Actually, I would point out that the original article was from the BBC news... a venue specifically designed to convey ideas in "ordinary speech". In "ordinary speech" this device was called "Britain's most powerful super computer." The complaint implied that the "ordinary speech" definition was a little too ordinary, and that he preferred a definition that "actually meant something" (calling for increased precision).
(Disclaimer: This may sound like a slur against lawyers, but it isn't. Look past the apparent cynicism (which isn't there) and see the interesting idea.)
During a class in which we were discussing the Constitution, U.S. Law, and landmark Supreme Court cases, one student voiced some confusion about why the lawyers in some particular case -- one that was patently absurd to common sense and plain reading of the Constitution and laws in question -- would even take the case, since it didn't at all seem to pursue Justice.
The professor, who was also a litigation attorney, interrupted the student before he finished speaking and said, "Don't think for a moment that it is about Justice. That's naive. Legislation may be about Justice, but litigation -- for the lawyer -- is an industry by which they earn their money to buy a house and car, and to buy things they like. Lawyers working for Justice work for non-profits."
He went on to compare lawyers to cobblers -- they make shoes that sell, not that are perfect for the foot. The better the cobbler is, they more they will be able to achieve Just ends as an aside while they're performing their craft of forging a fine lawsuit for their customers -- if they care about that at all.
There are very few people in any field who perform their functions primarily out of idealism. It is as likely that you'll find a lawyer who is seeking first and foremost to forward Justice as that you'll find an IT guy who is ideologically attached to his specific employer's technological well being. More likely, it's a way for him to earn money utilizing some (fairly) specialized skill to pursue his real interests (gaming, golf, whatever).
As a final note, it does seem to me that there are certain fields that are more likely to generate idealogically motivated workers. Most of them become most apparent (as my professor said) in the pro bono arena (because it becomes obvious that the person isn't working for money). I should also point out that a fair number of lawyers may become lawyers for ideological reasons, but may also be willing to take cases that are lucrative even if not towards their certain ideological end.
Come to think of it... I have noticed that my philisophical considerations do increase my general difficulty in interacting with the world at large... =)
Nonetheless, the above post makes the correct distinction. Were I to disregard considerations of personhood, I would be fine regarding two people intertwined with respect to their functions as a single thing with respect to it as "mechanism of task completion" though notwith respect to it as "person".
Certainly we do do this when we refer, for example to "The FBI" or "The French Parliment" doing something. In such speech we do not mean to imply that they have become one person in the doing, but one mechanism with respect to the performance of some function.
I'm not sure that I can figure out exactly what else it could actually mean (besides trivial differences).
I'm very willing that I'm just ignorant of something here, but is there some kind of special way that devices have to be connected that make them more like a computer? If I connect two computers together, so that they accomplish one (computational) task, are they not one unit computing the answer... one computer? If not, how is it more... unitary(?) for me to connect (basically by "wire") a bunch more logic gates to the main cluster within a processor? If I de-localize the RAM -- say, for example, setting some aside for exclusive use by the video card -- have I changed in kind what I'm working with?
I am a long-time computer nerd, but my training is in philosophy, not EE, so maybe I'm just missing something...
There's another particularly good use for a moon base that I can think of: experience.
As of yet, we have no actual experience building on any environment other than our terran terrains. Prognosticators tell us that building on other planets with less human-friendly environments may become desirable some day (such as Mars). The moon is a (relatively) close place to build in a (relatively) hostile environment -- moreso than Mars in many respects. Building a moon base and keeping it inhabited for a time -- especially by inhabitants doing run-of-the-mill human functions, many of which (if history has anything to say about man) seem to go something like this:
...
...
do something stupid
...
die.
would help us to run into the sorts of problems we might also be likely to have on other planets... without the (currently) several-year travel commitment in case of emergency. Time to develop solutions to unforseen problems is not the least valuable thing NASA could spend its money on. It's just plain "raw experience."
And while they're at it, building telescopes, doing low-G experiments, and all those other fun things could be accomplished as well.
Disclaimer: This is intended to be a point of clarification, not an argument (or the backing of an argument).
Being a classicist generally trained in philosophy (according to my alma mater and diploma, anyway =), I should disclose that I'm not really generally interested in "church doctrine" as much as claims of original source texts. What follows is based on original source texts -- I have no idea what the accepted doctrinal teachings of various churches are on the matter.
Yeah, I'm just a stupid athiest and stuff, but doesn't this make Jesus' sacrifice, well, worthless? I mean, if he were truly 'God,' as is claimed, then his sacrifice was really nothing. 'Sacrifice' means giving something up; what did Jesus give up, if all He did was go up to heaven to stand bside His Father, casting judgement and hell upon all who do not believe in Him?
Re: 'Sacrifice' means giving something up; what did Jesus give up...? The claim is that what he gave up was unity with his father. That is, the father and the son are one in spirit, but the Son suffers disunity with his father (that's the idea behind that whole "Why have you forsaken me?" (Psalm 22:1) (Matthew 27) quotation that Jesus recites while being crucified). Since the father is the source of all life (and good, and such), the son is made to suffer the pain of death in the form of disunity with the source of his life.
Re: "...if all He did was go up to heaven to stand bside His Father..." The idea behind this is that if his death had been just, then it would have been the final word on the matter, but since his death was by his own choice as an act of mercy (a death by proxy for people who had sinned), it wasn't un-just to overturn the sentence (as it would be for someone who justly deserved death). Note that that doesn't un-do the sentence, it just ends it -- as if you pardoned someone who was on death row that you found out wasn't guilty of the crime... they still served the time, they just didn't have to serve it "forever."
Re: "...casting judgement and hell upon all who do not believe in Him..." Hell isn't actually related to the judgement (I know that's an odd sounding claim, but the bit that describes the whole hell thing is pretty unambiguous (Rev. 20:12-15):
(12)And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. (13)The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. (14)Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. (15)If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Notice that everyone is judged -- people who do believe in him and people who don't. Also notice (in 15) that the criterion for "the lake of fire" is whether one's name is written in "the book of life" which is a way of saying something like "Jesus's little black book." The one set of books is what you've done, the other book is whether you believed in him. So you can be a rat-bastardly Christian or a most excellent non-Christian and that's not relevant to the whole life/death bit. (Though the claim is you won't find a single person besides Jesus who hasn't ever given in to any temptation... some people will ask about babies and retarded kids and such at this point. I don't know how that works, but I would generally respond that the picture that we tend to see (Old Testament and New Testament) is that God prefers mercy to just
I'm all for speaking about about whatever cause you find deplorable (though I happen to disagree with your stance about religions in general). The issue, though, isn't about his speaking out, it's about the motivation with which he spoke out and the actions that his superiors (in whatever sphere) decided to take about it. In this case it was bigotry (which is his right) and his superiors aren't fans of bigotry (which is their right). Let it be that "speaking out against and deriding them is more a moral imperitive than an intolerant act" -- it still isn't grounds for the notion that they ought not to be allowed in the legislature in principle. In practice, sure (i.e. not voted into office or voted out of office). But not in principle.
Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, or whomever else (religious or otherwise) ought to be afforded the same basic respect as anyone else in the public and legal spheres, as long as their activities are not in violation of valid laws. (This "ought" has the weight of constitutionality in my claim, and niether more nor less.)
There's a really big difference between the Christian Fundamentalists and the Black Panthers that makes the analogy (Fundamentalist:Christianity::Black Panther:Civil Rights) fail -- viz. the Black Panthers were seeking to affect their ends through violent, illegal means. This is not the case for the Christian Fundamentalists (or at least the ones to which Professor Mirecki was objecting). Thus, the idea that "the situation is the same" between the idea that "very few people would oppose an e-mail deriding the Black Panthers for their militarism" and "email[s that] single out the fundamentalists in the state legislature" is incorrect.
There are no valid grounds for exclusion from the legislature except: popular opinion (they can't get enough votes) and illegal activity (such as the Black Panther's violence). Objections based on "'Unscientific' beliefs" (or any other set of beleifs) is simple bigotry. However right or wrong someone's beliefs are the having of them ought not to be grounds for keeping them out of legislature.
You said that "There are moderates, mind you - an overwhelming majority of Christians (including the entire Catholic church) see little or no tension between creationism and evolution. Those in our state legislature looking to change science until it is no longer science, however, are in that looney minority who believe things like..."
The supremecy of "Science" is not a right garaunteed by the constitution or any other legal document. What is garaunteed is a right of the people to legislate as they see fit (via the vehicle of voting). If the people want to vote on policy based on the idea that cybernetic chihuahuas from the inner core of the sun are responsible for gravity, that is their perogative. If more level heads prevail in the voting arena, then good for them. If a "Christian Fundamentalist" gets in office by winning enough votes, then he is the duly elected representative of the people and, as such, he speaks for the majority (of those who excersized their right to vote for an elected representative in the government). The minority of Christian Fundamentalists among Christians in general is irrelevant; if anyone of any minority -- no matter how small -- gets elected, then that minority has earned its representation. "Christian Fundamentalists" (and, indeed, any group) can have any power they can sieze.
Thus, Mirecki's comments are not directed towards a group that has violated some portion of the social contracts of our nation (i.e. violated the constitution or particular legislation). He simply diagrees (whether rightly or not is irrelevant) and spoke against their being in the state legislature on those grounds. This is identical in principle to complaining about any religious or philosophical group being permitted to be involved in the state legislature. There is no difference, except that more people seem to dislike these particular ideas and choices of law than those of other groups. Nonetheless, they were able to be elected and to enact their laws legally, and their right to do so ought to be respected.
P.S. I'm not talking about the two men who assaulted him. I'm referring to the general disquiet with the remarks from the (largely non-violent) community at large.
The general response to this article seems a little strange to me. If the statement is that...
"The article goes on to explain that Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-_________ sentiments around to people interested in the class, and was subsequently beaten for his troubles."
In which the blank above is left variable, then it could be seen as grounds for punishment (even dismissal). Doesn't that seem to be the usual trend? I mean, if it says any of the following
"Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-BLACK sentiments around to people interested" "Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-JEWISH sentiments around to people interested" "Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-MUSLIM sentiments around to people interested" "Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-CHINESE sentiments around to people interested" "Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-MEXICAN sentiments around to people interested" "Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-HINDU sentiments around to people interested" "Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-HANDICAPPED sentiments around to people interested" "Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-ELDERLY sentiments around to people interested"
(or any number of other groups) wouldn't we expect some kind unrest over it? Why are the Christians (or whoever) treated so poorly in some of the responses to this article (as in posts with content like "Of course, the local fundies had a stooge on the email list, and used their normal right-wing media outlets to stage a bogus controversy." What's the difference between something like this and wanting to prosecute some CEO or Congressman over comments perceived to be prejudiced on an internal memo?
The content doesn't have to be *intended* to be anti-GROUPOFYOURCHOICE, it only has to be *perceived* as such -- e.g.: When an aide to the mayor of Washington D.C. was "encouraged" to resign after offense at his using the word "niggardly" in a speech because it sounds like "nigger" -- even though the words are unrelated in definition AND etymology (read: it's completely unrelated, and comes from a different language it just sounds similar -- check the Wikipedia entry if you're curious). Irritating, sure, but would anyone be willing to say, "stupid blacks!" over it? Surely not. Whoever reacted against it was just a little overly sensetive. Same with the Christians who over-reacted to some unintentional "anti-Christian" sentiments. Same with any group that does that.
Give 'em a break -- they're just people doing their best to do their best, like most everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I would point out that the original article was from the BBC news ... a venue specifically designed to convey ideas in "ordinary speech". In "ordinary speech" this device was called "Britain's most powerful super computer." The complaint implied that the "ordinary speech" definition was a little too ordinary, and that he preferred a definition that "actually meant something" (calling for increased precision).
During a class in which we were discussing the Constitution, U.S. Law, and landmark Supreme Court cases, one student voiced some confusion about why the lawyers in some particular case -- one that was patently absurd to common sense and plain reading of the Constitution and laws in question -- would even take the case, since it didn't at all seem to pursue Justice.
The professor, who was also a litigation attorney, interrupted the student before he finished speaking and said, "Don't think for a moment that it is about Justice. That's naive. Legislation may be about Justice, but litigation -- for the lawyer -- is an industry by which they earn their money to buy a house and car, and to buy things they like. Lawyers working for Justice work for non-profits."
He went on to compare lawyers to cobblers -- they make shoes that sell, not that are perfect for the foot. The better the cobbler is, they more they will be able to achieve Just ends as an aside while they're performing their craft of forging a fine lawsuit for their customers -- if they care about that at all.
There are very few people in any field who perform their functions primarily out of idealism. It is as likely that you'll find a lawyer who is seeking first and foremost to forward Justice as that you'll find an IT guy who is ideologically attached to his specific employer's technological well being. More likely, it's a way for him to earn money utilizing some (fairly) specialized skill to pursue his real interests (gaming, golf, whatever).
As a final note, it does seem to me that there are certain fields that are more likely to generate idealogically motivated workers. Most of them become most apparent (as my professor said) in the pro bono arena (because it becomes obvious that the person isn't working for money). I should also point out that a fair number of lawyers may become lawyers for ideological reasons, but may also be willing to take cases that are lucrative even if not towards their certain ideological end.
Come to think of it ... I have noticed that my philisophical considerations do increase my general difficulty in interacting with the world at large ... =)
Nonetheless, the above post makes the correct distinction. Were I to disregard considerations of personhood, I would be fine regarding two people intertwined with respect to their functions as a single thing with respect to it as "mechanism of task completion" though not with respect to it as "person".
Certainly we do do this when we refer, for example to "The FBI" or "The French Parliment" doing something. In such speech we do not mean to imply that they have become one person in the doing, but one mechanism with respect to the performance of some function.
I'm not sure that I can figure out exactly what else it could actually mean (besides trivial differences).
I'm very willing that I'm just ignorant of something here, but is there some kind of special way that devices have to be connected that make them more like a computer? If I connect two computers together, so that they accomplish one (computational) task, are they not one unit computing the answer... one computer? If not, how is it more ... unitary(?) for me to connect (basically by "wire") a bunch more logic gates to the main cluster within a processor? If I de-localize the RAM -- say, for example, setting some aside for exclusive use by the video card -- have I changed in kind what I'm working with?
I am a long-time computer nerd, but my training is in philosophy, not EE, so maybe I'm just missing something ...
There's another particularly good use for a moon base that I can think of: experience.
As of yet, we have no actual experience building on any environment other than our terran terrains. Prognosticators tell us that building on other planets with less human-friendly environments may become desirable some day (such as Mars). The moon is a (relatively) close place to build in a (relatively) hostile environment -- moreso than Mars in many respects. Building a moon base and keeping it inhabited for a time -- especially by inhabitants doing run-of-the-mill human functions, many of which (if history has anything to say about man) seem to go something like this:
- ...
- ...
- do something stupid
- ...
- die.
would help us to run into the sorts of problems we might also be likely to have on other planetsAnd while they're at it, building telescopes, doing low-G experiments, and all those other fun things could be accomplished as well.
Re: 'Sacrifice' means giving something up; what did Jesus give up...? The claim is that what he gave up was unity with his father. That is, the father and the son are one in spirit, but the Son suffers disunity with his father (that's the idea behind that whole "Why have you forsaken me?" (Psalm 22:1) (Matthew 27) quotation that Jesus recites while being crucified). Since the father is the source of all life (and good, and such), the son is made to suffer the pain of death in the form of disunity with the source of his life.
Re: "...if all He did was go up to heaven to stand bside His Father..." The idea behind this is that if his death had been just, then it would have been the final word on the matter, but since his death was by his own choice as an act of mercy (a death by proxy for people who had sinned), it wasn't un-just to overturn the sentence (as it would be for someone who justly deserved death). Note that that doesn't un-do the sentence, it just ends it -- as if you pardoned someone who was on death row that you found out wasn't guilty of the crime... they still served the time, they just didn't have to serve it "forever."
Re: "...casting judgement and hell upon all who do not believe in Him..." Hell isn't actually related to the judgement (I know that's an odd sounding claim, but the bit that describes the whole hell thing is pretty unambiguous (Rev. 20:12-15):
Notice that everyone is judged -- people who do believe in him and people who don't. Also notice (in 15) that the criterion for "the lake of fire" is whether one's name is written in "the book of life" which is a way of saying something like "Jesus's little black book." The one set of books is what you've done, the other book is whether you believed in him. So you can be a rat-bastardly Christian or a most excellent non-Christian and that's not relevant to the whole life/death bit. (Though the claim is you won't find a single person besides Jesus who hasn't ever given in to any temptation ... some people will ask about babies and retarded kids and such at this point. I don't know how that works, but I would generally respond that the picture that we tend to see (Old Testament and New Testament) is that God prefers mercy to just
I'm all for speaking about about whatever cause you find deplorable (though I happen to disagree with your stance about religions in general). The issue, though, isn't about his speaking out, it's about the motivation with which he spoke out and the actions that his superiors (in whatever sphere) decided to take about it. In this case it was bigotry (which is his right) and his superiors aren't fans of bigotry (which is their right). Let it be that "speaking out against and deriding them is more a moral imperitive than an intolerant act" -- it still isn't grounds for the notion that they ought not to be allowed in the legislature in principle. In practice, sure (i.e. not voted into office or voted out of office). But not in principle.
Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu, or whomever else (religious or otherwise) ought to be afforded the same basic respect as anyone else in the public and legal spheres, as long as their activities are not in violation of valid laws. (This "ought" has the weight of constitutionality in my claim, and niether more nor less.)
There's a really big difference between the Christian Fundamentalists and the Black Panthers that makes the analogy (Fundamentalist:Christianity::Black Panther:Civil Rights) fail -- viz. the Black Panthers were seeking to affect their ends through violent, illegal means. This is not the case for the Christian Fundamentalists (or at least the ones to which Professor Mirecki was objecting). Thus, the idea that "the situation is the same" between the idea that "very few people would oppose an e-mail deriding the Black Panthers for their militarism" and "email[s that] single out the fundamentalists in the state legislature" is incorrect.
..."
There are no valid grounds for exclusion from the legislature except: popular opinion (they can't get enough votes) and illegal activity (such as the Black Panther's violence). Objections based on "'Unscientific' beliefs" (or any other set of beleifs) is simple bigotry. However right or wrong someone's beliefs are the having of them ought not to be grounds for keeping them out of legislature.
You said that "There are moderates, mind you - an overwhelming majority of Christians (including the entire Catholic church) see little or no tension between creationism and evolution. Those in our state legislature looking to change science until it is no longer science, however, are in that looney minority who believe things like
The supremecy of "Science" is not a right garaunteed by the constitution or any other legal document. What is garaunteed is a right of the people to legislate as they see fit (via the vehicle of voting). If the people want to vote on policy based on the idea that cybernetic chihuahuas from the inner core of the sun are responsible for gravity, that is their perogative. If more level heads prevail in the voting arena, then good for them. If a "Christian Fundamentalist" gets in office by winning enough votes, then he is the duly elected representative of the people and, as such, he speaks for the majority (of those who excersized their right to vote for an elected representative in the government). The minority of Christian Fundamentalists among Christians in general is irrelevant; if anyone of any minority -- no matter how small -- gets elected, then that minority has earned its representation. "Christian Fundamentalists" (and, indeed, any group) can have any power they can sieze.
Thus, Mirecki's comments are not directed towards a group that has violated some portion of the social contracts of our nation (i.e. violated the constitution or particular legislation). He simply diagrees (whether rightly or not is irrelevant) and spoke against their being in the state legislature on those grounds. This is identical in principle to complaining about any religious or philosophical group being permitted to be involved in the state legislature. There is no difference, except that more people seem to dislike these particular ideas and choices of law than those of other groups. Nonetheless, they were able to be elected and to enact their laws legally, and their right to do so ought to be respected.
P.S. I'm not talking about the two men who assaulted him. I'm referring to the general disquiet with the remarks from the (largely non-violent) community at large.
The general response to this article seems a little strange to me. If the statement is that ...
"The article goes on to explain that Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-_________ sentiments around to people interested in the class, and was subsequently beaten for his troubles."
In which the blank above is left variable, then it could be seen as grounds for punishment (even dismissal). Doesn't that seem to be the usual trend? I mean, if it says any of the following
"Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-BLACK sentiments around to people interested"
"Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-JEWISH sentiments around to people interested"
"Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-MUSLIM sentiments around to people interested"
"Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-CHINESE sentiments around to people interested"
"Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-MEXICAN sentiments around to people interested"
"Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-HINDU sentiments around to people interested"
"Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-HANDICAPPED sentiments around to people interested"
"Mirecki evidently sent poorly worded email with anti-ELDERLY sentiments around to people interested"
(or any number of other groups) wouldn't we expect some kind unrest over it? Why are the Christians (or whoever) treated so poorly in some of the responses to this article (as in posts with content like "Of course, the local fundies had a stooge on the email list, and used their normal right-wing media outlets to stage a bogus controversy." What's the difference between something like this and wanting to prosecute some CEO or Congressman over comments perceived to be prejudiced on an internal memo?
The content doesn't have to be *intended* to be anti-GROUPOFYOURCHOICE, it only has to be *perceived* as such -- e.g.: When an aide to the mayor of Washington D.C. was "encouraged" to resign after offense at his using the word "niggardly" in a speech because it sounds like "nigger" -- even though the words are unrelated in definition AND etymology (read: it's completely unrelated, and comes from a different language it just sounds similar -- check the Wikipedia entry if you're curious). Irritating, sure, but would anyone be willing to say, "stupid blacks!" over it? Surely not. Whoever reacted against it was just a little overly sensetive. Same with the Christians who over-reacted to some unintentional "anti-Christian" sentiments. Same with any group that does that.
Give 'em a break -- they're just people doing their best to do their best, like most everyone else.