Well, where I'm confused, is why would anybody want to be identified with fundamentalist Christianity? I can understand identifying with Christianity, but if you look at the history of fundamentalism, why would anyone want to even go near that? (By anyone, I mean anyone in a modern, educated context.)
On the other hand, an extreme amount of reason leads to paranoia and eventually insanity. At some point we have to assume that we can rely on previous conclusions and stop second-guessing everything. We use a little faith to believe that gravity will hold our shoes to the floor, and we walk to the bathroom without thinking about it and without taking any precautions that we might fly off the face of the earth. We
None of that requires faith. It's simply observation and experience. That's perfectly rational, and will not cause you to become paranoid or insane.
Religion does require faith, because nobody has seen a virgin birth, or the world flooded and all the animals saved in an ark, or water turning into wine, etc. This belief in myths is completely different, because it is a belief in things that one hasn't witnessed, and from normal human experience, one would not expect to happen.
But your definition just says "often capitalized" so this is not a hard and fast thing. People often refer to the first definition without capitalizing it, so it's impossible to know what he was referring to simply based on capitalization.
You also ignore the history of fundamentalism and the way the term is typically used - it usually describes a Protestant sect that basically hates on everything outside a narrow world view.
So what you really meant to say was that all religious people are crazy.
No, I didn't say all religious people. Most religious people don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
That's fine, I simply misinterpreted your bashing for an honest interest in why anyone might self-identify as a fundamentalist.
I am honestly interested.
Therefore one would assume he considers himself to adhere strictly to the principals of Christianity, not a member of a movement relating to strict literal interpretation of the entire bible.
Then why would he call himself a fundamentalist? I'm supposed to read some profound meaning into his use of capitalization?
It's flawed logic. People believe that because most people who murder on behalf of religion are fundamentalist or extremist, that all fundamentalists and extremists are murderers.
I don't recall writing that all fundamentalists are murderers. Most fundamentalists are nice, peaceful people. But they are not rational people. How can you be rational and be a self-described fundamentalist at the same time?
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Right. A belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible is insane.
Just because fundamentalist has started to have a connotation of terrorist because of the media exposure crazy people get
I never associated fundamentalism with terrorism. I do associate it with craziness, because the belief is fundamentally flawed and rationally unsupportable. This is what I was getting at - how do you identify yourself as subscribing to a crazy belief, and not think; "wow, I'm really fucking out there" unless there is something very wrong with you?
So just because someone self-identifies as a fundamentalist does not mean they are a raging nutcase.
Well, it would be nice if self-described fundamentalists would actually define what they mean by fundamentalism. It seems to me that the definition they would be likely to adopt, is that they believe in the "scriptural inerrancy" of the Bible. But of course, that would make them nutcases. How could any modern person believe that and not think that it was kind of crazy?
The other definitions of "fundamentalist" are even more crazy than that. So, how exactly does one self-identify as a fundamentalist and not be crazy?
I would be categorized as a Christian fundamentalist,
That's pretty interesting. Why would one classify oneself as a Fundamentalist? The category of self-aware fundamentalist must be vanishingly small - because if you recognize that you've become a fundamentalist, wouldn't you want to do everything possible to quit being a fundamentalist?
The proliferation of game distribution platforms is very annoying. Which is why I am the CEO of a company that is introducing an innovative new product that distributes and manages game distribution platforms.
Then, one day I realized... THEY own the company. If they want to run it into the ground there's not a darn thing I can do to stop it. All I can do (as long as I'm working there) is show up and do the best job I can with what I've got... and communicate what I think the priorities should be from my chair. If they don't listen to me - and it all blows up someday - It's NOT my fault. It all has to do with giving up control.... which can be a very healthy thing spiritually and psychologically.
So, you're basically saying that...
Mommy's alright, Daddy's alright, they just seem a little weird
Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away
If you have that stuff documented, they can't screw you out of unemployment.
Wanna bet?
Re:Another Idea that will not catch on (hopefully)
on
Thomas Edison's Kindle
·
· Score: 1
I would guess the reason is simply to reduce the huge number of story submissions that the editors must wade through.
How would this reduce the number of story submissions?
The reason I happen to know about it is that I attempted to submit a story a few days ago and ran in to this exact problem. The main url I wanted to link to was: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8476381.stm [bbc.co.uk]. Another slashdotter had already submitted the link, but included only a tiny one sentence blurb. The result was that the story was killed and the url can not be used for new submissions.
What proof do you have that the previous submission was the reason your story was "killed"?
That's nothing. I know of a planet that is made out of candy and chocolate and ponies. Just step into my vehicle, and I'll show it to you, little girl.
Re:Another Idea that will not catch on (hopefully)
on
Thomas Edison's Kindle
·
· Score: 1
Really? Why would it be designed like that? (I know, this is slashdot, technology and information design is not a strong point)
Do you have a citation for this that can confirm this is how it works?
After Philips raised a stink, the record labels just dropped the "COMPACT disc DIGITAL AUDIO" mark from the packaging and continued on their DRMing ways.
Except that they, you know, didn't.
You'd be hard pressed to find one of those "DRMed" or "noncompliant" CDs in a store these days. They were a very brief anomaly.
I don't know if anybody cares about interviews; but research tends to demonstrate that pirates are, as a body, more enthusiastic about(and bigger consumers of) music than non-pirates.
That only applies to sea shanties, not music in general.
I for one welcome this idea. Instead of penalizing the legitimate buyers of a product with DRM, they are attempting to reward the buyers with additional content.
What makes you think this new file format won't have DRM?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, where I'm confused, is why would anybody want to be identified with fundamentalist Christianity? I can understand identifying with Christianity, but if you look at the history of fundamentalism, why would anyone want to even go near that? (By anyone, I mean anyone in a modern, educated context.)
On the other hand, an extreme amount of reason leads to paranoia and eventually insanity. At some point we have to assume that we can rely on previous conclusions and stop second-guessing everything. We use a little faith to believe that gravity will hold our shoes to the floor, and we walk to the bathroom without thinking about it and without taking any precautions that we might fly off the face of the earth. We
None of that requires faith. It's simply observation and experience. That's perfectly rational, and will not cause you to become paranoid or insane.
Religion does require faith, because nobody has seen a virgin birth, or the world flooded and all the animals saved in an ark, or water turning into wine, etc. This belief in myths is completely different, because it is a belief in things that one hasn't witnessed, and from normal human experience, one would not expect to happen.
But your definition just says "often capitalized" so this is not a hard and fast thing. People often refer to the first definition without capitalizing it, so it's impossible to know what he was referring to simply based on capitalization.
You also ignore the history of fundamentalism and the way the term is typically used - it usually describes a Protestant sect that basically hates on everything outside a narrow world view.
So what you really meant to say was that all religious people are crazy.
No, I didn't say all religious people. Most religious people don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
That's fine, I simply misinterpreted your bashing for an honest interest in why anyone might self-identify as a fundamentalist.
I am honestly interested.
Therefore one would assume he considers himself to adhere strictly to the principals of Christianity, not a member of a movement relating to strict literal interpretation of the entire bible.
Then why would he call himself a fundamentalist? I'm supposed to read some profound meaning into his use of capitalization?
It's flawed logic. People believe that because most people who murder on behalf of religion are fundamentalist or extremist, that all fundamentalists and extremists are murderers.
I don't recall writing that all fundamentalists are murderers. Most fundamentalists are nice, peaceful people. But they are not rational people. How can you be rational and be a self-described fundamentalist at the same time?
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs 2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles
Right. A belief in a literal interpretation of the Bible is insane.
Just because fundamentalist has started to have a connotation of terrorist because of the media exposure crazy people get
I never associated fundamentalism with terrorism. I do associate it with craziness, because the belief is fundamentally flawed and rationally unsupportable. This is what I was getting at - how do you identify yourself as subscribing to a crazy belief, and not think; "wow, I'm really fucking out there" unless there is something very wrong with you?
So just because someone self-identifies as a fundamentalist does not mean they are a raging nutcase.
Well, it would be nice if self-described fundamentalists would actually define what they mean by fundamentalism. It seems to me that the definition they would be likely to adopt, is that they believe in the "scriptural inerrancy" of the Bible. But of course, that would make them nutcases. How could any modern person believe that and not think that it was kind of crazy?
The other definitions of "fundamentalist" are even more crazy than that. So, how exactly does one self-identify as a fundamentalist and not be crazy?
writes Laird, 'we're expected to pay for our own tools,
I don't think it's actually common for hired programmers to buy their own tools.
Guess it's time to stop reading Atlas Shrugged,
That's good advice for anyone.
It's just a very weird way to phrase it. Like people are board games or stand-up comedians or something.
This is the kind of behavior you don't want to be possible. Yet in the reality distortion field, it's a great thing suddenly.
Ummm, citation needed?
"Fun people"?
Clearly, no-one involved in the case has ever played a decent game of D&D.
Well, there's that, and there's also that many gangs don't have a single "leader" anyway, and are more "peer-to-peer" in their structure.
I would be categorized as a Christian fundamentalist,
That's pretty interesting. Why would one classify oneself as a Fundamentalist? The category of self-aware fundamentalist must be vanishingly small - because if you recognize that you've become a fundamentalist, wouldn't you want to do everything possible to quit being a fundamentalist?
The proliferation of game distribution platforms is very annoying. Which is why I am the CEO of a company that is introducing an innovative new product that distributes and manages game distribution platforms.
No, he's not saying you should believe anything is alright. He's saying you should realise it's not your problem.
Which is the exact fucking point of the quoted lyrics.
Then, one day I realized... THEY own the company. If they want to run it into the ground there's not a darn thing I can do to stop it. All I can do (as long as I'm working there) is show up and do the best job I can with what I've got... and communicate what I think the priorities should be from my chair. If they don't listen to me - and it all blows up someday - It's NOT my fault. It all has to do with giving up control.... which can be a very healthy thing spiritually and psychologically.
So, you're basically saying that...
Mommy's alright, Daddy's alright, they just seem a little weird
Surrender, surrender, but don't give yourself away
Thanks, now I can make an unemployment claim instead of having to threaten to quit because you didn't listen to me.
Yeah, those are some great options.
If you have that stuff documented, they can't screw you out of unemployment.
Wanna bet?
I would guess the reason is simply to reduce the huge number of story submissions that the editors must wade through.
How would this reduce the number of story submissions?
The reason I happen to know about it is that I attempted to submit a story a few days ago and ran in to this exact problem. The main url I wanted to link to was: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8476381.stm [bbc.co.uk]. Another slashdotter had already submitted the link, but included only a tiny one sentence blurb. The result was that the story was killed and the url can not be used for new submissions.
What proof do you have that the previous submission was the reason your story was "killed"?
That's nothing. I know of a planet that is made out of candy and chocolate and ponies. Just step into my vehicle, and I'll show it to you, little girl.
Really? Why would it be designed like that? (I know, this is slashdot, technology and information design is not a strong point)
Do you have a citation for this that can confirm this is how it works?
After Philips raised a stink, the record labels just dropped the "COMPACT disc DIGITAL AUDIO" mark from the packaging and continued on their DRMing ways.
Except that they, you know, didn't.
You'd be hard pressed to find one of those "DRMed" or "noncompliant" CDs in a store these days. They were a very brief anomaly.
I don't know if anybody cares about interviews; but research tends to demonstrate that pirates are, as a body, more enthusiastic about(and bigger consumers of) music than non-pirates.
That only applies to sea shanties, not music in general.
Not a quarter! Arr, he'll be dancin' for hours.
I for one welcome this idea. Instead of penalizing the legitimate buyers of a product with DRM, they are attempting to reward the buyers with additional content.
What makes you think this new file format won't have DRM?