I think communication has changed. The Internet allows for both communicating more information and miscommunicating more information. A myspace page is a snapshot of how someone was feeling at one point, it might not stick with their identity for a long period of time, so the people they communicate with become biased to that representation. I've had half-hour long conversations in text messages where I and the other person were just trying to figure out what the other was saying. You hang up and call because talking on the phone is a better way to communicate. You see it all the time, trolls, flamebait, religion vs atheism. Everybody's got to throw their little point in, then those points get misinterpreted and you've got an agonizing flamewar. Really, everyone on Slashdot is a fanboy/troll at some time or another and at those points, we value our argument over the people we are trying to communicate with. Therefore, we get more communication and more isolation.
Yea, this whole kids being depressed thing is a real fucking mystery. I think it's the Internet, I mean you wouldn't actually say that to a kid in just that way, the both of you would do a lot more to qualify your views. This is damned if you do, damned if you don't cynicism. The kid said "it's a bit cold outside", referring to whether or not they would wear a coat, you're right, kids shouldn't have to break the law in order to learn they shouldn't, but that doesn't apply. Also, the Police are a lot less likely to "catch and release" these days, so back in the day a kid could actually break the law a bit and they were treated like kids testing their boundaries, nowadays a kid with joint is a potential high school blood bath.
"(This is not a strawman, I consider my example directly equivalent to 'at least [...] the three laws' as a singular justification.)" I disagree, the monolith was a prop, the three laws of robotics is a phenomenal thought experiment that pretty much underpinned all of Asimov's robot fiction.
I liked it. They aired the flamebait material and suggested everyone stfu about it. They might say this was useful in the early days of the Internet, when people found the Internet allows them to complain about stuff a lot longer than they should.
What was wrong with "I, Robot" in particular? Sci-Fi is risky anyways because sci-fi fans aren't usually joe sixpackers, but when we complain endlessly about what the industry does give us it doesn't help. "I, Robot" at least brought the general public the notion of the three laws, that's a win I think.
It's all just biased navel-gazing accusations. Absolutely none of this conversation is meaningful or accurate, it's all just a huge misunderstanding with a bunch of pedantic bullshit sprinkled on top.
There are many different atheistic ideologies, but none of them are specifically applicable to this conversation really. I have my points and everybody has theirs, we are all beautiful snowflakes viciously debating the value of our own individuality at the expense of nearly all other world views (even those we most readily identify with). As an example, I am basically a Secular Humanist, a form of religious atheism, but couldn't readily begin to speak for all Secular Humanists as I represent my personal views of the subject at hand. A good point here someone made was about the number of Catholics that may in fact believe Transubstantiation is metaphorical rather than Official Church Doctrine, or all the other Christians that get irked when they are reminded that Catholics represent the largest Christian population. It's all very irritating, disrespectful, callous, intolerant, claptrap that has nothing to do with the DNA contributions of viral infections.
I think it might be fair to say that atheists are a bit defensive of their views, but I really wish religious folks would take a little time to realize how much we are discriminated against. For example as an Atheist fighting for custody of your children you are wise to adopt Secular Humanism as a religion because religion is a legal precedent for custody of your children. Heathens are legally, not good parents.
No, it's not quite as serious as you seem to think. It's not personal in any way. It began as frustration with mis-communication on the internet. The rules are, I swear, I get modded down. Sometimes I'm cool with that, other times I just play by the standard rules of etiquette. If you don't find my sense of humor entertaining, then don't read at -1. Thems the breaks. You see, it's my theory that everything said on the Internet is misunderstood by at least one third of the people responding, depending on the complexity. This whole thread is a bunch of religious people defending their religion against a joke about transubstantiation and cannibalism. And atheists arguing about the craziness of religion. I'm an atheist, but my family was all Catholic, this joke must be hitting about 90years in age (at least) and it wasn't really that big of a deal, but everyone on Slashdot just can't take a joke and let it go. The whole damn thing is an off-topic flame-fest spurned from a joke. How am I supposed to take that seriously? And I didn't start swearing until someone called me a moron, refused to consider my point, and a bunch of insecure jackasses started modding me down. My real point and frustration, is that we can all get over this bullshit. We don't have to nit-pick every goddamn little philosophical difference to death just because this a forum on the internet. I mean if you're religious don't you have real people you can associate with that are atheists? I know I do, lots of religious people, republicans, all kinds of shit. On the internet though, we get this constant noise about one side railing against the next. It's bullshit. And everyone involved is a shitnut freak, whatever that means, myself included.
Not talking to you. BobMcd is a twerp though. Of course it could just be the frustration of communicating on line in a forum where nobody knows how to read a thread. Big surprise that would be.
Here is my point. Every fucking time I miss one single infinitesimally insignificant bit of minutia regarding religion somebody's got a tirade of religious bullshit I should understand before I say something. Fuck you(laugh, my use of profanity is generally stylistic). Please understand, that I don't need a bachelors of religious studies to laugh at a joke about the absurdity of some religious practice, I don't care if it's Jews vs Catholics vs Islam. I don't need a fine grained and detailed history of religion. It's just not that important. That's what I want. My right to be an atheist and just not have to know the difference between one christian and the other, because I can safely assure you the last thing I want is to sit in one church or the other just so I can tell the difference between a joke about Catholics and a joke about Muslims. For crying out loud, I KNOW that Catholics were the ones the original post was describing, my point is that I don't need every other christian online jumping up and telling me that the joke was not about their particular Christianity. Or the absurdity of several of them claiming that their Christianity is more common than Catholicism. In my world (which obviously varies greatly from the real one), the only proper stance for a religious person to take in that state is that of protecting their fellow Christian's right to believe whatever kind of crazy shit they want. Not to jump and start screaming "NOT ME".
Anyways, thanks for taking me seriously, even if you did completely ignore the fact that I am not looking for an exhaustive religious history that *everyone* will eventually wind up arguing over.
First off, i wasn't talking to you. Second, I found "shitnut freaks" to be quite entertaining. Third, who cares. I used to care. I didn't talk mad shit to strangers before slashdot, but over the years I've learned. It's far quicker and more efficient to lose your temper first. And you completely missed my point, which really brings us back to the swearing now doesn't it?
furthermore, my indifference to the use of blasters vs phasers as someone who isn't a sci-fi fan should not be viewed as a personal defect.
Joke: All science fiction is just a bunch of spaceships and blasters. Pedantic turd: no way asshole, star trek uses phasers, there's a big difference between star trek and star wars. me: i don't care about the difference between phasers and blasters it all seems the same to me. pedantic turd: you just think all scifi should be destroyed. me: what, no you can have your scifi pedantic turd: i'm not even a star trek fan me: I hate you all.
I like your analogy so I'm going to jump in here. If I say sci-fi stories use blasters, it's not relevant to me that Star Trek actually uses phasers. The argument is fracking pointless, at this point star trek fans become pedantic and self important blow hards to argue the difference between blasters and phasers.
Slashdot Mirror
Like Gates-Crowley, when he shot is mouth off and embarrassed the US police force?
Cyberpunk!
So it's kind of like a paladin that can do a little evil as long as it doesn't force an alignment change right?
I think communication has changed. The Internet allows for both communicating more information and miscommunicating more information. A myspace page is a snapshot of how someone was feeling at one point, it might not stick with their identity for a long period of time, so the people they communicate with become biased to that representation. I've had half-hour long conversations in text messages where I and the other person were just trying to figure out what the other was saying. You hang up and call because talking on the phone is a better way to communicate. You see it all the time, trolls, flamebait, religion vs atheism. Everybody's got to throw their little point in, then those points get misinterpreted and you've got an agonizing flamewar. Really, everyone on Slashdot is a fanboy/troll at some time or another and at those points, we value our argument over the people we are trying to communicate with. Therefore, we get more communication and more isolation.
Yea, this whole kids being depressed thing is a real fucking mystery. I think it's the Internet, I mean you wouldn't actually say that to a kid in just that way, the both of you would do a lot more to qualify your views. This is damned if you do, damned if you don't cynicism. The kid said "it's a bit cold outside", referring to whether or not they would wear a coat, you're right, kids shouldn't have to break the law in order to learn they shouldn't, but that doesn't apply. Also, the Police are a lot less likely to "catch and release" these days, so back in the day a kid could actually break the law a bit and they were treated like kids testing their boundaries, nowadays a kid with joint is a potential high school blood bath.
Lead?
Suddenly, I understand how this works.
"Nope, he hasn't got the balls to hijack a plane."
"(This is not a strawman, I consider my example directly equivalent to 'at least [...] the three laws' as a singular justification.)"
I disagree, the monolith was a prop, the three laws of robotics is a phenomenal thought experiment that pretty much underpinned all of Asimov's robot fiction.
I liked it. They aired the flamebait material and suggested everyone stfu about it. They might say this was useful in the early days of the Internet, when people found the Internet allows them to complain about stuff a lot longer than they should.
What was wrong with "I, Robot" in particular? Sci-Fi is risky anyways because sci-fi fans aren't usually joe sixpackers, but when we complain endlessly about what the industry does give us it doesn't help. "I, Robot" at least brought the general public the notion of the three laws, that's a win I think.
A little off-topic but I was checking out the He-man reboot from 03' I believe, that was a really good series that died rather quietly.
I've been reading about the whole Cyberpunk movement and just thinking to myself "too bad everyone says it's dead".
http://www.firstshowing.net/2008/07/29/isaac-asimovs-foundation-trilogy-headed-to-the-big-screen/
it's in the works.
(just to get back on-topic)
Stop rhyming now I mean it!
Even gayer than that would be "Dick Semens", hey I've got a new name for an OSS program!
It's all just biased navel-gazing accusations. Absolutely none of this conversation is meaningful or accurate, it's all just a huge misunderstanding with a bunch of pedantic bullshit sprinkled on top.
There are many different atheistic ideologies, but none of them are specifically applicable to this conversation really. I have my points and everybody has theirs, we are all beautiful snowflakes viciously debating the value of our own individuality at the expense of nearly all other world views (even those we most readily identify with). As an example, I am basically a Secular Humanist, a form of religious atheism, but couldn't readily begin to speak for all Secular Humanists as I represent my personal views of the subject at hand. A good point here someone made was about the number of Catholics that may in fact believe Transubstantiation is metaphorical rather than Official Church Doctrine, or all the other Christians that get irked when they are reminded that Catholics represent the largest Christian population. It's all very irritating, disrespectful, callous, intolerant, claptrap that has nothing to do with the DNA contributions of viral infections.
I think it might be fair to say that atheists are a bit defensive of their views, but I really wish religious folks would take a little time to realize how much we are discriminated against. For example as an Atheist fighting for custody of your children you are wise to adopt Secular Humanism as a religion because religion is a legal precedent for custody of your children. Heathens are legally, not good parents.
No, it's not quite as serious as you seem to think. It's not personal in any way. It began as frustration with mis-communication on the internet. The rules are, I swear, I get modded down. Sometimes I'm cool with that, other times I just play by the standard rules of etiquette. If you don't find my sense of humor entertaining, then don't read at -1. Thems the breaks. You see, it's my theory that everything said on the Internet is misunderstood by at least one third of the people responding, depending on the complexity. This whole thread is a bunch of religious people defending their religion against a joke about transubstantiation and cannibalism. And atheists arguing about the craziness of religion. I'm an atheist, but my family was all Catholic, this joke must be hitting about 90years in age (at least) and it wasn't really that big of a deal, but everyone on Slashdot just can't take a joke and let it go. The whole damn thing is an off-topic flame-fest spurned from a joke. How am I supposed to take that seriously? And I didn't start swearing until someone called me a moron, refused to consider my point, and a bunch of insecure jackasses started modding me down. My real point and frustration, is that we can all get over this bullshit. We don't have to nit-pick every goddamn little philosophical difference to death just because this a forum on the internet. I mean if you're religious don't you have real people you can associate with that are atheists? I know I do, lots of religious people, republicans, all kinds of shit. On the internet though, we get this constant noise about one side railing against the next. It's bullshit. And everyone involved is a shitnut freak, whatever that means, myself included.
Not talking to you. BobMcd is a twerp though. Of course it could just be the frustration of communicating on line in a forum where nobody knows how to read a thread. Big surprise that would be.
Here is my point. Every fucking time I miss one single infinitesimally insignificant bit of minutia regarding religion somebody's got a tirade of religious bullshit I should understand before I say something. Fuck you(laugh, my use of profanity is generally stylistic). Please understand, that I don't need a bachelors of religious studies to laugh at a joke about the absurdity of some religious practice, I don't care if it's Jews vs Catholics vs Islam. I don't need a fine grained and detailed history of religion. It's just not that important. That's what I want. My right to be an atheist and just not have to know the difference between one christian and the other, because I can safely assure you the last thing I want is to sit in one church or the other just so I can tell the difference between a joke about Catholics and a joke about Muslims. For crying out loud, I KNOW that Catholics were the ones the original post was describing, my point is that I don't need every other christian online jumping up and telling me that the joke was not about their particular Christianity. Or the absurdity of several of them claiming that their Christianity is more common than Catholicism. In my world (which obviously varies greatly from the real one), the only proper stance for a religious person to take in that state is that of protecting their fellow Christian's right to believe whatever kind of crazy shit they want. Not to jump and start screaming "NOT ME".
Anyways, thanks for taking me seriously, even if you did completely ignore the fact that I am not looking for an exhaustive religious history that *everyone* will eventually wind up arguing over.
First off, i wasn't talking to you. Second, I found "shitnut freaks" to be quite entertaining. Third, who cares. I used to care. I didn't talk mad shit to strangers before slashdot, but over the years I've learned. It's far quicker and more efficient to lose your temper first. And you completely missed my point, which really brings us back to the swearing now doesn't it?
Here's your sign.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1501554&cid=30686676
furthermore, my indifference to the use of blasters vs phasers as someone who isn't a sci-fi fan should not be viewed as a personal defect.
Joke: All science fiction is just a bunch of spaceships and blasters.
Pedantic turd: no way asshole, star trek uses phasers, there's a big difference between star trek and star wars.
me: i don't care about the difference between phasers and blasters it all seems the same to me.
pedantic turd: you just think all scifi should be destroyed.
me: what, no you can have your scifi
pedantic turd: i'm not even a star trek fan
me: I hate you all.
blah blah blah
posting to undo
I like your analogy so I'm going to jump in here. If I say sci-fi stories use blasters, it's not relevant to me that Star Trek actually uses phasers. The argument is fracking pointless, at this point star trek fans become pedantic and self important blow hards to argue the difference between blasters and phasers.
Perhaps you're guilty of selectively revealing your religious beliefs in order to foster an argument. Asshole.