Check out what lack of religion did to the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and others.
No doubt totalitarian socialism had nothing to do with their outcomes, though.
(an all-powerful State can't tolerate any parallel power structures, such as a Church)
But Marxist Socialism is caused by the very same doctrine that today is advanced by Richard Dawkins. The ideology if Richard Dawkins has at least two tenets: 1) Materialism - that is, reality (including the human mind) can be explained by the laws of Physics (see http://richarddawkins.net/articles/490048-the-blue-brain-blues-materialist-ethics-and-simulated-minds) 2) Anti-religious intolerance: religion is irrational, superstitious and must not be tolerated. It must be wiped out. While it still exists, it must be contained to the private sphere - that is, the political rights of people of faith must be curtailed.
And these two tenets are at the core of Marxism. Marx took the idea of materialism and developed it into his "materialistic conception of History", which is the root of Marxism. And he fully incorporated anti-religious hatred.
Therefore, the ideology of Dawkins (which of course existed centuries before Dawkins) is a clear cause of Marxism, and therefore 100,000,000 deaths, torture, general suffering, terror, repression, censorship, bigotry and societal decay.
In other words, Dawkins is the *last* person that can complain about the "evils" of religion.
There is a wise analysis about the ideal relationship between state and Church, which must be balanced to avoid oppression. See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html (Why Church and State Must Be Separate, by Benedict XVI)
Thank you for taking the time to supply me with the links.
I do, however, think you exaggerated a bit when saying "jump through some hoops". Unchecking two checkboxes is not jumping through hoops. Anyway, I still hope Chrome to eclipse MSIE; it is open-source (and under permissive licenses), so other browsers can implement its features leading to a more advanced Web.
Netscape/Mozilla did it when they were dominant. Microsoft did it too. Now it's google's turn.
You talk as if Google was practising Microsoft-style evil. It is not. Google Chrome source code is under either the LGPL or BSD, so other vendors can easily copy Chrome's extensions.
What resulted from the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition was some criticism.
What resulted from the Danish cartoons, or from the Pope's speech in Regensburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture) - which was actually polite and measured - was violent riots, vandalism, and murders of completely innocent people.
Why is it illegal to advocate Nazism (in many countries) while it is legal to advocate Marxism? Both ideologies are hateful, oppressive, dark and genocidal. But Marxism manages to be worse. Nazism killed 17,000,000 people, while Marxism killed 100,000,000. Also, praising Nazism is nearly harmless (because Nazism does not appeal to much people, therefore the praise will fall on deaf ears), while advocating Marxism is dangerous because it is alive and kicking (in several totalitarian oppressive dictatorships based on Lenin/Mao, and in several leftist governments based on Gramsci/Marcuse/Adorno).
Therefore Marxism has *more* reasons to be banned than Nazism.
Why is only Marxism banned? Simply because Hitler lost the war and history was written by the victor.
Secondly, Mohammad anti-American? You do realize he died 1100 years before America was born.
Please, it is clear what the grandparent meant: Mohammed advanced views that are counter to the virtues and rights that Americans love (such as family values and constitutionally-limited democracy).
If he was just a flawed political leader (such as the American Founding Fathers), then we could separate the wheat from the chaff and praise them for their good deeds (in the case of the Founding Fathers, political freedom) while forgiving their sins (in the case of the Founding Fathers, condoning slavery).
But a man who is allegedly God's greatest prophet must be judged by much stricter standards, don't you think?
(Supposing you are one of those Dawkins acolytes) The ideology of Richard Dawkins is not simply a negative lack of faith in God. It is actually a positive ideology, consisting of at least two positive tenets: 1) Materialism: all reality (including the human mind) can be described by the laws of physics - see, for example, http://richarddawkins.net/articles/490048-the-blue-brain-blues-materialist-ethics-and-simulated-minds 2) Anti-religious intolerance: religion is always evil and must be wiped from Earth. While religion still exists, it must be restricted to the private sphere - that is, the political activities of religious people must be restricted.
This ideology caused Marxism. Marx simply developed materialism into his "materialistic conception of History", which is the root of his philosophy. Combined with anti-religious hatred and the labour theory of value, Marxism is born.
In other words, Dawkins ideology (which of course existed centuries before Dawkins) caused Marxism, which is responsible by 100,000,000 deaths, torture, general suffering, terror, repression, censorship, societal decay and general darkness (see a satellite photo of the Korean peninsula for a physical portrait of that).
I would like to hear different POVs here. It is important.
In my opinion (I'm no philosopher), free speech is not absolute - it depends on the category of speech.
Speech can be an idea concerning religion, philosophy, critique of government/society/church, or it can be an idea-free expression, such as pornography.
I believe that speech in the first category (ideas about religion of philosophy) must be free because one of the most important purposes of man is to find Truth, and he needs free exchange of ideas for that. This is a human right.
Speech in the second category (criticism) must also be free, because the government/society/church is much more likely to become oppressive if it can't be criticised. This is a human right.
But speech in the third category (idea-free) can be censored according to the values of the community. If a country decides to ban pornography, no idea has been blocked, people can still criticise the government (including the censorship law itself), so this is not a human right.
I agree with you, but you forgot something else: ethanol.
Ethanol is already produced cheaply and sustainably in Brazil, where it already competes with gasoline without subsidies. And it is getting better. From 1975 to 2004, Brazilian ethanol productivity went from 2024 to 5917 (in liters per hectare). And there's still new technology in the queue - cellulosic ethanol, algae-based ethanol (which promises to be revolutionary).
All of this makes the target even harder to hit for all-electric cars. They have to compete with combustion engines that gett ever more efficient, running on fuel that gets ever cheaper.
In my arrogant opinion, avoiding oil the key. Oil comes from very oppressive and aggressive places - Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran. By buying oil we fund a future Jewish genocide. We engage Israel's enemies militarily (thus increasing the already excessive US military, and feeding anti-Americanism) with our right hand and throw bags of money at them with our left hand. This is *extremely* counter-productive; it would be very funny if it wasn't so tragic. The government should overtax gas-guzzlers (including SUVs!), subsidise economic cars and lift the barriers on Brazilian ethanol.
That does not make sense. Dumping always harms the dumper. Lets see:
Suppose that China has a solar cell manufacturer called CrappyCells, and America has a solar cell manufacturer called LincolnCells. Both make solar cells that cost $95 and sell for $100. Then CrappyCells has the "brilliant" idea of capturing the market by dumping, so it start selling cells for $90. According to the plan, LIncolnCells will bankrupt, then CrappyCells can sell its goods at $200.
What really happens is that speculators notice CrappyCells is dumping, so they start buying and hoarding. As much as CrappyCells makes, the speculators buy. This means that CrappyCells is never able to meet all demand, and can't smother LincolnCells. Eventually CrappyCells will stop the dumping, either because they ran out of money or because they realised it wasn't working. Then the American speculators make a huge profit and CrappyCells realises it made a huge loss.
Anti-dumping legislation is nothing more than protectionism. It merely ensures the survival of inefficient domestic companies. This helps the shareholders and workers of said companies, but harms American consumers. And the global result is a net loss for the world economy, because of the inefficiency involved.
Except that there are also *diseconomies* of scale.
And (at least according to Austrian School economics) dumping is not profitable, for several reasons: 1) If the monopolists charges a "monopoly price", that is, a superprofit, then there will be a huge incentives for new entrants in that market. Therefore the monopolist will hardly ever be able to capitalise on his monopoly. 2) When you sell goods at a loss, people have a huge incentive to buy in huge quantities, hoard, and sell them when the price goes up. Therefore you will make *huge* losses in the sell-at-a-loss phase, because people will be buying and stocking.
And a couple of other reasons. Check out mises.org
This rate of price reduction is accelerating; between late-2009 and mid-2011 the wholesale cost of solar modules dropped approximately 70%.[2] This rapid reduction in price is unprecedented in the industry, and shows no sign of reaching bottom (late 2011).
In my arrogant opinion, avoiding oil the key. Oil comes from extremely oppressive and aggressive places - Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran. By buying oil we fund a future Jewish genocide. We threaten Israel's enemies militarily (thus helping increase the already-too-large US military, and feeding anti-Americanism) with our right hand and throw bags of money at them with our left hand. This is *extremely* counter-productive; it would be very funny if it wasn't so tragic. The government should overtax gas-guzzlers, subsidise economic cars and lift the barriers on Brazilian ethanol. Not only for the environment, but for safety.
This is more important than subsidising solar. Solar is already reaching grid parity as soon as 2015 (check the Wikipedia article on grid parity), and then it will continue its rapid evolution and become cheaper than coal. Therefore, market forces are enough and there's no need to waste on solar tax money that can go to subsidising economic cars.
You don't think that private property should be protected by the government? Imagine seeing a robber break into your house, and you call the cops to hear "Oh, but you live in a privately-owned house. Go pay for your own security"
By the way, if the government does not protect individuals and businesses, then they will have to hire their own hired guns. Is that what you want?
In French, laïcité (pronounced [la.i.site]) is a concept of a secular society, connoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs
The law in question has the sole purpose of hindering the professing of religion. It does not say "clothes that could hide weapons are forbidden" (not that I would approve of such a law) or "indecent clothes are forbidden", or any other requirement with social justifications. It specifically says "religious symbols are forbidden". This government involvement on religious matter is an ugly example of people's freedom being trumped.
France prohibits people to go to state school wearing a turban. I am not directly affected by it - because I live in Brasil and because I carry no "religion symbol" - but I feel compassion to those who are.
This is a good strategy if and only you are confident that you are the best option available.
Do you really think like that? Once you choose a good person and love her, you don't compare her to other "options" and see if she is the best. You love her as a family member.
Also, a relationship is supposed to make the couple happy and to build a harmonious environment in which the children may grow. Jealousy and distrust make these goals impossible, so if your girlfriend is jealous and distrustful the relationship is without purpose and you would be better alone.
I'm not saying your girlfriend should allow you to go to nightclubs (these are inappropriate places in my opinion); I'm saying that she shouldn't be jealous of every female voice in the phone and of every beautiful female coworker; I'm saying she should trust you to do things by yourself (say, play bowling with friends, or travel to another state to visit your mom), even if a beautiful woman will be there too; you should not refrain from doing something something because your girlfriend is distrustful (except for inherently inappropriate things such as going to a nightclub).
One must choose a trustworthy person to begin with; the idea that one can be with a person she does not trust and ensure fidelity through control and spying is ridiculous.
Slashdot Mirror
Please see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2865083&cid=40075109
Check out what lack of religion did to the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and others.
No doubt totalitarian socialism had nothing to do with their outcomes, though.
(an all-powerful State can't tolerate any parallel power structures, such as a Church)
But Marxist Socialism is caused by the very same doctrine that today is advanced by Richard Dawkins.
The ideology if Richard Dawkins has at least two tenets:
1) Materialism - that is, reality (including the human mind) can be explained by the laws of Physics (see http://richarddawkins.net/articles/490048-the-blue-brain-blues-materialist-ethics-and-simulated-minds)
2) Anti-religious intolerance: religion is irrational, superstitious and must not be tolerated. It must be wiped out. While it still exists, it must be contained to the private sphere - that is, the political rights of people of faith must be curtailed.
And these two tenets are at the core of Marxism. Marx took the idea of materialism and developed it into his "materialistic conception of History", which is the root of Marxism. And he fully incorporated anti-religious hatred.
Therefore, the ideology of Dawkins (which of course existed centuries before Dawkins) is a clear cause of Marxism, and therefore 100,000,000 deaths, torture, general suffering, terror, repression, censorship, bigotry and societal decay.
In other words, Dawkins is the *last* person that can complain about the "evils" of religion.
There is a wise analysis about the ideal relationship between state and Church, which must be balanced to avoid oppression. See http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ratzinger2.html (Why Church and State Must Be Separate, by Benedict XVI)
Thank you for taking the time to supply me with the links.
I do, however, think you exaggerated a bit when saying "jump through some hoops".
Unchecking two checkboxes is not jumping through hoops.
Anyway, I still hope Chrome to eclipse MSIE; it is open-source (and under permissive licenses),
so other browsers can implement its features leading to a more advanced Web.
Regards
Check out what lack of religion did to the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Cuba, and others.
Out of the 5 trackers listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser_usage#Summary_table, only 1 agrees with statcounter - the other 3 report, on average, *less* usage of MSIE than statcounter.
So, sorry, your theory is flawed.
But did Google *pay* for Angry Birds to do that?
And what is your source for that Skype behaviour? A quick Google search found nothing.
You talk as if Google was practising Microsoft-style evil. It is not. Google Chrome source code is under either the LGPL or BSD, so other vendors can easily copy Chrome's extensions.
What resulted from the International Holocaust Cartoon Competition was some criticism.
What resulted from the Danish cartoons, or from the Pope's speech in Regensburg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture) - which was actually polite and measured - was violent riots, vandalism, and murders of completely innocent people.
Why is it illegal to advocate Nazism (in many countries) while it is legal to advocate Marxism?
Both ideologies are hateful, oppressive, dark and genocidal. But Marxism manages to be worse.
Nazism killed 17,000,000 people, while Marxism killed 100,000,000.
Also, praising Nazism is nearly harmless (because Nazism does not appeal to much people, therefore the praise will fall on deaf ears), while advocating Marxism is dangerous because it is alive and kicking (in several totalitarian oppressive dictatorships based on Lenin/Mao, and in several leftist governments based on Gramsci/Marcuse/Adorno).
Therefore Marxism has *more* reasons to be banned than Nazism.
Why is only Marxism banned? Simply because Hitler lost the war and history was written by the victor.
Secondly, Mohammad anti-American? You do realize he died 1100 years before America was born.
Please, it is clear what the grandparent meant: Mohammed advanced views that are counter to the virtues and rights that Americans love (such as family values and constitutionally-limited democracy).
If he was just a flawed political leader (such as the American Founding Fathers), then we could separate the wheat from the chaff and praise them for their good deeds (in the case of the Founding Fathers, political freedom) while forgiving their sins (in the case of the Founding Fathers, condoning slavery).
But a man who is allegedly God's greatest prophet must be judged by much stricter standards, don't you think?
True religion at work.
Superstition is slavery.
And materialism is much worse.
(Supposing you are one of those Dawkins acolytes) The ideology of Richard Dawkins is not simply a negative lack of faith in God. It is actually a positive ideology, consisting of at least two positive tenets:
1) Materialism: all reality (including the human mind) can be described by the laws of physics - see, for example, http://richarddawkins.net/articles/490048-the-blue-brain-blues-materialist-ethics-and-simulated-minds
2) Anti-religious intolerance: religion is always evil and must be wiped from Earth. While religion still exists, it must be restricted to the private sphere - that is, the political activities of religious people must be restricted.
This ideology caused Marxism. Marx simply developed materialism into his "materialistic conception of History", which is the root of his philosophy. Combined with anti-religious hatred and the labour theory of value, Marxism is born.
In other words, Dawkins ideology (which of course existed centuries before Dawkins) caused Marxism, which is responsible by 100,000,000 deaths, torture, general suffering, terror, repression, censorship, societal decay and general darkness (see a satellite photo of the Korean peninsula for a physical portrait of that).
I would like to hear different POVs here. It is important.
In my opinion (I'm no philosopher), free speech is not absolute - it depends on the category of speech.
Speech can be an idea concerning religion, philosophy, critique of government/society/church, or it can be an idea-free expression, such as pornography.
I believe that speech in the first category (ideas about religion of philosophy) must be free because one of the most important purposes of man is to find Truth, and he needs free exchange of ideas for that. This is a human right.
Speech in the second category (criticism) must also be free, because the government/society/church is much more likely to become oppressive if it can't be criticised. This is a human right.
But speech in the third category (idea-free) can be censored according to the values of the community. If a country decides to ban pornography, no idea has been blocked, people can still criticise the government (including the censorship law itself), so this is not a human right.
I agree with you, but you forgot something else: ethanol.
Ethanol is already produced cheaply and sustainably in Brazil, where it already competes with gasoline without subsidies. And it is getting better. From 1975 to 2004, Brazilian ethanol productivity went from 2024 to 5917 (in liters per hectare). And there's still new technology in the queue - cellulosic ethanol, algae-based ethanol (which promises to be revolutionary).
All of this makes the target even harder to hit for all-electric cars. They have to compete with combustion engines that gett ever more efficient, running on fuel that gets ever cheaper.
In my arrogant opinion, avoiding oil the key. Oil comes from very oppressive and aggressive places - Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran. By buying oil we fund a future Jewish genocide. We engage Israel's enemies militarily (thus increasing the already excessive US military, and feeding anti-Americanism) with our right hand and throw bags of money at them with our left hand. This is *extremely* counter-productive; it would be very funny if it wasn't so tragic. The government should overtax gas-guzzlers (including SUVs!), subsidise economic cars and lift the barriers on Brazilian ethanol.
Overrated? This is crystal-clear moderation abuse!
That does not make sense. Dumping always harms the dumper. Lets see:
Suppose that China has a solar cell manufacturer called CrappyCells, and America has a solar cell manufacturer called LincolnCells. Both make solar cells that cost $95 and sell for $100. Then CrappyCells has the "brilliant" idea of capturing the market by dumping, so it start selling cells for $90. According to the plan, LIncolnCells will bankrupt, then CrappyCells can sell its goods at $200.
What really happens is that speculators notice CrappyCells is dumping, so they start buying and hoarding. As much as CrappyCells makes, the speculators buy. This means that CrappyCells is never able to meet all demand, and can't smother LincolnCells. Eventually CrappyCells will stop the dumping, either because they ran out of money or because they realised it wasn't working. Then the American speculators make a huge profit and CrappyCells realises it made a huge loss.
Anti-dumping legislation is nothing more than protectionism. It merely ensures the survival of inefficient domestic companies. This helps the shareholders and workers of said companies, but harms American consumers. And the global result is a net loss for the world economy, because of the inefficiency involved.
Except that what you said makes no sense in the face of Economic theory.
Check out the book mises.org/books/defending.pdf and go to the chapter called "The importer".
Except that there are also *diseconomies* of scale.
And (at least according to Austrian School economics) dumping is not profitable, for several reasons:
1) If the monopolists charges a "monopoly price", that is, a superprofit, then there will be a huge incentives for new entrants in that market. Therefore the monopolist will hardly ever be able to capitalise on his monopoly.
2) When you sell goods at a loss, people have a huge incentive to buy in huge quantities, hoard, and sell them when the price goes up. Therefore you will make *huge* losses in the sell-at-a-loss phase, because people will be buying and stocking.
And a couple of other reasons. Check out mises.org
Why do you think Solar is not economical?
The Wikipedia article on Grid Parity says
This rate of price reduction is accelerating; between late-2009 and mid-2011 the wholesale cost of solar modules dropped approximately 70%.[2] This rapid reduction in price is unprecedented in the industry, and shows no sign of reaching bottom (late 2011).
I am actually very optimistic about solar power.
In my arrogant opinion, avoiding oil the key. Oil comes from extremely oppressive and aggressive places - Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Iran. By buying oil we fund a future Jewish genocide. We threaten Israel's enemies militarily (thus helping increase the already-too-large US military, and feeding anti-Americanism) with our right hand and throw bags of money at them with our left hand. This is *extremely* counter-productive; it would be very funny if it wasn't so tragic. The government should overtax gas-guzzlers, subsidise economic cars and lift the barriers on Brazilian ethanol. Not only for the environment, but for safety.
This is more important than subsidising solar. Solar is already reaching grid parity as soon as 2015 (check the Wikipedia article on grid parity), and then it will continue its rapid evolution and become cheaper than coal. Therefore, market forces are enough and there's no need to waste on solar tax money that can go to subsidising economic cars.
provide security for privately-owned oil tankers
You don't think that private property should be protected by the government?
Imagine seeing a robber break into your house, and you call the cops to hear "Oh, but you live in a privately-owned house. Go pay for your own security"
By the way, if the government does not protect individuals and businesses, then they will have to hire their own hired guns. Is that what you want?
Jesus, logic seems to escape certain people.
(I posted anonymously by accident)
Your link says
In French, laïcité (pronounced [la.i.site]) is a concept of a secular society, connoting the absence of religious involvement in government affairs as well as absence of government involvement in religious affairs
The law in question has the sole purpose of hindering the professing of religion. It does not say "clothes that could hide weapons are forbidden" (not that I would approve of such a law) or "indecent clothes are forbidden", or any other requirement with social justifications. It specifically says "religious symbols are forbidden". This government involvement on religious matter is an ugly example of people's freedom being trumped.
One cannot say France is intolerant to faith.
France prohibits people to go to state school wearing a turban. I am not directly affected by it - because I live in Brasil and because I carry no "religion symbol" - but I feel compassion to those who are.
This is a good strategy if and only you are confident that you are the best option available.
Do you really think like that?
Once you choose a good person and love her, you don't compare her to other "options" and see if she is the best. You love her as a family member.
Also, a relationship is supposed to make the couple happy and to build a harmonious environment in which the children may grow. Jealousy and distrust make these goals impossible, so if your girlfriend is jealous and distrustful the relationship is without purpose and you would be better alone.
I'm not saying your girlfriend should allow you to go to nightclubs (these are inappropriate places in my opinion); I'm saying that she shouldn't be jealous of every female voice in the phone and of every beautiful female coworker; I'm saying she should trust you to do things by yourself (say, play bowling with friends, or travel to another state to visit your mom), even if a beautiful woman will be there too; you should not refrain from doing something something because your girlfriend is distrustful (except for inherently inappropriate things such as going to a nightclub).
One must choose a trustworthy person to begin with; the idea that one can be with a person she does not trust and ensure fidelity through control and spying is ridiculous.