point, I very much agree with you on though I don't perceive the person you responded to was joking.
I never said it was easy, I said it was possible. Public schools in my opinion should spend a long time teaching people about Plato's "The Republic". Socrates had most things correct. It's not easy to grasp many of his concepts but every child in elementary school should be able to understand the majority of "The Allegory of the Cave", defend themselves against common fallacies, and be able to communicate without fallacy. Those three things alone would make a huge difference.
I have argued not a Religion, but that the concept of having a creator is valid from a Philosophical perspective on several occasions and was marked off as Troll or Flame bait for doing so. I'm sure it depends on who has mod points on a given day.
To your first question, this comes up in a whole lot of anti-religion posts, and is probably the number 2 on the "reasons to hate Religion" topic list. First would be blaming Religion for all the wars and deaths from wars.
To your second question, I have no idea if there is an age limit that can be fixed (meaning impossible due to lack of historical records). It would probably match the historical average for the region where they were practicing. Back then, they didn't mark legal age by a fixed number of years but rather by convenience. This was especially true with women where the practice was to pay the prospective husband to marry the woman. If the family could not afford a dowry, it may be 20 years old before marriage. If they could afford the dowry, the recordings say "youth" which assumes passed childhood probably marked by puberty and the woman's first period. Since men were waiting for dowries there is no reason to believe that their selection was any different. Perhaps a strong large guy would have been married off quickly, but the majority would have been mid-teens by most records.
I don't agree that instinct is at play as much as social teachings. Human nature is selfish to a point, that I would agree with. That said, we have society's that at least for a time were not full of self serving people and ruled by selfish people. Take most of ancient Greece for example, and even early Rome that adopted the Athenian form of Government. It fell apart the first time when the Government started to be ruled by people that were completely self serving. I won't go further on Rome because it's too complex or a Slashdot post, but the point is that we can learn not to be "selfish animals" and have done so for small periods of history.
Personally I believe that the "you are just an animal" arguments serve the corrupt in power much more than they serve you, so ask if it's possible to be untrue and just part of the game to keep you in the proverbial cave.
Slashdot Mirror
I get what you are stating, perhaps I didn't do a good enough job explaining why I have a problem with TFA. The presumption that you should be able to have publicly available data be private is a contradiction.
It's kind of like claiming I want a public web site to be private access. The two things are both possible, but you don't get both at the same time (I realize this is a simple scenario, making it abstract does not change the point).
P2P takes numerous forms. TFA covers an incident with only one of these scenarios, but claims that all should be technical feasible simultaneously.
Where nobody bitches or gets prosecuted is a secure tunnel sharing mechanism (or SSH if you prefer). Them and a friend can have a closed link and can share all the pr0n they want, nobody should know. Hell, have a video link and a virtual circle jerk. Good for them.
The next level would be similar, but covering more than 2 people. This would be like a VPN, or a closed auth HTTPS service requiring key exchanges, etc.. Again, nobody should know unless the owners decided to give keys to someone they didn't know. I think this is what TFA expects of all P2P, without doing the work. It can't be safe, obviously. If they are all on the big ole circle jerk video link, nobody would know unless someone gave away the key to the door.
Lastly, we have what the TFA has concerned with. A public web site that everyone can see which showed the circle jerk to everyone that looked. The only difference here is that it was not browser based, but required a specific P2P client. Still, it had no controls. The cops saw them all whackin it and busted them. Shame on them for having a circle jerk in a public building with a wide open door! They had two other options that would not have gotten them busted, even though they were doing or dealing with illegal materials.
I believe the obvious outcome would have been the complete opposite. Play the game, get a few rewards.
I'm really not sure why all this crap is being stung together. I can already establish a tunnel between my computer and another computer, so P2P networks can already be "secured" in a reasonable way for reasonable use. If the police tried to break into that line, it's called wire tapping. If they have no warrant, evidence gathered is mutable to not admissible (depending on jurisdiction and crimes).
In the case of the pr0n operators, they were not just sharing files between sick friends. They were advertising these files to others on a P2P service to anyone that wanted them.
Now I agree that IP/MAC spoofing, routing through insecure routers, etc.. is possible. That's not what happened here. I have no confidence at all that routing data alone would lead to a warrant, let alone an arrest. They found these guys by P2P services advertising, then tracked them down to arrest them. The nail in the proverbial legal coffin will be admission of their confiscated computers showing that they housed the files being shared. Without all of those things, it would be hard to get to trial. Prosecutors don't go to trial based on hunches or nothing (well, some do but..). They go to trial when they reach a certain level of confidence with a conviction.
I surely can see why a person that disagrees with proven facts posts anonymously. Outside of that, you carry on about the technology after you post "Although the Polygraph can be beat". Nothing passed that should be stated.
If it can be skewed in one direction, it is not a scientific test. The direction of the skewing does not matter.
What you are trying to claim is that water dowsing works. Bob the Dowser found water over here last year. I know he missed finding the last few wells, but he was right once so it has to be real.
Correlating that to your belief that this is science may be difficult, but I have confidence you can do so. Just remember, much of what people tell you is "science" is not science.
Nice catch! Thanks for the response and information.
How does "adoption of technology" equate to "developing technology"? It does not! The Government could not have made the mandate use of a technology that didn't exist. I agreed several times that the Laws have increased the use by consumers, but in no way does that mean that the Government developed or improved technology.
The technology mostly existed in the 1960s and not in the US. Chemical Air Bag patents were (and perhaps still are) owned by a person in Japan. Original air-bags were compressed air with patents owned by a person in Germany.
The US didn't invent the technology, nor was it a major developer of the technology until working parts were being built by foreign companies. The main contribution from the US was modifying the crash sensors that triggered the air-bags. All of these things were already working and being sold in Japanese and German made cars.
The only way you could be correct that the government advanced the technology is if 1) The US was the sole developer and no other automakers existed, or 2) The US funded all of the science in Germany and Japan that we adopted for use. Neither 1 or 2 is correct.
The false dilemma you present does not change my point. An invading force requiring drones in response is just as likely as an invading force requiring F-16s.
As someone below sagely pointed out, would it not make sense to close the base if we are no longer under such threats? I have no issues with that path if the DOD deems us safe enough to do so. I'm simply questioning the obvious, since the gear being run does not match the role of the ANG.
I can see closing the ANG base and reducing the staff if we deem it's no longer worth having such a big Air National Guard. No complaint here. Manning the ANG with drones simply makes no sense in their given role. Each Reaper is actually 4 drones and C&C gear at close to a 60million dollar price tag. They have not saved that much money to convert, and the gear simply does not match with what they are supposed to be doing.
The preliminary questions that they claimed would be the "base line" really don't work because the system is flawed. It's kind of like claiming that meditation before the tea leaf reading makes reading tea leaves work.
40 years ago, we knew it was flawed (we knew long before your statement of 20 years). Certain agencies of Government (including Military) trained agents/soldiers to beat the Polygraph. It's a bit more than simply not believing in the machine's ability to catch a lie, mostly adding in relaxation and breathing techniques. Leaks of that training could have something to do with public knowledge about how to beat the polygraph, the techniques are the same. This is why certain government agencies (did|do) not use just a polygraph, they used a narcotics selection to reduce your rational thinking ability, induce emotion, and increase your heart rate. (you may have heard of LSD, Sodium pentothol, etc..)
Even with the narcotics selections, the Polygraph was beatable however. To most agencies, the polygraph became a fear technique long ago and was not seen as a real scientific tool like it was thought to be in the 50s and 60s. If they can scare you into thinking you will be caught in a lie, you may confess. They don't want the public to know that it's mumbo-jumbo though, because it's cheap and easy to use this old garbage to collect a confession.
Now what I don't get is why they are trying to bust people that are making the voodoo public knowledge. It was bound to happen sooner or later, and them busting people does not make the polygraph magically valid science. That part is what the scientific community should be outraged over, and petitioning the Government to end it's use and persecution of people exposing the fraud.
The drone was attached to the New York Air National Guard’s 174th Fighter Wing – the first fighter squadron to be converted from piloted F-16s to an all-drone force.
Wait, what? An F-16 capable of carrying near 18,000 lbs of weapons and flying at mach 2+ is replaced by a drone flying at 240Mph carrying 3800lbs? Well, I'll be danged if someone in the DOD should not be fired for that decision. I could see it if they replace a squadron of A-10s with hundreds of these for close air support, but F-16s?
There have been numerous previous crashes of Reaper drones. Drones are expected to see much wider civilian use in the United States when the first federal permits are issued, which is expected in 2015, and regulators are keenly examining such crashes as they develop safety guidelines. The international market for drones is also expanding.
Okay, so they don't have a good safety record and we accept that since it's Defense. I'm good with this, but then they state...
“I have quite a bit of confidence in the safety of the airplane,” he said. “If you compare it to other platforms or aircraft that are flown by the Air Force You’ll see that it’s a much safer platform.”
So they have a higher crash record than any manned platform, no feedback for what is going wrong, yet somehow they are a "safer platform"? I guess that depends on what you are keeping safe. Pilots, okay. Tax money? Nope. Our borders? Nope, not that either.
As long as they hype the drones, people ignore why we have those for "Defending our borders". The ANG role is the last line of defense against an invading air-force. Reapers and Predators can't shoot down a MIG or SU of any type. Seems like a huge conflict of interest to man the ANG with these.
Amazing that someone with a 3 digit ID can't read a dictionary. Either that or you are so defensive to your asinine belief that you refuse to look at simple fact.
No more nicety, no more discussion. Go pound some sand bigot!
I read Am I biased? You bet I am. That doesn't mean I'm wrong. and I have to laugh. You admit that you are biased so your vision of right and wrong is by definition skewed. Your appeal to emotion and denial of your own words shows how delusional bias can make a person.
I have no patience for bigots that deny facts to support their beliefs. Have fun in what ever fantasy land you are living in.
This! It's like the new commercial running in California that claims 1 in 5 people are killed by tobacco. It's a nonsense statistic that some dip shit got paid to make up, but has no basis in reality.
I'm curious as to why people think these bogus statistics are helpful. Anyone with a 10th grade education can understand that these statistics are wrong, so they end up ignoring the messages completely. Which may have the adverse effect and cause people to use the internet and driving, perhaps to research these dumb ass statistics they come out with.
Stop spewing your anti-Capitalism garbage. Seeing the same anonymous cowards spew the same false message over and over gets tiring. Go read what Adam Smith wrote! Capitalism requires regulation. Lack of regulation is what he attributes to be the failures of the mercantile economic system. It allowed for monopolization, false scarcities, price fixing and gouging. The same shit we have today under Capitalism, but not because of Capitalism. It's due to corruption, lack of regulation, allowed monopolization, allowed false scarcities, etc...
After you read Adam Smith, go read what other Economists said as the Government kept deregulating and passing anti Capitalist laws like "The Business Process Patent reform.
There are countless people that still believe the charade that their Government works for them and their citizens, not the same corrupt fuckers that "that other Government" works for. The people in power will keep trying to hold up the curtains until they are removed from social influence (which will eventually happen).
If you take my rudder vs. ship example you can see the issue I have with your arguments. That people are convinced that Government needs to be a big ship does not make it correct. People need to understand the rudder analogy and push for those changes to reign in what we have now in Government. If people have been duped over a long period of time or a short period of time makes no difference. The purpose needs to go back to being a rudder.
So the Philosophical question "Does the Universe require a Creator?" is nonsense, irrational, has no purpose, or has been answered? Perhaps you have no interest in the question, however that question does have bearing on ethics and morality. Theology at least from the perspective of "The Noble Lie" is a valid line of questioning and reason.
Sounds like you have a lot of bias and would not be able to discuss these concepts fairly, so I won't go further than pointing out that your statement is full of bias.
Was it Roman law that it was 12? Curious to your resource if that is true since I have never seen the Roman Law on age. Most other societies near the time of Rome had no fixed age for marriage. Jewish society said that "Children" could not be married, but then as now the onset of puberty varies which would have marked a person as a "youth".
No, we are not talking about a different "n". You claimed that every Catholic was learning by example that pedophilia was "right". Now you moved the mark and claimed it was just the priests, which would still be incorrect as there are probably a million or so priests and the majority had no idea the crimes were happening. Many priests left the clergy when they found out what was happening, and the majority of clergy was just as outraged as the rest of us when the can of worms was opened.
Your logic would still be wrong for all of the Bishops and Cardinals where there are many tens of thousands of those, and a very small percentage (less than .1%) was complicit in the cover up and knowledge of what was happening.
Reread your last statement, its nonsense as written. I gave a correct analogy which you did not or can not counter. A person can not learn by osmosis, which is what you are still trying to claim. You don't have to like the fact, but the fact is that you are biased to a point of being irrational. If you don't like being irrational, you can work to change it. Hell, I have spent decades contemplating my own biases and trying to get rid of them (with a reasonable amount of success).
I'm not really nitpicking, but pointing out some very obvious issues with your points. Studying is a time consuming task, but important for the debate. If you study the concepts of Capitalism and the US form of Government your arguments are simply incorrect.
I was trying to make a point that government is not working well because it relies too much on the people in it being ethical.
Would this statement not be true for _any_ government to work for the benefit of the members of society instead of the minority in power? British Parliament for example has the same reliance on ethical people holding votes as the US does.
My opinion is that the type of government we currently have is not necessarily a total failure. Instead of drastically downsizing it and cutting social programs, we should consider introducing more checks against corruption.
Those two sentences contradict each other. Our Government worked for a long time because it was designed where the Federal Government was very small and easy to have oversight on. Our "type" of Government is based on Socrates definition of "The Republic" as recorded by Plato. If you study that work, then read the Federalist Papers, Constitution, and Bill of Rights things should make sense.
In other words, out Government currently is not the "type" it was designed to be. Our Government was designed as the rudder of a ship, and what we have now is the Government trying to be the whole ship and most of the water the ship is sitting in. It can't work that way and remain a Democratic Republic. You don't fix it by simply adding more checks to the system. We already have checks in Government and those also have become too big to be effective. The whole purpose of the GSA for example is accountability. Maybe you heard about these guys throwing lavish parties on your tax dollars, and if not, well, you can read up on it.
I kind of know what to expect from the libertarians here on Slashdot, so I'm not eagerly awaiting the alternative opinion (or more flame). That path has been tread many times before on this site.
I'm not sure how it's expected to be a rational debate when there is little to no rational arguments. If you had given more accurate information people would have difficulty flaming you. Where people on both sides turn to the flame wars is because neither side relies on the truth in their arguments, but rather false information, fabricated history, and wild fallacies.
Under pure Capitalism there is no such thing as a minimum wage or most other rules that make employment expensive. A minimum wage is the primary cause of unemployment, which can lead to not having enough money to feed oneself.
WHAT? Where did this insane idea that Capitalism is a free for all without regulation come from? It's surely not in Adam Smith's work when he defined the economic system. Adam Smith was very clear that the Government must be a regulator for Capitalism to work.
You are also absolutely wrong about minimum wage being the primary cause of unemployment. I was trying to think of an analogy to show how wrong that was, and I can't because it's a very bizarre thing to say. I guess it's kind of like claiming that having dimes causes the devaluation of currency. I'm sure I can come up with some arguments to try and show that statement is valid. If you spend a couple seconds to consider the complexity of the subject you should realize that my arguments, even if true, don't mean that if we did away with dimes devaluation would suddenly vanish.
Trade deficits without penalties or tariffs on imports cause much more unemployment than having a minimum wage. No cap on salaries and bonuses for executives cause more unemployment than minimum wage. The unfair tax system causes more unemployment than having a minimum wage. Those are three starter topics, but the complexity of unemployment currently is much more than the four items mentioned. I'm just trying to show where your statement is wrong.
Both historically and theoretically Capitalism provides the greatest food production.
Your joke isn't funny.
That point, I very much agree with you on though I don't perceive the person you responded to was joking.
I never said it was easy, I said it was possible. Public schools in my opinion should spend a long time teaching people about Plato's "The Republic". Socrates had most things correct. It's not easy to grasp many of his concepts but every child in elementary school should be able to understand the majority of "The Allegory of the Cave", defend themselves against common fallacies, and be able to communicate without fallacy. Those three things alone would make a huge difference.
I have argued not a Religion, but that the concept of having a creator is valid from a Philosophical perspective on several occasions and was marked off as Troll or Flame bait for doing so. I'm sure it depends on who has mod points on a given day.
To your first question, this comes up in a whole lot of anti-religion posts, and is probably the number 2 on the "reasons to hate Religion" topic list. First would be blaming Religion for all the wars and deaths from wars.
To your second question, I have no idea if there is an age limit that can be fixed (meaning impossible due to lack of historical records). It would probably match the historical average for the region where they were practicing. Back then, they didn't mark legal age by a fixed number of years but rather by convenience. This was especially true with women where the practice was to pay the prospective husband to marry the woman. If the family could not afford a dowry, it may be 20 years old before marriage. If they could afford the dowry, the recordings say "youth" which assumes passed childhood probably marked by puberty and the woman's first period. Since men were waiting for dowries there is no reason to believe that their selection was any different. Perhaps a strong large guy would have been married off quickly, but the majority would have been mid-teens by most records.
I don't agree that instinct is at play as much as social teachings. Human nature is selfish to a point, that I would agree with. That said, we have society's that at least for a time were not full of self serving people and ruled by selfish people. Take most of ancient Greece for example, and even early Rome that adopted the Athenian form of Government. It fell apart the first time when the Government started to be ruled by people that were completely self serving. I won't go further on Rome because it's too complex or a Slashdot post, but the point is that we can learn not to be "selfish animals" and have done so for small periods of history.
Personally I believe that the "you are just an animal" arguments serve the corrupt in power much more than they serve you, so ask if it's possible to be untrue and just part of the game to keep you in the proverbial cave.