I don't quite agree with your analogy. Guitar Hero is about the rock star experience. It's about getting up and, essentially, pretending to be a rock God, on stage, and getting into it. Second Life is about sitting on your butt and catering to that which you already are. One of them at least requires a smidgen of imagination and activity.
At a protest outside a Scientology building, I saw a rather appropriate sign: Ask a Christian about the Bible, and he'll tell you. Ask a Jew about the Torah and he'll tell you. Ask a Muslim about the Koran and he'll tell you. Ask a Scientologist about HIS holy books and he'll tell you... after your check clears.
Say what you will about Christianity and other modern religions, (and I will) they're not, at their core, pyramid schemes for making profits. Scientology is.
I understand your point, and your message is undeniably true in the fact that the west can hardly claim to be free of such tactics, but on the other hand the morality of a government's actions is independent of the actions of other governments. Even if we (The US, Europe, et al) were throwing new born babies into furnaces to power our torture devices (a practice I'm sure most moral philosophers will agree is along the south side of ethical) it doesn't change the fact that China arrests political activists... at least when they're not outright assassinated.
Not to approach Godwin levels of Internet Cliches, but remember in 1984, the people LOVE Big Brother. It's easy to get a people to love their country/government when you weed out all the ones who don't. In this way, I view China as one of the worst offenders to the human race. Though I will readily point out that things aren't all roses over here.
Because this is not merely about guns. In fact, it's about tasers, and I suggested an alternative, which it turns out doesn't work as I thought it would, because I'm not knowledgeable of a part I had not considered.
Very well. I will concede on this point, as my knowledge of guns and their usage doesn't extend beyond Half-Life 2 (Where people don't mind if you talk to them while you hold a shotgun in their face)
Well, as I said, I should think merely having a gun would calm most people in MOST situations. Obviously a crazed junkie high on $hallucinogenic_drug is not in that category and I do believe a taser is justified in this situation.
However, my complaint is mostly with the frequency that it is used in. A suspect struggling is not necessarily a cause for using it. Again, in this situation, you should likely have multiple cops on a single suspect. However, if you can't do that, and/or the suspect is thrashing about wildly and likely going to injure someone beyond a few scrapes or cuts, then yes, go for the taser, until we have a better alternative.
I suppose this all goes along with your last sentence, but I just wanted to note that I understand their necessity at times, but that doesn't make them any less horrible or any less overused. Non-lethal != "I can use this on anyone I need to arrest with no questions asked" which is a sadly wide-spread attitude.
Well, in most cases, I'd think that pointing a gun at someone is a good way to get them to stop. I don't mean FIRING the gun at them, but I mean simply pointing it.
Granted, I know this won't work in every situation, and sometimes you need help with a non-lethal close-encounter take-down, but tasers have had a rather bad track record of doing their job well. And quite frankly, they are far too painful to be considered anything other than torture. And I'm aware no "non-lethal" device will ever be without its faults or the bad cops who will abuse it, but we really need a better alternative. Granted, I don't know of any better at the moment, so I will simply say that I wish to see better accountability and better judgment when using them.
Well, they DO still have gun guns. You know, the kind that shoot bullets made of metal. You often times don't even have to use it to subdue someone! Just point in their general direction, and most people will stop in place.
I'm not advocating cops go trigger happy(/happier than they already are in some places) nor am I a fan of guns, but it is effective. I can understand wanting or needing a non-lethal takedown device in some cases being necessary (they have a hostage, the officer is alone, etc.) but this is NOT the vast majority of cases. In general, police should be able to calm just about any perp by using overwhelming numbers and simply HAVING overwhelming firepower.
Pre-edit: D'OH. I misread your post and thought you were saying we SHOULD execute the mentally handicapped. My brain doesn't always work the best this early, so, uh, since I wrote this out, I'll post it anyway, just, don't take offense, 'kay?
Well, given that most of us here are NOT mentally handicap, at least I should hope, then we should be able to reason that things that are not as intelligent as we are still deserving of respect and our moral consideration.
When a child misbehaves, you reprimand him verbally. You don't beat him. I would hope the same would go for animals as well. They may not now (or ever) become fully capable of understanding morality, but that doesn't make it right for those who do understand to be IMMORAL to them.
A mentally handicapped person is not able to understand the consequences of his actions and, as such, should not be considered entirely responsible for his actions. However, the price for that is the restriction of freedom to make your own decisions. In this case, he needs to be sent someplace where his actions can be monitored and maybe improved over time.
Of course, this is all coming from someone who is adamantly anti-capital punishment in general.
And back to the topic of the article, in the cases of these people, even if they are obviously incapable of showing moral consideration for others (assuming the criminals they arrest are ALL guilty, which is another can of worms in and of itself) tazering is torture. I fail to see how anyone having enough electricity shot through them at such a high voltage that they collapse, spasm, and occasionally DIE can be considered anything LESS.
I have to agree. I'm almost always for protecting any speech, no matter how much I hate what is being said. However, language should be viewed like anything else.
It's not illegal to have and to use a pencil. But a pencil can be used as a weapon, which would be illegal. It's not illegal to have and to use a car, but a car may be used as a weapon. These things only become dangerous when used directly as weapons. If a word can be used to directly hurt someone, it is a weapon.
In this way, when language is used only for the purpose of hurting others, and I mean this in the literal sense of causing physical injury, it should not be considered protected speech....Of course, I'm secretly waiting for the day someone develops and uses sonic-based weaponry and tries to defend his actions as "free speech."
Let me see if I've got this straight: Hollywood is full of pinko commie bastards who hate America and send their revenue from "Why America is to Blame 4: Rise of the Anti-Christ" to terrorist training camps.
Terrorists, meanwhile, sell boot-leg copies, download and distribute copies, and otherwise use illegal means to make money off the Hollywood movies and music to fund terrorist training camps.
It's INGENIUS! All you need is for Hollywood to pretend to be stopping the pirates, and it would seem that they are in fact fighting terrorism!
This report was brought to you by FOX News, reminding you that when you watch any other network, you're watching TV with Bin Laden.
Actually, what he's just committed is what some people call a joke. The tone and wording make it apparent that he's not actually reporting any sort of fact, and this would protect the GP from any sort of legal action.
Much in the same way how you couldn't really sue The Onion for mocking your social institution d'jour.
I'm not sure what version it is, but I've tried many a time to upload files to blackboard in firefox only to have the browser freeze. And when logging in, it tells me to use IE or Opera.
My school uses it and I hate it for a plethora of reasons: 1. No Friefox support. It's annoying that I have to actually use IE or something just to access one site. 2. This isn't a problem with Blackboard in an of itself, per se, but because teachers can post assignments there, they often feel the need to not mention homework at all and just expect us to check it nightly. For every class. This is sheer laziness. I'm a full time college student and I also have a part time job almost every night after classes as well as on most weekends. I don't have the time, motivation, or energy to double check for possible assignments every night. And it takes all of 10 seconds to tell a class of an assignment or to at least look for it as they LEAVE class. 3. It's slow and bloated, as mentioned above. Add reason 2 to this and it's an unnecessary waste of time.
I find this joke to be old and rather insulting, really. Of course Dick Cheney has a heart.
However, the notion that the heart is somehow related to empathy and love is also false. Instead, he had that section of his brain surgically removed. It helps him collect himself faster after his 3pm puppy kicking and orphanage closing.
People "freak" because it's like saying there are alternative theories to gravity. (The Onion has done a rather well-done article on Christian scientists proposing "intelligent falling.")
In fact, I think the comparison is very apt. We can observe a lot of effects from gravity and evolution, but the EXACT causes and manner in which it happens, remain somewhat of a mystery. There is no large scientific conspiracy trying to hide the truth. There is, at most, a handful of scientists trying to make a name for themselves by suggesting alternatives. But that's true of pretty much anything. No, you're not going to find some creditable biology lab or university that says "Oh, it's definitely wrong."
These people are trying to make a debate out of what should not be one. The vast, vasr majority of scientists, the only people really QUALIFIED to look at the data and analyze it are in a great consensus. If you want to say they are wrong, and you don't need science to prove it... Then I really don't want you deciding what goes on a class specifically ABOUT science.
You're not really proving to be much better. I never said I *would* mod you down, especially with a non-existent modifier, but rather that I only see why someone may WANT to. In truth, I usually try to only promote comments, not take them down unless they're REALLY blatantly trollish (I.E. anything gnaa or the like).
All the same, sorry if I misread your comment, but believe it or not, I spent several hours pouring over that thread. Maybe it's a case of burnout after seeing a hundred other discussions on RP and his rather vocal but small Internet following. But in my defense, you did cite the linked comment as an example of "gutless mods" who would censor dissenting opinions. This could lead to one assuming you were, indeed, attempting to express an opinion there. I suppose I also don't view a single -1, overrated as a sign of multiple immoral moderators,
Not to be a troll, but... you're linking to a post you made supporting Ron Paul. And all I see is "-1 overrated."
Seriously. It's Ron Paul. I've seen threads discussing him all over the Internet. I'm not trying to push my values on you, but I can see why someone would want to mod you "-1, wrong" if they could. The day I never have to hear his name on the 'net again is the day I will dance in glee. The horse... he's dead, Jim. You can stop beating him.
My biggest complaint with religion is that it begins at an age so young that people are unable to question what they are told. I mean, for Christ's sake, no pun intended, when I was 3 or 4, apparently, I thought Wil E. Coyote was real. The difference is, as you grow up, people continually explain to you that, no, Looney Toons are not, in fact, real people. As a religious person grows up, they are continually told "Yes, there really was a flood that covered the entire Earth and the world was saved by a man who put two of every animal in the world on a boat and managed to get them to not kill each other."
As someone who was raised by parents who were only moderately religious, I'm thankful that religion was never forced on me. People should be left to choose for themselves, and teaching kids bible stories from before they enter any sort of formal education is just choosing for them.
And yes, there will always be a couple of people who managed to "escape" a church despite a zealot family, but I don't think they come anywhere near the majority.
I can agree to that. However, couldn't we simply make it a crime, with the punishment not a fine or jail time but mandatory institutionalized recovery?
Not to troll, but can you pull up a source for that figure? Even if it IS true that 90% of schizophrenics use Marijuana, what is the percentage of NON-schizos that use it? And if it is much higher, correlation causation. Does pot cause schizophrenia or does schizophrenia cause an increase in pot usage?
And I'm sorry, but there is NO reason whatsoever to ever advocate smoking cigarettes. Period. Medicinal marijuana I can understand advocating. Medicinal cigarettes, not so much.
But I will say that just because I believe marijuana should be legalized doesn't mean the entire "war on drugs" is a bad idea. Crack, heroine, etc. are not so benign and do need to be illegal. Though I still have complaints as to how this "war" is waged.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't quite agree with your analogy. Guitar Hero is about the rock star experience. It's about getting up and, essentially, pretending to be a rock God, on stage, and getting into it. Second Life is about sitting on your butt and catering to that which you already are. One of them at least requires a smidgen of imagination and activity.
What do you expect? Justice is blind! By the time she actually makes it to a RIAA trial, it's usually been over for weeks!
At a protest outside a Scientology building, I saw a rather appropriate sign:
Ask a Christian about the Bible, and he'll tell you.
Ask a Jew about the Torah and he'll tell you.
Ask a Muslim about the Koran and he'll tell you.
Ask a Scientologist about HIS holy books and he'll tell you... after your check clears.
Say what you will about Christianity and other modern religions, (and I will) they're not, at their core, pyramid schemes for making profits. Scientology is.
I understand your point, and your message is undeniably true in the fact that the west can hardly claim to be free of such tactics, but on the other hand the morality of a government's actions is independent of the actions of other governments. Even if we (The US, Europe, et al) were throwing new born babies into furnaces to power our torture devices (a practice I'm sure most moral philosophers will agree is along the south side of ethical) it doesn't change the fact that China arrests political activists... at least when they're not outright assassinated.
Not to approach Godwin levels of Internet Cliches, but remember in 1984, the people LOVE Big Brother. It's easy to get a people to love their country/government when you weed out all the ones who don't. In this way, I view China as one of the worst offenders to the human race. Though I will readily point out that things aren't all roses over here.
Because this is not merely about guns. In fact, it's about tasers, and I suggested an alternative, which it turns out doesn't work as I thought it would, because I'm not knowledgeable of a part I had not considered.
Very well. I will concede on this point, as my knowledge of guns and their usage doesn't extend beyond Half-Life 2 (Where people don't mind if you talk to them while you hold a shotgun in their face)
Well, as I said, I should think merely having a gun would calm most people in MOST situations. Obviously a crazed junkie high on $hallucinogenic_drug is not in that category and I do believe a taser is justified in this situation.
However, my complaint is mostly with the frequency that it is used in. A suspect struggling is not necessarily a cause for using it. Again, in this situation, you should likely have multiple cops on a single suspect. However, if you can't do that, and/or the suspect is thrashing about wildly and likely going to injure someone beyond a few scrapes or cuts, then yes, go for the taser, until we have a better alternative.
I suppose this all goes along with your last sentence, but I just wanted to note that I understand their necessity at times, but that doesn't make them any less horrible or any less overused. Non-lethal != "I can use this on anyone I need to arrest with no questions asked" which is a sadly wide-spread attitude.
Well, in most cases, I'd think that pointing a gun at someone is a good way to get them to stop. I don't mean FIRING the gun at them, but I mean simply pointing it.
Granted, I know this won't work in every situation, and sometimes you need help with a non-lethal close-encounter take-down, but tasers have had a rather bad track record of doing their job well. And quite frankly, they are far too painful to be considered anything other than torture. And I'm aware no "non-lethal" device will ever be without its faults or the bad cops who will abuse it, but we really need a better alternative. Granted, I don't know of any better at the moment, so I will simply say that I wish to see better accountability and better judgment when using them.
Well, they DO still have gun guns. You know, the kind that shoot bullets made of metal. You often times don't even have to use it to subdue someone! Just point in their general direction, and most people will stop in place.
I'm not advocating cops go trigger happy(/happier than they already are in some places) nor am I a fan of guns, but it is effective. I can understand wanting or needing a non-lethal takedown device in some cases being necessary (they have a hostage, the officer is alone, etc.) but this is NOT the vast majority of cases. In general, police should be able to calm just about any perp by using overwhelming numbers and simply HAVING overwhelming firepower.
Pre-edit: D'OH. I misread your post and thought you were saying we SHOULD execute the mentally handicapped. My brain doesn't always work the best this early, so, uh, since I wrote this out, I'll post it anyway, just, don't take offense, 'kay?
Well, given that most of us here are NOT mentally handicap, at least I should hope, then we should be able to reason that things that are not as intelligent as we are still deserving of respect and our moral consideration.
When a child misbehaves, you reprimand him verbally. You don't beat him. I would hope the same would go for animals as well. They may not now (or ever) become fully capable of understanding morality, but that doesn't make it right for those who do understand to be IMMORAL to them.
A mentally handicapped person is not able to understand the consequences of his actions and, as such, should not be considered entirely responsible for his actions. However, the price for that is the restriction of freedom to make your own decisions. In this case, he needs to be sent someplace where his actions can be monitored and maybe improved over time.
Of course, this is all coming from someone who is adamantly anti-capital punishment in general.
And back to the topic of the article, in the cases of these people, even if they are obviously incapable of showing moral consideration for others (assuming the criminals they arrest are ALL guilty, which is another can of worms in and of itself) tazering is torture. I fail to see how anyone having enough electricity shot through them at such a high voltage that they collapse, spasm, and occasionally DIE can be considered anything LESS.
I have to agree. I'm almost always for protecting any speech, no matter how much I hate what is being said. However, language should be viewed like anything else.
...Of course, I'm secretly waiting for the day someone develops and uses sonic-based weaponry and tries to defend his actions as "free speech."
It's not illegal to have and to use a pencil. But a pencil can be used as a weapon, which would be illegal. It's not illegal to have and to use a car, but a car may be used as a weapon. These things only become dangerous when used directly as weapons. If a word can be used to directly hurt someone, it is a weapon.
In this way, when language is used only for the purpose of hurting others, and I mean this in the literal sense of causing physical injury, it should not be considered protected speech.
Let me see if I've got this straight:
Hollywood is full of pinko commie bastards who hate America and send their revenue from "Why America is to Blame 4: Rise of the Anti-Christ" to terrorist training camps.
Terrorists, meanwhile, sell boot-leg copies, download and distribute copies, and otherwise use illegal means to make money off the Hollywood movies and music to fund terrorist training camps.
It's INGENIUS! All you need is for Hollywood to pretend to be stopping the pirates, and it would seem that they are in fact fighting terrorism!
This report was brought to you by FOX News, reminding you that when you watch any other network, you're watching TV with Bin Laden.
Actually, what he's just committed is what some people call a joke. The tone and wording make it apparent that he's not actually reporting any sort of fact, and this would protect the GP from any sort of legal action.
Much in the same way how you couldn't really sue The Onion for mocking your social institution d'jour.
I'm not sure what version it is, but I've tried many a time to upload files to blackboard in firefox only to have the browser freeze. And when logging in, it tells me to use IE or Opera.
Either way, it's slow and pathetic.
My school uses it and I hate it for a plethora of reasons:
1. No Friefox support. It's annoying that I have to actually use IE or something just to access one site.
2. This isn't a problem with Blackboard in an of itself, per se, but because teachers can post assignments there, they often feel the need to not mention homework at all and just expect us to check it nightly. For every class. This is sheer laziness. I'm a full time college student and I also have a part time job almost every night after classes as well as on most weekends. I don't have the time, motivation, or energy to double check for possible assignments every night. And it takes all of 10 seconds to tell a class of an assignment or to at least look for it as they LEAVE class.
3. It's slow and bloated, as mentioned above. Add reason 2 to this and it's an unnecessary waste of time.
I find this joke to be old and rather insulting, really. Of course Dick Cheney has a heart.
However, the notion that the heart is somehow related to empathy and love is also false. Instead, he had that section of his brain surgically removed. It helps him collect himself faster after his 3pm puppy kicking and orphanage closing.
I know! Think about it. The phone company has YOUR phone number! What are they going to do with that...?
But... surely he should have been traveling alongside a high-level cleric.
Does somebody in here know Raise Dead?!
People "freak" because it's like saying there are alternative theories to gravity. (The Onion has done a rather well-done article on Christian scientists proposing "intelligent falling.")
In fact, I think the comparison is very apt. We can observe a lot of effects from gravity and evolution, but the EXACT causes and manner in which it happens, remain somewhat of a mystery. There is no large scientific conspiracy trying to hide the truth. There is, at most, a handful of scientists trying to make a name for themselves by suggesting alternatives. But that's true of pretty much anything. No, you're not going to find some creditable biology lab or university that says "Oh, it's definitely wrong."
These people are trying to make a debate out of what should not be one. The vast, vasr majority of scientists, the only people really QUALIFIED to look at the data and analyze it are in a great consensus. If you want to say they are wrong, and you don't need science to prove it... Then I really don't want you deciding what goes on a class specifically ABOUT science.
Obviously, no matter what, the virtual Mexicans are simply too determined to be stopped by a mere firewall.
You're not really proving to be much better. I never said I *would* mod you down, especially with a non-existent modifier, but rather that I only see why someone may WANT to. In truth, I usually try to only promote comments, not take them down unless they're REALLY blatantly trollish (I.E. anything gnaa or the like).
All the same, sorry if I misread your comment, but believe it or not, I spent several hours pouring over that thread. Maybe it's a case of burnout after seeing a hundred other discussions on RP and his rather vocal but small Internet following. But in my defense, you did cite the linked comment as an example of "gutless mods" who would censor dissenting opinions. This could lead to one assuming you were, indeed, attempting to express an opinion there. I suppose I also don't view a single -1, overrated as a sign of multiple immoral moderators,
Not to be a troll, but... you're linking to a post you made supporting Ron Paul. And all I see is "-1 overrated."
Seriously. It's Ron Paul. I've seen threads discussing him all over the Internet. I'm not trying to push my values on you, but I can see why someone would want to mod you "-1, wrong" if they could. The day I never have to hear his name on the 'net again is the day I will dance in glee. The horse... he's dead, Jim. You can stop beating him.
I agree with your post.
My biggest complaint with religion is that it begins at an age so young that people are unable to question what they are told. I mean, for Christ's sake, no pun intended, when I was 3 or 4, apparently, I thought Wil E. Coyote was real. The difference is, as you grow up, people continually explain to you that, no, Looney Toons are not, in fact, real people. As a religious person grows up, they are continually told "Yes, there really was a flood that covered the entire Earth and the world was saved by a man who put two of every animal in the world on a boat and managed to get them to not kill each other."
As someone who was raised by parents who were only moderately religious, I'm thankful that religion was never forced on me. People should be left to choose for themselves, and teaching kids bible stories from before they enter any sort of formal education is just choosing for them.
And yes, there will always be a couple of people who managed to "escape" a church despite a zealot family, but I don't think they come anywhere near the majority.
I can agree to that. However, couldn't we simply make it a crime, with the punishment not a fine or jail time but mandatory institutionalized recovery?
Not to troll, but can you pull up a source for that figure? Even if it IS true that 90% of schizophrenics use Marijuana, what is the percentage of NON-schizos that use it? And if it is much higher, correlation causation. Does pot cause schizophrenia or does schizophrenia cause an increase in pot usage?
And I'm sorry, but there is NO reason whatsoever to ever advocate smoking cigarettes. Period. Medicinal marijuana I can understand advocating. Medicinal cigarettes, not so much.
But I will say that just because I believe marijuana should be legalized doesn't mean the entire "war on drugs" is a bad idea. Crack, heroine, etc. are not so benign and do need to be illegal. Though I still have complaints as to how this "war" is waged.