I am much happier thinking that astronomers are in a hole somewhere in the middle of the night staring into the sky adding to the human body of knowledge, then sitting in a giant auditorium fighting over meaningless bullshit and operating at the lowest forms of the intellectual discourse (semantics and sophistry... voting on definitions.. oh jesus). I liked it better when a bunch of people sitting in a giant room yelling and screaming about nothing and being otherwise useless was called Congress...
This is an argument over terminology. There is nothing of any value, at all, at stake here. This is so people can refer to planets and have it mean something, as a word. This is basically the equivalent of Webster writing down what a word means. This isn't even actual science.. it's just a bunch of people trying to formalize their industry's terminology to facillitate communication. The scientific value of a probe is going to be exactly the same if Pluto is a dwarf planet, a pluton, a planet, a really large Kuiper Belt Object, or anything else.
Just pick a god damm definition. I'm starting to think astronomers are doing this on purpose to get themselves alot of free press and airtime. Professors everywhere are making 6 minutes TV and radio spots to explain this stupid "controversy". It's semantics. Nothing more, nothing less.
Whether or not Pluto is recognised by these asscociations, Schools will continue to teach that the solar system has nine planets and Pluto is the ninth planet.
They wont be changing that basic lesson everytime there is a fight in astromy associations.
At least the shitty schools, anyway. Maybe your statement is an indictment on how shitty the school system is.. unfortunately, I don't think so. I understand your point that schools have alot of switching costs, and that the 9 planets concept has alot of inertia, but if scientists decide Pluto isn't a planet, then it's not a planet.. I expect my child's school to teach them that. I expect my child's school to teach my children about what real scientists do, and what real science is going on, and even about what real scientists are arguing about. Once scientists finally agree on what is a planet, and who the planets are, I expect my school to keep up. If science changes... schools are supposed to change with it. This idea that you shouldn't have to keep up with science because it's inconvinient... well, don't make me invoke the intelligent-design drama If you aren't going to teach kids the things that science agrees is correct, then what exactly _are_ you going to teach them? Whatever you feel like? Whatever you were taught?
It should no longer be acceptable, in this day and age, for people to ask questions that are answered in a wikipedia article for that particular subject.
If you could create a small (as in portable) device that can separate Water molecules into the atomic components and burn the resulting Hydrogen for energy, cool.
Except that we're destroying the planet's water supply to get it.
Uhm, hello? My name is high school chemistry:
2H2 + 02 = 2H20
Please note that "burning" hydrogen doesn't "destroy" the water supply. It creates it.
How do you accuse the pro-lifers of trying to push their religious beliefs on other people if they are using science to justify their position?
Right below the post about people "talking passed each other", and you come up with the perfect example of it. I'm not religious, and I'm not really pro-life (I am one of the 9 people in this country who is neither pro-life nor pro-choice... I consider myself a populist on this particular subject.) Religious people aren't "pushing their beliefs on you". That's a fear-mongering tactic used by one side. That's basically equal to asking if you like killing babies. The fundamental question is when does life begin. That's a question that every society must answer. Everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong. The question becomes.. when does society agree that this is, in fact, a person. Pretending pro-life is about a bunch of religious zealots trying to push their religion on you completely and utterly misses the point. It's bordering on an ad hominem fallacy, to be sure.
This is no more about religious belief as it is about believing in freedom. Everyone believes you should be free to do with your body what you want, and everyone believes that murder should be wrong. The disagreement is when does "your body" become "their body". If you think you have an answer to that question, that defines which side of the line you are on. Adding any of the rest of this tagentially related strawmen (you hate women! you murder babies! religious freak! promiscious whore!) to the picture just inflames the situation and destroys conversation.
If the souls of aborted babies go to heaven, then shoudn't the christians ENCOURAGE abortion as much as possible? Especially in athiests? I mean, saving the child's soul is the most important thing, right? What kind of loving parent would allow the child's soul to come in danger of eternal torment, when salvation is just an abortion away?:)
Sarcasm doesn't work to point out the goofiness of religion when you get the premise wrong. The Catholic Church says, quite literally, "We don't know what happens to unbaptised babies who die... we just assume God does the right thing".
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. Source: Some official Church thing circa 1992. John Paul II said something very similar later on in one of his little letters on abortion.
As I understand it... the Church basically admits, on this particular issue, that God may "let" people into heaven through ways "unknown" to the Church. This concept intruiges me.
"pro life" and "pro choice" people are talking past each other anyway. Pro lifers believe everything with the potential for becoming life (zygote onwards in some cases) should be protected, while pro choicers believe things that only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected.
That is an interesting perspective. As science progresses, the set of all life which is "viable outside of the womb" is going to eventually be equal to the set of all "potential for becoming life". The abortion debate seems to be about a disagreement about an interval of time whose limit is zero. That's true, anyway, if we presume your definition of "pro-life" and "pro-choice".
I do certainly agree they are talking right passed each other. That's why we should just rename the groups "baby-killers" and "woman-haters", and that way we can just skip the second sentence of every innane abortion debate.
Have you guys ever had a Libertarian, Communist, or Green Party member in Congress?
Green, no, Libertarian kinda, and Communist... only if you count Ted Kennedy.. HEYO! More seriously, Libertarians have run as Republican/Democrat and won Congress seats.. but as far as I know, no Libertarian has ever run as a Libertarian and won a seat in Congress.
The US system that forces only two parties to represent the vast range of political opinions and beliefs is killing you through mediocrity and homoginization. Screw third parties, you guys really need about 4 or 5 parties to properly represent you. A Left party, a Labor party, a Capitalist party and a Chirstian party, and maybe a Libertarian party.
I've tried to come up with a way for a third party to break the "they are just crazy" plus severe money stranglehold the big 2 have... I have no idea, unless it's from within, how the US party system will (or even could) break. Completely and totally contradictory groups have been living together for ages (religious right and libertarians... or labor versus green dems) under the 2 banners and it doesn't seem to be destroying anything.
Got anymore great political insight taken from south park? Please, I am so interested. Really.
He may not.. but I do...
"Yeah, we have seen that. What we're sick of--and it's getting even worse--is: you either like Michael Moore or you wanna fuckin' go overseas and shoot Iraqis. There can't be a middle ground. Basically, if you think Michael Moore's full of shit, then you are a super-Christian right-wing whatever. And we're both just pretty middle-ground guys. We find just as many things to rip on on the left as we do on the right. People on the far left and the far right are the same exact person to us." -- Trey Parker
"And it comes from an honest belief we have, which is... George Bush doesn't know what's going on. Michael Moore does not know what's going on. And Alec Baldwin definitely does not know what's going on. Basically, this shit is gigantically complicated." -- Trey Parker
"I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals." -- Trey Parker
"Dude, dolphins are intelligent and friendly!" -- Wendy
"Intelligent and friendly on rye bread, with some mayonaise." -- Cartman
I'm not sure the message of that last one.. but it's funny.
"the" suggests that in 2008 there going to be a singular election? Which one is it then? 95% of the world's population don't live in the USA.
Oh that horrible American exceptionalism... those arrogant bastards! Why in the world would the slashdot editors not correctly label a story from the LOS ANGELES TIMES as being from the United States! Those bumble-thumping, fat and greedy, israel-loving, arab-bombing yankees are at it again!
Thank you for highlighting that one of the problems with the progressive agenda is that they have no idea where the center is.
This is what ALWAYS happens. After Clinton, America took a rightward swing, and Republicans took over everything. Republicans kept running to the right (neocon, anyone), went too far, and the country is now ready to come back to the left. What is the left doing? Running as fast as they can to the left... vacating the middle, yet again. All of these slashdot liberals who believe Hillary and Lieberman are "right-wing" share the same mindset as the far-left Democrats do now, and they are the reason the Republicans will be back in power in 2012 or 2016. Both sides live by this ridiculous "ends justify the means" nonsensical approach to politics. They spend their entire lives hating each other, and never once realize they are basically the same.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch have no rankings in regards to human rights that I can find, at all. The only rankings I can find on the entire anti-slavery issue is issued in a tiered format by the US government.. and I'm sure those won't mean much to you. IFEX helps with "freedom of the press" and some other rankings from FreedomHouse, and the one I found has the US in the low-teens for both (which is exactly what the GP said, and you told him to check his facts).
Really? Try a Google search for "human rights report." The US usually ranks behind most of Western Europe for human rights in general.
Do you even try this nonsense before you suggest it? The only "report" I see anywhere near that google search is from Human Rights Watch. It has no rankings.
So...the natural response to a stupid line of reasoning is another stupid line of reasoning?
No. The reason is NOT stupid. If someone says "The USA is barbaric"... and your goal is give them examples of true barbarism you might say "The US doesn't kill Christian converts nor execute adultresses in public execution in soccer stadiums". Their goal is to show that the original post lacked perspective, and attempt to actually clarify the use the word 'barbarism'. The person who then jumps in and says "Oh ok, so as long as you better then the worst, than everyhting is ok!" has created a strawman. The middle person never said it was OK... he just was trying to show the original statement was poor.
I thought up this statement all by myself. Please go learn what a "strawman argument" is. Why the term is so horribly misused on this particular forum is beyond me.I thought up this statement all by myself. Please go learn what a "strawman argument" is. Why the term is so horribly misused on this particular forum is beyond me.
You are arguing with a position I do not hold. You have created a strawman argument and are now beating up on it. I am not misusing the word. It is a _very_ accurate portrayl of what has occured... I tried to point this out to you, and instead taking a moment to realize you misinterpreted my argument, you presumed that I don't know what the word 'strawman' means. Then you proceed to continue beating up on him. You don't need me in the conversation if you want to argue with phatoms.
I reject this argument entirely. Looking to the lowest common denominator and striving to be "a little better than they are" is sickening.
Wow, did you think of that strawman up all by yourself? Definitely not, since it's used 100 times in every slashdot discussion. I am NOT using that logic nor am I striving for what you claim. I am not saying America is beyond criticism because it is "better than most". I am saying that people are forced to use that argument ("We are better than 90%...") in reponse to equally stupid arguments like "America is terrible in regards to free speech..."... and then someone (you) comes barging in with the classic strawman. The same three posts happen in every discussion... If the original statement wasn't so completely ill-worded, it wouldn't require the statement that you can so easily turn into your strawman.
Next time you reject my argument, try to understand it first.
Its not subjective at all. The US isn't uncivilized simply because someone on the left wing is in disagreement with the current administration
I appreciate what you are saying, but you must consider what is going on here.
There is no possible way a rational person given any reasonable definition of "civilized" can catagorized the United States as "uncivilized". Anyone who does is either using hyperbole, is ignorant, is lying, or has a complete and utter lack of perspective. Period. On slashdot, some moron claiming America isn't "civilized" is either using hyperbole, or just anti-American take any chance they can to take a whack. Welcome to Slashdot politics.
but last i checked democracy is directly appointed by the people, so you ARE responcible for the actions of your administration.... unless you became a monarchy or a dictatorship while i was in the bathroom.
This is one of the most all-time bizarre concepts in human existence. That somehow populations in democratic countries are more "guilty" for the crimes of their government than other opressed peoples. Like, American civilians are somehow legit targets because we elected our leaders, therefore anything they do is our fault.
Last time I checked, I didn't get a slip in the mail asking if I approved of any particular policy. That wasn't really on the ballot. I had two choices... a rich dumb idiot from a boring white family in Texas that has gotten everything he has ever wanted... or a rich boring idiot from a boring white family in the Northeast that has gotten everything he has ever wanted. Either of them were going to do shit that I don't like... it's not my fucking fault.
The USA may guarantee freedom of speech. But it doesn't gaurantee freedom from execution from the state -- and many other things. Furthermore, when you think about recent concepts such as 'free speech zones', you see that the utility of freedom of speech extends only as far as the 'right' can be excercised -- which in the current US political climae is not very far at all.
It must be awesome to be able to completely and utterly lack perspective. How can you, in the same post, say that using "honor killing countries" as a yardstick is "wrong", and yet you can say things like the political climate is "not very fall at all". The reason he has to used honor-killings as a yardstick is because of people like you have who have absolutely no perspective. Don't say the US political climate on free speach "isn't very far at all". That's ignorant. It's incredibly far. Where are the "free speech" zones in Germany that let me deny the Holocaust? Or is Germany an unfair yardstick too? Maybe you should try wearing a facist symbol in Italy.
What you really mean to say is the US doesn't do a very good job letting the people I agree with do whatever they want (like block traffic and disturb events.. the reason for "free speech zones"). You should try getting some "perspective". Then you want make incredibly stupid statements like "not very far at all"... Rational people just roll their eyes.
Most aspects of the way American society and economics work should be abhorrant to Christians. It is "survival of the fittest" and believing in a lie that anyone can make it to the top (in order to placate those at the bottom).
What a pile of nonsense. Only on slashdot can such a gross misunderstanding of capitalism and Christianity be made "insightful". About the only thing your post belies about Christian history is the fact that it's based on gross ignorance.
Americans choose to give money privately, instead of publicly.. and are constantly attacked by the world at large for that practice. For some reason, money given philantropically only "counts" if it passes through a government's hands first. For instance, by most estimates, Americans give 3x as much foreign aid privately as they give publicly. No one reall seems to care, but it's much easier to just bash America. America is the boogeyman with which you get to blame all your problems on. This is just an idiotic hammer that simple people use to bash America. It's garbage, it's stupid, and it denigrates ALOT of people who give ALOT of time and money selflessly, without being forced to do it (Ahem, you might want to check what Jesus had to say about that).
Secondly, I made my life, myself. No one gave me shit. I paid my own way through school, twice. For you to imply that it's impossible to do.. what I did.. implies that someone gave me something and/or that I didn't earn it myself. That's offensive, wrong, and just plain garbage. You are right in the sense that not everyone can make it to the top (as in, at the same time... by defintion of the relative term "top"). But anyone can. The difference is some people sit back and play victim, blaming their problems on everyone else. Others go out and control the very same issues that the victims claim is uncontrollable. There is a huge difference between those that need help, and those "WOE IS ME" self-victims. I have endless sympathy for one, which I show with my time and money, and I have absolutely none for the other.
Yes, having the judicial branch serve as both investigators and judges is a bit dubious - but not half as bad as having the NSA act as accused and investigator - which means it'll never see a judge.
This is a _clear_ case of needing to be careful of what you wish for. Congress is given the power to investigate the executive branch, not the judiciary, because it helps keep the power seperated. Nothing is as bad as it would be if judges were investigating, prosecuting, and ruling on cases. Nothing. Not illegal wiretaps. Not even watergate. If you want to know who watches the watchers, it's Congress. That's who. They have the power to do what you want. Just because they don't do what you want doesn't mean you should start calling for indiscriminetly granting insane power to branches of governemnt you view "more sympathetic" to your cause.
Congress has the _full_ authority to investigate the executive branch. If they feel the Executive branch is blocking that, they can take it to the judicial branch, who can then force the investigation to go forward. What the government lacks is not balance of power, it's political will. The avenues are very clear and very well defined... they are just unused.
You are god dammed right it is. In the words of one the greatest American poet/philosophers: Freedom isn't free. There's a hefty fucking fee. If you won't throw in your buck 'o five, who will....
Am I the only one who finds it funny that the Department of Justice is not part of the Judiciary branch?
Uh.. why is that funny? Because they both start with 'Ju'? You realize "judiciary" and "justice" are from different root words right... they aren't the same thing.. right?
It sounds like the Judiciary branch needs an investigative arm.
You may as well wander to the gravesite of your states favored founding father and pee on his grave. We gave the legislative branch the power to make the laws, the executive branch the power to enforce the laws (ie, "investigate), and the judicial branch the power to rule on the laws.
Giving the judicial branch the power of investigation is equivalent to giving cops/fbi the power to declare you guilty. Those powers were seperated for a reason... so that the organization (or person) who was trying to convict you wasn't the same one who was judging your innonence or guilt. Judges are supposed to be impartial... investigators are not.
Slashdot Mirror
anything else would be jumping the gun
I am much happier thinking that astronomers are in a hole somewhere in the middle of the night staring into the sky adding to the human body of knowledge, then sitting in a giant auditorium fighting over meaningless bullshit and operating at the lowest forms of the intellectual discourse (semantics and sophistry... voting on definitions.. oh jesus). I liked it better when a bunch of people sitting in a giant room yelling and screaming about nothing and being otherwise useless was called Congress...
This is an argument over terminology. There is nothing of any value, at all, at stake here. This is so people can refer to planets and have it mean something, as a word. This is basically the equivalent of Webster writing down what a word means. This isn't even actual science.. it's just a bunch of people trying to formalize their industry's terminology to facillitate communication. The scientific value of a probe is going to be exactly the same if Pluto is a dwarf planet, a pluton, a planet, a really large Kuiper Belt Object, or anything else.
Just pick a god damm definition. I'm starting to think astronomers are doing this on purpose to get themselves alot of free press and airtime. Professors everywhere are making 6 minutes TV and radio spots to explain this stupid "controversy". It's semantics. Nothing more, nothing less.
Whether or not Pluto is recognised by these asscociations, Schools will continue to teach that the solar system has nine planets and Pluto is the ninth planet. They wont be changing that basic lesson everytime there is a fight in astromy associations.
At least the shitty schools, anyway. Maybe your statement is an indictment on how shitty the school system is.. unfortunately, I don't think so. I understand your point that schools have alot of switching costs, and that the 9 planets concept has alot of inertia, but if scientists decide Pluto isn't a planet, then it's not a planet.. I expect my child's school to teach them that. I expect my child's school to teach my children about what real scientists do, and what real science is going on, and even about what real scientists are arguing about. Once scientists finally agree on what is a planet, and who the planets are, I expect my school to keep up. If science changes... schools are supposed to change with it. This idea that you shouldn't have to keep up with science because it's inconvinient... well, don't make me invoke the intelligent-design drama If you aren't going to teach kids the things that science agrees is correct, then what exactly _are_ you going to teach them? Whatever you feel like? Whatever you were taught?
How about wiki??
You should have just said 'RTFWA'
It should no longer be acceptable, in this day and age, for people to ask questions that are answered in a wikipedia article for that particular subject.
If you could create a small (as in portable) device that can separate Water molecules into the atomic components and burn the resulting Hydrogen for energy, cool.
Except that we're destroying the planet's water supply to get it.
Uhm, hello? My name is high school chemistry:
2H2 + 02 = 2H20
Please note that "burning" hydrogen doesn't "destroy" the water supply. It creates it.
that the US faked the moon landings! :)
Faked the moon landings is such pre-9/11 thinking. All the cool kids think that US orchestrated 9/11 now.
How do you accuse the pro-lifers of trying to push their religious beliefs on other people if they are using science to justify their position?
Right below the post about people "talking passed each other", and you come up with the perfect example of it. I'm not religious, and I'm not really pro-life (I am one of the 9 people in this country who is neither pro-life nor pro-choice... I consider myself a populist on this particular subject.) Religious people aren't "pushing their beliefs on you". That's a fear-mongering tactic used by one side. That's basically equal to asking if you like killing babies. The fundamental question is when does life begin. That's a question that every society must answer. Everyone agrees that killing a person is wrong. The question becomes.. when does society agree that this is, in fact, a person. Pretending pro-life is about a bunch of religious zealots trying to push their religion on you completely and utterly misses the point. It's bordering on an ad hominem fallacy, to be sure.
This is no more about religious belief as it is about believing in freedom. Everyone believes you should be free to do with your body what you want, and everyone believes that murder should be wrong. The disagreement is when does "your body" become "their body". If you think you have an answer to that question, that defines which side of the line you are on. Adding any of the rest of this tagentially related strawmen (you hate women! you murder babies! religious freak! promiscious whore!) to the picture just inflames the situation and destroys conversation.
If the souls of aborted babies go to heaven, then shoudn't the christians ENCOURAGE abortion as much as possible? Especially in athiests? I mean, saving the child's soul is the most important thing, right? What kind of loving parent would allow the child's soul to come in danger of eternal torment, when salvation is just an abortion away? :)
Sarcasm doesn't work to point out the goofiness of religion when you get the premise wrong. The Catholic Church says, quite literally, "We don't know what happens to unbaptised babies who die... we just assume God does the right thing".
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"[63] allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.
Source: Some official Church thing circa 1992. John Paul II said something very similar later on in one of his little letters on abortion.
As I understand it... the Church basically admits, on this particular issue, that God may "let" people into heaven through ways "unknown" to the Church. This concept intruiges me.
"pro life" and "pro choice" people are talking past each other anyway. Pro lifers believe everything with the potential for becoming life (zygote onwards in some cases) should be protected, while pro choicers believe things that only things which would be viable life forms outside of the womb should be protected.
That is an interesting perspective. As science progresses, the set of all life which is "viable outside of the womb" is going to eventually be equal to the set of all "potential for becoming life". The abortion debate seems to be about a disagreement about an interval of time whose limit is zero. That's true, anyway, if we presume your definition of "pro-life" and "pro-choice".
I do certainly agree they are talking right passed each other. That's why we should just rename the groups "baby-killers" and "woman-haters", and that way we can just skip the second sentence of every innane abortion debate.
Have you guys ever had a Libertarian, Communist, or Green Party member in Congress?
Green, no, Libertarian kinda, and Communist... only if you count Ted Kennedy.. HEYO! More seriously, Libertarians have run as Republican/Democrat and won Congress seats.. but as far as I know, no Libertarian has ever run as a Libertarian and won a seat in Congress. The US system that forces only two parties to represent the vast range of political opinions and beliefs is killing you through mediocrity and homoginization. Screw third parties, you guys really need about 4 or 5 parties to properly represent you. A Left party, a Labor party, a Capitalist party and a Chirstian party, and maybe a Libertarian party.
I've tried to come up with a way for a third party to break the "they are just crazy" plus severe money stranglehold the big 2 have... I have no idea, unless it's from within, how the US party system will (or even could) break. Completely and totally contradictory groups have been living together for ages (religious right and libertarians... or labor versus green dems) under the 2 banners and it doesn't seem to be destroying anything.
Got anymore great political insight taken from south park? Please, I am so interested. Really.
He may not.. but I do...
"Yeah, we have seen that. What we're sick of--and it's getting even worse--is: you either like Michael Moore or you wanna fuckin' go overseas and shoot Iraqis. There can't be a middle ground. Basically, if you think Michael Moore's full of shit, then you are a super-Christian right-wing whatever. And we're both just pretty middle-ground guys. We find just as many things to rip on on the left as we do on the right. People on the far left and the far right are the same exact person to us." -- Trey Parker
"And it comes from an honest belief we have, which is... George Bush doesn't know what's going on. Michael Moore does not know what's going on. And Alec Baldwin definitely does not know what's going on. Basically, this shit is gigantically complicated." -- Trey Parker
"I hate conservatives, but I really fucking hate liberals." -- Trey Parker
"Dude, dolphins are intelligent and friendly!" -- Wendy
"Intelligent and friendly on rye bread, with some mayonaise." -- Cartman
I'm not sure the message of that last one.. but it's funny.
"the" suggests that in 2008 there going to be a singular election? Which one is it then? 95% of the world's population don't live in the USA.
Oh that horrible American exceptionalism... those arrogant bastards! Why in the world would the slashdot editors not correctly label a story from the LOS ANGELES TIMES as being from the United States! Those bumble-thumping, fat and greedy, israel-loving, arab-bombing yankees are at it again!
Thank you for highlighting that one of the problems with the progressive agenda is that they have no idea where the center is.
This is what ALWAYS happens. After Clinton, America took a rightward swing, and Republicans took over everything. Republicans kept running to the right (neocon, anyone), went too far, and the country is now ready to come back to the left. What is the left doing? Running as fast as they can to the left... vacating the middle, yet again. All of these slashdot liberals who believe Hillary and Lieberman are "right-wing" share the same mindset as the far-left Democrats do now, and they are the reason the Republicans will be back in power in 2012 or 2016. Both sides live by this ridiculous "ends justify the means" nonsensical approach to politics. They spend their entire lives hating each other, and never once realize they are basically the same.
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch have no rankings in regards to human rights that I can find, at all. The only rankings I can find on the entire anti-slavery issue is issued in a tiered format by the US government.. and I'm sure those won't mean much to you. IFEX helps with "freedom of the press" and some other rankings from FreedomHouse, and the one I found has the US in the low-teens for both (which is exactly what the GP said, and you told him to check his facts).
Really? Try a Google search for "human rights report." The US usually ranks behind most of Western Europe for human rights in general.
Do you even try this nonsense before you suggest it? The only "report" I see anywhere near that google search is from Human Rights Watch. It has no rankings.
So...the natural response to a stupid line of reasoning is another stupid line of reasoning?
No. The reason is NOT stupid. If someone says "The USA is barbaric"... and your goal is give them examples of true barbarism you might say "The US doesn't kill Christian converts nor execute adultresses in public execution in soccer stadiums". Their goal is to show that the original post lacked perspective, and attempt to actually clarify the use the word 'barbarism'. The person who then jumps in and says "Oh ok, so as long as you better then the worst, than everyhting is ok!" has created a strawman. The middle person never said it was OK... he just was trying to show the original statement was poor.
I thought up this statement all by myself. Please go learn what a "strawman argument" is. Why the term is so horribly misused on this particular forum is beyond me.I thought up this statement all by myself. Please go learn what a "strawman argument" is. Why the term is so horribly misused on this particular forum is beyond me.
You are arguing with a position I do not hold. You have created a strawman argument and are now beating up on it. I am not misusing the word. It is a _very_ accurate portrayl of what has occured... I tried to point this out to you, and instead taking a moment to realize you misinterpreted my argument, you presumed that I don't know what the word 'strawman' means. Then you proceed to continue beating up on him. You don't need me in the conversation if you want to argue with phatoms.
I reject this argument entirely. Looking to the lowest common denominator and striving to be "a little better than they are" is sickening.
Wow, did you think of that strawman up all by yourself? Definitely not, since it's used 100 times in every slashdot discussion. I am NOT using that logic nor am I striving for what you claim. I am not saying America is beyond criticism because it is "better than most". I am saying that people are forced to use that argument ("We are better than 90%...") in reponse to equally stupid arguments like "America is terrible in regards to free speech..."... and then someone (you) comes barging in with the classic strawman. The same three posts happen in every discussion... If the original statement wasn't so completely ill-worded, it wouldn't require the statement that you can so easily turn into your strawman.
Next time you reject my argument, try to understand it first.
Its not subjective at all. The US isn't uncivilized simply because someone on the left wing is in disagreement with the current administration
I appreciate what you are saying, but you must consider what is going on here.
There is no possible way a rational person given any reasonable definition of "civilized" can catagorized the United States as "uncivilized". Anyone who does is either using hyperbole, is ignorant, is lying, or has a complete and utter lack of perspective. Period. On slashdot, some moron claiming America isn't "civilized" is either using hyperbole, or just anti-American take any chance they can to take a whack. Welcome to Slashdot politics.
but last i checked democracy is directly appointed by the people, so you ARE responcible for the actions of your administration.... unless you became a monarchy or a dictatorship while i was in the bathroom.
This is one of the most all-time bizarre concepts in human existence. That somehow populations in democratic countries are more "guilty" for the crimes of their government than other opressed peoples. Like, American civilians are somehow legit targets because we elected our leaders, therefore anything they do is our fault.
Last time I checked, I didn't get a slip in the mail asking if I approved of any particular policy. That wasn't really on the ballot. I had two choices... a rich dumb idiot from a boring white family in Texas that has gotten everything he has ever wanted... or a rich boring idiot from a boring white family in the Northeast that has gotten everything he has ever wanted. Either of them were going to do shit that I don't like... it's not my fucking fault.
The USA may guarantee freedom of speech. But it doesn't gaurantee freedom from execution from the state -- and many other things. Furthermore, when you think about recent concepts such as 'free speech zones', you see that the utility of freedom of speech extends only as far as the 'right' can be excercised -- which in the current US political climae is not very far at all.
It must be awesome to be able to completely and utterly lack perspective. How can you, in the same post, say that using "honor killing countries" as a yardstick is "wrong", and yet you can say things like the political climate is "not very fall at all". The reason he has to used honor-killings as a yardstick is because of people like you have who have absolutely no perspective. Don't say the US political climate on free speach "isn't very far at all". That's ignorant. It's incredibly far. Where are the "free speech" zones in Germany that let me deny the Holocaust? Or is Germany an unfair yardstick too? Maybe you should try wearing a facist symbol in Italy.
What you really mean to say is the US doesn't do a very good job letting the people I agree with do whatever they want (like block traffic and disturb events.. the reason for "free speech zones"). You should try getting some "perspective". Then you want make incredibly stupid statements like "not very far at all"... Rational people just roll their eyes.
Most aspects of the way American society and economics work should be abhorrant to Christians. It is "survival of the fittest" and believing in a lie that anyone can make it to the top (in order to placate those at the bottom).
What a pile of nonsense. Only on slashdot can such a gross misunderstanding of capitalism and Christianity be made "insightful". About the only thing your post belies about Christian history is the fact that it's based on gross ignorance.
Americans choose to give money privately, instead of publicly.. and are constantly attacked by the world at large for that practice. For some reason, money given philantropically only "counts" if it passes through a government's hands first. For instance, by most estimates, Americans give 3x as much foreign aid privately as they give publicly. No one reall seems to care, but it's much easier to just bash America. America is the boogeyman with which you get to blame all your problems on. This is just an idiotic hammer that simple people use to bash America. It's garbage, it's stupid, and it denigrates ALOT of people who give ALOT of time and money selflessly, without being forced to do it (Ahem, you might want to check what Jesus had to say about that).
Secondly, I made my life, myself. No one gave me shit. I paid my own way through school, twice. For you to imply that it's impossible to do.. what I did.. implies that someone gave me something and/or that I didn't earn it myself. That's offensive, wrong, and just plain garbage. You are right in the sense that not everyone can make it to the top (as in, at the same time... by defintion of the relative term "top"). But anyone can. The difference is some people sit back and play victim, blaming their problems on everyone else. Others go out and control the very same issues that the victims claim is uncontrollable. There is a huge difference between those that need help, and those "WOE IS ME" self-victims. I have endless sympathy for one, which I show with my time and money, and I have absolutely none for the other.
Yes, having the judicial branch serve as both investigators and judges is a bit dubious - but not half as bad as having the NSA act as accused and investigator - which means it'll never see a judge.
This is a _clear_ case of needing to be careful of what you wish for. Congress is given the power to investigate the executive branch, not the judiciary, because it helps keep the power seperated. Nothing is as bad as it would be if judges were investigating, prosecuting, and ruling on cases. Nothing. Not illegal wiretaps. Not even watergate. If you want to know who watches the watchers, it's Congress. That's who. They have the power to do what you want. Just because they don't do what you want doesn't mean you should start calling for indiscriminetly granting insane power to branches of governemnt you view "more sympathetic" to your cause.
Congress has the _full_ authority to investigate the executive branch. If they feel the Executive branch is blocking that, they can take it to the judicial branch, who can then force the investigation to go forward. What the government lacks is not balance of power, it's political will. The avenues are very clear and very well defined... they are just unused.
Freedom is expensive my friend.
You are god dammed right it is. In the words of one the greatest American poet/philosophers: Freedom isn't free. There's a hefty fucking fee. If you won't throw in your buck 'o five, who will....
Am I the only one who finds it funny that the Department of Justice is not part of the Judiciary branch?
Uh.. why is that funny? Because they both start with 'Ju'? You realize "judiciary" and "justice" are from different root words right... they aren't the same thing.. right?
It sounds like the Judiciary branch needs an investigative arm.
You may as well wander to the gravesite of your states favored founding father and pee on his grave. We gave the legislative branch the power to make the laws, the executive branch the power to enforce the laws (ie, "investigate), and the judicial branch the power to rule on the laws.
Giving the judicial branch the power of investigation is equivalent to giving cops/fbi the power to declare you guilty. Those powers were seperated for a reason... so that the organization (or person) who was trying to convict you wasn't the same one who was judging your innonence or guilt. Judges are supposed to be impartial... investigators are not.
I for one welcome our new blah blah blah overlords. Please, let your first act be banning this joke.