there is a vast difference between one's right to voice one's opinion and the "right" to force one's beliefs on others.
So how do we decide what is legal and what is illegal? For example, suppose my son has severe dementia, and I think he has been a huge hurdle to my life. Suppose I also believe he has no right to live because, lacking human intelligence, he isn't really human. So I kill him. Has the government a right to arrest me? If so, why? Because we think that mentally disabled people have human dignity and a right to live? But who can make such a decision? The people, through democracy? If so, then why can't the same people, through democracy, decide that human embryos have human dignity and a right to live?
"When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." In what context did Benjamin Franklin said that (assuming he did, that is)? In my understanding, "to call the help of civil power" means such things as getting civil power to censor people who speak against religion. But the different concept of religious people voting for a candidate that outlaws things they think should be a crime is a different thing. It is just like atheist people voting for, say, a politician who wants to outlaw some form of racism.
The point is that each citizen has a right to vote for the politician they believe is right, and the electoral system has a duty to obey, irrespective of the origins of the belief.
PS: My English is better than most people's Portuguese, so please point all my mistakes politely.
Knowing our government, there is indeed reason for preoccupation about the success of the project.
But what really concerns me is what happens in 2011. In October 2010 we will have presidential elections (and, for the record, in Brasil we vote for the state-level and federal-level executive and legislative in a single election). Hopefully, the current flamboyantly corrupt government will lose. But the one quality of the current government, its defense of Free Software, will probably go away with it. The heavy and aggressive Microsoft lobby will most likely be successful in convincing the next government that Free Software doesn't work, that the children should learn the software everyone uses, that Free Software is an inefficient leftist thing, and that it was only advocated by the previous government due to its anti-Americanism (this last part does have some truth in it).
I read that, at the city level, the Telecentro program of São Paulo has already been Microsoftsized.
The Angra nuclear reactors are a joke, at least as far as energy production in concerned.
Where did you get that from?
I suspect they may exist solely so Brazil can have a nuclear weapons program. Officially, it doesn't, but why the insistence on continuing a program that has been so spectacularly unsuccessful?
What alternative do you suggest? We can produce only so much hydroelectric power, specially because of environmental regulations, and thermoelectric plants are an environmental disaster. We have no choice but nuclear energy. And considering the minuscule budget allocated to the Navy nuclear reactor program*, I find it a good investment - and think it is absurd that we don't invest much more. And regarding nuclear weapons, I personally don't believe our government could keep such a thing under secret. Countries with sophisticated military and government hierarchy and a powerful military doctrine, such as the USA, can develop this kind of technology under secret. Tyrannic dictatorships such as Iran can too. But a disorganized young democracy such as Brasil? The government can not even hide the corruption - it actually manages the scandals by convincing the public that all the other parties are corrupt too, so there is no point in voting against the government.
Regarding your claims of a car bubble, I haven't heard of that. Can you provide sources (really, I'm interested)? I did notice a sharp increase in car prices. I remember that when I was a teenager a Uno Mille cost something like R$11000. Today it is R$24000 I believe. But maybe it it just the general inflation? In the eleven years beginning with 1998, we have had an accumulated inflation of (slightly more than) 100% (according to Wikipedia, in http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infla%C3%A7%C3%A3o#Hist.C3.B3rico_do_Quadro_Inflacion.C3.A1rio_no_Brasil)
Regarding the high prices of cars, my current understanding is that this fits with the high prices of many other thins in Brazil. Obscene taxation and poor infrastructure make many products expensive in Brasil. I remember reading that Brasil has the most expensive Ipod in the world. About the Ipod itself I could hardly care less, but cars and computers obscenely expensive. I currently ride a bike, partly because of health and environmental concerns, but also because I cannot afford a car.
And where did you get the data on the Honda Civic prices? You said that in 2002 it was cheaper than in the US. This is _very_ hard to believe. Then again, in 2002 the Real was bizarrely undervalued (partly because the market panicked in the second half of 2001 when polls predicted Lulla's victory), so if you take the price of that time, convert to dollars using the then-current market exchange rate, and compare to the prices in the US, the comparison would be almost meaningless.
*Note to foreigners: don't confuse the Angra project with the Navy's nuclear reactor program. The Angra nuclear reactors were basically bought from Germany. The joke about them is that the government bureaucracy and inefficiency and its inability to deal with radical anti-nuclear activists caused all but one of the plants to remain unbuilt - and their parts are quite expensive to maintain; but I don't know of anything wrong with the plants themselves. Now, the Navy project is another thing entirelly. It is about a real Brazilian-made (or "verde e amarelo" or "tupiniquim", as we call Brazilian concepts we are proud of) nuclear reactor to power submarines. Obviously, we hope it can be scaled up and result in commercially viable clean energy.
The current government's economic policy is the same as the previous (the one who solved hyperinflation). Of course the current situation is better, since in the previous government Brazil was struck by several extremely serious international crisis in a moment where it was fragile, having very little international credibility (the default of Jose Sarney* was only renegotiated in 1994, so in the 1990 decade foreign investors were highly suspicious of the Brazillian government - and the Workers Party's rhetoric that the government should do another default worsened the fears a lot) and still with a fixed currency ratio (part of the efforts to fight hyperinflation). And we could have been much better if the current government wasn't so enormously bloated, inefficient, unwilling to defend Brazillian property against the current "lets sack Brasil" party in South America (with party-goers including Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Hugo Chavez and now Fernando Lugo), unwilling to defend the people against the MST and - worse - the LCP, and, more importantly, if the current government wasn't the single most corrupt government since the Velha República.
The one advantage of this government over the previous is the defense of Free Software. But even then it is done in a disorganized and inefficient way.
* And speaking of the bastard, it is repulsive that this moron is now president of the Congress.
"barely have enough volume to replace the diesel used in our trucks" !? AFAIK, we are not even close to replace the diesel used in our trucks, they mix only like 2% of biodiesel with the fossil diesel. This is from my memory. And right now I checked Wikipedia, which seems to confirm the current percentage is 2%, with 5% planned for 2010 or 2011.
Oh, and the "Unless you live in Sao Paulo" bit was horribly wrong. ethanol is more cost-effective than gasoline in nearly the entire territory. That is the reason for ethanol use as fuel to be rising so fast, having long surpassed gasoline.
My friend, think more carefully before speaking. Really. Specially on the Internet. Every stupidity (I'm not in anyway saying *you* are stupid, but *what you said* was stupid) you post on the Internet gets indexed, mirrored, and can hunt you many years after the fact.
And regarding the problems ethanol cars have with cold, I believe this is a characteristic of carburator based Ethanol cars. This problem has been solved many years ago with electronic fuel injection, AFAIK. And electronic fuel injection arrived much earlier than the flex fuel technology.
Don't misrepresent the facts. He is already aware that there is a small amount of snow in certain Brazilian places.
And it is true that snow is _very_ rare in Brazil. When there is a bit of snow in a city, it gets on nationwide TV news, and people travel there to see it. And we are talking of _a bit_ of snow.
Bruce said that the Slashdot posts were often childish, but I don't remember he saying that Rob Malda himself was childish. I see no reason for Malda to take it personally.
And by the way, Slashdot *is* childish. I used to be far more enthusiastic about this site, but I got tired of the rebel teenagers that dominate many discussions. Technical discussions are quickly turned into rants against every company, "capitalism", the government ("the man") - many involving conspiracy theories and manichean political views such as "don't vote, because the Repulicrats are in the companies' pockets, and it doesn't matter who you vote to because the companies always win".
The US Democrats are between center-left and centrist, absolutely not center-right. A center-right party would not have those policies of favoring the unions, protectionism, abortion, public healthcare, high taxes...
Not that any one of these factors alone define a party as leftist. For example, public healthcare can fit the ideology of a center-right party. But all these factors taken together show that the US Democrats are absolutely *not* center-right. They are between center-left and centrist.
As for the Republicans, they are simply "right", as the term "far" usually indicates totalitarianism (Stalin was far-left, Mussolini was far-right).
It's kind of creepy, when I think who the hell would shoot to death people trying to escape their country.
Absolutely. I mean, the message this sends could not be more clear 1) People are desperately trying to escape. It must not be good to live there. 2) The police violently stops them. 2.1) This is a horrible violation of human rights, and this disrespect for human rights is probably
one of the reasons for the place being bad to live 2.2) If the government is this desperate at stopping people from escaping, them it must be *really* bad to live there
Speaking of that, a gigantic irony is Fidel Castro making a tremendous effort for his athletes to excel at sports competitions, and the athletes taking the opportunity of not going back.
You have successfully trolled me. I will answer (thus feeding you). Congratulations. I hope, though, you grow up and get a better pastime.
While I don't like the policy of Sweden (I am center-right, not center-left like Sweden), Sweden is *center*-left, not *far*-left. The GP was referring to Marxism. Sweden is not Marxist. Sweden is not far-left. They have democracy, political freedom, and a good degree of individual rights. Although I strongly disagree with the excessive taxation (it is so high that it hampers the individual right to private property; and it tends to be economically inefficient, although there are cases of very developed countries with huge taxation - like Sweden) there is an enormous difference between Sweden (from what I know of the country) and far-left.
I made myself clear enough. There must be democracy and law. To make a violent revolution, to support groups like FARC or dictators like Fidel Castro, to support groups that do "justice with their own hands", is not democratic.
If the people of Sweden democratically decide to have huge taxes to pay public services, that is a totally different story. They are still a lawful democracy.
No, Communism doesn't equal authoritarianism, especially in the same sense as fascism. How could an ideology seeking to take power away from the rich minority and give it the majority, as well as calling for the dissolution of the State itself be considered "authoritarian"?
Because the means of "dissolving the state" is through an armed revolution? Because the ideology openly states "democracy does not work because the masses are fooled by the elite and the media, and the only way to socialism is through an armed revolution"?
Because *every single time* this was attempted, the result was a frightening totalitarian state that never reached the supposed communist utopia?
Because the ideology thinks that the end of achieving monetary equality justifies *any* mean?
Be less ignorant. Socialism is not the same as "command economy" (what you are calling socialism). Socialism at its base means the "workers" are in control of "production", but in Soviet style communism the State decided it was the "workers" and implemented a command economy.
Socialism can also be anarchic communes in which there is no central authority, but the workers in a particular production unit are in charge of controlling that unit.
Jesus. We have been hearing the same rhetoric from a truckload of far-left parties worldwide. Every time people point at the monstrosities caused by Stalin, the leftist says "Be less ignorant. Do you know about Karl Marx at all? We are not Stalinists. We are Trotskists/whatever"
The point is, every single nation that entered socialism met human disasters. Soviet Union, its satellite states, China, Cambodia, Cuba... Every time socialism is tried, we have disaster, even though the far-leftist claims "but *this* time will be different". After having tried a couple dozen times and failed *dramatically*, shouldn't the idea just be considered a failure?
A government may implement social uplift policies and still respect democracy, law, freedom and individual rights. That would be center-left.
But every party that goes against democracy, by (for example) 1) Advocating an armed revolution 2) Supporting, either financially, diplomatically or strategically, violent revolutionary groups such as the FARC 3) Supporting groups that "do social justice with their own hands", such as Brazil's "Landless Workers Movement" 4) Supporting dictators such as Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez
is reviving a failed ideology that has been attempted numerous times and failed drastically every time.
We should have realized by now that attempts against democracy lead to disaster, and leave aside the marxist idea that "democracy doesn't work, the masses are fooled by the elites and the media. We will only achieve socialism through an armed revolution".
Lottery is irrational behavior. Of the people who say they play because they have fun with it a) Many (most?) are lying (to you and maybe to themselves). They either have little grasp of probability (and of orders of magnitude) or believe they will win "because this number is lucky, I chose it based on a dream/a vision/numerology/astrology/etc.", or are simply having irrational behavior (such as people who procrastinate) and are coming with an excuse for it. b) If they indeed have fun, this probably is because they do think they can win. The reason I would have no fun if I was forced to play lottery is because I have a basic grasp of probabilities and orders of magnitude. I would simply realize I had just lost money.
Oh, and the worst offenders are people who analise past lottery results and come up with patterns, and bet based on those patterns. To add insult to injury, some of these people have logic like "the number 53 hasn't appeared in the last 30 years, which is unlikely. So I will bet on 53, because it is very unlikely it would not appear for 31 years!" These people should be bludgeoned (softly, I don't advocate serious injury) with a probability book. By the way, some months ago one of these morons appeared on TV posing as an "expert on lottery". He showed a ridiculous misunderstanding of probability. The only useful (though obvious) advice he gave was to make pools. This does make sense if the prize if big (and if you trust the people in the pool... or make a careful contract).
Sad but true. In an effort to fight misogynist sexism, certain laws have become misandrist. For example, here in Brasil, it requires little evidence to send a man to jail if he is accused of rape. An angry girlfriend, for example, can have sex with the man, then go to the police, have an exam that shows they indeed had sex, and based on this have him arrested for rape (not necessary to prove the sex was forced). An impoverished man will then linger in the jail for months or years, waiting for the public attorney. And remember what happens to inmates accused of rape.
Misandry is wrong, just like racism against whites (or, in these times of euphemism and political correctness, "affirmative action") is wrong and probably unconstitutional in many countries.
Lottery is tax on stupidity. Perhaps the government should use lottery money to increase scientists and professors' salaries, to offset the mistreatment that geeks suffer in childhood?
It's as consistent as my Windows box is, so it's really not a big deal. It's not like I'm admining an important machine, it's just my own PC.
This is one of the reasons that Windows PCs have to be reformatted yearly, and some people reformat every semester. Each program that is installed and later uninstalled or updated leaves cruft behind, and the computer gets slower and slower.
just that more political power can be gained from an ineffective but public fight than an effective quick removal of such groups since they pose such a small real threat.
In a totalitarian regime, maybe. In a multi-party (BTW, the current prime-minister assumed in April 2004, and was from the opposition) developed democratic nation with an HDI of 0.949, I doubt. The party that jailed the terrorists would be remembered for that, for a long time. And what specifically has led you to believe that the government has the capacity to jail ETA overnight? What are your sources? They need to be extraordinarily strong, to back up such an extraordinarily unlikely claim. Fighting crime is hard, and jailing all the (say) drug dealers overnight would be an herculean feat. I know of no country with such an ability. I have no reason to believe that jailing all (or a large part of) the ETA terrorists overnight would be easy.
Note: this is not to endorse Zapatero's government in any way. And I am Brazilian, not a Spanish citizen feeling insulted. In fact, I have a bad view of Spain, for badly mistreating Brazilian travelers, including people who just happened to land in that fucktard country to catch a subsequent flight to somewhere else in Europe, and were detained in the airport for days, without bed, showers, phone or anything, given no explanation or possibility of recourse. This included students, university professors going to congresses, and a priest dressed with his stole, who was mocked and asked if that was a carnival costume. It is just that I don't like lies being spread, such as "HIV does not cause AIDS" (and seropositive people getting treated with herbs or other snake oil), or "the US tried to invade Vietnam, and gladly lost" (when the US was helping the democratic South Vietnam from an invasion from the totalitarian North Vietnam).
Slashdot Mirror
there is a vast difference between one's right to voice one's opinion and the "right" to force one's beliefs on others.
So how do we decide what is legal and what is illegal? For example, suppose my son has severe dementia, and I think he has been a huge hurdle to my life. Suppose I also believe he has no right to live because, lacking human intelligence, he isn't really human. So I kill him. Has the government a right to arrest me?
If so, why? Because we think that mentally disabled people have human dignity and a right to live? But who can make such a decision? The people, through democracy? If so, then why can't the same people, through democracy, decide that human embryos have human dignity and a right to live?
"When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."
In what context did Benjamin Franklin said that (assuming he did, that is)?
In my understanding, "to call the help of civil power" means such things as getting civil power to censor people who speak against religion.
But the different concept of religious people voting for a candidate that outlaws things they think should be a crime is a different thing. It is just like atheist people voting for, say, a politician who wants to outlaw some form of racism.
The point is that each citizen has a right to vote for the politician they believe is right, and the electoral system has a duty to obey, irrespective of the origins of the belief.
PS: My English is better than most people's Portuguese, so please point all my mistakes politely.
I like it too.
I think that bashing Ubuntu's look became a meme. Like "does it run linux?" "jokes".
Knowing our government, there is indeed reason for preoccupation about the success of the project.
But what really concerns me is what happens in 2011. In October 2010 we will have presidential elections (and, for the record, in Brasil we vote for the state-level and federal-level executive and legislative in a single election). Hopefully, the current flamboyantly corrupt government will lose. But the one quality of the current government, its defense of Free Software, will probably go away with it. The heavy and aggressive Microsoft lobby will most likely be successful in convincing the next government that Free Software doesn't work, that the children should learn the software everyone uses, that Free Software is an inefficient leftist thing, and that it was only advocated by the previous government due to its anti-Americanism (this last part does have some truth in it).
I read that, at the city level, the Telecentro program of São Paulo has already been Microsoftsized.
source?
The Angra nuclear reactors are a joke, at least as far as energy production in concerned.
Where did you get that from?
I suspect they may exist solely so Brazil can have a nuclear weapons program. Officially, it doesn't, but why the insistence on continuing a program that has been so spectacularly unsuccessful?
What alternative do you suggest? We can produce only so much hydroelectric power, specially because of environmental regulations, and thermoelectric plants are an environmental disaster.
We have no choice but nuclear energy. And considering the minuscule budget allocated to the Navy nuclear reactor program*, I find it a good investment - and think it is absurd that we don't invest much more.
And regarding nuclear weapons, I personally don't believe our government could keep such a thing under secret. Countries with sophisticated military and government hierarchy and a powerful military doctrine, such as the USA, can develop this kind of technology under secret. Tyrannic dictatorships such as Iran can too. But a disorganized young democracy such as Brasil? The government can not even hide the corruption - it actually manages the scandals by convincing the public that all the other parties are corrupt too, so there is no point in voting against the government.
Regarding your claims of a car bubble, I haven't heard of that. Can you provide sources (really, I'm interested)?
I did notice a sharp increase in car prices. I remember that when I was a teenager a Uno Mille cost something like R$11000. Today it is R$24000 I believe.
But maybe it it just the general inflation? In the eleven years beginning with 1998, we have had an accumulated inflation of (slightly more than) 100% (according to Wikipedia, in http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infla%C3%A7%C3%A3o#Hist.C3.B3rico_do_Quadro_Inflacion.C3.A1rio_no_Brasil)
Regarding the high prices of cars, my current understanding is that this fits with the high prices of many other thins in Brazil. Obscene taxation and poor infrastructure make many products expensive in Brasil. I remember reading that Brasil has the most expensive Ipod in the world. About the Ipod itself I could hardly care less, but cars and computers obscenely expensive. I currently ride a bike, partly because of health and environmental concerns, but also because I cannot afford a car.
And where did you get the data on the Honda Civic prices? You said that in 2002 it was cheaper than in the US. This is _very_ hard to believe. Then again, in 2002 the Real was bizarrely undervalued (partly because the market panicked in the second half of 2001 when polls predicted Lulla's victory), so if you take the price of that time, convert to dollars using the then-current market exchange rate, and compare to the prices in the US, the comparison would be almost meaningless.
*Note to foreigners: don't confuse the Angra project with the Navy's nuclear reactor program. The Angra nuclear reactors were basically bought from Germany. The joke about them is that the government bureaucracy and inefficiency and its inability to deal with radical anti-nuclear activists caused all but one of the plants to remain unbuilt - and their parts are quite expensive to maintain; but I don't know of anything wrong with the plants themselves.
Now, the Navy project is another thing entirelly. It is about a real Brazilian-made (or "verde e amarelo" or "tupiniquim", as we call Brazilian concepts we are proud of) nuclear reactor to power submarines. Obviously, we hope it can be scaled up and result in commercially viable clean energy.
The current government's economic policy is the same as the previous (the one who solved hyperinflation). Of course the current situation is better, since in the previous government Brazil was struck by several extremely serious international crisis in a moment where it was fragile, having very little international credibility (the default of Jose Sarney* was only renegotiated in 1994, so in the 1990 decade foreign investors were highly suspicious of the Brazillian government - and the Workers Party's rhetoric that the government should do another default worsened the fears a lot) and still with a fixed currency ratio (part of the efforts to fight hyperinflation). And we could have been much better if the current government wasn't so enormously bloated, inefficient, unwilling to defend Brazillian property against the current "lets sack Brasil" party in South America (with party-goers including Evo Morales, Rafael Correa, Hugo Chavez and now Fernando Lugo), unwilling to defend the people against the MST and - worse - the LCP, and, more importantly, if the current government wasn't the single most corrupt government since the Velha República.
The one advantage of this government over the previous is the defense of Free Software. But even then it is done in a disorganized and inefficient way.
* And speaking of the bastard, it is repulsive that this moron is now president of the Congress.
"barely have enough volume to replace the diesel used in our trucks" !? AFAIK, we are not even close to replace the diesel used in our trucks, they mix only like 2% of biodiesel with the fossil diesel. This is from my memory. And right now I checked Wikipedia, which seems to confirm the current percentage is 2%, with 5% planned for 2010 or 2011.
Oh, and the "Unless you live in Sao Paulo" bit was horribly wrong. ethanol is more cost-effective than gasoline in nearly the entire territory. That is the reason for ethanol use as fuel to be rising so fast, having long surpassed gasoline.
My friend, think more carefully before speaking. Really. Specially on the Internet. Every stupidity (I'm not in anyway saying *you* are stupid, but *what you said* was stupid) you post on the Internet gets indexed, mirrored, and can hunt you many years after the fact.
And regarding the problems ethanol cars have with cold, I believe this is a characteristic of carburator based Ethanol cars. This problem has been solved many years ago with electronic fuel injection, AFAIK. And electronic fuel injection arrived much earlier than the flex fuel technology.
Don't misrepresent the facts. He is already aware that there is a small amount of snow in certain Brazilian places.
And it is true that snow is _very_ rare in Brazil. When there is a bit of snow in a city, it gets on nationwide TV news, and people travel there to see it. And we are talking of _a bit_ of snow.
Only in some really extreme places, such as high altitude places in the southernmost part of the territory, do we have "real" snow, like this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Neve_santa_catarina.jpg
E tenha respeito pela sua pátria, moleque.
Since when does paying attention, being educated and doing well in life garner negative points?
Since the day our society became anti-intellectual.
And speaking of intellect, I humbly recommend you don't waste yours arguing with teenager internet trolls.
"Don't argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience"
Bruce said that the Slashdot posts were often childish, but I don't remember he saying that Rob Malda himself was childish. I see no reason for Malda to take it personally.
And by the way, Slashdot *is* childish. I used to be far more enthusiastic about this site, but I got tired of the rebel teenagers that dominate many discussions. Technical discussions are quickly turned into rants against every company, "capitalism", the government ("the man") - many involving conspiracy theories and manichean political views such as "don't vote, because the Repulicrats are in the companies' pockets, and it doesn't matter who you vote to because the companies always win".
Care to explain how "no physical harm" means "no substantial harm"?
"Troll"? I strongly disagree with the "intellectual property" laws of the USA, but can a person honestly think the parent is trolling?
This moderation is more evidence for my "Slashdot is full of 14-year-olds and I shouldn't waste my time there" theory.
The US Democrats are between center-left and centrist, absolutely not center-right. A center-right party would not have those policies of favoring the unions, protectionism, abortion, public healthcare, high taxes...
Not that any one of these factors alone define a party as leftist. For example, public healthcare can fit the ideology of a center-right party. But all these factors taken together show that the US Democrats are absolutely *not* center-right.
They are between center-left and centrist.
As for the Republicans, they are simply "right", as the term "far" usually indicates totalitarianism (Stalin was far-left, Mussolini was far-right).
It's kind of creepy, when I think who the hell would shoot to death people trying to escape their country.
Absolutely. I mean, the message this sends could not be more clear
1) People are desperately trying to escape. It must not be good to live there.
2) The police violently stops them.
2.1) This is a horrible violation of human rights, and this disrespect for human rights is probably
one of the reasons for the place being bad to live
2.2) If the government is this desperate at stopping people from escaping, them it must be *really* bad to live there
Speaking of that, a gigantic irony is Fidel Castro making a tremendous effort for his athletes to excel at sports competitions, and the athletes taking the opportunity of not going back.
last I checked, Germany was doing a lot better in this financial meltdown than
the US
What? Their recession is stronger (and their prior economic growth was weaker) than the US one, so
where did you get that from?
So being "homophobic" means he was right wing?
Both right and left at that time were against homosexuals, but only the totalitarian regimes would actually massacre them.
You might check what happened in Cuba.
Only recently the left started to defend homosexuals. Some decades before, it was completely different.
You have successfully trolled me. I will answer (thus feeding you). Congratulations. I hope, though, you grow up and get a better pastime.
While I don't like the policy of Sweden (I am center-right, not center-left like Sweden), Sweden is *center*-left, not *far*-left. The GP was referring to Marxism. Sweden is not Marxist. Sweden is not far-left. They have democracy, political freedom, and a good degree of individual rights. Although I strongly disagree with the excessive taxation (it is so high that it hampers the individual right to private property; and it tends to be economically inefficient, although there are cases of very developed countries with huge taxation - like Sweden) there is an enormous difference between Sweden (from what I know of the country) and far-left.
I made myself clear enough. There must be democracy and law. To make a violent revolution, to support groups like FARC or dictators like Fidel Castro, to support groups that do "justice with their own hands", is not democratic.
If the people of Sweden democratically decide to have huge taxes to pay public services, that is a totally different story. They are still a lawful democracy.
No, Communism doesn't equal authoritarianism, especially in the same sense as fascism. How could an ideology seeking to take power away from the rich minority and give it the majority, as well as calling for the dissolution of the State itself be considered "authoritarian"?
Because the means of "dissolving the state" is through an armed revolution?
Because the ideology openly states "democracy does not work because the masses are fooled by the elite and the media, and the only way to socialism is through an armed revolution"?
Because *every single time* this was attempted, the result was a frightening totalitarian state that never reached the supposed communist utopia?
Because the ideology thinks that the end of achieving monetary equality justifies *any* mean?
Jesus. We have been hearing the same rhetoric from a truckload of far-left parties worldwide. Every time people point at the monstrosities caused by Stalin, the leftist says "Be less ignorant. Do you know about Karl Marx at all? We are not Stalinists. We are Trotskists/whatever"
The point is, every single nation that entered socialism met human disasters. Soviet Union, its satellite states, China, Cambodia, Cuba... Every time socialism is tried, we have disaster, even though the far-leftist claims "but *this* time will be different". After having tried a couple dozen times and failed *dramatically*, shouldn't the idea just be considered a failure?
A government may implement social uplift policies and still respect democracy, law, freedom and individual rights. That would be center-left.
But every party that goes against democracy, by (for example)
1) Advocating an armed revolution
2) Supporting, either financially, diplomatically or strategically, violent revolutionary groups such as the FARC
3) Supporting groups that "do social justice with their own hands", such as Brazil's "Landless Workers Movement"
4) Supporting dictators such as Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez
is reviving a failed ideology that has been attempted numerous times and failed drastically every time.
We should have realized by now that attempts against democracy lead to disaster, and leave aside the marxist idea that "democracy doesn't work, the masses are fooled by the elites and the media. We will only achieve socialism through an armed revolution".
Lottery is irrational behavior. Of the people who say they play because they have fun with it
a) Many (most?) are lying (to you and maybe to themselves). They either have little grasp of probability (and of orders of magnitude) or believe they will win "because this number is lucky, I chose it based on a dream/a vision/numerology/astrology/etc.", or are simply having irrational behavior (such as people who procrastinate) and are coming with an excuse for it.
b) If they indeed have fun, this probably is because they do think they can win. The reason I would have no fun if I was forced to play lottery is because I have a basic grasp of probabilities and orders of magnitude. I would simply realize I had just lost money.
Oh, and the worst offenders are people who analise past lottery results and come up with patterns, and bet based on those patterns. To add insult to injury, some of these people have logic like "the number 53 hasn't appeared in the last 30 years, which is unlikely. So I will bet on 53, because it is very unlikely it would not appear for 31 years!" These people should be bludgeoned (softly, I don't advocate serious injury) with a probability book. By the way, some months ago one of these morons appeared on TV posing as an "expert on lottery". He showed a ridiculous misunderstanding of probability. The only useful (though obvious) advice he gave was to make pools. This does make sense if the prize if big (and if you trust the people in the pool... or make a careful contract).
Sad but true. In an effort to fight misogynist sexism, certain laws have become misandrist. For example, here in Brasil, it requires little evidence to send a man to jail if he is accused of rape. An angry girlfriend, for example, can have sex with the man, then go to the police, have an exam that shows they indeed had sex, and based on this have him arrested for rape (not necessary to prove the sex was forced). An impoverished man will then linger in the jail for months or years, waiting for the public attorney. And remember what happens to inmates accused of rape.
Misandry is wrong, just like racism against whites (or, in these times of euphemism and political correctness, "affirmative action") is wrong and probably unconstitutional in many countries.
Lottery is tax on stupidity. Perhaps the government should use lottery money to increase scientists and professors' salaries, to offset the mistreatment that geeks suffer in childhood?
It's as consistent as my Windows box is, so it's really not a big deal. It's not like I'm admining an important machine, it's just my own PC.
This is one of the reasons that Windows PCs have to be reformatted yearly, and some people reformat every semester. Each program that is installed and later uninstalled or updated leaves cruft behind, and the computer gets slower and slower.
just that more political power can be gained from an ineffective but public fight than an effective quick removal of such groups since they pose such a small real threat.
In a totalitarian regime, maybe. In a multi-party (BTW, the current prime-minister assumed in April 2004, and was from the opposition) developed democratic nation with an HDI of 0.949, I doubt. The party that jailed the terrorists would be remembered for that, for a long time.
And what specifically has led you to believe that the government has the capacity to jail ETA overnight? What are your sources? They need to be extraordinarily strong, to back up such an extraordinarily unlikely claim. Fighting crime is hard, and jailing all the (say) drug dealers overnight would be an herculean feat. I know of no country with such an ability. I have no reason to believe that jailing all (or a large part of) the ETA terrorists overnight would be easy.
Note: this is not to endorse Zapatero's government in any way. And I am Brazilian, not a Spanish citizen feeling insulted. In fact, I have a bad view of Spain, for badly mistreating Brazilian travelers, including people who just happened to land in that fucktard country to catch a subsequent flight to somewhere else in Europe, and were detained in the airport for days, without bed, showers, phone or anything, given no explanation or possibility of recourse. This included students, university professors going to congresses, and a priest dressed with his stole, who was mocked and asked if that was a carnival costume. It is just that I don't like lies being spread, such as "HIV does not cause AIDS" (and seropositive people getting treated with herbs or other snake oil), or "the US tried to invade Vietnam, and gladly lost" (when the US was helping the democratic South Vietnam from an invasion from the totalitarian North Vietnam).