Just curious as to how it is/was blatant flamebait. I didn't get into the specifics of civil disobedience or the numerous philosophers and statesmen who have held the particular position that I mentioned, and somehow that makes it flamebait?
*color me confused*
The argument to be made is that it is a blocking of free speech and as such a form of censorship. Free speech is no more a reality if the government allows you to say whatever you want but then proceeds to stop anyone from hearing what you have to say.
The thing about China forcing Google, and others, to censor search results is that they are not doing it because of a need for national security, at least not in any real sense. They are using it to block the voices of those they do not agree with.
At the very least, in the United States we hold free speech to be a fundamental right, even if we do a somewhat lousy job of protecting it ourselves sometimes. The thing that many people in our country forget is that human rights do not stop at the borders of our own country. If we are going to say that those rights are inherent to man then they are inherent to everyone.
The Plumb Pudding Model wasn't simply revised it was fundamentally changed when it came to the basic principles of what makes an atom. It was infact very specific about where the positive charge fell. It was a positive mass entity that, in fact, made up the whole of the atim itself with only descrete negative elecron charges in it.
Phlogiston was absolutely wrong as the basis for the entire theory itself, because it was based around a colorless, odorless, and completely weightless entity which does not in fact exist.
The Flat-Earth notion is especially a full reversal. Simply because the Earth can be modeled as flat over small differences doesn't make the belief that the earth is flat to be categorically false. Any spheroid can be assumed to be flat over a small enough surface area.
You also fundamentally missed the point because you were so adamant on defending evolution. You try to justify old theories that we know now to be wrong as having been modified so that you say the same could happen with evolution. My point was simply it is reasonable to not accept evolution as long as you take a reasoned and logical approach to it and simply don't make a call to false authority.
Of course, I can also predict the arguement that you will make was that these weren't based upon good science, but the fact of the matter is that they were based upon the science of the time the prospered in. We look back on them now with modern scientific methods and see them as being pretty bad explinations for things, but there is little to say that in another 200 years or another couple millenia that our descendents won't say the very same thing about a lot of out scientific beliefs.
Don't take this as me making an attack on evolution, frankly I believe it myself it does seem to make a certain amount of sense. I also happen to believe in God myself, and I don't find that to be on any level a contradiction.
What I do find ridiculous is making blanket attacks on someone who does take the time to understand any scientific theory and decides that because of the known problems with it that they don't believe it to be the right explanation. This isn't some fundamental failing of the person as it is having a basic skepticism that should be lauded as it is the very basis of science itself. We shouldn't absolutely believe anything we cannot prove.
It sounds like the intial release was just fumbled and that they would like to work out the kinks of the system a bit before they have millions upon millions using it, which is inevitable right now with anything attached to Google at the moment.
Or it was a marketing gimmick, which wouldn't exactly be a surprise either.
Does the 4 year difference in release between The Fifth Element (1997) and Blackhawk Down (2001) really mark the difference between a classic and a modern film?
> So lawyers are allowed to use the "just following orders" defense? Are they not able to choose whom they work for?
Everyone on the country, even large corporations that so many of us love to hate and admitted serial killers, have a basic right to sound legal guidance. It says a lot about a lawyer to me when they show a willingness to represent whoever comes to them, and they put the best legal foot forward for their client. I don't know if this is the case for Miers, but I am willing to wait out all the details coming out and seeing if she is truly qualified. And I would hope that everyone else would also.
You are missing the flaw in his arguement though. It isn't whether or not an embryo is the same as someone on life support. The question, based upon his conjecture, is whether or not it is the same as someone on life support with no chance for survival.
Now, I can except, with some reservations, the arguement that an embryo is the same as a person on life support who has a chance to survive without it at some point. This type of patient is the exact kind of patient that I would have a problem with the removal of life support from. Would it be okay to take life support from someone out of open heart surgery because we discovered their organs might be useful to someone else? I doubt that anyone would agree to that concept. That is what a good number of people see embryonic stem cell research as akin to.
I won't say that the situation in Iraq is perfect, because frankly it isn't.
But to say that the US has never intervened in situations that didn't involve resources; Somalia and Kosovo ring a bell? I will say that at times we miss the important ones though Rwanda, and the current situation in the Sudan for example.
I have some pretty severe questions about the reasoning that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. But don't make a mistake it was justified for other reasons. Sadam Hussein wasn't a boy scout; he had been killing and torturing people at a whim for decades, and much of that was our fault. There life isn't perfect now, anyone who says it is does nothing but fool themselves. The road won't be easy, but hopefully in time they can reach the level of success some other US building efforts have, Germany and Japan. But it also can't happen if the US just pulls troops out right now, because the situation isn't stable there at the moment, and since we went in we have a responsibility to stay until it is.
I don't kid myself into thinking the US is anything resembling a perfect nation, but I also don't buy into the constant arguements that the US is some evil superpower either.
That it's propaganda doesn't bother me so much. The fact is, 90% of the people are going to buy-in and live their lives according to propaganda, it's just a question of *whose* propaganda. As you said, raise them in a Catholic school, and they'll be taught that Catholicism has the answers, raise them in a government school and they learn the government's answers, raise them in a [insert-name-here] school and they'll grow up to believe whatever [insert-name-here] believes.
I think that more then anything that this depends on the quality of the school. I can only speak from personal perspective of course, but coming from a Catholic school up bringing I never felt as if the Catholic church was presented as having all of the answers.
It is perfectly possible for a school to have as its main goal the education of students. It might very well be a rare commodity, but it is possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Just curious as to how it is/was blatant flamebait. I didn't get into the specifics of civil disobedience or the numerous philosophers and statesmen who have held the particular position that I mentioned, and somehow that makes it flamebait? *color me confused*
The argument to be made is that it is a blocking of free speech and as such a form of censorship. Free speech is no more a reality if the government allows you to say whatever you want but then proceeds to stop anyone from hearing what you have to say. The thing about China forcing Google, and others, to censor search results is that they are not doing it because of a need for national security, at least not in any real sense. They are using it to block the voices of those they do not agree with. At the very least, in the United States we hold free speech to be a fundamental right, even if we do a somewhat lousy job of protecting it ourselves sometimes. The thing that many people in our country forget is that human rights do not stop at the borders of our own country. If we are going to say that those rights are inherent to man then they are inherent to everyone.
When the laws themself violate basic human rights it is indeed evil to follow them.
The Plumb Pudding Model wasn't simply revised it was fundamentally changed when it came to the basic principles of what makes an atom. It was infact very specific about where the positive charge fell. It was a positive mass entity that, in fact, made up the whole of the atim itself with only descrete negative elecron charges in it. Phlogiston was absolutely wrong as the basis for the entire theory itself, because it was based around a colorless, odorless, and completely weightless entity which does not in fact exist. The Flat-Earth notion is especially a full reversal. Simply because the Earth can be modeled as flat over small differences doesn't make the belief that the earth is flat to be categorically false. Any spheroid can be assumed to be flat over a small enough surface area. You also fundamentally missed the point because you were so adamant on defending evolution. You try to justify old theories that we know now to be wrong as having been modified so that you say the same could happen with evolution. My point was simply it is reasonable to not accept evolution as long as you take a reasoned and logical approach to it and simply don't make a call to false authority.
To name a few:
Phlogiston
The Plum Pudding Model
The Four Humours (as a physiological model>
The Earth is Flat
The Geocentric model
I could list hundreds of other beliefs that seemed perfectly rational based upon the science of the time.
Of course, I can also predict the arguement that you will make was that these weren't based upon good science, but the fact of the matter is that they were based upon the science of the time the prospered in. We look back on them now with modern scientific methods and see them as being pretty bad explinations for things, but there is little to say that in another 200 years or another couple millenia that our descendents won't say the very same thing about a lot of out scientific beliefs.
Don't take this as me making an attack on evolution, frankly I believe it myself it does seem to make a certain amount of sense. I also happen to believe in God myself, and I don't find that to be on any level a contradiction.
What I do find ridiculous is making blanket attacks on someone who does take the time to understand any scientific theory and decides that because of the known problems with it that they don't believe it to be the right explanation. This isn't some fundamental failing of the person as it is having a basic skepticism that should be lauded as it is the very basis of science itself. We shouldn't absolutely believe anything we cannot prove.
It sounds like the intial release was just fumbled and that they would like to work out the kinks of the system a bit before they have millions upon millions using it, which is inevitable right now with anything attached to Google at the moment. Or it was a marketing gimmick, which wouldn't exactly be a surprise either.
Does the 4 year difference in release between The Fifth Element (1997) and Blackhawk Down (2001) really mark the difference between a classic and a modern film?
> So lawyers are allowed to use the "just following orders" defense? Are they not able to choose whom they work for?
Everyone on the country, even large corporations that so many of us love to hate and admitted serial killers, have a basic right to sound legal guidance. It says a lot about a lawyer to me when they show a willingness to represent whoever comes to them, and they put the best legal foot forward for their client. I don't know if this is the case for Miers, but I am willing to wait out all the details coming out and seeing if she is truly qualified. And I would hope that everyone else would also.
You are missing the flaw in his arguement though. It isn't whether or not an embryo is the same as someone on life support. The question, based upon his conjecture, is whether or not it is the same as someone on life support with no chance for survival. Now, I can except, with some reservations, the arguement that an embryo is the same as a person on life support who has a chance to survive without it at some point. This type of patient is the exact kind of patient that I would have a problem with the removal of life support from. Would it be okay to take life support from someone out of open heart surgery because we discovered their organs might be useful to someone else? I doubt that anyone would agree to that concept. That is what a good number of people see embryonic stem cell research as akin to.
I won't say that the situation in Iraq is perfect, because frankly it isn't.
But to say that the US has never intervened in situations that didn't involve resources; Somalia and Kosovo ring a bell? I will say that at times we miss the important ones though Rwanda, and the current situation in the Sudan for example.
I have some pretty severe questions about the reasoning that was used to justify the invasion of Iraq. But don't make a mistake it was justified for other reasons. Sadam Hussein wasn't a boy scout; he had been killing and torturing people at a whim for decades, and much of that was our fault. There life isn't perfect now, anyone who says it is does nothing but fool themselves. The road won't be easy, but hopefully in time they can reach the level of success some other US building efforts have, Germany and Japan. But it also can't happen if the US just pulls troops out right now, because the situation isn't stable there at the moment, and since we went in we have a responsibility to stay until it is.
I don't kid myself into thinking the US is anything resembling a perfect nation, but I also don't buy into the constant arguements that the US is some evil superpower either.
That it's propaganda doesn't bother me so much. The fact is, 90% of the people are going to buy-in and live their lives according to propaganda, it's just a question of *whose* propaganda. As you said, raise them in a Catholic school, and they'll be taught that Catholicism has the answers, raise them in a government school and they learn the government's answers, raise them in a [insert-name-here] school and they'll grow up to believe whatever [insert-name-here] believes. I think that more then anything that this depends on the quality of the school. I can only speak from personal perspective of course, but coming from a Catholic school up bringing I never felt as if the Catholic church was presented as having all of the answers. It is perfectly possible for a school to have as its main goal the education of students. It might very well be a rare commodity, but it is possible.