I agree completely with everything you just said. Absolutely everything.
A couple points though - while not uniquely American, these lawsuits are almost exclusively American corporate endeavours. I've never heard of a Mexican recording company suing anyone, or a British publishing house trying to extend their copyright to other countries. In fact, there's one Canadian indie music label that's helping an American to fight the RIAA's lawsuit. So while it's wrong to say "only Americans" do this kind of thing, the frequency of American involvement cannot be ignored.
Also, posts here do tend to focus on national boundaries as culture boundaries. I've tried to say "society" to edge away from that - but I don't think it's worked.
I've taken quite a bit of flack for that post - because people don't read it properly, and try to infer that I hate America or something. I'm glad someone here is still on topic.:)
You know what? I'm tired of having to guess what I said to make you think I think America has no culture. I'm tired.
Can you just tell me? Just quote the line. If you can quote the line where I say "I think America has no culture" or "American culture is terrible" then I will sincerely apologize.
But, if you can't find anything I've said to say that, you owe me an apology for your farce of a debate.
I never said America has no culture. If anyone could read what I've posted... but noooooo, jump the little guy.
ThePhillip made a comment about the US having no culture - Paeanblack said America did have culture because people spend money on it - he meant the by-products of culture, the economy, but that's not culture, and that's what I said: "you cannot buy culture". I then comment on how, because of his lack of knowledge of the subject (or perhaps just the language), he has helped prove ThePhillip's point about the US not having culture.
Now, I never said the US doesn't have culture. Okay?!
And for the record - good economy does not equal "good culture". Just because someone pays for your shit, doesn't stop it from being shit.
But, it is still impossible by it's very definition, for a society to not have a culture. Okay?! Jeez.
Apparently, no one understands that I was making fun of him. What he posted was stupid, so I ridiculed him for it.
He said "Why does the rest of the world spend so much of their [money] on American culture if it doesn't exist?". He doesn't understand what culture is (see the other replies for somebody trying to argue with me and proving me right).
He tried to link economy to culture - which is stupid.
He's talking about popular media - but that's not "culture", which is what the post he replied to was about.
This is disheartening... very slowly, read this. This is a quote from the post I originally replied to.
Why does the rest of the world spend so much of their euros/yen/RMB/won/pesos/etc on American culture if it doesn't exist?
Now, just to make sure you caught that... I'll print it again: if it doesn't exist.
Not "if it's worthless". He said "if it doesn't exist".
No one said American culture was worthless - someone said it didn't exist.
And due to the specific words he used, he implied that culture could be measured monetarily. It's "culture" not "blockbuster films".
Furthermore, your (correct) definition of "culture" helped to prove my point and proved he had no culture. I didn't define what culture was - you did. If you're going to be mad at someone for saying he has no culture, you'll have to be mad at yourself. I worked withing the framework you provided.
"You made the same mistake again" - of not being able to read (his post, my posts, your own posts).
*sigh* If you want to bring semantics into this...
There are two related meanings of "culture" at play here: [1] A group's language, religion, art, and customs and [2] familiarity with and sensitivity to the fine points of the culture[1] of your own and other societies.
So, to recap, "culture" is either [1]"the unsubstantial stuff in my society" or [2]"knowing about the unsubstantial stuff in my society". Now what you may not have realized is that the message I replied to said...
Why does the rest of the world spend so much of their euros/yen/RMB/won/pesos/etc on American culture if it doesn't exist?
He's trying to say that he has culture because people pay money for it. But that contradicts [1] - you cannot buy or sell unsubstantial items. And because he fails to have knowledge about what his culture is he fails to meet the prerequisites for [2].
So he personally has no culture and, because he tried to speak for his whole society, he labels his whole society thus.
In other words - he and you together proved America has no culture. I wasn't needed at all.:)
Actually, RadioShach has been bought out by Circut City in Canada - they're called "the Source: by Circut City" now. Same store, new name, same idiot employees.
Who are these "Students for a Free Tibet"? They care enough about another nation to join a protest group... but only while they're students? Well, I guess that explains why they're rallying against Google instead of the Chinese government.
"Hey, Tibet sucks ass. Let's help them out. But only for four years, then fuck 'em."
"True that. Hey, I heard they have terrible government mandated censorship in China. Let's picket an American company."
"You are a genius!"
I agree completely, the truth we know is shaped completely by how well we understand the world, what we want to know, and who we allow to dictate that history. My point was that there is a substantial difference between that "truth" and the truth. It's true that both are flowing, changing, fluctuating "truths" but one changes because we believe it to change, while the other changes when something actually changes.
Today I'm not feeling as bad as I did yesterday, recovering from a flu, and I also got my paycheck today.' That's a factual description of an event (or state of affairs) that have occured today. Now. Please tell me that you know this is the truth, and how you know it.
Oh, there may be some confusion - I never meant to imply that there's any way of actually knowing the truth. The truth is an imperical fact (like the mass of this apple, here) and even though we may not know the truth (I'm guessing 100g), the truth still exists* (it probably weighs more, I'm just so super buff I don't notice it:P).
There are other "truths", the truth you know, the truth I know, the truth that might be, the truth that will be - but these are merely psycological ideas and not basic unchangable fact (like the apple). The "truth" I know might change tommorow, but the truth never deviates.
*
Of course there's those pesky quantum phyiscs ideas about the apple not exiasting if I'm not aware of it... but I choose to ignore that (which means if those theories exist, they don't exist, 'cause I'm ignoring them):P
Having these rules in paper, and actually following through with them are completely different things. Remember, there are lots of governments that regularly break international law, even ones that those countries themselves created. For a (non-debate raising) US example: softwood lumber trade with Canada, both countries agreed years ago on tariff prices and terms, and because of a US complaint even changed the rules (in their favour) over a decade ago. Now they refuse to pay out the millions of dollars (that's USD mind you) that they've not paid.
Now I don't want to scare anyone away from RFID technology - I think it's the bee's knees, myself - but I just want people to remember that big government is, almost without exception, bad government.
The way you're explaining Tautology is misguided. Through your definition anything I say could be tautologist. I'm not saying "the truth is the truth" I'm saying "the truth (of history) is a factual description of events". I'm not saying "a cow is a cow" I'm saying "a cow is a mammal".
I agree that we have little to base our understanding of history on except other people's accounts - but that does not change "the truth".
Think of it like this: The speed of light doesn't change because you think it does. If we believed that light traveled at 12,000,000 metres a second, light wouldn't say "hey, if they say so..." and speed up. Just like "the truth", what we believe doesn't change the actual events of the past.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Your "what has actually occurred" seems so divine, yes?", could I get some clarification?
"Truth isn't a psychological state - it's a fact" isn't tautology, "A logical tautology is a statement that is true regardless of the truth values of its parts. For example, the statement "All crows are either black, or they are not black," is a tautology, because it is true no matter what color crows are." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology. I didn't say "Truth is either a psychological state or a fact" - that would have been tautology.
I hope repeating it will make it clearer to you.
And, in fact, a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter" are different titles. The same person may be called each name by different people, but that doesn't make that person both (remember what I said about truth being a fact?)
A "freedom fighter" is a person who, obviously, "fights for freedom" for himself, as well as others, against a corrupt government. A "terrorist" is a person who uses violent, "terrorizing" tactics to further their own gains.
It is possible for a "freedom fighter" to be a "terrorist", or vice versa, but not necessary.
It's possible for a "freedom fighter" to fight for freedom without resorting to terrorism. And a "terrorist" may actually be fighting for the freedom of his people.
But none of that changes the fact that the truth is not decided by people. Saying one group of "freedom fighters" are "terrorists" doesn't change what has actually occurred in the past.
REPEAT: what you, or anyone else, may say regarding ANYTING that has previously occurred will NOT change what has actually occurred.
Artificial? How is it artificial? Lemmings don't "artificially" kill themselves (except if they're those cute computer Lemmings) and these suicide clubbers are exactly the same.
"History", as truth, cannot be changed. Just because you say it happened such-and-such a way, doesn't mean it actually happened like that.
This is not a debate about truth - there is only one truth. Any who disagree don't understand the concept.
Truth isn't a psychological state - it's a fact.
The world is round. For the last few billion years, it has been round. If I say "in 1872 between the months of June and October, the Earth ceased to be round and instead was rendered flat" doesn't make it history. Repeat: doesn't make it hisory.
Back to the Iraq Invasion example... Iraq was blamed for harbouring terrorists, producing WMDs, and having a threatening stance against the United States. This is not "opinion history" as you would like it, it is simple fact. If all the reports, memos, press conference tapings, and witnesses to them were taken out of existence - it would still be fact. The US Government now says those reasons were never the reasons given for invading Iraq, but, just because they say this doesn't make it true.
Remember kids, when someone says something, they might be lying. Check the facts, ask questions, make your own decision
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely with everything you just said. Absolutely everything.
:)
A couple points though - while not uniquely American, these lawsuits are almost exclusively American corporate endeavours. I've never heard of a Mexican recording company suing anyone, or a British publishing house trying to extend their copyright to other countries. In fact, there's one Canadian indie music label that's helping an American to fight the RIAA's lawsuit. So while it's wrong to say "only Americans" do this kind of thing, the frequency of American involvement cannot be ignored.
Also, posts here do tend to focus on national boundaries as culture boundaries. I've tried to say "society" to edge away from that - but I don't think it's worked.
I've taken quite a bit of flack for that post - because people don't read it properly, and try to infer that I hate America or something. I'm glad someone here is still on topic.
You know what? I'm tired of having to guess what I said to make you think I think America has no culture. I'm tired.
Can you just tell me? Just quote the line. If you can quote the line where I say "I think America has no culture" or "American culture is terrible" then I will sincerely apologize.
But, if you can't find anything I've said to say that, you owe me an apology for your farce of a debate.
I never said America has no culture. If anyone could read what I've posted... but noooooo, jump the little guy.
ThePhillip made a comment about the US having no culture - Paeanblack said America did have culture because people spend money on it - he meant the by-products of culture, the economy, but that's not culture, and that's what I said: "you cannot buy culture". I then comment on how, because of his lack of knowledge of the subject (or perhaps just the language), he has helped prove ThePhillip's point about the US not having culture.
Now, I never said the US doesn't have culture. Okay?!
And for the record - good economy does not equal "good culture". Just because someone pays for your shit, doesn't stop it from being shit.
But, it is still impossible by it's very definition, for a society to not have a culture. Okay?! Jeez.
AAARRGGGHHH!!
Apparently, no one understands that I was making fun of him. What he posted was stupid, so I ridiculed him for it.
He said "Why does the rest of the world spend so much of their [money] on American culture if it doesn't exist?". He doesn't understand what culture is (see the other replies for somebody trying to argue with me and proving me right).
He tried to link economy to culture - which is stupid.
He's talking about popular media - but that's not "culture", which is what the post he replied to was about.
This is disheartening... very slowly, read this. This is a quote from the post I originally replied to.
Why does the rest of the world spend so much of their euros/yen/RMB/won/pesos/etc on American culture if it doesn't exist?
Now, just to make sure you caught that... I'll print it again: if it doesn't exist.
Not "if it's worthless". He said "if it doesn't exist".
No one said American culture was worthless - someone said it didn't exist.
And due to the specific words he used, he implied that culture could be measured monetarily. It's "culture" not "blockbuster films".
Furthermore, your (correct) definition of "culture" helped to prove my point and proved he had no culture. I didn't define what culture was - you did. If you're going to be mad at someone for saying he has no culture, you'll have to be mad at yourself. I worked withing the framework you provided.
"You made the same mistake again" - of not being able to read (his post, my posts, your own posts).
*sigh* If you want to bring semantics into this...
:)
There are two related meanings of "culture" at play here: [1] A group's language, religion, art, and customs and [2] familiarity with and sensitivity to the fine points of the culture[1] of your own and other societies.
So, to recap, "culture" is either [1]"the unsubstantial stuff in my society" or [2]"knowing about the unsubstantial stuff in my society". Now what you may not have realized is that the message I replied to said...
Why does the rest of the world spend so much of their euros/yen/RMB/won/pesos/etc on American culture if it doesn't exist?
He's trying to say that he has culture because people pay money for it. But that contradicts [1] - you cannot buy or sell unsubstantial items. And because he fails to have knowledge about what his culture is he fails to meet the prerequisites for [2].
So he personally has no culture and, because he tried to speak for his whole society, he labels his whole society thus.
In other words - he and you together proved America has no culture. I wasn't needed at all.
Have a nice day.
You forgot...
4. Reminding people that downloading copyrighted works isn't illegal everywhere.
I (heart) Canada.
Oh for fuck sakes...
You cannot buy culture. You learn about it, you appriciate it, you emulate it.
You have just proven his point - you have no culture, and apparently no idea how to debate.
Actually, RadioShach has been bought out by Circut City in Canada - they're called "the Source: by Circut City" now. Same store, new name, same idiot employees.
"... in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Glad I live in Canada - no sight of censorship from that link that I can see.
Huh? Wrong story?
Who are these "Students for a Free Tibet"? They care enough about another nation to join a protest group... but only while they're students? Well, I guess that explains why they're rallying against Google instead of the Chinese government.
"Hey, Tibet sucks ass. Let's help them out. But only for four years, then fuck 'em."
"True that. Hey, I heard they have terrible government mandated censorship in China. Let's picket an American company."
"You are a genius!"
Damn kids.
At least this kind of thinking hasn't shifted to other companies.
Just think if Sony tried to give away copies of Everquest 2... oh wait...
I agree completely, the truth we know is shaped completely by how well we understand the world, what we want to know, and who we allow to dictate that history. My point was that there is a substantial difference between that "truth" and the truth. It's true that both are flowing, changing, fluctuating "truths" but one changes because we believe it to change, while the other changes when something actually changes.
Today I'm not feeling as bad as I did yesterday, recovering from a flu, and I also got my paycheck today.' That's a factual description of an event (or state of affairs) that have occured today. Now. Please tell me that you know this is the truth, and how you know it. :P).
:P
Oh, there may be some confusion - I never meant to imply that there's any way of actually knowing the truth. The truth is an imperical fact (like the mass of this apple, here) and even though we may not know the truth (I'm guessing 100g), the truth still exists* (it probably weighs more, I'm just so super buff I don't notice it
There are other "truths", the truth you know, the truth I know, the truth that might be, the truth that will be - but these are merely psycological ideas and not basic unchangable fact (like the apple). The "truth" I know might change tommorow, but the truth never deviates.
* Of course there's those pesky quantum phyiscs ideas about the apple not exiasting if I'm not aware of it... but I choose to ignore that (which means if those theories exist, they don't exist, 'cause I'm ignoring them)
Having these rules in paper, and actually following through with them are completely different things. Remember, there are lots of governments that regularly break international law, even ones that those countries themselves created. For a (non-debate raising) US example: softwood lumber trade with Canada, both countries agreed years ago on tariff prices and terms, and because of a US complaint even changed the rules (in their favour) over a decade ago. Now they refuse to pay out the millions of dollars (that's USD mind you) that they've not paid.
Now I don't want to scare anyone away from RFID technology - I think it's the bee's knees, myself - but I just want people to remember that big government is, almost without exception, bad government.
The way you're explaining Tautology is misguided. Through your definition anything I say could be tautologist. I'm not saying "the truth is the truth" I'm saying "the truth (of history) is a factual description of events". I'm not saying "a cow is a cow" I'm saying "a cow is a mammal".
I agree that we have little to base our understanding of history on except other people's accounts - but that does not change "the truth".
Think of it like this: The speed of light doesn't change because you think it does. If we believed that light traveled at 12,000,000 metres a second, light wouldn't say "hey, if they say so..." and speed up. Just like "the truth", what we believe doesn't change the actual events of the past.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Your "what has actually occurred" seems so divine, yes?", could I get some clarification?
I'm not sure you understand your own concepts.
"Truth isn't a psychological state - it's a fact" isn't tautology, "A logical tautology is a statement that is true regardless of the truth values of its parts. For example, the statement "All crows are either black, or they are not black," is a tautology, because it is true no matter what color crows are." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology . I didn't say "Truth is either a psychological state or a fact" - that would have been tautology.
I hope repeating it will make it clearer to you.
And, in fact, a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter" are different titles. The same person may be called each name by different people, but that doesn't make that person both (remember what I said about truth being a fact?)
A "freedom fighter" is a person who, obviously, "fights for freedom" for himself, as well as others, against a corrupt government. A "terrorist" is a person who uses violent, "terrorizing" tactics to further their own gains.
It is possible for a "freedom fighter" to be a "terrorist", or vice versa, but not necessary.
It's possible for a "freedom fighter" to fight for freedom without resorting to terrorism. And a "terrorist" may actually be fighting for the freedom of his people.
But none of that changes the fact that the truth is not decided by people. Saying one group of "freedom fighters" are "terrorists" doesn't change what has actually occurred in the past.
REPEAT: what you, or anyone else, may say regarding ANYTING that has previously occurred will NOT change what has actually occurred.
Really?! Fuckin' Disney.
:P
Ha, maybe these suicide clubs are staged by Disney too
Artificial? How is it artificial? Lemmings don't "artificially" kill themselves (except if they're those cute computer Lemmings) and these suicide clubbers are exactly the same.
Are they smart? maybe. Will people miss them? probably. Is it an awesome display of natural selection? absolutly.
I havn't :)
I (heart) Canada.
"History", as truth, cannot be changed. Just because you say it happened such-and-such a way, doesn't mean it actually happened like that.
This is not a debate about truth - there is only one truth. Any who disagree don't understand the concept.
Truth isn't a psychological state - it's a fact.
The world is round. For the last few billion years, it has been round. If I say "in 1872 between the months of June and October, the Earth ceased to be round and instead was rendered flat" doesn't make it history. Repeat: doesn't make it hisory.
Back to the Iraq Invasion example... Iraq was blamed for harbouring terrorists, producing WMDs, and having a threatening stance against the United States. This is not "opinion history" as you would like it, it is simple fact. If all the reports, memos, press conference tapings, and witnesses to them were taken out of existence - it would still be fact. The US Government now says those reasons were never the reasons given for invading Iraq, but, just because they say this doesn't make it true.
Remember kids, when someone says something, they might be lying. Check the facts, ask questions, make your own decision
Hahahahaha! Those crazy greenpeace freaks :D