Mmm, that darkness must taste really good huh? Obama's administration has targeted journalists during his whole administration. Journalists are subpoenaed for sources in all kinds of things. You can start here but there are countless journalist that have in court forced to reveal sources, cases brought on by the White House thank you very much. New York Post recently had a whistle blower tell how the CIA must approve things before they are published, CNN has been the same.
Wake up man, the administration is for censorship. Have to look outside of main stream media to find the reports of course, but there is a lot there.
False dichotomy. Is it insulting, sure. So are jokes regarding ethnicity or religion, but we hear them and generally laugh. Political satire could also be seen as insulting to a political belief, but we use this humor for positive purposes generally.
Should you prosecute someone for making a very poor quality 14 minute clip that attempts to insult someone? Or should you laugh at them for being such a poor character, and having absolutely poor video editing skills? The latter is the societal normal treatment, and of course they should never be given a job in Hollywood or Bollywood since they lack any technical skills.
Are you gullible enough to believe that this person is just a huge jerk, or do you have enough sense to see that this video may have been generated intentionally as propaganda to cover up what is really happening in politics overseas. I'm not a fan of beating the scape goat, I'd rather beat the real perpetrators.
I don't agree that we need to throw metric assloads of money at the issue, we simply need to revert education to classical education instead of what we have done for the last 50+ years in forcing schools to teach workplace education. Politicians broke our education system when they forced all schools to teach to "standards testing" instead of teaching people to "think!"
The fix does not require tremendous amounts of cash as you suggest, simply a different method of education and curriculum changes that correspond.
We also need to get government grants out of schools that support political agendas. Sex education is a waste of your tax money, plain and simple. Why are we not making people accountable for their actions, which in turn reduces sex among minors. Are you ignorant enough to believe that in 1800s minors were not experimenting with sex? Hell, they probably experimented as much or more than kids today. The difference is that if you knocked someone up you started work and supported your family. If you wanted to go to college, you kept it in your pants (or were extremely careful flailing it around), the nanny state did not try and fix things for you.
There is a tremendous amount of information regarding how our education system has been changed, and not for the better. Thisis a good place to start, as is this. It does not take billions to fix, it takes reverting the politician's changes and going back to the system that worked for well over 2,000 years.
Nothing positive happens with the current shitbags in politics either, time to wake up and start getting these assholes out of office and in to jails where they belong. Better yet, since they are treasonous I think we toss them in to exile and let them fend for themselves. I'm sure North Korea would take in some new "happy citizens"
I'm not sure how what you stated was relevant to my comments, but I'll play along for a moment.
The process has become, that ugly place where the court has stated that they must start the comment period sometime before March of 2013.
The majority of courts are corrupted, full of corrupt judges and lawyers. The NDAA is the best proof possible. It's a very sad joke that the TSA can ignore the courts and make them back down from a rightful decision. The TSA has been proven to be hiring people you would demand stay away from your child. Convicted felons, targeting pedophiles, are high on their hire list. No, I refuse to site anything since you can easily use Google to find the documents that were leaked.
An enormous event occurs if/when the xray machines are removed, and I'm hoping they don't replace it with something even more draconian or fraught with travel delays or indignities. That's the message that I hope isn't lost. Yes, I like airport security, but better ways must be found of dealing with the issues than what the TSA does now.
This is simply an argument from fallacy. No melt down would occur if the X-ray machines were removed. You do realize that we have had canine and other animals trained to detect all kinds of controlled substances which include explosives for over a century correct? Okay, our training methods may have been refined over that time, but there is no reason to subject anyone to intrusion of any type when non intrusive (and much more cost effective) methods exist. The military has had swabs and machines that detect chemical weapons since I was in, over two decades ago. So saying "but Joe is allergic to dogs" is a futile argument.
You also mistakenly assume that terrorists are all over the place (wholly shit, is one in your back pocket now?). This hype has been brainwashed in to the public for over a decade, so I don't blame you per-say but do suggest you find truth instead of believing propaganda. The US has never had terrorists board a plane with bombs, not one time ever. Every time a bomb has been found on a plane, it is either 1) inbound to the USA or 2) A fabricated terror plot that a Government agency hatched and let happen. You do realize that you have a higher chance of dying to a bee sting than you do of dying to a terrorist right? This is using world wide statistics including places like Iraq where they can buy an RPG pretty easily, and not just in the US.
Again, I refuse to cite something when Google is your friend.
And before you "but but but" about box cutting terrorists, do you realize that a passenger with an umbrella could have beat the shit out of them? Do we ban umbrellas from planes also so Terrorists can't use them to threaten people? The truth is, bad people will do bad things. Bad people do exist, and probably are the ones telling you how bad other people are. They want you looking under park benches for things that don't exist, so that you never pay attention to what they are doing. They want you living in fear, because if you got over your fear you would probably find out what shitbags they are and fight against them.
What you say is true, however it's a tough road to get back to where we need to be. Media has become simply propaganda, and most people listen to them. More and more people are finding alternative news, but will we have enough people awake before the proverbial shit hits the fan? I'm not so sure. I have hope mind you, but I have no confidence.
Socrates stated that politicians should be elected from those that showed no ambition or inclination to hold office. He was correct.
Socrates also stated that the education of the police and military was critical, and if they were corrupted government would fail and become tyranny and oligarchy. We now see the results from years of bad education. In addition to this, the government has been found to be hiring police with below average IQs and specific dispositions we would consider psychopathic and authoritarian.
Hell, we have known how to do things correctly for over 3,000 years. Do you think there are those that have figured out how to break things when they work correctly? Frankly, I'm amazed at how well they are doing and how so many are completely apathetic (or completely clueless) to what's going on.
Just a quick addition, I know you said that you read "The Republic" but have you studied it? There is a difference. I read often, and no not just "The Republic" but countless books on History and Philosophy. The relevance to our current situation means that I place great significance on "The Republic". I have read it numerous times myself, but I still go back and study. I teach things to other people based on the book, often citing exact statements to wake them up.
You don't run shit. How can you stop what you don't know is happening?
Did you miss my points regarding your civic duties as a member of a Republic? Look, I understand the frustration levels since I experience probably the same as you. That does not make my civic duties not exist. So what you should do, and could do is twofold. First, start talking to people and waking them up to how severe the problems are. Second, learn what the "Republic" is and how it operates. Do you see that your defeatism is not necessary? Perhaps not, but once you understand how the Republic works, you will see that while the citizens live and breath we can change things. It takes a lot of people, but not even a majority. Historically 10-20% of the citizens being awake and active is all that's needed. The "Sheople" will follow along at that point.
The law doesn't protect you from a bullet. The Kennedy assassination was illegal, and so was that recent attack in Libya. The law does not protect diplomats. The law doesn't do shit, so you can study the words all you want, at the end of the day it's the technology, the weapons, and the intelligence. Nothing and no law can govern sufficiently advanced technology combined with detailed practical intelligence. Law enforcement does not have technology that even compares to military level. The law of physics are what governs war and military, the laws you are talking about don't apply in war because the police don't have more might than the military.
While agree with your points, the point I raise in return is that we can change what's going on. See above, wake people up and get involved. It's your only choice. If you remain defeatist, you will lose the ability to work in a Republic. There is still time, we are still a Republic (but that may not last much longer).
Every point you make is answered the same as the above. I agree with every point you make by the way except for one which I'll get to in a moment.
I can suggest that you read "The Republic" by Plato. It is the foundation for our Government and Constitution, and a majority of the time in history the US has functioned as a Republic. What we see now has been plotted for a long time, to that I'll agree. But they still can not operate in the open for fear of revolt. This is why we have in the last 3 decades had a complete monopolization of Media, and increases in secrecy (as well as other things).
As a member of the Republic, you have a few options. First and foremost is to gain numbers to the cause (see above for waking people up). Second, we have the ability to petition for change. Changes needed are pretty drastic, but crucial. Media Monopolies must be broken for example. None of this will happen with the status quot in office, which brings up your second duty. Petition drive, and get people on to ballots that are honest. Walk door to door and ask people to sign to get your Uncle Joe on a ballot, because he's honest. Use this as an opportunity to educate and wake others. It's a wave effect, and does work. Historically this has worked numerous times in the US already.
I understand that the tasks I mention above are difficult, but in reality we are at a critical point. Do we do nothing and fall or do we fight for the Republic? Falling is a short time away, and I think you realize that by what you typed above. The easy thing to do is to do nothing, but nothing will be our demise.
As mentioned above I need to get to the point I disagree with, which is regarding the Military. This is a Government conundrum at the moment by the way. A majority of people in the Military will not fire on their own people or act in aggression against their own people. History backs this point, and it also explains why we have time still. The US Government can not impose martial law like they did in the USSR, at least not yet. People are seeing the deceit and lies currently, which is making their ability to claim martial law much more difficult.
If you search for building 7, research the questions being asked by ae911.org, you may start to wonder. If they lie to you once, what prevents them from being liars more often? Research the start of Vietnam, it was a set up. There are questions regarding how much the Government knew regarding the start of WW II. At least in the case of WW II we can claim the morality was right, but to base our entrance on a lie and at a great cost of US life? Research how the CIA has used drugs and propaganda since it's inception against the US public.
Keep your panties on, I'm not saying that the Government blew up WTC. I'm saying that they lied about what happened (reports are complete fabrications, no mention of Building 7 in any report, Building 7 not reported by media passed the initial report that it was going down(which was before it went down), etc..). If what they released was a lie, we should be investigating what else is a lie. And until they can answer what really happened they are suspect as well.
You are very ignorant. Two fundamental teachings in Christianity are 1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and 2. When someone strikes you, you need to turn the other cheek. Since these were the teachings of Jesus, they are considered the most important teachings in any Christian Religion. (The first having the name "The Golden Rule")
Understand that the IRA was not acting out because their Religion told them too, it was because their Religion was being oppressed by the Government and that they were being persecuted by the "State" Religion.
You should really try and understand that the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam teaches aggression toward anyone that is not a follower of Islam. Christians are taught to teach, not strike. I'm guessing that you will pretend not to see the difference to continue your ignorant speech but perhaps you will prove me wrong.
The majority of Christians are pacifist. This is why people can opt to be not bound to combat roles in the Military (and have been able to do so for a very long time, at least WW II but perhaps even WW I. The crusades ended quite a while ago. Since then, there have been faults for sure, but Christianity in general has not pushed for dominance by violence since. A very small sect, perhaps but by no means is it a majority.
Be cautious with generalizations, lest you look as moronic as the people pretending all American's created the movie they are protesting. Many very exceptional people have admitted speaking with God, though a majority of them don't become religious thugs in the process. Socrates is a prime example.
Oh, and a preemptive STFU on your citation, go read some of Plato's Dialogues for your evidence. It's easiest to find in "Apology" but is mentioned in I believe every dialogue (I'm not 100% sure about "Meno" at the moment.), and the education would probably be healthy for you.
I'm not saying what should or shouldn't be. I'm saying it's going to be used because the people in charge wont be able to resist using it. It's just too powerful not to use. Nukes have been used, and nuclear weapons still are being used just not in the form of a nuclear bomb. They are tactical and precise now, but believe me its still a problem. The technology to nuke people got maintained but not stopped and it's only maintained because enough different countries have nukes to balance the powers.
Why to you insist on evading the point every time you comment? The point is that the People need to prevent it. The people of the Republic run the Government, not the other way around. This is how our constitution works. You make it sound like we are helpless victims of a dictatorship. Wake up!
The only regulation is technology. Might makes law, not the other way around. Natural law and the law of physics are the only laws that regulate humanity. That means the group with the most control over nature and the most control over physics controls the world. Einstein proved that. Anyone who can kill all of us at the push of a button doesn't have to listen to our concerns about what we like and don't like or what should or shouldn't be done. If they decide to do it, they can because their military is unstoppable. In the USA if our government decides to pursue a technology there is nothing that can stop them and no international law applies, and domestic law doesn't necessary apply either if it's done in secret or done in such a way that it cannot be enforced.
Have you actually read any laws on the books, studied any laws? Wow dude, please just be quiet regarding law. You are either intentionally speaking untruth, or severely uninformed. Either way, I can only recommend you actually study Laws, Law making, and the theories of the Republic. The laws of physics have absolutely nothing to do with civil law, and you are trying to equate them. This is an argument from ignorance, and I'll ignore further comments from you which attempt to do the same.
Show me a cured psychopathic serial killer and I'll believe you. Find just one cured psychopath and show.
Yet another straw man fallacy, you seem to be very fluent in fallacy. You insinuate, either through ignorance or intent at spreading propaganda, that all psychopaths are serial killers. Absolute nonsense, and is factually incorrect nearly all of the time. I previously mentioned that 90% of the people working as Stock Brokers are diagnosable as psychopaths. Are all Stock brokers therefor serial killers? To claim such is worse than ignorant, since you have been informed on the subject three times now and each time you ignore the information.
It's possible to draw a perfect circuit, it's just very very difficult and no one can do that by hand without special instruments. But it's possible or we wouldn't be able to build stuff such as the LHC which relies on perfect measurements.
No it's not, which is why Engineers and Scientists continually debug and monitor circuits, components, and everything else. Perfection is impossible for humans. Your refusal to admit it and make up stories does not make that fact incorrect. Your irrational thinking was previously at question, and now becomes more so.
You're saying I wish to give the governments, as if I have any control over what governments decide to do. They take taxes whether we want to give it to them or not. They have the ability to do anything to us that they want already, if you get declared an enemy combatant or terrorist they can do anything from detain you without charge, or kill you. So there isn't anything anyone can do to stop the US government or the Chinese and Russians or any other government from pursuing this stuff. What I mean is it's already probably an arms race scenario where every government on earth knows about this technology an
The reason nukes weren't continuously used is because of MAD. The Soviets and many other countries have developed nukes and for that reason alone nukes couldn't be used. If one country were to obtain a tactical advantage through the use of nukes the nukes will be used without regard for the planet.
You are twisting the argument, or using very illogical methods to draw a conclusion. You stated that we should use mind manipulation because the technology exists, then stated "look at nukes" for your example. I, very correctly, pointed out that while we have nukes, we don't use them. Do you really fail to see how your argument is very confused? Because we have, or are working on technology does not imply that they should ever be used. We see, especially in things that are detrimental to humanity, the opposite with harmful technology. Your argument is completely illogical, and trying to obscure the argument with additional statements that are not connected does not help the argument, in fact it makes you appear irrational.
We aren't regulated. Therefore the regulation method of good and evil do not work. No regulation method based on anything other than science can work. Science doesn't deal in good and evil, but in correctness and incorrectness measured by degrees.
This is yet another blatant untruth. We are regulated, which is what the whole of Law is. We have Laws correct? Are you trying to claim that there are no Laws? We have in fact numerous types of Law. We have Criminal Law, Civil Law, and Laws regulating our Government. Those laws are based on morality in all cases, there are no exceptions.
Psychopathy has no cure. There isn't even an effective treatment for it. It might be treatable in the future but currently it's like being born mentally retarded, there is no cure. Some mental illnesses like depression can be cured by change in environment, and some such as downs syndrome cannot.
I'm starting to wonder if you have any truth in you at all. There is both treatment and cure, and you are being very brazen with lies now. I even gave examples of how it's best cured according to Scientific Data. Instead of believing what someone tells you, or just making things up, why not go find some facts? There are people that are presenting a case where psychopathic people are a detriment to society, and I even gave a statement (supportable by evidence) that this was not true. You ignore that, and present false information.
We aren't perfect either. The concept of perfection is moot for this argument. A circle is perfect but it's just a 2 dimensional shape.
Absolute balderdash, you are attempting to change the subject to protect your claim instead of addressing my point. While a mathematical circle is possible, go ahead and draw one. You will _never_ be able to draw a perfect circle, even with a compass. If we can not perform such a simple thing and replicate perfection, how do you propose that we write software that is perfect? We can not, and you are simply avoiding the truth.
Probing the mind will happen. The age of mind secrecy is coming to an end. Privacy is already dead. If and when it becomes technologically possible it will be done as there is too much economic incentive to do it. If it's drugs or physical manipulation that is called torture not mind control. If it's strictly psychological it can still be torture. It doesn't change the fact that it's not our decision what happens with this technology once it's invented just as we didn't decide to nuke Japan and just as the Germans didn't decide to start the holocaust. That is not the sort of thing I would choose to do weighing the cost against the benefits but I'm not in charge and cannot undo anything being done or decide what is done next. The only thing I can do is study the emerging technology and a lot of it holds much promise, and can change the world for the better
One other quick point in rereading your post. "Environment can make a sociopath or psychopath behave worse but it doesn't change the fact that sociopaths and psychopaths are most capable of that which you call "evil". is an absolutely false statement. The majority of sociopaths and psychopaths seem to be perfectly normal, and live their whole life without anyone ever knowing that they have said illness. 90% of the people working as stock brokers for example are clinically psychopaths. Should they all be jailed up in rubber rooms, or perhaps drugged in to "saneness" when their is no impact on society due to their illness? So you are wrong in your statement regarding their capability of committing "evil". Said "evil" is something every single person is capable of given the right social motivation.
Twenty years ago, we would call those same people "type-A" personalities. Be cautious following the trend of labeling people based on an agenda unless you uncover the full agenda. I have already stated that this is an agenda of Eugenics, and you only need to study history to see how correct I am.
Maybe nukes and biological weapons should never have been invented but the fact is they exist. The technology to read thoughts is currently under intense development just as the internet and robotics were under intense development in the early 80s. Back then we thought of it like it was something from scifi novels but today we live the novels.
I have no issues recognizing this fallacy, perhaps you should work on your logic skills so you don't present such rubbish. Just because someone want's to create something like this does not mean it's beneficial or should ever be used. We have nukes sure, but it's not like we are chain nuking each other are we? I think you will find the contrary, in anger Nukes have been used in 1 war. You present an extremely illogical reasoning for wanting mind probing.
The fact is that is the trend. Everything is being watched or being put under surveillance and eventually it's going to reach our most private possessions which includes our tweets, our emails, anything which can be monitored. Whether I agree with it or not, it's going to happen and at this point it can't be stopped.
A trend does not make something correct, but you fail to address that issue. Why? Do you know how many trends we have that were based on false information and bad for society as a whole? Your whole point of logic is very skewed toward psychopathic and pathological. Yes you can stop it's use, but you need to grow a pair and stand up to people that do wrong. In fact it is your civic duty to stand up to policies such as this which harm society.
I'm not an atheist. I just don't believe in good and evil. I don't believe God cares about good and evil but I do believe God wants life protected which is why I do have enough of a sense to know its wrong to nuke the planet or pollute the planet. I think the majority of stuff you call good are probably based on something you read in a book rather than your actual experience or the calculation of the potential results. It's good for you if the results for you are good and it's bad for you if the results for you re bad but there is no objective "evil" that could be bad for everyone that we all currently agree upon. We can't agree the nuclear weapons and pollution are bad.
God is not even at question in my statements other than my incorrect assumption that you were atheist. Apologies for the assumption, I should have asked. The question is the virtues and morality required for human beings to survive. You completely avoided my point that in essence, this is good and evil. This is our regulation mechanism. It's not done by necessarily a book, but rather by logical dialogue and discourse. Books can still be important, because we _must_ continue to observe history as we make decisions on morality, or we are doomed to repeat our same mistakes. Such as genocide, because we fail to fully review what we suggest and it's full implications.
There is no objective good and evil. The closet thing we have to a public good is protection of the environment and protection of life and we can't even agree on that.
That my good sir or madam, is a blatant lie. We have laws written to protect life, limb, property, thought, speech, etc... etc... and all of those laws deal with morality. As mentioned before, you may dislike the term "good and evil", but in essence this is morality. If you prefer change the terms to be "societal positive and negative", but the connotation will be identical.
Environmental pollution and nuclear waste could be creating psychopaths, so why don't you worry about that? Environment can create psychopathic behavior in normal individuals but it doesn't turn them into a psychopath. A psychopath is psychopathic no matter what environment they came from.
Exactly my point correct? To claim that you can measure psychopath's by DNA or any other method is absolutely fla
7 year old's computer? Are you kidding me? Their own, or one for the family that they will use to access school work and maybe read and write emails to family? As long as you don't exclude normal education items (Lego's, Tinker Toys, etc...) then just something small.
If it's more "Family" HP generally has laptops on sale this time of year really really cheap. While I myself prefer Linux, I'd actually recommend Windows since many schools require it for applications. Later, as everyone becomes more proficient with the PC, move to Linux.
The most difficult thing to do, is keep them from using the PC as their main form of entertainment. This becomes more difficult as you find it keeps them inside, safe, and out of your way. So for that reason, supervision should be required at all times. Learn with them, and limit your time. Since it can be very absorbing for you and them, use an egg timer and set it at 30-60 minutes max. Then get outside and play with them, or have them turn it off and cook dinner together.
The main problem with crime in the past is we assumed we would never know what anyone else is thinking, never have complete understanding of motives, never know the best forms of deterring certain events but imagine for a moment that its some point in the future and we know what everyone's thoughts were before they committed the criminal act? Would we view the acts in the same way if we knew the exact thoughts behind the act?If a criminal could not lie and an FMRI lie detector test has 100% accuracy could we change the justice system completely?
This should never happen because anyone in their right mind should be fighting against someone being able to probe their thoughts. Evidence is one thing, however what you suggest is far worse than evidence. Better stand up now, make sure you keep the separation or else we are doomed.
What about detecting psychopaths, sociopaths, and others who aren't capable of remorse, empathy or guilt prior to sentencing? As far as I'm concerned we should be moving toward abolishing prisons altogether not because we wont have dangerous people but because eventually our understanding of human behavior will be such that we wont need so many prisoners and also if we wanted to we could probably just use house arrest on the non-violent.
This statement reeks of the same issue we have with "Monitoring tweets to detect sociopaths" and "DNS testing to determine future crimes". We see both already being discussed and both are rather poor attempts at Eugenics. A person's psychological state is not determined by DNA, or any what they may be typing now, but rather a result of sociological impact. Ever see the movie "Trading Places"? This would be a good start, but remember something. Eddie Murphey's character would have been jailed long before he was on the sidewalk by Eugenics if they could have tested his DNA. Walt and Mortimer would still be making $1.00 bets at the expense of fellow humans.
This brings me to your next point.
We have to do away with the concept of good and evil.
Absolute idiocy. Those two concepts are how we have, and maintain, sociological morals which are required for us to survive as a society. Without those two concepts we would still be running around with sticks trying to steal each others women and food, and would have never progressed to the point we have. Does that mean perhaps that "Good" and "Evil" should be defined in to something more socially acceptable to atheists like yourself? I'm okay with that, but you can't do away with morality and maintain society. If you believe it's possible, I will simply point you to the US's decline. Since it's ugly to look at and you may see nothing wrong, how about Rome? Greece? Germany? The UK? Pick a history to study, and you will see that when morality no longer addresses "good" and "evil" even (and perhaps especially) for some people, society begins to decline in all areas. Remember that the goals of Governments for over 3000 years was setting and maintaining a set of morals and virtues, which in essence _are_ good and evil.
Again, you are plain old telling a fable with your comment "A sociopath or psychopath is not evil, they are simply retarded in a particular physical area of brain development.". This is not true at all, since anyone is capable of being either of those, and worse. This is based on evidence, not speculation. Why do you neglect the impact society has on a person's psychological state, except that it would harm your argument?
If you understood this, your next statement of " This would mean 80% of prisoners aren't sociopaths or psychopaths, even if we assume.." would be completely unnecessary. Society creates way more sociopaths and psychopaths than birth order. People are not always psychopaths or sociopaths, people do have the ability to repair damage caused by society and be "normal". This again is verifiable and well documented in psychology and sociology. You
He is completely right. Distribution should be illegal, NOT the possession.
Even this has to be moderated in such a way as to evaluate intent. Otherwise, someone sending evidence to another source could be termed "criminal". In his example of inadvertently capturing an event, how do you get the media to the police without being labelled criminal? What if the police fail to take action because the perpetrator is the Mayor, so you need to send the evidence to the "Press"?
I agree with everything else you state. Laws do not function universally, and can not function universally, when written with ambiguity. The point of "Law" is that it deals with every member of society.
To your critique of his first point: If you truly read the article, you perhaps should consider furthering your education (especially your ability to comprehend what you read). Because possession of child-pornography is not bound by "intent", the reason you possess material is not debatable, discussable, admissible, or considered in court. Period, end of statement. The author explains this very well, and even gives examples of how this harms the public currently. He then explains how the problem will get worse with the ease of recording, especially when we have more people unintentionally recording video.
To your second paragraph I must simply state that poor legislation is not corrected by adding more poor legislation. Historically this is true, as well as logically. Adding additional laws as you suggest won't prevent misuse, such as we have currently, with current laws. Laws should be written much better than we have been doing. Being a realist, I do understand that without a drastic change in leadership both in Politics and our Judicial branch nothing will happen. Currently "money" is the major factor in law creation, not the majority of the public or rational thinking.
Having read the full article, I disagree with your last paragraph. Considering your first statements were well off the mark, I'm inclined to believe that you are simply speculating on the "whole" article and I find your critique to be without merit or weight. Quite the contrary to you, I find his points are logical and well thought out. He points out problems with the current laws and provides solution within reason. Whether or not I fully agree is not the question, the question is "did he provide valid points and food for thought?" to which I answer "yes".
I do wish to ask you re-read my post since you obviously misread at least one very critical statement. If you think most philosophers will say that all the puzzles are solved, you haven't met many philosophers. I did not state that Philosophers said that, I said that TV shows make that claim. You quote my actual statement claiming that exact thing next, so very odd that you attribute the first quote to the wrong source.
Something else I noticed, is that you seem to misunderstand the nature of the Scientific method and where it derives from. In other words, I find your distinction a bit inverse. Philosophers may not all perform "Science", but all "Science" performs Philosophy.
Your third paragraph I very much agree with.
After years of work I came to the same conclusion the vast majority of Philosophers have, which is that there is probably a creator.
[Citation needed]
Also, even if true, argument from authority. On top of that, without a consensus on the properties of such a being you haven't really gotten anywhere.
How would you like me to citation history exactly? The belief in a creator, soul, etc.. dates back thousands of years. Among Philosophers documented, atheism and agnosticism is rather rare until the last century. Even in the last century, many claim that people like Einstein was atheist, when he clearly was not. He was not necessarily Jewish, but he believed in a Creator.
While you claim argument from authority, I claim I'm simply countering a very common argument from atheists which is a Red Herring Fallacy. (Smart people believe X, you are not smart if you believe Y). See the comment about Einstein above and this perhaps makes more logical sense.
Science requires a falsifiable claim and sufficient evidence gathered to show that the claim holds up under scrutiny. Exactly how would I go about falsifying your claim to a creator? What evidence could I give you that would make you say you were wrong? What evidence have you gathered so far that might support your claim? What if I claimed there were a committee of creators instead of just one, how would you determine which of us is right?
I have to answer this with a metaphorical question. If you believe Obama will make a better president than Romney, how would I prove you wrong? We would debate, and argue, and be angry with each other. Truth be told, neither of us would ever know the answer would we? One will be in office, and another will be out of office. It is impossible to "prove" either side is wrong or right, this is an opinion. Since I stated numerous times that my "belief" was "opinion", is there a correct or incorrect? Why would anyone need to prove me wrong?
With that said, you could try to present an alternative opinion which I would evaluate for logical value, and perhaps change my opinion. It would not however be immediate, since something purely "opinion" can never be proven to be wrong.
Now you may claim "but science can prove there is no need for a creator", which I addressed already. Simply put, that is not a logical statement and is verifiable as false using simple mathematics. If the Universe did not exist, how do you propose to measure something? Multiply or divide any equation you like by Zero and watch what happens (Just prior to the Universe popping in to existence, matter = 0, time =0, energy = 0). We can only measure and detect what happened after the Universe came in to existence.
Lastly, is the more metaphysical answer. If I'm correct, I'll know when I'm dead. To add a bit of good rhetoric, I'll add that you may not like the answer if I'm correct.
There is insufficient data to make any claims at all regarding such a probability. State your evidence. Here's a hint: "Well, it's just too perfect" isn't evidence.
Perfect? That statement is rather laughable considering I go out of my way to express how my opinion
I won't agree that it's rubbish, refer to Socratic methods. I even provided an example of a complex definition, leaving out some of the better examples. To claim that something knowable can not be known because you find no suitable means of explaining it, is foolish. We know many things, and yet would fail to define them properly. "Life" for example must exist, yet defining a proper definition would be at least as complex as defining deity. According to your logic, I could no claim something was "living".
Kurt Godel never stated any such thing by the way, why don't you go read his ontological proof in God's existence? What he stated was that God is greater than anything we can imagine and gave mathematical proof that this was true. That, and that God does exist. Perhaps you were not referring to the Mathematician and Philosopher Kurt Godel?
Your second statement is mincing words to rehash a well known paradox of "Who created the creator?". This is a well documented and old atheist argument. Yes, atheism has been around since before Socrates.
The fallacy you used was blatant. I'm not implying that you have to agree with Pascal's Wager, but let me put in bold your opinions in just your first sentence since you seem to refute that you used any fallacy. Pascal's Wager is a sophistic, naive, short-sighted and chauvinistic (ad hominem much?) attempt at proving that it is better to unquestioningly submit(Base rate fallacy at best) to an insane(Again ad hominem) hypothesis than to remain skeptical in absence of concrete proof." I find your use of "sophist" rather ironic, since you go well out of your way to attempt to sway a statement to your advantage when a simple "I don't agree with the premise he worked with so don't agree with his conclusion" would have been appropriate.
You're muddling again. To believe in a creator is to believe in a theology (stop with the exalted capitals because it looks silly and stick to proper orthography). When you find all existing theologies unacceptable you simply end up with your own.
No muddling at all, you are again not using a rational Socratic method in your arguments. The question is not "which Theology is correct?" but as stated several times "Is there a creator?".
The rest of your post is simply a bluff based on a disagreement in the above question, which you refuse to believe becomes a matter of opinion. "Anti theist" is the long name of Atheist, try reading definitions better. It is very plain to see.
I agree with your last statement, which is why I stated "thanks for the perspective". I don't find that I have to be an asshole when people disagree or have different opinions. You on the other hand are rather have been rather Sophist (in the very traditional sense).
To claim that because one can not provide a detailed description of a deity, therefore a deity can not be defined is really an antithesis for Philosophy. It simply does not conform to logic, at least in a rational sense. Adding details such as size, shape, or super powers does not change the definition. This would be similar to claiming "I can not provide a description of computer because it's very complex, so a computer can not be defined." A computer can be defined, however we could probably write for years and still not agree on our descriptions, especially if we come from disparate backgrounds in hardware and OS.
It's rather odd that you claim I misread metaphysics, since you did not seem consider the precursor work to Aristotle's theory. Aristotle's work on the Un-caused cause was an abstraction from the work called the Unmade Maker, and I believe conceptually better in terms of a creator. Why? Because the "Un-made maker" theory brings up visions of a body, or a thing. Where Aristotle's work was better, is that the argument focuses on the action, and ultimately that is what the inception of the Universe is correct? The Universe did come in to existence, or we would not be here typing.
You also seem to miss the question that the theory is attempting to address, or intentionally ignoring the question.
You are correct with Pascal's wager, which is why I stated to read his contemporaries for a better perspective on the given statement. Interesting how you inject so much fallacy in to your statement claiming that his opinion is a fallacy.
I can't agree with your last statement. To believe in a creator is not the same as believing in Theology. This means I was correct in my assumption that we disagreed on the definition of atheism. I don't see your explanation in the definition, and here is why: Does Theology exist without a Creator? To me the answer is "No, Theology can not exist without a Creator.". Theology is dependent on the belief in a creator first. Theology is the act of putting proverbial clothing on a creator.
Your last statement implies that if I disbelieve in a Hindu version of a creator, I am atheist. Yet by the definition of atheist this could not be true since I believe in a deity (Creator). Your use of the term (as quoted) does not seem to match 2 parts of the 3 that you have quoted In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. or Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist., you are only looking at the "broad sense" description.
Words have definitions. I was attempting to grasp what you are getting at when you say "deity" can not be defined, and previously"define 'define'". Both of those words have definitions that are readily available in every major dictionary. I even provided the definition of deity which you claim can not be defined. Is it really me using 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments when something extremely tangible is claimed not to exist? Take a rationalist approach to your statements, since that is exactly what I do.
The claims you made about Aristotle defining the "creator of the universe" is a big revealer.
Wait, what was Aristotle's "Un-caused Cause" theory all about? The terminology used was not "creator", but the Aristotle's thoughts are exactly that. Everything came from something, and can be traced back to a single entity called the "Un-caused Cause". If you don't see how that is relative to a creator, you are either not trying very hard to look or intentionally ignoring the obvious.
When thinking of the "atheism is a faith" argument, as with above you need to go back to a rationalist arguments. There is no manipulation technique in the statement, it is a statement of obvious fact. Either you believe in a creator, or you believe there is no creator. Both are beliefs since neither can be proven, only evaluated by logic. For at least 200 years most Philosophers have agreed that we can never prove either side is correct.
Add to this some thoughts from other Philosophers: 'The Philosophical logic for a creator is extremely obvious and easy to determine. So obvious in fact, that it takes more faith to believe there is no creator than to believe there is a creator.' Pascal and his contemporaries are good study for that perspective, though Pascal's Principle really deals with the trend at the time agnosticism.
I believe where we may differ is in two distinct areas.
First: You are taking "faith in atheism" in a context other than intended. See the the paragraph above the 'Said slightly differently' statement for the context. And the answer is "yes" ahead of time. If you question 'Where did the Universe come from?' it matters, and both the atheist and creationist arguments both stem from that question. If you did not care about the question, you would not claim to be atheist since you would exist completely outside of the context of the question.
Second: I take the very literal definition of "Deity" and you seem to take a non-literal definition (claiming it cannot be defined). A creator must be a deity by definition (Supreme Being). Since: The creator had to simultaneously create space, time, matter, energy, and all of the laws of physics at the onset of the Universe. (This does not mean the creator matches a Theological definition, and should not be assumed to be defined by any Theology.)
A third possible difference is that you and I may disagree on what Atheism means. Again, I take the current literal meaning "Belief that there are no deities". Many people take the term to mean "anti-Theology" instead of "anti-deity", which does not match the definition given in any current dictionary. A person believing in "anti-Theology" could be agnostic just as well as atheist (in fact they could be oblivious to the question so have no opinion at all), so the definition of the word is critical to the debate.
Slashdot Mirror
Mmm, that darkness must taste really good huh? Obama's administration has targeted journalists during his whole administration. Journalists are subpoenaed for sources in all kinds of things. You can start here but there are countless journalist that have in court forced to reveal sources, cases brought on by the White House thank you very much. New York Post recently had a whistle blower tell how the CIA must approve things before they are published, CNN has been the same.
Wake up man, the administration is for censorship. Have to look outside of main stream media to find the reports of course, but there is a lot there.
False dichotomy. Is it insulting, sure. So are jokes regarding ethnicity or religion, but we hear them and generally laugh. Political satire could also be seen as insulting to a political belief, but we use this humor for positive purposes generally.
Should you prosecute someone for making a very poor quality 14 minute clip that attempts to insult someone? Or should you laugh at them for being such a poor character, and having absolutely poor video editing skills? The latter is the societal normal treatment, and of course they should never be given a job in Hollywood or Bollywood since they lack any technical skills.
Are you gullible enough to believe that this person is just a huge jerk, or do you have enough sense to see that this video may have been generated intentionally as propaganda to cover up what is really happening in politics overseas. I'm not a fan of beating the scape goat, I'd rather beat the real perpetrators.
Because it's a political topic that will generate lots of traffic, but I'm guessing you knew that and your question was simply rhetorical.
I just reread your post and apologize for misreading, you and I seem to agree.
I don't agree that we need to throw metric assloads of money at the issue, we simply need to revert education to classical education instead of what we have done for the last 50+ years in forcing schools to teach workplace education. Politicians broke our education system when they forced all schools to teach to "standards testing" instead of teaching people to "think!"
The fix does not require tremendous amounts of cash as you suggest, simply a different method of education and curriculum changes that correspond.
We also need to get government grants out of schools that support political agendas. Sex education is a waste of your tax money, plain and simple. Why are we not making people accountable for their actions, which in turn reduces sex among minors. Are you ignorant enough to believe that in 1800s minors were not experimenting with sex? Hell, they probably experimented as much or more than kids today. The difference is that if you knocked someone up you started work and supported your family. If you wanted to go to college, you kept it in your pants (or were extremely careful flailing it around), the nanny state did not try and fix things for you.
There is a tremendous amount of information regarding how our education system has been changed, and not for the better. Thisis a good place to start, as is this. It does not take billions to fix, it takes reverting the politician's changes and going back to the system that worked for well over 2,000 years.
Nothing positive happens with the current shitbags in politics either, time to wake up and start getting these assholes out of office and in to jails where they belong. Better yet, since they are treasonous I think we toss them in to exile and let them fend for themselves. I'm sure North Korea would take in some new "happy citizens"
I laughed out loud when I read that!
I'm not sure how what you stated was relevant to my comments, but I'll play along for a moment.
The process has become, that ugly place where the court has stated that they must start the comment period sometime before March of 2013.
The majority of courts are corrupted, full of corrupt judges and lawyers. The NDAA is the best proof possible. It's a very sad joke that the TSA can ignore the courts and make them back down from a rightful decision. The TSA has been proven to be hiring people you would demand stay away from your child. Convicted felons, targeting pedophiles, are high on their hire list. No, I refuse to site anything since you can easily use Google to find the documents that were leaked.
An enormous event occurs if/when the xray machines are removed, and I'm hoping they don't replace it with something even more draconian or fraught with travel delays or indignities. That's the message that I hope isn't lost. Yes, I like airport security, but better ways must be found of dealing with the issues than what the TSA does now.
This is simply an argument from fallacy. No melt down would occur if the X-ray machines were removed. You do realize that we have had canine and other animals trained to detect all kinds of controlled substances which include explosives for over a century correct? Okay, our training methods may have been refined over that time, but there is no reason to subject anyone to intrusion of any type when non intrusive (and much more cost effective) methods exist. The military has had swabs and machines that detect chemical weapons since I was in, over two decades ago. So saying "but Joe is allergic to dogs" is a futile argument.
You also mistakenly assume that terrorists are all over the place (wholly shit, is one in your back pocket now?). This hype has been brainwashed in to the public for over a decade, so I don't blame you per-say but do suggest you find truth instead of believing propaganda. The US has never had terrorists board a plane with bombs, not one time ever. Every time a bomb has been found on a plane, it is either 1) inbound to the USA or 2) A fabricated terror plot that a Government agency hatched and let happen. You do realize that you have a higher chance of dying to a bee sting than you do of dying to a terrorist right? This is using world wide statistics including places like Iraq where they can buy an RPG pretty easily, and not just in the US.
Again, I refuse to cite something when Google is your friend.
And before you "but but but" about box cutting terrorists, do you realize that a passenger with an umbrella could have beat the shit out of them? Do we ban umbrellas from planes also so Terrorists can't use them to threaten people? The truth is, bad people will do bad things. Bad people do exist, and probably are the ones telling you how bad other people are. They want you looking under park benches for things that don't exist, so that you never pay attention to what they are doing. They want you living in fear, because if you got over your fear you would probably find out what shitbags they are and fight against them.
Thanks for playing, have a nice day.
What you say is true, however it's a tough road to get back to where we need to be. Media has become simply propaganda, and most people listen to them. More and more people are finding alternative news, but will we have enough people awake before the proverbial shit hits the fan? I'm not so sure. I have hope mind you, but I have no confidence.
Socrates stated that politicians should be elected from those that showed no ambition or inclination to hold office. He was correct.
Socrates also stated that the education of the police and military was critical, and if they were corrupted government would fail and become tyranny and oligarchy. We now see the results from years of bad education. In addition to this, the government has been found to be hiring police with below average IQs and specific dispositions we would consider psychopathic and authoritarian.
Hell, we have known how to do things correctly for over 3,000 years. Do you think there are those that have figured out how to break things when they work correctly? Frankly, I'm amazed at how well they are doing and how so many are completely apathetic (or completely clueless) to what's going on.
Just a quick addition, I know you said that you read "The Republic" but have you studied it? There is a difference. I read often, and no not just "The Republic" but countless books on History and Philosophy. The relevance to our current situation means that I place great significance on "The Republic". I have read it numerous times myself, but I still go back and study. I teach things to other people based on the book, often citing exact statements to wake them up.
You don't run shit. How can you stop what you don't know is happening?
Did you miss my points regarding your civic duties as a member of a Republic? Look, I understand the frustration levels since I experience probably the same as you. That does not make my civic duties not exist. So what you should do, and could do is twofold. First, start talking to people and waking them up to how severe the problems are. Second, learn what the "Republic" is and how it operates. Do you see that your defeatism is not necessary? Perhaps not, but once you understand how the Republic works, you will see that while the citizens live and breath we can change things. It takes a lot of people, but not even a majority. Historically 10-20% of the citizens being awake and active is all that's needed. The "Sheople" will follow along at that point.
The law doesn't protect you from a bullet. The Kennedy assassination was illegal, and so was that recent attack in Libya. The law does not protect diplomats. The law doesn't do shit, so you can study the words all you want, at the end of the day it's the technology, the weapons, and the intelligence. Nothing and no law can govern sufficiently advanced technology combined with detailed practical intelligence. Law enforcement does not have technology that even compares to military level. The law of physics are what governs war and military, the laws you are talking about don't apply in war because the police don't have more might than the military.
While agree with your points, the point I raise in return is that we can change what's going on. See above, wake people up and get involved. It's your only choice. If you remain defeatist, you will lose the ability to work in a Republic. There is still time, we are still a Republic (but that may not last much longer).
Every point you make is answered the same as the above. I agree with every point you make by the way except for one which I'll get to in a moment.
I can suggest that you read "The Republic" by Plato. It is the foundation for our Government and Constitution, and a majority of the time in history the US has functioned as a Republic. What we see now has been plotted for a long time, to that I'll agree. But they still can not operate in the open for fear of revolt. This is why we have in the last 3 decades had a complete monopolization of Media, and increases in secrecy (as well as other things).
As a member of the Republic, you have a few options. First and foremost is to gain numbers to the cause (see above for waking people up). Second, we have the ability to petition for change. Changes needed are pretty drastic, but crucial. Media Monopolies must be broken for example. None of this will happen with the status quot in office, which brings up your second duty. Petition drive, and get people on to ballots that are honest. Walk door to door and ask people to sign to get your Uncle Joe on a ballot, because he's honest. Use this as an opportunity to educate and wake others. It's a wave effect, and does work. Historically this has worked numerous times in the US already.
I understand that the tasks I mention above are difficult, but in reality we are at a critical point. Do we do nothing and fall or do we fight for the Republic? Falling is a short time away, and I think you realize that by what you typed above. The easy thing to do is to do nothing, but nothing will be our demise.
As mentioned above I need to get to the point I disagree with, which is regarding the Military. This is a Government conundrum at the moment by the way. A majority of people in the Military will not fire on their own people or act in aggression against their own people. History backs this point, and it also explains why we have time still. The US Government can not impose martial law like they did in the USSR, at least not yet. People are seeing the deceit and lies currently, which is making their ability to claim martial law much more difficult.
If you search for building 7, research the questions being asked by ae911.org, you may start to wonder. If they lie to you once, what prevents them from being liars more often? Research the start of Vietnam, it was a set up. There are questions regarding how much the Government knew regarding the start of WW II. At least in the case of WW II we can claim the morality was right, but to base our entrance on a lie and at a great cost of US life? Research how the CIA has used drugs and propaganda since it's inception against the US public.
Keep your panties on, I'm not saying that the Government blew up WTC. I'm saying that they lied about what happened (reports are complete fabrications, no mention of Building 7 in any report, Building 7 not reported by media passed the initial report that it was going down(which was before it went down), etc..). If what they released was a lie, we should be investigating what else is a lie. And until they can answer what really happened they are suspect as well.
You are very ignorant. Two fundamental teachings in Christianity are 1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and 2. When someone strikes you, you need to turn the other cheek. Since these were the teachings of Jesus, they are considered the most important teachings in any Christian Religion. (The first having the name "The Golden Rule")
Understand that the IRA was not acting out because their Religion told them too, it was because their Religion was being oppressed by the Government and that they were being persecuted by the "State" Religion.
You should really try and understand that the fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity is that Islam teaches aggression toward anyone that is not a follower of Islam. Christians are taught to teach, not strike. I'm guessing that you will pretend not to see the difference to continue your ignorant speech but perhaps you will prove me wrong.
The majority of Christians are pacifist. This is why people can opt to be not bound to combat roles in the Military (and have been able to do so for a very long time, at least WW II but perhaps even WW I. The crusades ended quite a while ago. Since then, there have been faults for sure, but Christianity in general has not pushed for dominance by violence since. A very small sect, perhaps but by no means is it a majority.
Be cautious with generalizations, lest you look as moronic as the people pretending all American's created the movie they are protesting. Many very exceptional people have admitted speaking with God, though a majority of them don't become religious thugs in the process. Socrates is a prime example.
Oh, and a preemptive STFU on your citation, go read some of Plato's Dialogues for your evidence. It's easiest to find in "Apology" but is mentioned in I believe every dialogue (I'm not 100% sure about "Meno" at the moment.), and the education would probably be healthy for you.
I'm not saying what should or shouldn't be. I'm saying it's going to be used because the people in charge wont be able to resist using it. It's just too powerful not to use. Nukes have been used, and nuclear weapons still are being used just not in the form of a nuclear bomb. They are tactical and precise now, but believe me its still a problem. The technology to nuke people got maintained but not stopped and it's only maintained because enough different countries have nukes to balance the powers.
Why to you insist on evading the point every time you comment? The point is that the People need to prevent it. The people of the Republic run the Government, not the other way around. This is how our constitution works. You make it sound like we are helpless victims of a dictatorship. Wake up!
The only regulation is technology. Might makes law, not the other way around. Natural law and the law of physics are the only laws that regulate humanity. That means the group with the most control over nature and the most control over physics controls the world. Einstein proved that. Anyone who can kill all of us at the push of a button doesn't have to listen to our concerns about what we like and don't like or what should or shouldn't be done. If they decide to do it, they can because their military is unstoppable. In the USA if our government decides to pursue a technology there is nothing that can stop them and no international law applies, and domestic law doesn't necessary apply either if it's done in secret or done in such a way that it cannot be enforced.
Have you actually read any laws on the books, studied any laws? Wow dude, please just be quiet regarding law. You are either intentionally speaking untruth, or severely uninformed. Either way, I can only recommend you actually study Laws, Law making, and the theories of the Republic. The laws of physics have absolutely nothing to do with civil law, and you are trying to equate them. This is an argument from ignorance, and I'll ignore further comments from you which attempt to do the same.
Show me a cured psychopathic serial killer and I'll believe you. Find just one cured psychopath and show.
Yet another straw man fallacy, you seem to be very fluent in fallacy. You insinuate, either through ignorance or intent at spreading propaganda, that all psychopaths are serial killers. Absolute nonsense, and is factually incorrect nearly all of the time. I previously mentioned that 90% of the people working as Stock Brokers are diagnosable as psychopaths. Are all Stock brokers therefor serial killers? To claim such is worse than ignorant, since you have been informed on the subject three times now and each time you ignore the information.
It's possible to draw a perfect circuit, it's just very very difficult and no one can do that by hand without special instruments. But it's possible or we wouldn't be able to build stuff such as the LHC which relies on perfect measurements.
No it's not, which is why Engineers and Scientists continually debug and monitor circuits, components, and everything else. Perfection is impossible for humans. Your refusal to admit it and make up stories does not make that fact incorrect. Your irrational thinking was previously at question, and now becomes more so.
You're saying I wish to give the governments, as if I have any control over what governments decide to do. They take taxes whether we want to give it to them or not. They have the ability to do anything to us that they want already, if you get declared an enemy combatant or terrorist they can do anything from detain you without charge, or kill you. So there isn't anything anyone can do to stop the US government or the Chinese and Russians or any other government from pursuing this stuff. What I mean is it's already probably an arms race scenario where every government on earth knows about this technology an
The reason nukes weren't continuously used is because of MAD. The Soviets and many other countries have developed nukes and for that reason alone nukes couldn't be used. If one country were to obtain a tactical advantage through the use of nukes the nukes will be used without regard for the planet.
You are twisting the argument, or using very illogical methods to draw a conclusion. You stated that we should use mind manipulation because the technology exists, then stated "look at nukes" for your example. I, very correctly, pointed out that while we have nukes, we don't use them. Do you really fail to see how your argument is very confused? Because we have, or are working on technology does not imply that they should ever be used. We see, especially in things that are detrimental to humanity, the opposite with harmful technology. Your argument is completely illogical, and trying to obscure the argument with additional statements that are not connected does not help the argument, in fact it makes you appear irrational.
We aren't regulated. Therefore the regulation method of good and evil do not work. No regulation method based on anything other than science can work. Science doesn't deal in good and evil, but in correctness and incorrectness measured by degrees.
This is yet another blatant untruth. We are regulated, which is what the whole of Law is. We have Laws correct? Are you trying to claim that there are no Laws? We have in fact numerous types of Law. We have Criminal Law, Civil Law, and Laws regulating our Government. Those laws are based on morality in all cases, there are no exceptions.
Psychopathy has no cure. There isn't even an effective treatment for it. It might be treatable in the future but currently it's like being born mentally retarded, there is no cure. Some mental illnesses like depression can be cured by change in environment, and some such as downs syndrome cannot.
I'm starting to wonder if you have any truth in you at all. There is both treatment and cure, and you are being very brazen with lies now. I even gave examples of how it's best cured according to Scientific Data. Instead of believing what someone tells you, or just making things up, why not go find some facts? There are people that are presenting a case where psychopathic people are a detriment to society, and I even gave a statement (supportable by evidence) that this was not true. You ignore that, and present false information.
We aren't perfect either. The concept of perfection is moot for this argument. A circle is perfect but it's just a 2 dimensional shape.
Absolute balderdash, you are attempting to change the subject to protect your claim instead of addressing my point. While a mathematical circle is possible, go ahead and draw one. You will _never_ be able to draw a perfect circle, even with a compass. If we can not perform such a simple thing and replicate perfection, how do you propose that we write software that is perfect? We can not, and you are simply avoiding the truth.
Probing the mind will happen. The age of mind secrecy is coming to an end. Privacy is already dead. If and when it becomes technologically possible it will be done as there is too much economic incentive to do it. If it's drugs or physical manipulation that is called torture not mind control. If it's strictly psychological it can still be torture. It doesn't change the fact that it's not our decision what happens with this technology once it's invented just as we didn't decide to nuke Japan and just as the Germans didn't decide to start the holocaust. That is not the sort of thing I would choose to do weighing the cost against the benefits but I'm not in charge and cannot undo anything being done or decide what is done next. The only thing I can do is study the emerging technology and a lot of it holds much promise, and can change the world for the better
One other quick point in rereading your post. "Environment can make a sociopath or psychopath behave worse but it doesn't change the fact that sociopaths and psychopaths are most capable of that which you call "evil". is an absolutely false statement. The majority of sociopaths and psychopaths seem to be perfectly normal, and live their whole life without anyone ever knowing that they have said illness. 90% of the people working as stock brokers for example are clinically psychopaths. Should they all be jailed up in rubber rooms, or perhaps drugged in to "saneness" when their is no impact on society due to their illness? So you are wrong in your statement regarding their capability of committing "evil". Said "evil" is something every single person is capable of given the right social motivation.
Twenty years ago, we would call those same people "type-A" personalities. Be cautious following the trend of labeling people based on an agenda unless you uncover the full agenda. I have already stated that this is an agenda of Eugenics, and you only need to study history to see how correct I am.
Maybe nukes and biological weapons should never have been invented but the fact is they exist. The technology to read thoughts is currently under intense development just as the internet and robotics were under intense development in the early 80s. Back then we thought of it like it was something from scifi novels but today we live the novels.
I have no issues recognizing this fallacy, perhaps you should work on your logic skills so you don't present such rubbish. Just because someone want's to create something like this does not mean it's beneficial or should ever be used. We have nukes sure, but it's not like we are chain nuking each other are we? I think you will find the contrary, in anger Nukes have been used in 1 war. You present an extremely illogical reasoning for wanting mind probing.
The fact is that is the trend. Everything is being watched or being put under surveillance and eventually it's going to reach our most private possessions which includes our tweets, our emails, anything which can be monitored. Whether I agree with it or not, it's going to happen and at this point it can't be stopped.
A trend does not make something correct, but you fail to address that issue. Why? Do you know how many trends we have that were based on false information and bad for society as a whole? Your whole point of logic is very skewed toward psychopathic and pathological. Yes you can stop it's use, but you need to grow a pair and stand up to people that do wrong. In fact it is your civic duty to stand up to policies such as this which harm society.
I'm not an atheist. I just don't believe in good and evil. I don't believe God cares about good and evil but I do believe God wants life protected which is why I do have enough of a sense to know its wrong to nuke the planet or pollute the planet. I think the majority of stuff you call good are probably based on something you read in a book rather than your actual experience or the calculation of the potential results. It's good for you if the results for you are good and it's bad for you if the results for you re bad but there is no objective "evil" that could be bad for everyone that we all currently agree upon. We can't agree the nuclear weapons and pollution are bad.
God is not even at question in my statements other than my incorrect assumption that you were atheist. Apologies for the assumption, I should have asked. The question is the virtues and morality required for human beings to survive. You completely avoided my point that in essence, this is good and evil. This is our regulation mechanism. It's not done by necessarily a book, but rather by logical dialogue and discourse. Books can still be important, because we _must_ continue to observe history as we make decisions on morality, or we are doomed to repeat our same mistakes. Such as genocide, because we fail to fully review what we suggest and it's full implications.
There is no objective good and evil. The closet thing we have to a public good is protection of the environment and protection of life and we can't even agree on that.
That my good sir or madam, is a blatant lie. We have laws written to protect life, limb, property, thought, speech, etc... etc... and all of those laws deal with morality. As mentioned before, you may dislike the term "good and evil", but in essence this is morality. If you prefer change the terms to be "societal positive and negative", but the connotation will be identical.
Environmental pollution and nuclear waste could be creating psychopaths, so why don't you worry about that? Environment can create psychopathic behavior in normal individuals but it doesn't turn them into a psychopath. A psychopath is psychopathic no matter what environment they came from.
Exactly my point correct? To claim that you can measure psychopath's by DNA or any other method is absolutely fla
7 year old's computer? Are you kidding me? Their own, or one for the family that they will use to access school work and maybe read and write emails to family? As long as you don't exclude normal education items (Lego's, Tinker Toys, etc...) then just something small.
If it's more "Family" HP generally has laptops on sale this time of year really really cheap. While I myself prefer Linux, I'd actually recommend Windows since many schools require it for applications. Later, as everyone becomes more proficient with the PC, move to Linux.
The most difficult thing to do, is keep them from using the PC as their main form of entertainment. This becomes more difficult as you find it keeps them inside, safe, and out of your way. So for that reason, supervision should be required at all times. Learn with them, and limit your time. Since it can be very absorbing for you and them, use an egg timer and set it at 30-60 minutes max. Then get outside and play with them, or have them turn it off and cook dinner together.
Just my 2 cents.
The main problem with crime in the past is we assumed we would never know what anyone else is thinking, never have complete understanding of motives, never know the best forms of deterring certain events but imagine for a moment that its some point in the future and we know what everyone's thoughts were before they committed the criminal act? Would we view the acts in the same way if we knew the exact thoughts behind the act?If a criminal could not lie and an FMRI lie detector test has 100% accuracy could we change the justice system completely?
This should never happen because anyone in their right mind should be fighting against someone being able to probe their thoughts. Evidence is one thing, however what you suggest is far worse than evidence. Better stand up now, make sure you keep the separation or else we are doomed.
What about detecting psychopaths, sociopaths, and others who aren't capable of remorse, empathy or guilt prior to sentencing? As far as I'm concerned we should be moving toward abolishing prisons altogether not because we wont have dangerous people but because eventually our understanding of human behavior will be such that we wont need so many prisoners and also if we wanted to we could probably just use house arrest on the non-violent.
This statement reeks of the same issue we have with "Monitoring tweets to detect sociopaths" and "DNS testing to determine future crimes". We see both already being discussed and both are rather poor attempts at Eugenics. A person's psychological state is not determined by DNA, or any what they may be typing now, but rather a result of sociological impact. Ever see the movie "Trading Places"? This would be a good start, but remember something. Eddie Murphey's character would have been jailed long before he was on the sidewalk by Eugenics if they could have tested his DNA. Walt and Mortimer would still be making $1.00 bets at the expense of fellow humans.
This brings me to your next point.
We have to do away with the concept of good and evil.
Absolute idiocy. Those two concepts are how we have, and maintain, sociological morals which are required for us to survive as a society. Without those two concepts we would still be running around with sticks trying to steal each others women and food, and would have never progressed to the point we have. Does that mean perhaps that "Good" and "Evil" should be defined in to something more socially acceptable to atheists like yourself? I'm okay with that, but you can't do away with morality and maintain society. If you believe it's possible, I will simply point you to the US's decline. Since it's ugly to look at and you may see nothing wrong, how about Rome? Greece? Germany? The UK? Pick a history to study, and you will see that when morality no longer addresses "good" and "evil" even (and perhaps especially) for some people, society begins to decline in all areas. Remember that the goals of Governments for over 3000 years was setting and maintaining a set of morals and virtues, which in essence _are_ good and evil.
Again, you are plain old telling a fable with your comment "A sociopath or psychopath is not evil, they are simply retarded in a particular physical area of brain development.". This is not true at all, since anyone is capable of being either of those, and worse. This is based on evidence, not speculation. Why do you neglect the impact society has on a person's psychological state, except that it would harm your argument?
If you understood this, your next statement of " This would mean 80% of prisoners aren't sociopaths or psychopaths, even if we assume.." would be completely unnecessary. Society creates way more sociopaths and psychopaths than birth order. People are not always psychopaths or sociopaths, people do have the ability to repair damage caused by society and be "normal". This again is verifiable and well documented in psychology and sociology. You
He is completely right. Distribution should be illegal, NOT the possession.
Even this has to be moderated in such a way as to evaluate intent. Otherwise, someone sending evidence to another source could be termed "criminal". In his example of inadvertently capturing an event, how do you get the media to the police without being labelled criminal? What if the police fail to take action because the perpetrator is the Mayor, so you need to send the evidence to the "Press"?
I agree with everything else you state. Laws do not function universally, and can not function universally, when written with ambiguity. The point of "Law" is that it deals with every member of society.
To your critique of his first point: If you truly read the article, you perhaps should consider furthering your education (especially your ability to comprehend what you read). Because possession of child-pornography is not bound by "intent", the reason you possess material is not debatable, discussable, admissible, or considered in court. Period, end of statement. The author explains this very well, and even gives examples of how this harms the public currently. He then explains how the problem will get worse with the ease of recording, especially when we have more people unintentionally recording video.
To your second paragraph I must simply state that poor legislation is not corrected by adding more poor legislation. Historically this is true, as well as logically. Adding additional laws as you suggest won't prevent misuse, such as we have currently, with current laws. Laws should be written much better than we have been doing. Being a realist, I do understand that without a drastic change in leadership both in Politics and our Judicial branch nothing will happen. Currently "money" is the major factor in law creation, not the majority of the public or rational thinking.
Having read the full article, I disagree with your last paragraph. Considering your first statements were well off the mark, I'm inclined to believe that you are simply speculating on the "whole" article and I find your critique to be without merit or weight. Quite the contrary to you, I find his points are logical and well thought out. He points out problems with the current laws and provides solution within reason. Whether or not I fully agree is not the question, the question is "did he provide valid points and food for thought?" to which I answer "yes".
I do wish to ask you re-read my post since you obviously misread at least one very critical statement. If you think most philosophers will say that all the puzzles are solved, you haven't met many philosophers. I did not state that Philosophers said that, I said that TV shows make that claim. You quote my actual statement claiming that exact thing next, so very odd that you attribute the first quote to the wrong source.
Something else I noticed, is that you seem to misunderstand the nature of the Scientific method and where it derives from. In other words, I find your distinction a bit inverse. Philosophers may not all perform "Science", but all "Science" performs Philosophy.
Your third paragraph I very much agree with.
After years of work I came to the same conclusion the vast majority of Philosophers have, which is that there is probably a creator.
[Citation needed]
Also, even if true, argument from authority. On top of that, without a consensus on the properties of such a being you haven't really gotten anywhere.
How would you like me to citation history exactly? The belief in a creator, soul, etc.. dates back thousands of years. Among Philosophers documented, atheism and agnosticism is rather rare until the last century. Even in the last century, many claim that people like Einstein was atheist, when he clearly was not. He was not necessarily Jewish, but he believed in a Creator.
While you claim argument from authority, I claim I'm simply countering a very common argument from atheists which is a Red Herring Fallacy. (Smart people believe X, you are not smart if you believe Y). See the comment about Einstein above and this perhaps makes more logical sense.
Science requires a falsifiable claim and sufficient evidence gathered to show that the claim holds up under scrutiny. Exactly how would I go about falsifying your claim to a creator? What evidence could I give you that would make you say you were wrong? What evidence have you gathered so far that might support your claim? What if I claimed there were a committee of creators instead of just one, how would you determine which of us is right?
I have to answer this with a metaphorical question. If you believe Obama will make a better president than Romney, how would I prove you wrong? We would debate, and argue, and be angry with each other. Truth be told, neither of us would ever know the answer would we? One will be in office, and another will be out of office. It is impossible to "prove" either side is wrong or right, this is an opinion. Since I stated numerous times that my "belief" was "opinion", is there a correct or incorrect? Why would anyone need to prove me wrong?
With that said, you could try to present an alternative opinion which I would evaluate for logical value, and perhaps change my opinion. It would not however be immediate, since something purely "opinion" can never be proven to be wrong.
Now you may claim "but science can prove there is no need for a creator", which I addressed already. Simply put, that is not a logical statement and is verifiable as false using simple mathematics. If the Universe did not exist, how do you propose to measure something? Multiply or divide any equation you like by Zero and watch what happens (Just prior to the Universe popping in to existence, matter = 0, time =0, energy = 0). We can only measure and detect what happened after the Universe came in to existence.
Lastly, is the more metaphysical answer. If I'm correct, I'll know when I'm dead. To add a bit of good rhetoric, I'll add that you may not like the answer if I'm correct.
There is insufficient data to make any claims at all regarding such a probability. State your evidence. Here's a hint: "Well, it's just too perfect" isn't evidence.
Perfect? That statement is rather laughable considering I go out of my way to express how my opinion
I won't agree that it's rubbish, refer to Socratic methods. I even provided an example of a complex definition, leaving out some of the better examples. To claim that something knowable can not be known because you find no suitable means of explaining it, is foolish. We know many things, and yet would fail to define them properly. "Life" for example must exist, yet defining a proper definition would be at least as complex as defining deity. According to your logic, I could no claim something was "living".
Kurt Godel never stated any such thing by the way, why don't you go read his ontological proof in God's existence? What he stated was that God is greater than anything we can imagine and gave mathematical proof that this was true. That, and that God does exist. Perhaps you were not referring to the Mathematician and Philosopher Kurt Godel?
Your second statement is mincing words to rehash a well known paradox of "Who created the creator?". This is a well documented and old atheist argument. Yes, atheism has been around since before Socrates.
The fallacy you used was blatant. I'm not implying that you have to agree with Pascal's Wager, but let me put in bold your opinions in just your first sentence since you seem to refute that you used any fallacy. Pascal's Wager is a sophistic, naive, short-sighted and chauvinistic (ad hominem much?) attempt at proving that it is better to unquestioningly submit (Base rate fallacy at best) to an insane (Again ad hominem) hypothesis than to remain skeptical in absence of concrete proof." I find your use of "sophist" rather ironic, since you go well out of your way to attempt to sway a statement to your advantage when a simple "I don't agree with the premise he worked with so don't agree with his conclusion" would have been appropriate.
You're muddling again. To believe in a creator is to believe in a theology (stop with the exalted capitals because it looks silly and stick to proper orthography). When you find all existing theologies unacceptable you simply end up with your own.
No muddling at all, you are again not using a rational Socratic method in your arguments. The question is not "which Theology is correct?" but as stated several times "Is there a creator?".
The rest of your post is simply a bluff based on a disagreement in the above question, which you refuse to believe becomes a matter of opinion. "Anti theist" is the long name of Atheist, try reading definitions better. It is very plain to see.
I agree with your last statement, which is why I stated "thanks for the perspective". I don't find that I have to be an asshole when people disagree or have different opinions. You on the other hand are rather have been rather Sophist (in the very traditional sense).
Peace!
To claim that because one can not provide a detailed description of a deity, therefore a deity can not be defined is really an antithesis for Philosophy. It simply does not conform to logic, at least in a rational sense. Adding details such as size, shape, or super powers does not change the definition. This would be similar to claiming "I can not provide a description of computer because it's very complex, so a computer can not be defined." A computer can be defined, however we could probably write for years and still not agree on our descriptions, especially if we come from disparate backgrounds in hardware and OS.
It's rather odd that you claim I misread metaphysics, since you did not seem consider the precursor work to Aristotle's theory. Aristotle's work on the Un-caused cause was an abstraction from the work called the Unmade Maker, and I believe conceptually better in terms of a creator. Why? Because the "Un-made maker" theory brings up visions of a body, or a thing. Where Aristotle's work was better, is that the argument focuses on the action, and ultimately that is what the inception of the Universe is correct? The Universe did come in to existence, or we would not be here typing.
You also seem to miss the question that the theory is attempting to address, or intentionally ignoring the question.
You are correct with Pascal's wager, which is why I stated to read his contemporaries for a better perspective on the given statement. Interesting how you inject so much fallacy in to your statement claiming that his opinion is a fallacy.
I can't agree with your last statement. To believe in a creator is not the same as believing in Theology. This means I was correct in my assumption that we disagreed on the definition of atheism. I don't see your explanation in the definition, and here is why: Does Theology exist without a Creator? To me the answer is "No, Theology can not exist without a Creator.". Theology is dependent on the belief in a creator first. Theology is the act of putting proverbial clothing on a creator.
Your last statement implies that if I disbelieve in a Hindu version of a creator, I am atheist. Yet by the definition of atheist this could not be true since I believe in a deity (Creator). Your use of the term (as quoted) does not seem to match 2 parts of the 3 that you have quoted In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. or Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist., you are only looking at the "broad sense" description.
Thanks for the perspective.
Words have definitions. I was attempting to grasp what you are getting at when you say "deity" can not be defined, and previously"define 'define'". Both of those words have definitions that are readily available in every major dictionary. I even provided the definition of deity which you claim can not be defined. Is it really me using 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments when something extremely tangible is claimed not to exist? Take a rationalist approach to your statements, since that is exactly what I do.
The claims you made about Aristotle defining the "creator of the universe" is a big revealer.
Wait, what was Aristotle's "Un-caused Cause" theory all about? The terminology used was not "creator", but the Aristotle's thoughts are exactly that. Everything came from something, and can be traced back to a single entity called the "Un-caused Cause". If you don't see how that is relative to a creator, you are either not trying very hard to look or intentionally ignoring the obvious.
When thinking of the "atheism is a faith" argument, as with above you need to go back to a rationalist arguments. There is no manipulation technique in the statement, it is a statement of obvious fact. Either you believe in a creator, or you believe there is no creator. Both are beliefs since neither can be proven, only evaluated by logic. For at least 200 years most Philosophers have agreed that we can never prove either side is correct.
Add to this some thoughts from other Philosophers: 'The Philosophical logic for a creator is extremely obvious and easy to determine. So obvious in fact, that it takes more faith to believe there is no creator than to believe there is a creator.' Pascal and his contemporaries are good study for that perspective, though Pascal's Principle really deals with the trend at the time agnosticism.
I believe where we may differ is in two distinct areas.
First: You are taking "faith in atheism" in a context other than intended. See the the paragraph above the 'Said slightly differently' statement for the context. And the answer is "yes" ahead of time. If you question 'Where did the Universe come from?' it matters, and both the atheist and creationist arguments both stem from that question. If you did not care about the question, you would not claim to be atheist since you would exist completely outside of the context of the question.
Second: I take the very literal definition of "Deity" and you seem to take a non-literal definition (claiming it cannot be defined). A creator must be a deity by definition (Supreme Being). Since: The creator had to simultaneously create space, time, matter, energy, and all of the laws of physics at the onset of the Universe. (This does not mean the creator matches a Theological definition, and should not be assumed to be defined by any Theology.)
A third possible difference is that you and I may disagree on what Atheism means. Again, I take the current literal meaning "Belief that there are no deities". Many people take the term to mean "anti-Theology" instead of "anti-deity", which does not match the definition given in any current dictionary. A person believing in "anti-Theology" could be agnostic just as well as atheist (in fact they could be oblivious to the question so have no opinion at all), so the definition of the word is critical to the debate.