Sometimes the solution is to have the government fix the problem. Not always, not even often, but sometimes. I think that its worthwhile to step back and ask if regulation or socialization is a good idea. If the answer is "no" then at least we've arrived at an informed decision. The problem is that in America today, "Socialism" is a dirty word, and an honest discussion is nearly impossible.
By now humanity should have had enough of this shit, but I'm continually depressed by how mindlessly guillable other humans are and they cede their intellectual sovereignty to religion.
Human beings, in general, have been shown to be prone to group-think and easily influenced by perceived authority. Its fairly easy to see why: such things encourage the formation of social groups, which can increase the ability of your genes to propagate.
Scientists go through a very long education, lasting sixteen to twenty years. A part of this is learning logic and methods for acquiring knowledge, questioning, falsifying theories, and testing hypothesis. These skills are applied over and over, and generally done so until he or she is able to contribute to the body of human knowledge in a reliable manner, determined through peer review.
My point is, that humans tend to naturally prone to the kind of behavior you ascribe to religion, and it is through our hard work that we are where we are today. I can understand your anger; religion has undoubtedly been used to justify, or served as the primary motivating factor, in some pretty horrific conditions.
But I feel that, because the problem runs deeper than religion, somehow doing away with religion would not solve the problem. My belief is that we need to encourage our children to think and apply logic, and the scientific method, from an early age, in order to counter this.
Of course, the problem is that religious fundamentalists are undermining our efforts to do so.... But then again, these days countries without a strong scientific community are generally left in the dust, so the problem may fix itself given enough time. After all, as evolution has shown us, the greatest motivation for change doesn't necessarily happen through direct intervention, but through selective pressures and lots of time.
Taking just Iraq into consideration some of the worst atrocities that Sadam committed were religious in nature.
It was my understanding that Sadam's regime was by far the most secular in the Middle East, and that said atrocities were ethnic in nature. Can you refer me to specific Sadam-related atrocities that you consider religious in nature?
most involved the two different factions having different religions.
That only shows a shallow correlation between the war and religion. In order to back up your assertions, you have to show that religion was the prime motivating factor in the conflict.
hmm... christian fundamentalists vs muslim fundamentalists by proxy.
Please show evidence that the current Iraq conflict was primarily motivated by religion, as opposed to other factors such as resource control, territory, expansion of military influence into the Middle East, etc.
You are making an assertion that religion is the cause of these things, thus the burden to prove this is on you.
and religion has been the primary enabler of wars throughout history
Do tell? I've never seen this backed up with fact. It just seems to be one of those things that "everyone knows." Case in point:
crusades anybody?
Religiously motivated, but with a death toll far less than modern wars.
how about the holocaust?
Promoted for racial and genetic purity, and also scapegoating of societal problems on an ethnic subclass. So a mix of racism and nationalism.
how about the war between hindus and muslims that's been brewing forever
I am ignorant about this conflict. Details please.
how about muslims and jews
Primarily a territorial dispute elevated into nationalism. Religion is only piggy-backing on what is essentially a territorial dispute.
or christians and muslims
Primary the result of the main "Christian" nation supporting one nation in the aforementioned territorial dispute. Also motivated by control of the "muslim" group of certain key resources such as oil. Resources, territory, and nationalism.
and on and on from today all the way back through history
Please provide more examples. Of the five examples you gave, one had religion as a prime motivating factor, one I don't know about, and three mainly dealt with resources, territory, nationalism, and politics.
Please note that religious people fighting is not the same as religion being the primary cause of a conflict. You have to show causation and not correlation. As such, you have to show that the conflict was instigated over a religious disagreement.
Yes, Anonymous Coward, clearly the best way to express oneself is to purchase mass-produced products from a giant faceless corporation. I'm sure your mass-produced generic laptop gives you so much more individuality than everyone else's mass-produced generic laptop, because it uses a different operating system. Huzzah!
Well, if you look back in history, a lot of the original settlers of America were, in part, Christians that were forced out of Europe because their religious beliefs didn't jive with mainstream Christianity. So I guess you could say that its part of our heritage.
But another mitigating factor would be that the creationists really know how to play to emotions, and the opponents are completely inept at countering this kind of play. Emotional thinking is pretty tough to counter with rational debate.
How is the discussion framed in America? Well, the proponents of creationism don't right out say "Evolution is wrong! Replace it with creationism!" They say things like "We have a theory too, but they're not letting us teach it. Thats unfair, and it violates our free speech. We just want equal opportunity...." See? It sets them as the victims, and touches on a lot of American hot-buttons (free speech, opportunity, equality).
Personally, I think that the scientists should go, "Ok, sure we'll treat you equally... oh but your theory doesn't pass scientific rigor... If you could make it falsifiable, then write it and submit it to journals, then we'll give it a look over."
We both know that there's not a chance in hell that creationists would actually do that, but it'd be a lot better than simply calling creationists stupid, which just makes them look like victims even more.
Well, to play the devil's advocate, how much power does the POTUS have to actually dictate the teaching, or lack thereof, of such theories? These decisions are usually made by local or possibly state governments in the United States (correct me if I'm wrong). So in that sense, it is kind of a pointless question, as it has no bearing on his theoretical responsibilities.
Practically speaking, however, I'm sure that the POTUS can put a lot of pressure on state and local governments concerning this, and then theres the Supreme Court matter...
If they want equal treatment, then they have to earn it, and that means that they have to make a proper scientific theory out of creationism. That means falsifiability and testability. I doubt they're willing or able to do that.
Well, it depends on how you define bible-thumpers. In terms of the creationism "debate," you can go as high as 65 percent of Americans. Its pretty close to a 50-50 split, but the majority of people in America are religious to some degree, and so a lot of that leaks into politics.
How convenient that you're the one who gets to decide who is stupid eh?
Never mind that stuff like nationalism, racism, and political ideology cause just as much conflict. Never mind that even the average atheist tends to act like a sheep just as much as the average religious person. Never mind that humans tend to follow authority figures and exibit herd behavior. Never mind that these traits manifest in several forms apart from religion, even in these "scientist" people trained to be resistant to these kinds of things.
Gee, its almost as if human beings have traits that lend themselves to forming groups and following certain alpha leaders... and then these groups of humans try to expand their influence so that they can flourish better... I bet that mental traits and ideas that promote the group gives them an advantage in survivability, so those traits propagate more. I wonder if someone has made a theory out of that? Lets call it evolution!
So in summary, you're an idiot and a tool who obviously hasn't seriously given the issue any thought.
And people call me a liar when I say that there are atheists out there that think that genocide of religious people is a good idea.
You're pretty much on the mark. Whether or not you feel GPLv3 is more or less permissive depends on your views on software, OSS, FOSS, the rights of users, and the rights of developers. If you believe that the GPLv3 is less permissive than the GPLv2, then likely your views do not align with the FSF.
Look, lets be honest. The GPL was made to promote the views of the FSF on software. Don't buy into the FSF's agenda? Don't use a license that was made to advance their agenda. If you don't agree with FSF's views, then be very cautious about using the GPLed license or GPLed code. Otherwise, just accept that you have to make some concessions to get a lot of high-quality free and Free code.
There's lots and lots of software out there with many different licenses. Insisting that others bend their views (and licenses) so that its easier for you to get a free ride makes you look like a fool.
Somehow I don't think many FOSS developers will have a problem with GPLv3. Most of the people using GPL for serious projects understand what it means, and support FOSS ideologically on some level.
Actually, no, the Wikipedia entry says that it is a fallacy:
It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. and
An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth. Wikipedia's interpretation jives with everything I learned from my logic courses in college. Of course, it doesn't mean that the argument is wrong either.
I was wrong to state that you were taking things on faith. However, when you say that "historical intent and motive are key in implementing and interpreting historical documents," aren't you saying that you analyze their intent? Thats pretty close to what I was saying.
I still think that its important we analyze what they say and why they say it. I look at what they say because of their past success, but I don't think its true because they say it. We should follow their advice because its good advice, not because Thomas Jefferson said it.
Personally, I'd try to understand the reasoning of the founders rather than take their position on faith. Doing otherwise is simply an appeal to authority.
Square has explicitly stated they don't want any part of the Virtual Console. After all, they make a killing off of releasing the same games over and over for full price. I'd imagine they'd want to keep Secret of Mana off of the VC in case they decide to give it the same treatment as FF4 and FF6.
I agree with what you say. But I also noticed you focused on learning their ideas, understanding them, and applying those lessons that they already learned. In which case it becomes "learning from history" and not "do this because the fathers said so."
I think you agree with me, based on the contents of your post.
Not much to govern if you nuke everyone to death. Yeah, the government has superior firepower. But that assumes that 1) your troops don't defect and take the toys with them 2) your troops have no problems blowing away friends, family, and fellow citizens 3) you can use those toys without causing serious permanent damage to that which you are trying to seize, 4) the use of those toys doesn't piss off foreign powers, and 5) the use of those toys doesn't cause more righteous indignation, allowing the defense to drum up support, perhaps from #1.
Case study: Iraq. The insurgents take pot shots at our troops and then blend into the crowd. We either go in with guns blazing, and take out civilians, thus earning the insurgents new recruits and indignation of our allies, or stumble around ineffectively and let the insurgents take more pot shots at us.
I think history has proven that you can only subjugate an armed nation by engaging in total war. Crush their people, their infrastructure, and their spirit. Show them that you're able and willing to grind them into dust if they continue to resist. We haven't had that kind of a war since World War 2. Since then we've lost and stalemated against opponents far less trained and equipped than our own, because it wasn't acceptable to firebomb cities into oblivion.
And since lately people have enjoyed twisting my words, I don't support or approve of these sorts of tactics.
A little study of history will show you that its not the first stupid thing we've done. Any country that has existed long enough will have a sordid history of evils, blatant stupidity, and corruption. It doesn't excuse the behavior.
Are you somehow implying that being more concerned about what makes sense in modern days than some dead guys' approval means that I support eliminating freedoms that are the cornerstone of modern-day America? It sure seems that way to me, but I'd like to give you a benefit of a doubt.
If so, then I can only shake my head right back in wonderment. Politics shouldn't be run like a religion (only with a bunch of dead guys as the "gods"). Thats all that I, and the post I responded to, said.
The Bill of Rights doesn't give freedoms, only codifies freedoms that we already have.
I don't want to change the Bill of Rights personally, but if I was so inclined to try, then it should be open to real debate, instead of just using the founding fathers as sort of a weird Godwin type thing. Of course, I would expect, encourage, and support your resistance.
Its our government and country, not the founding fathers'. We inherited it from them, so its up to us to shape it in the best way we possibly can. We should stop worrying about whether the founding fathers would approve of something. We should act in a certain way because it is the right thing to do.
Do you hold the Bill of Rights dear because the founding fathers wrote it, or because its a codification of freedoms that we as Americans hold dear?
Slashdot Mirror
Sometimes the solution is to have the government fix the problem. Not always, not even often, but sometimes. I think that its worthwhile to step back and ask if regulation or socialization is a good idea. If the answer is "no" then at least we've arrived at an informed decision. The problem is that in America today, "Socialism" is a dirty word, and an honest discussion is nearly impossible.
What fallacy? I didn't see one. You yell "Strawman strawman!" but fail to point out how his argument is a strawman.
Only he did say that in his first post.
Human beings, in general, have been shown to be prone to group-think and easily influenced by perceived authority. Its fairly easy to see why: such things encourage the formation of social groups, which can increase the ability of your genes to propagate.
Scientists go through a very long education, lasting sixteen to twenty years. A part of this is learning logic and methods for acquiring knowledge, questioning, falsifying theories, and testing hypothesis. These skills are applied over and over, and generally done so until he or she is able to contribute to the body of human knowledge in a reliable manner, determined through peer review.
My point is, that humans tend to naturally prone to the kind of behavior you ascribe to religion, and it is through our hard work that we are where we are today. I can understand your anger; religion has undoubtedly been used to justify, or served as the primary motivating factor, in some pretty horrific conditions.
But I feel that, because the problem runs deeper than religion, somehow doing away with religion would not solve the problem. My belief is that we need to encourage our children to think and apply logic, and the scientific method, from an early age, in order to counter this.
Of course, the problem is that religious fundamentalists are undermining our efforts to do so.... But then again, these days countries without a strong scientific community are generally left in the dust, so the problem may fix itself given enough time. After all, as evolution has shown us, the greatest motivation for change doesn't necessarily happen through direct intervention, but through selective pressures and lots of time.
It was my understanding that Sadam's regime was by far the most secular in the Middle East, and that said atrocities were ethnic in nature. Can you refer me to specific Sadam-related atrocities that you consider religious in nature?
That only shows a shallow correlation between the war and religion. In order to back up your assertions, you have to show that religion was the prime motivating factor in the conflict.
hmm... christian fundamentalists vs muslim fundamentalists by proxy.Please show evidence that the current Iraq conflict was primarily motivated by religion, as opposed to other factors such as resource control, territory, expansion of military influence into the Middle East, etc.
You are making an assertion that religion is the cause of these things, thus the burden to prove this is on you.
Do tell? I've never seen this backed up with fact. It just seems to be one of those things that "everyone knows." Case in point:
crusades anybody?Religiously motivated, but with a death toll far less than modern wars.
how about the holocaust?Promoted for racial and genetic purity, and also scapegoating of societal problems on an ethnic subclass. So a mix of racism and nationalism.
how about the war between hindus and muslims that's been brewing foreverI am ignorant about this conflict. Details please.
how about muslims and jewsPrimarily a territorial dispute elevated into nationalism. Religion is only piggy-backing on what is essentially a territorial dispute.
or christians and muslimsPrimary the result of the main "Christian" nation supporting one nation in the aforementioned territorial dispute. Also motivated by control of the "muslim" group of certain key resources such as oil. Resources, territory, and nationalism.
and on and on from today all the way back through historyPlease provide more examples. Of the five examples you gave, one had religion as a prime motivating factor, one I don't know about, and three mainly dealt with resources, territory, nationalism, and politics.
Please note that religious people fighting is not the same as religion being the primary cause of a conflict. You have to show causation and not correlation. As such, you have to show that the conflict was instigated over a religious disagreement.
Yes, Anonymous Coward, clearly the best way to express oneself is to purchase mass-produced products from a giant faceless corporation. I'm sure your mass-produced generic laptop gives you so much more individuality than everyone else's mass-produced generic laptop, because it uses a different operating system. Huzzah!
Its kind of funny how your experiences reflect my own.
Well, if you look back in history, a lot of the original settlers of America were, in part, Christians that were forced out of Europe because their religious beliefs didn't jive with mainstream Christianity. So I guess you could say that its part of our heritage.
But another mitigating factor would be that the creationists really know how to play to emotions, and the opponents are completely inept at countering this kind of play. Emotional thinking is pretty tough to counter with rational debate.
How is the discussion framed in America? Well, the proponents of creationism don't right out say "Evolution is wrong! Replace it with creationism!" They say things like "We have a theory too, but they're not letting us teach it. Thats unfair, and it violates our free speech. We just want equal opportunity...." See? It sets them as the victims, and touches on a lot of American hot-buttons (free speech, opportunity, equality).
Personally, I think that the scientists should go, "Ok, sure we'll treat you equally... oh but your theory doesn't pass scientific rigor... If you could make it falsifiable, then write it and submit it to journals, then we'll give it a look over."
We both know that there's not a chance in hell that creationists would actually do that, but it'd be a lot better than simply calling creationists stupid, which just makes them look like victims even more.
Well, to play the devil's advocate, how much power does the POTUS have to actually dictate the teaching, or lack thereof, of such theories? These decisions are usually made by local or possibly state governments in the United States (correct me if I'm wrong). So in that sense, it is kind of a pointless question, as it has no bearing on his theoretical responsibilities.
Practically speaking, however, I'm sure that the POTUS can put a lot of pressure on state and local governments concerning this, and then theres the Supreme Court matter...
No, what is harmful is group-think and obedience to authority. Religion is just a manifestation among many of this.
If they want equal treatment, then they have to earn it, and that means that they have to make a proper scientific theory out of creationism. That means falsifiability and testability. I doubt they're willing or able to do that.
Well, it depends on how you define bible-thumpers. In terms of the creationism "debate," you can go as high as 65 percent of Americans. Its pretty close to a 50-50 split, but the majority of people in America are religious to some degree, and so a lot of that leaks into politics.
How convenient that you're the one who gets to decide who is stupid eh?
Never mind that stuff like nationalism, racism, and political ideology cause just as much conflict. Never mind that even the average atheist tends to act like a sheep just as much as the average religious person. Never mind that humans tend to follow authority figures and exibit herd behavior. Never mind that these traits manifest in several forms apart from religion, even in these "scientist" people trained to be resistant to these kinds of things.
Gee, its almost as if human beings have traits that lend themselves to forming groups and following certain alpha leaders... and then these groups of humans try to expand their influence so that they can flourish better... I bet that mental traits and ideas that promote the group gives them an advantage in survivability, so those traits propagate more. I wonder if someone has made a theory out of that? Lets call it evolution!
So in summary, you're an idiot and a tool who obviously hasn't seriously given the issue any thought.
And people call me a liar when I say that there are atheists out there that think that genocide of religious people is a good idea.
You're pretty much on the mark. Whether or not you feel GPLv3 is more or less permissive depends on your views on software, OSS, FOSS, the rights of users, and the rights of developers. If you believe that the GPLv3 is less permissive than the GPLv2, then likely your views do not align with the FSF.
Look, lets be honest. The GPL was made to promote the views of the FSF on software. Don't buy into the FSF's agenda? Don't use a license that was made to advance their agenda. If you don't agree with FSF's views, then be very cautious about using the GPLed license or GPLed code. Otherwise, just accept that you have to make some concessions to get a lot of high-quality free and Free code.
There's lots and lots of software out there with many different licenses. Insisting that others bend their views (and licenses) so that its easier for you to get a free ride makes you look like a fool.
Somehow I don't think many FOSS developers will have a problem with GPLv3. Most of the people using GPL for serious projects understand what it means, and support FOSS ideologically on some level.
Actually, no, the Wikipedia entry says that it is a fallacy:
It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. and An appeal to authority is a logical fallacy: authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth. Wikipedia's interpretation jives with everything I learned from my logic courses in college. Of course, it doesn't mean that the argument is wrong either.I was wrong to state that you were taking things on faith. However, when you say that "historical intent and motive are key in implementing and interpreting historical documents," aren't you saying that you analyze their intent? Thats pretty close to what I was saying.
I still think that its important we analyze what they say and why they say it. I look at what they say because of their past success, but I don't think its true because they say it. We should follow their advice because its good advice, not because Thomas Jefferson said it.
Personally, I'd try to understand the reasoning of the founders rather than take their position on faith. Doing otherwise is simply an appeal to authority.
Square has explicitly stated they don't want any part of the Virtual Console. After all, they make a killing off of releasing the same games over and over for full price. I'd imagine they'd want to keep Secret of Mana off of the VC in case they decide to give it the same treatment as FF4 and FF6.
Note to moderators: Flamebait != "I don't agree with what you say."
I agree with what you say. But I also noticed you focused on learning their ideas, understanding them, and applying those lessons that they already learned. In which case it becomes "learning from history" and not "do this because the fathers said so."
I think you agree with me, based on the contents of your post.
Not much to govern if you nuke everyone to death. Yeah, the government has superior firepower. But that assumes that 1) your troops don't defect and take the toys with them 2) your troops have no problems blowing away friends, family, and fellow citizens 3) you can use those toys without causing serious permanent damage to that which you are trying to seize, 4) the use of those toys doesn't piss off foreign powers, and 5) the use of those toys doesn't cause more righteous indignation, allowing the defense to drum up support, perhaps from #1.
Case study: Iraq. The insurgents take pot shots at our troops and then blend into the crowd. We either go in with guns blazing, and take out civilians, thus earning the insurgents new recruits and indignation of our allies, or stumble around ineffectively and let the insurgents take more pot shots at us.
I think history has proven that you can only subjugate an armed nation by engaging in total war. Crush their people, their infrastructure, and their spirit. Show them that you're able and willing to grind them into dust if they continue to resist. We haven't had that kind of a war since World War 2. Since then we've lost and stalemated against opponents far less trained and equipped than our own, because it wasn't acceptable to firebomb cities into oblivion.
And since lately people have enjoyed twisting my words, I don't support or approve of these sorts of tactics.
A little study of history will show you that its not the first stupid thing we've done. Any country that has existed long enough will have a sordid history of evils, blatant stupidity, and corruption. It doesn't excuse the behavior.
Are you somehow implying that being more concerned about what makes sense in modern days than some dead guys' approval means that I support eliminating freedoms that are the cornerstone of modern-day America? It sure seems that way to me, but I'd like to give you a benefit of a doubt.
If so, then I can only shake my head right back in wonderment. Politics shouldn't be run like a religion (only with a bunch of dead guys as the "gods"). Thats all that I, and the post I responded to, said.
The Bill of Rights doesn't give freedoms, only codifies freedoms that we already have.
I don't want to change the Bill of Rights personally, but if I was so inclined to try, then it should be open to real debate, instead of just using the founding fathers as sort of a weird Godwin type thing. Of course, I would expect, encourage, and support your resistance.
Its our government and country, not the founding fathers'. We inherited it from them, so its up to us to shape it in the best way we possibly can. We should stop worrying about whether the founding fathers would approve of something. We should act in a certain way because it is the right thing to do.
Do you hold the Bill of Rights dear because the founding fathers wrote it, or because its a codification of freedoms that we as Americans hold dear?