Fear the kiddie porn addicts, live in fear that your Google searches will be misinterpreted.
Make a mistake on your taxes, live in fear of an audit or jail.
Carry a sign in protest, live in fear of arrest.
Donate to the "wrong" political party, live in fear of not being allowed to do your job.
I can honestly say that I've never lived in fear of any of the above, even a little bit. I don't favor the overbearing attitude of the government towards entities such as Google, but I certainly don't worry that my 'searches will be misinterpreted.' Tax forms are a royal pain I would gladly alter in many ways, but I've never felt like the authorities were just waiting for me to slip up so they could incarcerate me. I've been involved in protests, some of which have been out of harmony with the Republican agenda, and done so with impunity -- The one guy linked to by the parent is a statistical outlier, as, I suspect, are those who feel they were denied opportunities due to the nature of their past financial contributions (according to 'sources', the Time article preview in question kindly enlightens us).
Yeah, the airport measures are an unecessary and expensive pain, and the associated terrorrist threat is much over-milked. The RIAA/MPAA are definitely freaking out in a bad way, and we can only hope they don't further mire us in a sea of onerous regulations in their death throes.
To be honest, the only time I personally feel any sense of fear towards a government entity is when I'm driving and I see a police car. I think this is somewhat telling -- I like to believe it's telling that our traffic laws and methods of enforcement are overly-restrictive and arbitrary, but it may be telling that I just need to slow down, depending on your perspective. When I see policefolk anywhere else, I actually feel good and get a sense of protection -- it's only in a vehicle that I get that sick feeling on seeing one of the State's finest, wondering if 6 mph over the speed limit is considered speeding today, or not. (Yes, I know if I just went the exact speed limit or slower, I wouldn't have to worry much -- but that's so slow... Plus, even if I don't think I did anything, just seeing a police car coming up behind is quite worrisome)
*No social security, so we'd have elderly people competing for jobs in order to live
*A large homeless problem, as elderly people will frequently lose the competition
I personally feel that one of the cancers of our society is the growing idea that we as individuals are only responsible for ourselves, and that it is the government's job to take care of any individual that for whatever reason isn't completely self-sufficient. This attitude that we are all completely alone against the world is not a healthy one. In many current and past societies it is assumed that those having difficulties should first and foremost look to their families and other social circles for support. This has traditionally applied especially to the elderly, who normally have descendents in the producer demographic that are in a position to help them out a little. We don't expect the state to take away parents' income in order to provide for their children (at least, not much -- yet), and so I don't see why we're so eager to do the same think for other relationships. I can only imagine it's fed by selfishness. Certainly there will be those that fall through the cracks, who are not helped out by family or friends because they don't have them or because they're jerks, and who evade aid from charitable organizations. I'm certainly in favor of deciding, as a society, that we will help these individuals. I am just very uneasy about this being the expected norm, rather than a last resort.
Maybe Christians are tired of seeing the proliferation of these things throughout society, because they see them as harmful to people whether they are Christian or not.
Sucks to be them - what hey see as harmful and what IS harmful are two completely different things
This always has the potential to be true. Lots of different people consider any number of different things to be harmful to society. Most, for instance, believe outright stealing to be a bad thing, while there is less agreement on the question of, say, Prostitution. The demographic that generally frequents this haunt have their feelings on such matters, as do others. So how do we choose what is considered harmful enough to have our government fight against it? One way to do so is to have a few elite individuals who are judged to be smarter or more capable than the general proletariat make the decisions. While we have some elements of that in the US, for the most part we have opted to go by a different route -- namely, voting. THE PEOPLE decide what is socially harmful to the whole. You say that what they see as harmful and what IS harmful are two different things? Well guess what, they say the same thing about you! We settle the issue by voting. Is the majority always right? Certainly not, but minorities are definitely not, either. I get the feeling here that a lot of people are just itching for the dictator position. I confess I've thought I could fix a few things myself were I to be granted absolute power, but that's just an idle thought. If you think that the majority are a bunch of idiots, then the proper course of action is to try to convince them, in a civil fashion, that you're right and they're wrong. They will try to do the same to you. What is not acceptable is to try to have a group of people's votes thrown out because you don't like their opinions, or because you don't like how they arrived at those opinions. No one likes this system much when it goes against what they want, but we agree to abide by the Rule of Law and compromise here and there.
As is often the case, we really need to be told more before we even know if the success claimed in the article is very significant. It doesn't mention anywhere what songs are being fed into this sucker. All we know is that it's picking big hits. So what, if its universe of discourse is composed of the songs that the record companies are already playing on the radio, for instance. In that case, I could do just about as well. From what I understand of the radio/record business, record companies pick songs to be hits, and have a partnership with the radio stations wherein the latter plays said songs, thereby guaranteeing them to be hits. Many here would certainly agree that quality doesn't have as much to do with music success as one would hope. The following quote from the article hints at this:
"Some people really care about instrument sounds and complexity of the music," Mr. Whitman said. "But the 14-year-old teenage girl could care less, as long as her friends are listening to it."
I maintain that the friends of this teenage girl are listening to whatever is playing on Cool Hitz 9602KXQZ.
The article does make one mention of the software picking up on a popular band that record companies had passed over, but which had a growing underground fan movement. Again, so what -- they say themselves that one of the main things their software does is analyze popular music discussion in forums, chat sites, etc. For all we know, the only thing that happened in this case is that the software noticed a lot of people were talking about the band "Crossfade."
No matter what the circumstances, no matter what the fora, and no matter what, I think that Freedom of Speech is to be protected. Any attempt at stifling it with whatever justification is the first step towards a slippery slope leading to authoritarian rule and erosion of all kinds of privacy and freedoms...albeit this could take many decades to actually happen.
I am somewhat disturbed by the popular tendency to interpret the guarantee our Founding Fathers made of "The Right to Free Speech" to mean that the government is supposed to force private entities to allow absolutely anything to be said, in many cases using their own media or means. What it means, the only thing it means, is that the government is not allowed to suppress anyone's speech. Mainly the idea therein is that the government isn't supposed to be able to pull the favorite trick of governments past and present the world over of not allowing anyone to criticise them.
"Freedom of Speech" has absolutely nothing to do with whether a non-government body chooses to remove a member from its ranks for whatever arbitrary reason it so chooses. The kicked out person could try to sue for all sorts of reasons, I suppose, but he certainly couldn't claim that his First Amendment rights were violated, since the only party able to do that is the government.
If the erosion of freedoms starts now[snip]
Whose freedom are we talking about, exactly? The student's or the school administration's? It's all too easy to fall into the trap of looking at rights and freedoms from only one perspective. Individual liberties often cannot be unilaterally expanded into infinity without squelching the equally-to-be-protected rights of other parties.
Yes, we do. And I'm sure you'll agree that whether something is depressing or not isn't a test of truth.
You are certainly correct on that point. That's not why I believe it. I always see where you're coming from about the way God comes across sometimes in the Old Testament. I agree as well that people are missing the point who neglect this life to try to "save up" for the one after. We generally teach that the way you go out of this life is the same way you start up the next. Moreover, it has been said (by Brigham Young, I think) that a religion who can't make people happy in this life won't be able to do so in the next. The world really is beautiful and fun and I'm glad you're happy like I am to be able to be here. The big difference between us, I guess, is that I think it goes on and in many ways just might get even better.
Well, you do sound like you're trying to be objective, and while we obviously don't agree on general principles, I do sympathize with what you're saying about preserving the earth. I agree that disregard for the planet, whether because of a firm believe in a pleasant afterlife or not, is unnaceptable. I also find the parallels between Islam and Mormonism to be interesting, though, of course, I believe in one fully and not the other.
I'm sorry that one of your ancestors was one of the many who died on the difficult journey west. I've got several myself who met pretty much the same end. Some of them might even have known some of yours. We could even be distantly related.
What do you mean about having read the Book of Mormon more thoroughly than I? I suppose you might have, but I find it pretty unlikely (or were you talking about the fellow who corrected you?). Anyone, it was nice hearing your thoughts. I always like to see what we look like from the outside, because it's so very different oftentimes than our own perspective.
While I don't disagree with you that the LDS (Mormons) - along with catholics, anglicans, and pretty much every other 'christian' religion - have some problems with their theology, I do have to point out that neither of the names you mentioned occur in LDS literature.
...
Perhaps you mean 'Moroni' and 'Esther'? Showing your own ignorance is no way to go about pointing out another's.
Thank you posting that. I really don't see why he felt it was necessary to call the most important things in my life "ludicrous," or state that only "uneducated people with limited vocabularies" could possibly believe them. It is true that humble people are more likely to give the LDS church a chance, but it's a stretch to claim that only ignorant frontiersmen would be gullible enough to buy its teachings. The grandparent poster, being so proud of the educational opportunities afforded to the English side of his family, might be interested to know that a substantial portion of the early members of the Church were Englishmen. Tens of thousands of what Charles Dickens referred to as "the pick and flower of England" not only crossed the United States along with their American-born fellows, but first left behind the comfort of established civilization in their homeland to cross the ocean. They and other European converts believed so strongly the message which Joseph Smith proclaimed that they were willing to ultimately head out into the untamed desert to continue practicing their faith.
A lot of both more and less educated people seem to enjoy espousing their own wisdom and openly despising those of us who have what we consider very good reasons to believe in a God. That is certainly their prerogative, but it's not especially respectful, nor is it as fresh and enlightened as many of them would like to think. The same sort of people have been regarding religious folk exactly the same way for thousands of years. Plenty of devout individuals are well-educated by whatever standards you can pick. We Latter Day Saints, in fact, are constantly encouraged to get as much education as possible. To say we are a people which thrives on ignorance could not be less true.
Also, I too am guessing that the parent to your post was talking about Moroni, since there are two very prominent men by that name who are found in LDS scripture. Though if you want to get technical I suppose it's possible he was referring to the Moron whom the Book of Mormon mentions just long enough to say that he was born and he had a son. Also, while I thank the parent for his astuteness and the time he has taken to learn something of LDS works, there really is a prophet named Ether in the Book of Mormon. In fact, he has a whole book named after him. Esther, of course, is one of the main women characters in the Bible, so she certainly figures in our faith as well.
Is the grandparent really saying that Latter Day Saints are stupid to believe in a religion because it has names in it that he finds silly? That's one of the most irrelevant arguments I've ever heard. For one thing, that's hardly specific to my religion. The Bible, which has traditionally been believed by a lot of educated Englishmen, among others, certainly isn't short of ones that sound dumb to us because they have other meanings (Ham, Cush, Nimrod, Salmon, etc.), or of long-winded ones (Hazarmaveth, Jehosophat, etc.) In three seconds I could come up with a dozen anti-Mormon attacks that are way better than that. He should at least pick something worthwhile if he's going to mock us. I'm also a little saddened that he was modded "insightful" for a slew of undisguised and baseless slander.
I have to ask, because I find it curious: Do those of you who are atheists really believe that when you die, that's the end of it all for you? That really seems depressing to me, but I won't make fun of you for thinking so. And after all, that question is settled pretty definitely every time a person's earthly life comes to an end -- but only for that person, of course. If you're content to wait until then to find out, I consider it your loss, but also your choice.
Slashdot Mirror
I can honestly say that I've never lived in fear of any of the above, even a little bit. I don't favor the overbearing attitude of the government towards entities such as Google, but I certainly don't worry that my 'searches will be misinterpreted.' Tax forms are a royal pain I would gladly alter in many ways, but I've never felt like the authorities were just waiting for me to slip up so they could incarcerate me. I've been involved in protests, some of which have been out of harmony with the Republican agenda, and done so with impunity -- The one guy linked to by the parent is a statistical outlier, as, I suspect, are those who feel they were denied opportunities due to the nature of their past financial contributions (according to 'sources', the Time article preview in question kindly enlightens us).
Yeah, the airport measures are an unecessary and expensive pain, and the associated terrorrist threat is much over-milked. The RIAA/MPAA are definitely freaking out in a bad way, and we can only hope they don't further mire us in a sea of onerous regulations in their death throes.
To be honest, the only time I personally feel any sense of fear towards a government entity is when I'm driving and I see a police car. I think this is somewhat telling -- I like to believe it's telling that our traffic laws and methods of enforcement are overly-restrictive and arbitrary, but it may be telling that I just need to slow down, depending on your perspective. When I see policefolk anywhere else, I actually feel good and get a sense of protection -- it's only in a vehicle that I get that sick feeling on seeing one of the State's finest, wondering if 6 mph over the speed limit is considered speeding today, or not. (Yes, I know if I just went the exact speed limit or slower, I wouldn't have to worry much -- but that's so slow... Plus, even if I don't think I did anything, just seeing a police car coming up behind is quite worrisome)
*No social security, so we'd have elderly people competing for jobs in order to live
*A large homeless problem, as elderly people will frequently lose the competition
I personally feel that one of the cancers of our society is the growing idea that we as individuals are only responsible for ourselves, and that it is the government's job to take care of any individual that for whatever reason isn't completely self-sufficient. This attitude that we are all completely alone against the world is not a healthy one. In many current and past societies it is assumed that those having difficulties should first and foremost look to their families and other social circles for support. This has traditionally applied especially to the elderly, who normally have descendents in the producer demographic that are in a position to help them out a little. We don't expect the state to take away parents' income in order to provide for their children (at least, not much -- yet), and so I don't see why we're so eager to do the same think for other relationships. I can only imagine it's fed by selfishness. Certainly there will be those that fall through the cracks, who are not helped out by family or friends because they don't have them or because they're jerks, and who evade aid from charitable organizations. I'm certainly in favor of deciding, as a society, that we will help these individuals. I am just very uneasy about this being the expected norm, rather than a last resort.
This always has the potential to be true. Lots of different people consider any number of different things to be harmful to society. Most, for instance, believe outright stealing to be a bad thing, while there is less agreement on the question of, say, Prostitution. The demographic that generally frequents this haunt have their feelings on such matters, as do others. So how do we choose what is considered harmful enough to have our government fight against it? One way to do so is to have a few elite individuals who are judged to be smarter or more capable than the general proletariat make the decisions. While we have some elements of that in the US, for the most part we have opted to go by a different route -- namely, voting. THE PEOPLE decide what is socially harmful to the whole. You say that what they see as harmful and what IS harmful are two different things? Well guess what, they say the same thing about you! We settle the issue by voting. Is the majority always right? Certainly not, but minorities are definitely not, either. I get the feeling here that a lot of people are just itching for the dictator position. I confess I've thought I could fix a few things myself were I to be granted absolute power, but that's just an idle thought. If you think that the majority are a bunch of idiots, then the proper course of action is to try to convince them, in a civil fashion, that you're right and they're wrong. They will try to do the same to you. What is not acceptable is to try to have a group of people's votes thrown out because you don't like their opinions, or because you don't like how they arrived at those opinions. No one likes this system much when it goes against what they want, but we agree to abide by the Rule of Law and compromise here and there.
"Some people really care about instrument sounds and complexity of the music," Mr. Whitman said. "But the 14-year-old teenage girl could care less, as long as her friends are listening to it."
I maintain that the friends of this teenage girl are listening to whatever is playing on Cool Hitz 9602KXQZ.
The article does make one mention of the software picking up on a popular band that record companies had passed over, but which had a growing underground fan movement. Again, so what -- they say themselves that one of the main things their software does is analyze popular music discussion in forums, chat sites, etc. For all we know, the only thing that happened in this case is that the software noticed a lot of people were talking about the band "Crossfade."
I am somewhat disturbed by the popular tendency to interpret the guarantee our Founding Fathers made of "The Right to Free Speech" to mean that the government is supposed to force private entities to allow absolutely anything to be said, in many cases using their own media or means. What it means, the only thing it means, is that the government is not allowed to suppress anyone's speech. Mainly the idea therein is that the government isn't supposed to be able to pull the favorite trick of governments past and present the world over of not allowing anyone to criticise them.
"Freedom of Speech" has absolutely nothing to do with whether a non-government body chooses to remove a member from its ranks for whatever arbitrary reason it so chooses. The kicked out person could try to sue for all sorts of reasons, I suppose, but he certainly couldn't claim that his First Amendment rights were violated, since the only party able to do that is the government.
If the erosion of freedoms starts now[snip]
Whose freedom are we talking about, exactly? The student's or the school administration's? It's all too easy to fall into the trap of looking at rights and freedoms from only one perspective. Individual liberties often cannot be unilaterally expanded into infinity without squelching the equally-to-be-protected rights of other parties.
Yes, we do. And I'm sure you'll agree that whether something is depressing or not isn't a test of truth.
You are certainly correct on that point. That's not why I believe it. I always see where you're coming from about the way God comes across sometimes in the Old Testament. I agree as well that people are missing the point who neglect this life to try to "save up" for the one after. We generally teach that the way you go out of this life is the same way you start up the next. Moreover, it has been said (by Brigham Young, I think) that a religion who can't make people happy in this life won't be able to do so in the next. The world really is beautiful and fun and I'm glad you're happy like I am to be able to be here. The big difference between us, I guess, is that I think it goes on and in many ways just might get even better.
Well, you do sound like you're trying to be objective, and while we obviously don't agree on general principles, I do sympathize with what you're saying about preserving the earth. I agree that disregard for the planet, whether because of a firm believe in a pleasant afterlife or not, is unnaceptable. I also find the parallels between Islam and Mormonism to be interesting, though, of course, I believe in one fully and not the other.
I'm sorry that one of your ancestors was one of the many who died on the difficult journey west. I've got several myself who met pretty much the same end. Some of them might even have known some of yours. We could even be distantly related.
What do you mean about having read the Book of Mormon more thoroughly than I? I suppose you might have, but I find it pretty unlikely (or were you talking about the fellow who corrected you?). Anyone, it was nice hearing your thoughts. I always like to see what we look like from the outside, because it's so very different oftentimes than our own perspective.
While I don't disagree with you that the LDS (Mormons) - along with catholics, anglicans, and pretty much every other 'christian' religion - have some problems with their theology, I do have to point out that neither of the names you mentioned occur in LDS literature.
...
Perhaps you mean 'Moroni' and 'Esther'? Showing your own ignorance is no way to go about pointing out another's.
Thank you posting that. I really don't see why he felt it was necessary to call the most important things in my life "ludicrous," or state that only "uneducated people with limited vocabularies" could possibly believe them. It is true that humble people are more likely to give the LDS church a chance, but it's a stretch to claim that only ignorant frontiersmen would be gullible enough to buy its teachings. The grandparent poster, being so proud of the educational opportunities afforded to the English side of his family, might be interested to know that a substantial portion of the early members of the Church were Englishmen. Tens of thousands of what Charles Dickens referred to as "the pick and flower of England" not only crossed the United States along with their American-born fellows, but first left behind the comfort of established civilization in their homeland to cross the ocean. They and other European converts believed so strongly the message which Joseph Smith proclaimed that they were willing to ultimately head out into the untamed desert to continue practicing their faith.
A lot of both more and less educated people seem to enjoy espousing their own wisdom and openly despising those of us who have what we consider very good reasons to believe in a God. That is certainly their prerogative, but it's not especially respectful, nor is it as fresh and enlightened as many of them would like to think. The same sort of people have been regarding religious folk exactly the same way for thousands of years. Plenty of devout individuals are well-educated by whatever standards you can pick. We Latter Day Saints, in fact, are constantly encouraged to get as much education as possible. To say we are a people which thrives on ignorance could not be less true.
Also, I too am guessing that the parent to your post was talking about Moroni, since there are two very prominent men by that name who are found in LDS scripture. Though if you want to get technical I suppose it's possible he was referring to the Moron whom the Book of Mormon mentions just long enough to say that he was born and he had a son. Also, while I thank the parent for his astuteness and the time he has taken to learn something of LDS works, there really is a prophet named Ether in the Book of Mormon. In fact, he has a whole book named after him. Esther, of course, is one of the main women characters in the Bible, so she certainly figures in our faith as well.
Is the grandparent really saying that Latter Day Saints are stupid to believe in a religion because it has names in it that he finds silly? That's one of the most irrelevant arguments I've ever heard. For one thing, that's hardly specific to my religion. The Bible, which has traditionally been believed by a lot of educated Englishmen, among others, certainly isn't short of ones that sound dumb to us because they have other meanings (Ham, Cush, Nimrod, Salmon, etc.), or of long-winded ones (Hazarmaveth, Jehosophat, etc.) In three seconds I could come up with a dozen anti-Mormon attacks that are way better than that. He should at least pick something worthwhile if he's going to mock us. I'm also a little saddened that he was modded "insightful" for a slew of undisguised and baseless slander.
I have to ask, because I find it curious: Do those of you who are atheists really believe that when you die, that's the end of it all for you? That really seems depressing to me, but I won't make fun of you for thinking so. And after all, that question is settled pretty definitely every time a person's earthly life comes to an end -- but only for that person, of course. If you're content to wait until then to find out, I consider it your loss, but also your choice.