Notice how you're the only one going on about this? Perhaps you're the only one percieving an insult that simply isn't there? Or are you simply not aware of your audience?
Group's cannot speak. At least not as entities (a group has no physical orifice). Individuals within groups can. Their rights to Free Speeh are already protected. At least in theory. Other individuals can support the speaking individuals. That right is protected, at least in theory. Other individuals may leave the group instead. That right is protected (in theory). The group, as an entity needs none of those protections for itself.
If an individual within the group goes against its grain (i. e. does not represents the common will of the many individuals of the group) the recourse generally should come from within the group. It is unnecessary for the law to protect the group. The law must apply to the responsible individual, singled out from within the group, ignoring the group entierly. This means that when a big corporation yields to shareholders and engages in illigal activity, the CEO (and his collegues) at the top that allowed it to happen is responsible, he knowingly sacrificed the reputation of his group. The individual shareholders that push for this are responsible as conspirators. If the other individuals of the group are rational, they will rid themselves of these individuals, thus preserving the integrity of the group. It should be the responsibility of these groups to keep themselves in check internally. No law should cater to sick and diseased business systems. Having these laws in place prevents this from naturally occuring as it removes all motive to accept responsibility for actions performed.
As far as I'm concerned, the law should be limited to specifying special priviliged actions for individuals to be performed under the name of the group. Should an individual step outside of the perscribed privileges, that person is responsible. The law should also dictate the public responsibilities of the group that it is obligated to fullfil for having such privileges granted.
I believe this is what the original intent of a corporation as an entity was.
Stepping outside of that framework we get the bizzare situation that we have on our hands. The distinction between the group and the individuals it is composed of should not even exist outside the scope of the group's privileges and responsibilites. Responsibility for actions outside of that scope should be attributed to the individuals which perform them. This, of course, implies that individuals within the group who had no knowledge, or actively tried to prevent the action, are not responsible and should not suffer retribution.
Like all the other comments in regards to this issue above. The concept is called "Freedom of the Press". It's not an invocation of the "Right to Free Speech".
Doesn't your entire reply does pretty much nothing but reinforce my contempt? The promise of gratification in a short span of time is the relm of entertainment, not communication. It is by that very function that we get as much noise, as you say. We get competition for our attention and no actual valuable information. Yes, one must know his audiance, but not at the price of sacrificing the message. Otherwise, what's the point of communicating in the first place?
How could I have missed it?! You're obviously so much better at everything. Ever. Is the medium more important than the message? You waste time and modpoints and what is your return? Being ignored? I guess you've nothing better to do than sit there and judge people according to your personal standards. Enjoy yourself.
The people of the day had no idea we live on a globe
Only these ones didn't. The Greeks and the Egyptians (there are other civilizations in history aside from these) already had the notion that the earth was round. I don't recall who, but they even calculated its circumference to an impressive degree of accuracy.
I think somehow there is a disconnect either between what I think you are arguing and what you really are, or vice versa.
I'm fairly clear on what you're saying. I wouldn't be surprised that there's a disconnect. Its not easy to condence years of thought into a few short posts. It is not impossible to bridge this gap, however. You simply must empty your cup.
In Romans 7, Paul remarks about how he seems to keep sinning and doing things he abhors, even though he "knows better"-- he knows the traps to avoid, and yet he keeps doing "that which I do not want to do". I think the idea that we can work harder to avoid sin is a myth, but I would be interested to speak to one who would claim that they had successfully gotten all ill intentions, motivations, and deeds out of their life.
This is the nature of practice. It is not implied that no mistake will ever happen. That errors of judgement are gone. What you do is learn from the mistakes you do make. Meditate on them. Forgive yourself and move on. There is nothing more to do, except not repeating it. You must be humble and accept it.
I would also point out that while you certainly can see (at least some of) the deeds of a man's life, you will never have access to their will. On that point however I would be surprised if you could even produce a man whose external deeds had been made faultless.
You will always see all of your own deeds. You will always know all of your own thoughts. That is enough. You do not need follow anyone else. No one else needs you following them.
The point was this: When communism was first bandied about, one might be excused for thinking it a great idea. After seeing it fail many times, one would only have oneself to blame for supporting it through another failure-- it had already demonstrated a lack of credibility.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~Einstein
With the Bible, on every observation it makes about things we can directly see-- humans in action-- I find it to be spot on in a way that I have not found secular humanism to be. Humanism, that I have encountered, seems to say "we can get rid of societal-- or even personal-- evil". I am unaware of such attempts ever meeting anything but failure.
I cannot comment, I don't know what "Humanism" is in this context. There are many disparate groups out there, if that's what you mean, but they're hardly in sync or are in any way connected.
If you were told, you must throw this die and wager or else you will be executed, and you said "I dont see the point", it would tell a bystander one of two things: Either A) you do not believe the threat, or B) you do not care about your life.
Those are not the only possible options. C) you are in defiance of your oppressor and will not sacrifice your integrity even in the face of death.
Now, lets say the situation were slightly different. Lets say you were told "You MUST wager about whether I always tell the truth, or you will be killed". Assuming B is not true (which I will, and correct me if I am wrong), this means that for you to refuse on grounds of irrelevancy means that, in your head at least, you have already wagered-- you have wagered that he does not always tell the truth.
If wheather or not he is telling the truth is not relavant to me then neither the words that I would utter in response to the enquiry. In that situation, what is relevant is my life and not dying for a stupid reason. Whether I care what the real outcome of my "wager" is not in the picture. After the fact, and regardless of my answer, I'm in the exact same situation that I was in before. I still would have no way of knowing if my life is about to end. So I'm not going to busy myself pondering something that has no bearing on the outcome.
According to the Bible, there is no "middle ground". You are either for God, or you are rejecting him and are subject to judgement. To say "Whether you tell the truth or not I will not wager" means either that you do not care about such judgement, or else that you do not take that message seriously (that is, you believe it false). You have, in fact wagered.
Slashdot Mirror
Aw.
Notice how you're the only one going on about this? Perhaps you're the only one percieving an insult that simply isn't there? Or are you simply not aware of your audience?
Not sure how this changes the scenario in anyway. We define the word based on our perception, not the other way around.
Are you a new kind of stupid?
"Freedom of the Press". This is not the "Right to Free Speach".
*Speech
Group's cannot speak. At least not as entities (a group has no physical orifice). Individuals within groups can. Their rights to Free Speeh are already protected. At least in theory. Other individuals can support the speaking individuals. That right is protected, at least in theory. Other individuals may leave the group instead. That right is protected (in theory). The group, as an entity needs none of those protections for itself.
If an individual within the group goes against its grain (i. e. does not represents the common will of the many individuals of the group) the recourse generally should come from within the group. It is unnecessary for the law to protect the group. The law must apply to the responsible individual, singled out from within the group, ignoring the group entierly. This means that when a big corporation yields to shareholders and engages in illigal activity, the CEO (and his collegues) at the top that allowed it to happen is responsible, he knowingly sacrificed the reputation of his group. The individual shareholders that push for this are responsible as conspirators. If the other individuals of the group are rational, they will rid themselves of these individuals, thus preserving the integrity of the group. It should be the responsibility of these groups to keep themselves in check internally. No law should cater to sick and diseased business systems. Having these laws in place prevents this from naturally occuring as it removes all motive to accept responsibility for actions performed.
As far as I'm concerned, the law should be limited to specifying special priviliged actions for individuals to be performed under the name of the group. Should an individual step outside of the perscribed privileges, that person is responsible. The law should also dictate the public responsibilities of the group that it is obligated to fullfil for having such privileges granted.
I believe this is what the original intent of a corporation as an entity was.
Stepping outside of that framework we get the bizzare situation that we have on our hands. The distinction between the group and the individuals it is composed of should not even exist outside the scope of the group's privileges and responsibilites. Responsibility for actions outside of that scope should be attributed to the individuals which perform them. This, of course, implies that individuals within the group who had no knowledge, or actively tried to prevent the action, are not responsible and should not suffer retribution.
All this IMHO
Like all the other comments in regards to this issue above. The concept is called "Freedom of the Press". It's not an invocation of the "Right to Free Speech".
"Freedom of the Press". This is not the "Right to Free Speach".
This is called "Freedom of the Press"
Hopefully gross enough to leave a bad impression.
Because there is no such thing as "right to speak collectively". Never existed. As mentioned over and over and over again.
Doesn't your entire reply does pretty much nothing but reinforce my contempt? The promise of gratification in a short span of time is the relm of entertainment, not communication. It is by that very function that we get as much noise, as you say. We get competition for our attention and no actual valuable information. Yes, one must know his audiance, but not at the price of sacrificing the message. Otherwise, what's the point of communicating in the first place?
How could I have missed it?! You're obviously so much better at everything. Ever. Is the medium more important than the message? You waste time and modpoints and what is your return? Being ignored? I guess you've nothing better to do than sit there and judge people according to your personal standards. Enjoy yourself.
I don't think you did.
Nope :).
Thanks!
Science isn't telling you how old the universe is. Care to try again without a strawman?
Touche
Only these ones didn't. The Greeks and the Egyptians (there are other civilizations in history aside from these) already had the notion that the earth was round. I don't recall who, but they even calculated its circumference to an impressive degree of accuracy.
Right... Bush has *nothing* to do with the current state of affairs? Did I read that correctly?
I think you drank too much coolaid. You've lost touch with reality.
Your point?
Your question is easy. Origin: Mutation. The ones not having it died. Mutation prevailed.
Tell me, what good does all that reproductive rate do them if we're the ones that are sitting with our fingers on nothing more than a big red button?
I'm fairly clear on what you're saying. I wouldn't be surprised that there's a disconnect. Its not easy to condence years of thought into a few short posts. It is not impossible to bridge this gap, however. You simply must empty your cup.
This is the nature of practice. It is not implied that no mistake will ever happen. That errors of judgement are gone. What you do is learn from the mistakes you do make. Meditate on them. Forgive yourself and move on. There is nothing more to do, except not repeating it. You must be humble and accept it.
You will always see all of your own deeds. You will always know all of your own thoughts. That is enough. You do not need follow anyone else. No one else needs you following them.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~Einstein
I cannot comment, I don't know what "Humanism" is in this context. There are many disparate groups out there, if that's what you mean, but they're hardly in sync or are in any way connected.
Those are not the only possible options. C) you are in defiance of your oppressor and will not sacrifice your integrity even in the face of death.
If wheather or not he is telling the truth is not relavant to me then neither the words that I would utter in response to the enquiry. In that situation, what is relevant is my life and not dying for a stupid reason. Whether I care what the real outcome of my "wager" is not in the picture. After the fact, and regardless of my answer, I'm in the exact same situation that I was in before. I still would have no way of knowing if my life is about to end. So I'm not going to busy myself pondering something that has no bearing on the outcome.