Since I don't have kids, I can't judge the effectivenes of your approach. Furthermore, I thoroughly dislike the often proposed idea some things just happens because there's evil afoot. However, there's a very fine line between preaching responsibility for your actions and blaming the victim for circumstances beyond their control. As said, I don't know you, I don't know your kids. But I hope that they - and you - know the difference.
Where exactly did I say that religion had the market cornered on spiritual matters? I didn't - I simply said that the parts that make religion important are the spiritual aspects. Organized religion isn't the only way to get spiritual guidance, but it is certainly an effective way. The world will not collapse if there will be no religion, but I can guarantee you that someone will invent it. You fail to understand what religion provides to people, and simply assume that they'll work just as well without it. This is contrary to about 10000 years of human behavior, and quite easily understood if you look at what drives people to religion.
As for atheism being the absence of belief... you're confusing that at best with agnosticism, which is the lack of a position. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. See Nietzsche - God is dead (and God's Corollary - Nietzsche is dead). I'm about as rock-solid an atheist as you can find, and I know exactly how I got there. It certainly isn't the absence of belief, it is the presence of belief. The belief that things are best explained by not invoking some supernatural being.
Lastly, the proper response to anybody forcing their belief on you is not to say "hey, drop your belief. it sucks." Instead, try "How about you believe what you want, and you let me believe what I want?" You'll find people will be a lot more receptive.
Dammit - it's posts like these that give scientists and atheists a bad rap. Science has very, very little to do with faith. There is so much more to religion than mere explanation of the unexplainable. There's morality, social structure, hope, guidelines for life and many, many more ideas that are completely outside the scope of science. To replace religion with science is to completely miss the point of religion. Atheism might be called religion based on science, but it really isn't. At its core, it eschews science as much as christianity, islam or budhism.
Shame that I replied already in this thread, otherwise I would have modded you up. Bush was a frat jock; so were Cheney and Rumsfeld. And they still are frat jocks. And it shows. Fuck.
No, you can certainly blame Americans themselves, and I certainly do. I've traveled quite a bit, and nowhere have I seen intellectuals be as ridiculed as in the US. It starts in middle school (I don't think grade school can have intellectuals), and then gets continually worse. Have you listened to some of the political speeches? Why do you think that every presidential candidate does his best to be grimy, down-to-earth, blue-collar, and downright redneck? Why do you think that Bush could get away with stating that he has almost never read a book? Yes, the schools don't help. But don't go putting all the blame on the schools. Respect for learning starts at home, and it's completely missing in about 90% of American homes.
I'm sorry, but stating that "schools should teach the controversy" (quote from Bush) is not being neutral on the subject of creationism. This implies that there is a scientific controversy, when there isn't. I'm with you on the subject of having creationism discussed in philosophy or other, similar classes. But Bush ain't getting off the hook for his support for creationism.
I never understood why people can believe in microevolution, but macroevolution is an absolute no-no. If I tell you how a car moves, show you that a car moved 10 inches in a second, and then tell you that the car that was a month ago on the east coast is now on the west coast, are you going to tell me that it is unrealistic to assume that the car actually moved on its to the west coast? Of course not. Yet, it seems that that's exactly the logic that creationists use when arguing that macroevolution is ludicrous, but microevolution is fin.
Since when did lazyness become an excuse for ignorance? I understand stupidity, but lazyness? It's not like evolution is tensor algebra. The science behind it is straightforward, the experiments are straightforward, and you can even see it in daily life. Arguing that evolution is one of those things where it is ok to be ignorant about is like arguing that people really don't need to know math. Yes, it might be true given specific circumstances, but it lessens you as a human being when you reject knowledge that is easily within reach.
Your definition of faith is very narrow - it only covers the so-called "god of the gaps". Definitions of god can cover much greater areas. God can be strictly spiritual, strictly moral, a combination thereof; can be human, superhuman; and the list goes on. The definition of god is as diverse as the people who believe in a god.
All this to say that science cannot threaten faith. On the contrary, they can be complementary. However, people can feel that their faith is threatened by science. But these people belong to a very narrow group. Not only do they define their god as a god of gaps, but they also believe that their faith is perfect, and therefore static. Their error is the error of hubris and arrogance - even if they'll never be able to see that.
While I generally agree with your post, I'll point out that growing up in rich or middle class families is no guarantee not to be heavily traumatized. Thanks to dating someone who was privy (and sort of part) of the group of super-wealthy elites who have no needs, but only wants, I can tell you that their kids are among the most emotionally abused (and, occasionally, physically) on the planet. This does not exonerate them from their adult behavior, but does give context to it.
Actually, the name change to Global Climate Change was spearheaded by scientists, who thought that Global Warming was too narrow in its implications. They figured out that increases in average global temperatures could result in the decrease of local temperatures, changes in rainfall, changes in wind patterns and all kinds of other things that significantly affect the lives of local populations. Hence the more appropriate name of Global Climate Change, which, even though it sounds more innocous, is actually more terrifying in its consequences.
Ah yes - the parenting through beatdowns method. May I suggest something? Attend a parenting class. Pronto. Or at least at any point before you have kids. I have heard (and seen) enough of the consequences of beatdowns to know that if you're very, very, very lucky, your kid will only have to go through a couple months of therapy to get over the psychological trauma inflicted by your beatdowns. If your luck is merely good, you'll be left either with a psychological midget or a sociopath.
This doesn't mean that you should never touch your kids. But your mention of beating your kid like a red-headed step-child brought up all kinds of warning flags and 2nd hand stories. To me, it's actually quite obvious you have not gotten over being bullied. I do think it's great that you managed to fight back (and that's true - bullies hate hard targets; they're lazy and cowardly), but beating your child as a general rule will perpetuate the cycle, not break it. I seriously do hope you look into parenting classes.
How did this crap get modded insightful? Yeah, sure - a couple of thousand people who believe in the Q'ran decide to blow up people, and suddenly all Muslims want the head of all Christians. Do you also believe that because some Christians bombed a federal building, that all Christians want to kill all government workers? Do you believe that because there are some black people that killed some white people, that all black people want to exterminate the white race?
You're right that the timeline did not start with 9/11. But you are completely, patently and dangerously wrong in your assertion that this is a battle between Islam and the West. Dangerously wrong because your idea would indeed lead us straight into WWIII and genocide on a scale not yet experienced. And even if we would win that war, we would never actually win - you can't kill a belief, an idea or a thought. Instead, this will be Israel vs Palestine, except on a global scale, and with far more guns, bombs, and nukes.
Sorry, but that attitude can only be born by someone who has neither experienced war, nor has experienced the loss that comes from war. I hope you personally experience these things, because that will be the only thing that will teach you exactly how fucking wrong you are.
And exactly what do you think is "serious"? I'm guessing you're advocating just shooting everyone who looks suspicious. After all, they wouldn't look suspicious if they wouldn't have something to hide.
And btw, one well-educated and well-off terrorist (or two, or three) does not mean that all are. Or that self-determination means being able to vote.
Nice oversimplification of the problem. What it actually means that when the West says that they want to spread democracy, the West actually means they want to have people in power that it likes, and that any other outcomes of the elections mean War. Now let me ask you this: how would you react to anybody telling you who you should vote for? Specifically, how would you react to Saudi Arabia telling you to vote your local Imam into office, or the oil gets cut off?
No, what the result of Hamas being put into office in a democratic fashion is that people believe that Hamas will do more to better their lives through a political process than any other party. Similarly, it means that the Lebanese believe that at least some Hezbollah officials will do more for them politically than other Lebanese officials. Whether there is still a "military" wing (terrorist wing is indeed the more apt name) of Hamas or Hezbollah is irrelevant. By waging war on the political wing of these organizations, you are sending the clear message that the Palestinians and Lebanese have no real political choice, that their true masters are hated foreigners, and that "military" action is the only possible way of getting control over their lives.
You cannot extoll the virtues of political discourse, only to bomb and kill politicians when you happen to not like them. At that point, you indeed deserve the inevitable, one-and-only possible outcome of your War: death, destruction and sorrow on all sides for as long as your War continues.
NPR had a very interesting talk with an ex-green beret who was responsible for coordinating with the local power brokers after the invasion took place. His comments were that we completely missed what was important to them, and we talked to them in terms they didn't understand.
In a nutshell, everything there is predicated on local power cells, because local power cells control local access to resources - water, grass, even oil. These are all finite resources, which entails that a lot of their thinking is predicated around zer-sum games. You lose a well, I gain a well. I lose a pasture, you gain one. Finally, the concepts of honor and shame seem to be paramount. Not only that, but they are apparently also treated as a finite resource. Everytime the americans gain honor when they build a soccer stadium, the locals lose honor because they didn't build it.
From this perspective, it becomes blindingly obvious why all current attempts at linking up with the local power brokers have failed. These are not the only reasons, but they bring context to what has obviously been so far a dialogue of deaf people.
I think the government really does have its priorities, but monitoring 10 million computers to find out what porn sites people like to visit isn't one of them.
As much as I would love to agree with you, I can't. Did you forget that the top priority of the DoJ is currently fighting adult porn?
I think the reason that the current administration bears more responsibility for the MS and katrina fiascos is because for the former, the Bush administration was very happy to ditch the DoJ investigation as soon as it had been elecetd. For the latter, it bears responsibility because it put someone completely unqualified in charge of FEMA, and who subsequently turned what used to be a highly regarded organization into a complete laughingstock.
I think before calling people naive, you might want to check what said people are exactly saying. No one said (and certainly not the post you replied to) that governments should be abolished. No, what he said is that if some government is good, more government is not better. There are many instances where it is patently obvious that more government is actually far, far worse than no government at all. And one of those instances is, gasp, Africa. Far from being weak governments that wreck havoc there, it is the strong, autocratic and centralized governments that are responsible for the worst abuses. Darfur is not a problem because of too little government, it is a problem because the government cannot be stopped by the population it is terrorizing.
Again - the central problem raised is not that government in general is bad. The central point is that more government is not the answer to government problems.
Alzheimer's patients, sociopaths, serial killers and others are all clinically insane, yet we can and do predict their actions on a regular basis. What's so different about predicting how terrorists behave? Does joining Al-qaeda mean that you have suddenly morphed into a life-form so alien that no one should even try to predict what you're doing?
Or is all this "they're terrorists, who knows what they were thinking" just an excuse to not have to question what you're doing?
Why is it people keep arguing from personal opion about PSP games?
Because my opinion is the only one that counts when I make a decision on what to purchase. I do look to others to see whether my opinion might change on a particular game, but in the end, it is all my opinion that leads to my decision on whether to buy a game or not.
Besides, Metracritic is just as useless as EGM's ratings or CNET's ratings. Are all the scores they use to create their ratings created with the same scale in mind? What does a 75 mean, anyway? Why did one player think a game is great (and gave it an 80), while another thought it is merely good (and gave it an 85)?
In short, simply using a larger sample size to create their number has no impact on whether their number is better than others. In the end, all the numbers are STILL personal preference. All metacritic is doing is averaging out numbers created with different scales and for different reasons. Their single number is actually less than useless, it is outright misleading.
Yup. Fully agree. Just like the airlines have installed banks of self-checkin kiosks, and where the lone employee only deals with special requests (can I take my great dane on the plane in my lap?), putting the luggage on the belt behind the counter, and calling support for broken kiosks.
That said, there'll always be a place for fully humanized burger joints. Even if it is for no other reason than humans simply like to interact with humans.
Note sure if the last paragraph is a sig or part of your post, but personally, I'd rather have it work the other way around. People should think. Machines should work. But that's just me.
Addiction can be physical (the body can't properly function without the artificial chemical) or mental (the brain has gotten used to specific stimulations and requires them to reach certain emotional states). Yes, this is a heavy oversimplification, but that's the basic idea - please feel free to flesh it out if you know the details. Gaming addiction is the latter, and is just as real as heroin addiction (the former). Be happy that you don't have a propensity for mental addiction. I know I have it, and I have skirted disaster on occasion because of it (damn you, Jagged Alliance 2!!!). It's not fun, it requires careful attention and a social network to deal with it, and it is the reason why I don't touch WoW and why I don't gamble.
Slashdot Mirror
Since I don't have kids, I can't judge the effectivenes of your approach. Furthermore, I thoroughly dislike the often proposed idea some things just happens because there's evil afoot. However, there's a very fine line between preaching responsibility for your actions and blaming the victim for circumstances beyond their control. As said, I don't know you, I don't know your kids. But I hope that they - and you - know the difference.
Where exactly did I say that religion had the market cornered on spiritual matters? I didn't - I simply said that the parts that make religion important are the spiritual aspects. Organized religion isn't the only way to get spiritual guidance, but it is certainly an effective way. The world will not collapse if there will be no religion, but I can guarantee you that someone will invent it. You fail to understand what religion provides to people, and simply assume that they'll work just as well without it. This is contrary to about 10000 years of human behavior, and quite easily understood if you look at what drives people to religion.
As for atheism being the absence of belief... you're confusing that at best with agnosticism, which is the lack of a position. Atheism is the belief that there is no god. See Nietzsche - God is dead (and God's Corollary - Nietzsche is dead). I'm about as rock-solid an atheist as you can find, and I know exactly how I got there. It certainly isn't the absence of belief, it is the presence of belief. The belief that things are best explained by not invoking some supernatural being.
Lastly, the proper response to anybody forcing their belief on you is not to say "hey, drop your belief. it sucks." Instead, try "How about you believe what you want, and you let me believe what I want?" You'll find people will be a lot more receptive.
Dammit - it's posts like these that give scientists and atheists a bad rap. Science has very, very little to do with faith. There is so much more to religion than mere explanation of the unexplainable. There's morality, social structure, hope, guidelines for life and many, many more ideas that are completely outside the scope of science. To replace religion with science is to completely miss the point of religion. Atheism might be called religion based on science, but it really isn't. At its core, it eschews science as much as christianity, islam or budhism.
Shame that I replied already in this thread, otherwise I would have modded you up. Bush was a frat jock; so were Cheney and Rumsfeld. And they still are frat jocks. And it shows. Fuck.
No, you can certainly blame Americans themselves, and I certainly do. I've traveled quite a bit, and nowhere have I seen intellectuals be as ridiculed as in the US. It starts in middle school (I don't think grade school can have intellectuals), and then gets continually worse. Have you listened to some of the political speeches? Why do you think that every presidential candidate does his best to be grimy, down-to-earth, blue-collar, and downright redneck? Why do you think that Bush could get away with stating that he has almost never read a book? Yes, the schools don't help. But don't go putting all the blame on the schools. Respect for learning starts at home, and it's completely missing in about 90% of American homes.
I'm sorry, but stating that "schools should teach the controversy" (quote from Bush) is not being neutral on the subject of creationism. This implies that there is a scientific controversy, when there isn't. I'm with you on the subject of having creationism discussed in philosophy or other, similar classes. But Bush ain't getting off the hook for his support for creationism.
I never understood why people can believe in microevolution, but macroevolution is an absolute no-no. If I tell you how a car moves, show you that a car moved 10 inches in a second, and then tell you that the car that was a month ago on the east coast is now on the west coast, are you going to tell me that it is unrealistic to assume that the car actually moved on its to the west coast? Of course not. Yet, it seems that that's exactly the logic that creationists use when arguing that macroevolution is ludicrous, but microevolution is fin.
Since when did lazyness become an excuse for ignorance? I understand stupidity, but lazyness? It's not like evolution is tensor algebra. The science behind it is straightforward, the experiments are straightforward, and you can even see it in daily life. Arguing that evolution is one of those things where it is ok to be ignorant about is like arguing that people really don't need to know math. Yes, it might be true given specific circumstances, but it lessens you as a human being when you reject knowledge that is easily within reach.
Your definition of faith is very narrow - it only covers the so-called "god of the gaps". Definitions of god can cover much greater areas. God can be strictly spiritual, strictly moral, a combination thereof; can be human, superhuman; and the list goes on. The definition of god is as diverse as the people who believe in a god.
All this to say that science cannot threaten faith. On the contrary, they can be complementary. However, people can feel that their faith is threatened by science. But these people belong to a very narrow group. Not only do they define their god as a god of gaps, but they also believe that their faith is perfect, and therefore static. Their error is the error of hubris and arrogance - even if they'll never be able to see that.
While I generally agree with your post, I'll point out that growing up in rich or middle class families is no guarantee not to be heavily traumatized. Thanks to dating someone who was privy (and sort of part) of the group of super-wealthy elites who have no needs, but only wants, I can tell you that their kids are among the most emotionally abused (and, occasionally, physically) on the planet. This does not exonerate them from their adult behavior, but does give context to it.
Actually, the name change to Global Climate Change was spearheaded by scientists, who thought that Global Warming was too narrow in its implications. They figured out that increases in average global temperatures could result in the decrease of local temperatures, changes in rainfall, changes in wind patterns and all kinds of other things that significantly affect the lives of local populations. Hence the more appropriate name of Global Climate Change, which, even though it sounds more innocous, is actually more terrifying in its consequences.
Ah yes - the parenting through beatdowns method. May I suggest something? Attend a parenting class. Pronto. Or at least at any point before you have kids. I have heard (and seen) enough of the consequences of beatdowns to know that if you're very, very, very lucky, your kid will only have to go through a couple months of therapy to get over the psychological trauma inflicted by your beatdowns. If your luck is merely good, you'll be left either with a psychological midget or a sociopath.
This doesn't mean that you should never touch your kids. But your mention of beating your kid like a red-headed step-child brought up all kinds of warning flags and 2nd hand stories. To me, it's actually quite obvious you have not gotten over being bullied. I do think it's great that you managed to fight back (and that's true - bullies hate hard targets; they're lazy and cowardly), but beating your child as a general rule will perpetuate the cycle, not break it. I seriously do hope you look into parenting classes.
You answer 50 to 80 emails a day? How do you get anything done?
How did this crap get modded insightful? Yeah, sure - a couple of thousand people who believe in the Q'ran decide to blow up people, and suddenly all Muslims want the head of all Christians. Do you also believe that because some Christians bombed a federal building, that all Christians want to kill all government workers? Do you believe that because there are some black people that killed some white people, that all black people want to exterminate the white race?
You're right that the timeline did not start with 9/11. But you are completely, patently and dangerously wrong in your assertion that this is a battle between Islam and the West. Dangerously wrong because your idea would indeed lead us straight into WWIII and genocide on a scale not yet experienced. And even if we would win that war, we would never actually win - you can't kill a belief, an idea or a thought. Instead, this will be Israel vs Palestine, except on a global scale, and with far more guns, bombs, and nukes.
Sorry, but that attitude can only be born by someone who has neither experienced war, nor has experienced the loss that comes from war. I hope you personally experience these things, because that will be the only thing that will teach you exactly how fucking wrong you are.
And exactly what do you think is "serious"? I'm guessing you're advocating just shooting everyone who looks suspicious. After all, they wouldn't look suspicious if they wouldn't have something to hide.
And btw, one well-educated and well-off terrorist (or two, or three) does not mean that all are. Or that self-determination means being able to vote.
Nice oversimplification of the problem. What it actually means that when the West says that they want to spread democracy, the West actually means they want to have people in power that it likes, and that any other outcomes of the elections mean War. Now let me ask you this: how would you react to anybody telling you who you should vote for? Specifically, how would you react to Saudi Arabia telling you to vote your local Imam into office, or the oil gets cut off?
No, what the result of Hamas being put into office in a democratic fashion is that people believe that Hamas will do more to better their lives through a political process than any other party. Similarly, it means that the Lebanese believe that at least some Hezbollah officials will do more for them politically than other Lebanese officials. Whether there is still a "military" wing (terrorist wing is indeed the more apt name) of Hamas or Hezbollah is irrelevant. By waging war on the political wing of these organizations, you are sending the clear message that the Palestinians and Lebanese have no real political choice, that their true masters are hated foreigners, and that "military" action is the only possible way of getting control over their lives.
You cannot extoll the virtues of political discourse, only to bomb and kill politicians when you happen to not like them. At that point, you indeed deserve the inevitable, one-and-only possible outcome of your War: death, destruction and sorrow on all sides for as long as your War continues.
NPR had a very interesting talk with an ex-green beret who was responsible for coordinating with the local power brokers after the invasion took place. His comments were that we completely missed what was important to them, and we talked to them in terms they didn't understand.
In a nutshell, everything there is predicated on local power cells, because local power cells control local access to resources - water, grass, even oil. These are all finite resources, which entails that a lot of their thinking is predicated around zer-sum games. You lose a well, I gain a well. I lose a pasture, you gain one. Finally, the concepts of honor and shame seem to be paramount. Not only that, but they are apparently also treated as a finite resource. Everytime the americans gain honor when they build a soccer stadium, the locals lose honor because they didn't build it.
From this perspective, it becomes blindingly obvious why all current attempts at linking up with the local power brokers have failed. These are not the only reasons, but they bring context to what has obviously been so far a dialogue of deaf people.
As much as I would love to agree with you, I can't. Did you forget that the top priority of the DoJ is currently fighting adult porn?
I think the reason that the current administration bears more responsibility for the MS and katrina fiascos is because for the former, the Bush administration was very happy to ditch the DoJ investigation as soon as it had been elecetd. For the latter, it bears responsibility because it put someone completely unqualified in charge of FEMA, and who subsequently turned what used to be a highly regarded organization into a complete laughingstock.
I think before calling people naive, you might want to check what said people are exactly saying. No one said (and certainly not the post you replied to) that governments should be abolished. No, what he said is that if some government is good, more government is not better. There are many instances where it is patently obvious that more government is actually far, far worse than no government at all. And one of those instances is, gasp, Africa. Far from being weak governments that wreck havoc there, it is the strong, autocratic and centralized governments that are responsible for the worst abuses. Darfur is not a problem because of too little government, it is a problem because the government cannot be stopped by the population it is terrorizing.
Again - the central problem raised is not that government in general is bad. The central point is that more government is not the answer to government problems.
Alzheimer's patients, sociopaths, serial killers and others are all clinically insane, yet we can and do predict their actions on a regular basis. What's so different about predicting how terrorists behave? Does joining Al-qaeda mean that you have suddenly morphed into a life-form so alien that no one should even try to predict what you're doing?
Or is all this "they're terrorists, who knows what they were thinking" just an excuse to not have to question what you're doing?
Because my opinion is the only one that counts when I make a decision on what to purchase. I do look to others to see whether my opinion might change on a particular game, but in the end, it is all my opinion that leads to my decision on whether to buy a game or not.
Besides, Metracritic is just as useless as EGM's ratings or CNET's ratings. Are all the scores they use to create their ratings created with the same scale in mind? What does a 75 mean, anyway? Why did one player think a game is great (and gave it an 80), while another thought it is merely good (and gave it an 85)?
In short, simply using a larger sample size to create their number has no impact on whether their number is better than others. In the end, all the numbers are STILL personal preference. All metacritic is doing is averaging out numbers created with different scales and for different reasons. Their single number is actually less than useless, it is outright misleading.
Yup. Fully agree. Just like the airlines have installed banks of self-checkin kiosks, and where the lone employee only deals with special requests (can I take my great dane on the plane in my lap?), putting the luggage on the belt behind the counter, and calling support for broken kiosks.
That said, there'll always be a place for fully humanized burger joints. Even if it is for no other reason than humans simply like to interact with humans.
Note sure if the last paragraph is a sig or part of your post, but personally, I'd rather have it work the other way around. People should think. Machines should work. But that's just me.
Addiction can be physical (the body can't properly function without the artificial chemical) or mental (the brain has gotten used to specific stimulations and requires them to reach certain emotional states). Yes, this is a heavy oversimplification, but that's the basic idea - please feel free to flesh it out if you know the details. Gaming addiction is the latter, and is just as real as heroin addiction (the former). Be happy that you don't have a propensity for mental addiction. I know I have it, and I have skirted disaster on occasion because of it (damn you, Jagged Alliance 2!!!). It's not fun, it requires careful attention and a social network to deal with it, and it is the reason why I don't touch WoW and why I don't gamble.