they could just as well give you a pair of booster cables and hope you don't short them across your nuts... power is power.
Um, no, no it's not. If you'd like to test that theory, go climb the nearest electrical tower and plug your hairdryer into the wires. I take no responsibility for the result.
Less dramatic demonstration: plug your lead-acid car battery directly into an AC wall socket. Hilarity ensues. The phrase "the goggles do nothing!" is bound to come up.
I don't know if you noticed, but 9 volt batteries tend to be shaped differently than the AAA - type. No, this was not an aesthetic choice, or an attempt to ensure vendor lock-in - there are very real, rather good reasons for doing it that way.
Thanks, that's interesting. Doesn't fully meet the criteria of the original article (he mentioned a "prison stay", which wasn't the case here), but it still seems rather dumb.
So, let me see if *I* understand your stance. Johnny and Suzie (both 15 years old) take nude photos of themselves and give them to each other. This act causes recognizable harm to society (or it's people on the whole) itself (pollution, bribery/corruption), some kind of violation of the property of an individual or organization (trespassing, vandalizing gov't property, potentially pollution again), or creates a situation wherein you are endangering others (traffic laws, pollution again)?
Not even close. The fact that my very first words in the original comment were "I like your general point" should have tipped you off. I don't know how you got any of that stuff from. It's widely accepted, now, that slashdot readers don't RTFA, but you can at least RTF comments you're responding to.
Here, let me make it easy for you:
You're using the "individual" and "society" as if they were interchangeable, and they're not.
What you - and many like you - fail to realize is that most laws don't exist to protect individuals. They exist to protect "society". Whether or not that's a good thing is open to debate. What kind of society we want to have is also open to debate. However, as long as you're under the impression that laws are meant to protect YOU, you can't possibly make an informed contribution to those discussions.
Clear enough? I don't know how many different ways I can phrase this. The only "stance" I was making was to point out that when you argue against these laws based on the fact that they don't protect the individuals who break them, you're entirely missing the point.
In fact, except for the first two, all of your examples involve an individual hurting more than just themselves.
I'd LOVE to see you try and argue that public nudity harms people. Let's just assume you meant "first three" instead of "first two". It's still nonsense because you have to dilute your definition of "hurt". If I disobey traffic laws, I'm not harming anyone. If I take a shit in the middle of the street, I'm not harming anyone. None of those acts are harmful on an individual basis, they just create a statistical increase in risk and present a larger problem once a significant percentage of the population engages in them. Once you get your definition of "hurt" down to that point, you pretty much can't exclude ANYTHING from being considered harmful. Here's one example:
Football isn't harmful in and of itself, but it does increase the statistical likelihood of dying or being paralyzed due to spinal injuries. Since excess deaths amongst the population have to be dealt with at least partly with public funds, this causes further harm to the medical system and emergency services. Furthermore, the activity colloquially known as "game night" leads directly to an increase in sedentary activity, combined with the consumption of excessive quantities of alcohol and various unnecessary carbohydrates, thereby causing further hurting the medical system and public welfare. Ergo, playing and watching football should immediately be made illegal.
Does that sound reasonable to you? Can you give me a definition of "harm" which would fit the laws I mentioned, yet not also necessitate the criminalization of all sorts of mundane activities?
You don't really understand why certain laws are put into place do you? Speeding is not put into place because you might crash your car and hurt yourself, it's because you might crash into someone else and hurt them.
No shit! Wow. Thanks, man, I don't know what I'd do without you.
I'll return the favor and clue you in on a little something: if you read the comment previous to the one you're responding to, you tend to get a much better understanding of the context of the conversation.
but it doesn't make any sense if the perpetrator and the victim are one and the same
You just seem unable to parse simple English. Like him, you are using the "individual" and "society" as if they were interchangeable, and they're not.
Were we to follow your logic, we'd also decriminalize many other things including but not limited to:
- all drug use
- suicide
- all public nudity
- public urination and defecation
- speeding, jaywalking, and pretty much all driving laws
- trespassing
- poaching
- bribery/corruption
- many types of pollution
- theft/destruction of public property
That's off the top of my head, although I know there are at least a dozen more I could come up with, and probably hundreds you could dig up in various bylaws. Every nation except for the US would also have to get rid of their gun laws, which would be interesting. In any event, since none of those crimes have a direct victim who is "someone other than the perpetrator", according to your logic we shouldn't have any of them.
What you - and many like you - fail to realize is that most laws don't exist to protect individuals. They exist to protect "society". Whether or not that's a good thing is open to debate. What kind of society we want to have is also open to debate. However, as long as you're under the impression that laws are meant to protect YOU, you can't possibly make an informed contribution to those discussions.
I just believe in doing what's right. Oppressive laws and tyrannical regimes only prosper when good people do nothing. Most of the people of Afghanistan didn't WANT their women to be chained up in a Burqa and kept locked up at home, but they kept silent because their society was ruled by a bunch of theistic maniacs who'd gladly put a bullet in your head for trying to defend your daughters right to lead a normal life.
That's what makes "free speech" such a sacred right, in my eyes; it allows us to freely discuss anything, including what kind of moral and legal standards we want our society to have. I'm truly sorry to hear that you are too afraid to openly take part in that process. While anonymity may be a godsend in that regard, it's unfortunate that people in free nations can still be cowed into not exercising their freedoms.
On the other hand, in this case you're overstating my supposed "bravery" since I am effectively anonymous on here anyway. Yes, some people could figure out my real identity from my slashdot username, but I'd be quite surprised if anyone bothered. While I have no problem taking part in these types of conversations in the offline world, I've got to admit that even the limited anonymity provided by a handle tends to make the process a lot easier. And while I'd be willing to stand behind my statements if someone confronted me offline, I'm in no hurry to identify myself.
I like your general point, but I gotta comment on the following:
Best example is two teenagers who were convicted of sending naked photos to each other. They made no effort to distribute the photos to a wider audience and were both under 18. However, they were successfully tried and convicted on child porn charges and that conviction has since been upheld on appeal. After their prison stay, they'll both have to register as sex offenders.
Not that I'm TOO surprised to hear about something that idiotic... but could you please provide a source? It seems like a bit of an overreaction even for the Save-Our-Kids fanatics.
Clearly such a situation is not designed to protect them from anything. While they may cause themselves harm by sharing nude photos, that harm has already been caused. The harm of going to prison and being labeled a sex offender is far, far worse
That's a really dumb line of argument. Observe:
Murder laws are intended to protect you from being killed. So if you go out and kill someone, clearly we shouldn't arrest you since such a situation would not be designed to protect you from anything. While you may cause harm by killing someone, that harm has already been caused.
See? You're using the "individual" and "society" as if they were interchangeable, and they're not.
Are you really trying to make that your case? We wouldn't tell women "show me your genitals" if it wasn't quite obviously different from looking at wrists or necks.
The main reason it's different is that we make such a big deal out of it. If you lived in a society where women were covered from head to toe, the sight of a female ankle would arouse similar feelings. Conversely, if you lived in a society where everyone walked around nude all the time, you would find it perfectly normal to be surrounded by breasts and genitals on a constant basis.
The variability of sexual interest can also be demonstrated by the existence of fetishists. For instance, podophiles find the sight of feet just as (if not more) arousing than the site of genitals. The levels of homosexuality in ancient Greece show a similar phenomenon - large numbers of men being strongly attracted to other men, rather than to female genitals. We know that sexual attraction/preference is transferable and trainable, to some extent. While society in and of itself may not define what you are attracted to, it certainly plays a major role.
It mentions that the first offense was of actual kids. That means it was real kiddie porn.
My parents have old pictures of me as a kid, taking a bath. Should they go to jail?
It's idiotic beyond belief to think that nude pictures are by default harmful or exploitative. It's like saying that, since guns are harmful, pictures of guns must also be harmful. If my government decided to make it a crime to own pictures of firearms, it wouldn't surprise me a bit - it would be perfectly in line with the policies they've been following.
Yes, child-porn can be harmful. But there is a world of difference between pictures which depict simple nudity, and ones which depict child abuse. Not only do many governments not distinguish between these, but they apparently don't distinguish between reality and fantasy, either. They seem to feel that it's ok to arrest people for drawing a cartoon. When the Chinese do that, we rightly criticize them for oppressing their citizens; when we do the same thing, well... it's For The Children!
How can any thinking person defend these types of policies?
Since you brought up car analogies, here's a recap of this conversation thread in car analogy form:
Argent: Cars move. You: Prove (in the scientific sense of "prove") that, and you'll become famous (possibly rich, too). Russotto: Except that Henry Ford beat you to it. You: It may be "proven" that movement exists in classical-scale (mass or size) vehicles, but it says nothing about quantum-scale vehicles. Me: You suck. You: No I don't. Me: We know that cars move, regardless of whatever theoretical scenarios you're inventing. You: The fact that we don't know everything about cars means I can claim that we don't know anything about them.
Or, at least, that's how I saw it:)
On a more serious note, we KNOW that black holes are unstable. Whether or not they continue to be unstable at quantum scales is irrelevant to that statement. If you manage to prove that they DON'T remain unstable once they reach a certain scale, we'd have to change that statement to "we know that black holes are mostly unstable". Since you'd be making a massive contribution to our understanding of the universe I'd be more than happy to make that concession. Until that time, Argent's statement stands on it's own.
Yah, I think your definition of "know" is a bit too esoteric for my taste. Reminds me of the people who argue that, since we can't test for the existence of gods, nobody can know that they don't exist. If making arguments based on pedantic technicalities makes you happy, then fill your boots.
I think you're underestimating the cost required for a manned mission. The low-ball figure for a manned Mars mission is $20 billion, and, IMO, that's completely unrealistic. A cost of $200 billion or more seems much more likely. Even with the lowest figure, though, a manned mission would cost about 60-70 times as much as a single rover mission.
I also think you're wrong about the "less science" bit. Take, for example, the Viking lander. As part of it's mission, it made a 6-inch-deep trench in the Martian soil. If it had dug down a few more inches, chances are that in 1976 we would have known that Mars has water. Instead we had to wait 30 years to get that information. A manned mission could accomplish more in a day than we've learned in the last decade.
You're right - we WILL need to send people to mars eventually. Until then, the rovers are an excellent way to reconnoiter the area before we get there, at a relatively low price. Manned and remote-operated missions both have a roll to play.
It may be "proven" that Hawking radiation exists in classical-scale (mass or size) black holes, but it says nothing about quantum-scale black holes. It's not know what happens to black holes at the final stages of evaporation, it's not known if they explode in a burst of radiation or if something else happens.
Sure, just like we don't know what happens to a fire in it's last stages. Does it continue to burn out? Does it magically cross into a different dimension where it continues to exist in the form of a unicorn? Nobody knows!
Not knowing the exact calculations, and depending upon the size of the item, isn't it more likely that such a black hole would consume enough to turn itself into a less dangerous dense sphere?
Not knowing the exact calculations, and depending upon the size of the item, isn't it more likely that an alligator would consume enough to turn itself into a less dangerous bunny rabbit?
Yeh because you should be jailed for not being polite to cops eh?
I don't think you understand how this "law" thing works. It's always baffling to me that there are people out there who have no clue how the legal system is structured.
If your idea of "fun" is spending thousands of dollars on a useless box and hoping that you'll make your money back in a few weeks... E-MAIL ME!!! I've got old shoe-boxes that are begging for a loving home.
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.
Dogmata are found in many religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, where they are considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion. As a fundamental element of religion, the term "dogma" is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt.
Christianity is dogmatic by definition. If you reject the core beliefs, you are not a Christian - you simply share some of the same beliefs and chose to self-identify with them for the name recognition. I have no problem with that, although I would prefer that people who hold vastly different views NOT self-identify as having the same beliefs. Regardless of your views, though, you don't get to pretend that Christianity itself isn't dogmatic.
Otherwise put your real name, username or anything else you deem appropriate. If you leave this field blank the message will default to containing your Slashdot username.
You've now had two individuals give a detailed explanation of the problems with your claims, and have been asked for sources three times. You've not only failed to account for the discrepancies in your assertions, but have flatly refused to provide any data and have, instead, fallen back on childish ad-hominem attacks. I know that these facts don't mean much to you, but to any person with an IQ over 90 they are a clear admission that you have no idea what you're talking about. So go ahead, kept sputtering and venting; just don't expect anyone to care.
Slashdot Mirror
they could just as well give you a pair of booster cables and hope you don't short them across your nuts... power is power.
Um, no, no it's not. If you'd like to test that theory, go climb the nearest electrical tower and plug your hairdryer into the wires. I take no responsibility for the result.
Less dramatic demonstration: plug your lead-acid car battery directly into an AC wall socket. Hilarity ensues. The phrase "the goggles do nothing!" is bound to come up.
I don't know if you noticed, but 9 volt batteries tend to be shaped differently than the AAA - type. No, this was not an aesthetic choice, or an attempt to ensure vendor lock-in - there are very real, rather good reasons for doing it that way.
In late 2008 the U.S Army Reserve spied on peaceful protests against the Federal Reserve.
http://www.infowars.com/images/reserve1.jpg [infowars.com]
http://www.infowars.com/images/reserve2.jpg [infowars.com]
http://www.infowars.com/images/reserve3.jpg [infowars.com]
You call THAT spying??
Look, do yourself a favor:
1. Stop reading infowars.
2. Think for yourself instead of swallowing every half baked conspiracy theory you come across.
There's enough real scary stuff going on in the world - you don't need to make up crazy shit in order to feel even more threatened.
Thanks, that's interesting. Doesn't fully meet the criteria of the original article (he mentioned a "prison stay", which wasn't the case here), but it still seems rather dumb.
So, let me see if *I* understand your stance. Johnny and Suzie (both 15 years old) take nude photos of themselves and give them to each other. This act causes recognizable harm to society (or it's people on the whole) itself (pollution, bribery/corruption), some kind of violation of the property of an individual or organization (trespassing, vandalizing gov't property, potentially pollution again), or creates a situation wherein you are endangering others (traffic laws, pollution again)?
Not even close. The fact that my very first words in the original comment were "I like your general point" should have tipped you off. I don't know how you got any of that stuff from. It's widely accepted, now, that slashdot readers don't RTFA, but you can at least RTF comments you're responding to.
Here, let me make it easy for you:
You're using the "individual" and "society" as if they were interchangeable, and they're not.
What you - and many like you - fail to realize is that most laws don't exist to protect individuals. They exist to protect "society". Whether or not that's a good thing is open to debate. What kind of society we want to have is also open to debate. However, as long as you're under the impression that laws are meant to protect YOU, you can't possibly make an informed contribution to those discussions.
Clear enough? I don't know how many different ways I can phrase this. The only "stance" I was making was to point out that when you argue against these laws based on the fact that they don't protect the individuals who break them, you're entirely missing the point.
In fact, except for the first two, all of your examples involve an individual hurting more than just themselves.
I'd LOVE to see you try and argue that public nudity harms people. Let's just assume you meant "first three" instead of "first two". It's still nonsense because you have to dilute your definition of "hurt". If I disobey traffic laws, I'm not harming anyone. If I take a shit in the middle of the street, I'm not harming anyone. None of those acts are harmful on an individual basis, they just create a statistical increase in risk and present a larger problem once a significant percentage of the population engages in them. Once you get your definition of "hurt" down to that point, you pretty much can't exclude ANYTHING from being considered harmful. Here's one example:
Football isn't harmful in and of itself, but it does increase the statistical likelihood of dying or being paralyzed due to spinal injuries. Since excess deaths amongst the population have to be dealt with at least partly with public funds, this causes further harm to the medical system and emergency services. Furthermore, the activity colloquially known as "game night" leads directly to an increase in sedentary activity, combined with the consumption of excessive quantities of alcohol and various unnecessary carbohydrates, thereby causing further hurting the medical system and public welfare. Ergo, playing and watching football should immediately be made illegal.
Does that sound reasonable to you? Can you give me a definition of "harm" which would fit the laws I mentioned, yet not also necessitate the criminalization of all sorts of mundane activities?
You don't really understand why certain laws are put into place do you? Speeding is not put into place because you might crash your car and hurt yourself, it's because you might crash into someone else and hurt them.
No shit! Wow. Thanks, man, I don't know what I'd do without you.
I'll return the favor and clue you in on a little something: if you read the comment previous to the one you're responding to, you tend to get a much better understanding of the context of the conversation.
Cheers!
but it doesn't make any sense if the perpetrator and the victim are one and the same
You just seem unable to parse simple English. Like him, you are using the "individual" and "society" as if they were interchangeable, and they're not.
Were we to follow your logic, we'd also decriminalize many other things including but not limited to:
- all drug use
- suicide
- all public nudity
- public urination and defecation
- speeding, jaywalking, and pretty much all driving laws
- trespassing
- poaching
- bribery/corruption
- many types of pollution
- theft/destruction of public property
That's off the top of my head, although I know there are at least a dozen more I could come up with, and probably hundreds you could dig up in various bylaws. Every nation except for the US would also have to get rid of their gun laws, which would be interesting. In any event, since none of those crimes have a direct victim who is "someone other than the perpetrator", according to your logic we shouldn't have any of them.
What you - and many like you - fail to realize is that most laws don't exist to protect individuals. They exist to protect "society". Whether or not that's a good thing is open to debate. What kind of society we want to have is also open to debate. However, as long as you're under the impression that laws are meant to protect YOU, you can't possibly make an informed contribution to those discussions.
I just believe in doing what's right. Oppressive laws and tyrannical regimes only prosper when good people do nothing. Most of the people of Afghanistan didn't WANT their women to be chained up in a Burqa and kept locked up at home, but they kept silent because their society was ruled by a bunch of theistic maniacs who'd gladly put a bullet in your head for trying to defend your daughters right to lead a normal life.
That's what makes "free speech" such a sacred right, in my eyes; it allows us to freely discuss anything, including what kind of moral and legal standards we want our society to have. I'm truly sorry to hear that you are too afraid to openly take part in that process. While anonymity may be a godsend in that regard, it's unfortunate that people in free nations can still be cowed into not exercising their freedoms.
On the other hand, in this case you're overstating my supposed "bravery" since I am effectively anonymous on here anyway. Yes, some people could figure out my real identity from my slashdot username, but I'd be quite surprised if anyone bothered. While I have no problem taking part in these types of conversations in the offline world, I've got to admit that even the limited anonymity provided by a handle tends to make the process a lot easier. And while I'd be willing to stand behind my statements if someone confronted me offline, I'm in no hurry to identify myself.
I like your general point, but I gotta comment on the following:
Best example is two teenagers who were convicted of sending naked photos to each other. They made no effort to distribute the photos to a wider audience and were both under 18. However, they were successfully tried and convicted on child porn charges and that conviction has since been upheld on appeal. After their prison stay, they'll both have to register as sex offenders.
Not that I'm TOO surprised to hear about something that idiotic ... but could you please provide a source? It seems like a bit of an overreaction even for the Save-Our-Kids fanatics.
Clearly such a situation is not designed to protect them from anything. While they may cause themselves harm by sharing nude photos, that harm has already been caused. The harm of going to prison and being labeled a sex offender is far, far worse
That's a really dumb line of argument. Observe:
Murder laws are intended to protect you from being killed. So if you go out and kill someone, clearly we shouldn't arrest you since such a situation would not be designed to protect you from anything. While you may cause harm by killing someone, that harm has already been caused.
See? You're using the "individual" and "society" as if they were interchangeable, and they're not.
Are you really trying to make that your case? We wouldn't tell women "show me your genitals" if it wasn't quite obviously different from looking at wrists or necks.
The main reason it's different is that we make such a big deal out of it. If you lived in a society where women were covered from head to toe, the sight of a female ankle would arouse similar feelings. Conversely, if you lived in a society where everyone walked around nude all the time, you would find it perfectly normal to be surrounded by breasts and genitals on a constant basis.
The variability of sexual interest can also be demonstrated by the existence of fetishists. For instance, podophiles find the sight of feet just as (if not more) arousing than the site of genitals. The levels of homosexuality in ancient Greece show a similar phenomenon - large numbers of men being strongly attracted to other men, rather than to female genitals. We know that sexual attraction/preference is transferable and trainable, to some extent. While society in and of itself may not define what you are attracted to, it certainly plays a major role.
It mentions that the first offense was of actual kids. That means it was real kiddie porn.
My parents have old pictures of me as a kid, taking a bath. Should they go to jail?
It's idiotic beyond belief to think that nude pictures are by default harmful or exploitative. It's like saying that, since guns are harmful, pictures of guns must also be harmful. If my government decided to make it a crime to own pictures of firearms, it wouldn't surprise me a bit - it would be perfectly in line with the policies they've been following.
Yes, child-porn can be harmful. But there is a world of difference between pictures which depict simple nudity, and ones which depict child abuse. Not only do many governments not distinguish between these, but they apparently don't distinguish between reality and fantasy, either. They seem to feel that it's ok to arrest people for drawing a cartoon. When the Chinese do that, we rightly criticize them for oppressing their citizens; when we do the same thing, well ... it's For The Children!
How can any thinking person defend these types of policies?
Don't look now, but you also used the word twice.
*sigh*
Will someone cue the *whoosh* machine, please?
you have the responsibility of being civil about it
Fascist.
1. Only idiots use the word "fascism" twice in a comment totaling 4 sentences.
2. If you don't support the right of groups to self-select their membership criteria, then you're a fascist.
That is all.
Since you brought up car analogies, here's a recap of this conversation thread in car analogy form:
Argent: Cars move.
You: Prove (in the scientific sense of "prove") that, and you'll become famous (possibly rich, too).
Russotto: Except that Henry Ford beat you to it.
You: It may be "proven" that movement exists in classical-scale (mass or size) vehicles, but it says nothing about quantum-scale vehicles.
Me: You suck.
You: No I don't.
Me: We know that cars move, regardless of whatever theoretical scenarios you're inventing.
You: The fact that we don't know everything about cars means I can claim that we don't know anything about them.
Or, at least, that's how I saw it :)
On a more serious note, we KNOW that black holes are unstable. Whether or not they continue to be unstable at quantum scales is irrelevant to that statement. If you manage to prove that they DON'T remain unstable once they reach a certain scale, we'd have to change that statement to "we know that black holes are mostly unstable". Since you'd be making a massive contribution to our understanding of the universe I'd be more than happy to make that concession. Until that time, Argent's statement stands on it's own.
Yah, I think your definition of "know" is a bit too esoteric for my taste. Reminds me of the people who argue that, since we can't test for the existence of gods, nobody can know that they don't exist. If making arguments based on pedantic technicalities makes you happy, then fill your boots.
I think you're underestimating the cost required for a manned mission. The low-ball figure for a manned Mars mission is $20 billion, and, IMO, that's completely unrealistic. A cost of $200 billion or more seems much more likely. Even with the lowest figure, though, a manned mission would cost about 60-70 times as much as a single rover mission.
I also think you're wrong about the "less science" bit. Take, for example, the Viking lander. As part of it's mission, it made a 6-inch-deep trench in the Martian soil. If it had dug down a few more inches, chances are that in 1976 we would have known that Mars has water. Instead we had to wait 30 years to get that information. A manned mission could accomplish more in a day than we've learned in the last decade.
You're right - we WILL need to send people to mars eventually. Until then, the rovers are an excellent way to reconnoiter the area before we get there, at a relatively low price. Manned and remote-operated missions both have a roll to play.
It may be "proven" that Hawking radiation exists in classical-scale (mass or size) black holes, but it says nothing about quantum-scale black holes. It's not know what happens to black holes at the final stages of evaporation, it's not known if they explode in a burst of radiation or if something else happens.
Sure, just like we don't know what happens to a fire in it's last stages. Does it continue to burn out? Does it magically cross into a different dimension where it continues to exist in the form of a unicorn? Nobody knows!
Not knowing the exact calculations, and depending upon the size of the item, isn't it more likely that such a black hole would consume enough to turn itself into a less dangerous dense sphere?
Not knowing the exact calculations, and depending upon the size of the item, isn't it more likely that an alligator would consume enough to turn itself into a less dangerous bunny rabbit?
Yeh because you should be jailed for not being polite to cops eh?
I don't think you understand how this "law" thing works. It's always baffling to me that there are people out there who have no clue how the legal system is structured.
Ok, tell THEM to e-mail me :)
If your idea of "fun" is spending thousands of dollars on a useless box and hoping that you'll make your money back in a few weeks ... E-MAIL ME!!! I've got old shoe-boxes that are begging for a loving home.
A definition where Christianity is a dogmatic religion, of course.
Dogma:
Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.
Dogmata are found in many religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, where they are considered core principles that must be upheld by all followers of that religion. As a fundamental element of religion, the term "dogma" is assigned to those theological tenets which are considered to be well demonstrated, such that their proposed disputation or revision effectively means that a person no longer accepts the given religion as his or her own, or has entered into a period of personal doubt.
Christianity is dogmatic by definition. If you reject the core beliefs, you are not a Christian - you simply share some of the same beliefs and chose to self-identify with them for the name recognition. I have no problem with that, although I would prefer that people who hold vastly different views NOT self-identify as having the same beliefs. Regardless of your views, though, you don't get to pretend that Christianity itself isn't dogmatic.
Actually, Slashdot calls it a Nickname not a username
Subscriptions:
Otherwise put your real name, username or anything else you deem appropriate. If you leave this field blank the message will default to containing your Slashdot username.
Feeds:
Where you see $username below, substitute the URI-encoded username of the user in question (such as Clifton+Wood).
Only a fascist would think that a number is a suitable way to ID someone ;-)
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
You've now had two individuals give a detailed explanation of the problems with your claims, and have been asked for sources three times. You've not only failed to account for the discrepancies in your assertions, but have flatly refused to provide any data and have, instead, fallen back on childish ad-hominem attacks. I know that these facts don't mean much to you, but to any person with an IQ over 90 they are a clear admission that you have no idea what you're talking about. So go ahead, kept sputtering and venting; just don't expect anyone to care.
Chinese hackers.
Hey moron.
Hi dumbass!
I was there.
Yay!
It was in the newspapers.
Then you should have no problem providing a link. I'm waiting with bated breath.
The article specifically states that curfews were imposed and that the national guard was called in.
Which doesn't require martial law. Try again?