In the meantime, if you simply assume that every corporation is out to make every possible dollar in any way they can - you'll be right.
And you know what the worst part is - there is no hardcore OR quasi-capitalist that will disagree with you when you say that. And they'll be proud of the fact, to boot.
And they'll be demonstrating so very clearly why unrestrained capitalism doesn't work - because capitalism cares nothing for people, even to the point of considering people and human needs a hindrance to the collection of capital. Capitalism as imagined by its proponents only works when humans are machines, and I don't expect that to be true for awhile.
Don't get me wrong - I think Capitalism has some wonderful aspects to it. But it cannot be taken as a tabula rasa for admiring *every* aspect of capitalism, particularly the aspects of it that have appeared in the past 75 years.
What is owned cannot be culture. For me that's an axiom.
Own it if you want, but don't pretend that its got anything to do with culture. If I have to ask someone's permission to use it, it isn't culture. Culture *is* that which can be freely shared.
Oh for the love of Joe, would somebody please give this person mod points..
Wow. You too my facetious post alot more seriously than I meant it.
Dismissing the real reasons Windows is at the position it is today as if it was merely due to rhetoric is doing a disservice to yourself.
And while everything you said may be accurate, there's enough bullshit on all sides to go around. Rhetoric almost always has, and has always had, far more sway on opinion and behavior than the truth, and you know that.
I just want to point out that government is a part of our culture. It is commonplace to classify cultures based on the 'governments' they employ. OUR culture is our government in part, because of the strong ties to it dating back to the creation of both Canada and the USA. That's just how it goes, and for you to say otherwise, although based on technical definition is true, is just so very false
I didn't say otherwise, you did. You said they're one and the same. Now you're saying "in part." I merely made the distinction that they're different; the culture influences the government and as time goes on, the reverse is true also.
Another thing I want to point out is the fact that your argument is moot with me
Ah, and this is the real crux of the matter, isn't it? You're immune to ideas that may be different than yours. People are so happy with their point of view, regardless of what it may do to the culture. I'm not saying your ideas are right OR wrong - I'm simply saying that outright refusal to consider other ideas is becoming a big problem, everywhere.
I know the great deal of stress my apparent 'beliefs' must be causing you
Not at all, I enjoy talking about this stuff. No worries.
also that just because I will stand up for what I believe is right
In the end, that is the most anyone can do - this is an admirable quality.
I will never force my opinions on you or anyone else for that matter
Here's where we have a problem.. while that may be true of you, it unfortunately is not the way our culture operates. Force and control are the only tools our culture has at its disposal, because it is fundamentally dependent on making everyone act essentially the same.
Now, I'm not talking about things like religion or your favorite food or what to wear to work - I'm talking about the fact that at the end of the day, everyone works to continue building this civilization - whether they really want to or not. You have to eat, so you do what you're expected to do - go to school, get a job, raise a family, earn a living. There's nothing else, for the most part.
My philosophy is predicated upon the belief that "There is no one right way to live"; unfortunately we live in a culture that does not agree. People living another way than this one isn't 'efficient.' Bloody savages.
You can see what I'm talking about right?
Absolutely;) And I do understand where you're coming from. I hope in some way you understand where I'm coming from too. I don't have kids yet, so it's a little easier for me to sit here and say this than it may be for parents; I realize that, too. Judgement must be balanced, after all..
Ummm... no. Culture is the ideals, traditions, and knowledge passed from generation to generation. Government is an artificially created body designed to protect the populace and uphold the law. I think you already knew that though, cause of your statement that "then obviously there is something wrong with our government. Why? Well, our culture is what dictates our laws, and our culture believes in the freedom to wear what you want on your face."
A bill that stops people from looking at child porn is NOT bad, useless maybe, but not bad.
Hypothetical: What if it accomplished this by placing a camera in your bedroom? I'm not saying this bill does this - this is merely a hypothetical question. Which value would you choose? "Think of the children", or your own freedom?
Hence a law saying that we can wear what we want. Where it seemingly gets complicated for you is when it comes to this 'blocking of child porn' issue.
There are no laws saying you can wear what you want. That's the definition of freedom - you can do anything you're not explicitly prohibited from doing.
Oh, and we've already got (both in the US and Canada) several dozen laws making child pornography of any sort illegal. You still seem to think I'm advocating making kiddie porn legal. I'm not. In fact, more power to you, pass thousands of laws making it illegal. My problem is not that it is illegal - my problem is their methodology in this case. THAT's where it seems to get complicated for you.
And don't pull that quote about...
Seriously. I had no intention of pulling out that quote, because I don't like that quote.
because our government isn't made up of Nazi's, which pretty much sums up my points nicely...
With all due respect, I doubt you have any idea whom comprises our government, in terms of personal familiarity with those individuals. But either way, WHO makes up our government really wasn't any part of my point.
I don't hold the government(s) involved responsible. They're just machines. I hold parents responsible. They raise ignorant, self-centered children who are supposed to grow up to guide the government-machines but instead abdicate their responsibilities and assume their lives are as comfortable as they are through some sort of natural law instead of through the hard work of rational, educated minds. (yeah, I know that sentence was running on...)
Ahhhh..
I am glad you said that. I couldn't agree more, and this point in fact is the real truth of the matter. But nobody ever seems to talk about this point.
OK, lets step back from this for a sec. We aren't talking about a freedom or a right, we are talking about people's perversions online and child porn
No, YOU'RE talking about that. Nobody would support what you're talking about, which is precisely why you must belabor the point - it's indefensible and so you feel it makes you right. But, I think you're the one who needs to step back and realize this:
What I am talking about is that bills like this one are the sort that grant permission to the government to tell us what is ok and what isn't. It is THAT which I find unacceptable.
Now you say that growing up in a world where the government teaches us what is good or bad is not so great, but it's a bit too late for that. Governments (and religious organizations) do that today in nearly all parts of our lives.
Well, then bring on more of the same. Since it's already this way, it MUST be ok. Hmm, I think you'll find large segments of the population disagreeing with you..
We know it's bad to steal from a store because our government says so. If we lived in a government that encouraged theft, like ancient Sparta, then we would think it's alright.
You've got it backwards. The culture itself thought it was alright, so the government did too. Likewise, WE, moral beings, believe stealing to be wrong - I don't know about you, but that's why I don't steal. You're saying you'd steal if the government said it was ok, but you really thought it was wrong?
There is a line, as always, and a balance must be achieved
*coughs* *points to display name*.
Balance doesn't always swing the way you hope it will, unfortunately.
None. How many other small countries would, given the opportunity? Every single one. Size just makes someone the most obvious and most useful target. There are no innocent countries or large groups of people, just those without opportunity.
Which doesn't excuse the US's behavior.
Nor does the US's behavior excuse the behavior of terrorists and the like.
In fact, behavior on NEITHER side is excusable - we're all just a bunch of pathetic children throwing temper tantrums and playing grown-up. We really are quite sad.
The answer to your question is contained in this statement:
I would gladly give up my own personal freedom and well being to make sure my children grow up safe.
You'll be giving up your children's freedom, too. Is that the choice you want to make? Do you want your children growing up in a world where the government is what teaches them good from bad, instead of you? Once we acknowledge that it is appropriate for the government to tell us what is OK to look at and what isn't, we've given away the very rights and freedoms which make us unique, and which make us, well, 'free'.
I recognize that this means that sometimes bad people do bad things, but taking away the rights of all future generations in order to stop rare, individual actions is not the appropriate response. I realize it's easy to knee-jerk and respond by doing the first thing that comes to mind, but 'wisdom' is so-called for a reason - it involves reflection and rational thought, not knee-jerk reactions.
If you want to work in a world where the sole purpose for your existence is to make a very few lucky people very rich, and your life unimaginably hard, be my guest. Personally, I'm of the opinion that humans build societies for everyone's benefit, not just the lucky few [and while granted, fabulous wealth is possible through very hard work, very few people will ever tell you that it ONLY takes hard work, and if you believe it can, well you're pretty naive].
Are the rich taking the money from the poor? No that can't be it, the poor have no money. The rich are keeping the poor poor? Why should they? The rich probably are more interested in working hard to make money from other rich people.
Blah blah, typical defensive tripe. Think about the issue a lot more and get back to me.
I notice that during the Bush/Cheney administration, the US economy is ranked as being less restricted than it was during the Clinton/Gore administration on the economic freedom scale.
The rest of your post aside.. you should remember that alongside such a ranking, you also get a national debt that has nearly doubled during Bush's tenure, along with a nation that has nearly tripled the amount of unsecured and uninvested debt for every man, woman, and child in the country.
The nation is going bankrupt, and the gap between the rich and poor is growing ever wider... but, the US economy has more freedom now than it did during Clinton.
Hmmm, I wonder where all that freedom came from.. it sure as hell feels like my pocket.
I do believe most of the "serial" dramas of the 80s like Hill Street Blues and St. Elsewhere to name two often had "Previously On..." intros. Or I'm just misremembering the decade.
You might be right, although to be fair I never watched those shows when they were on:) I did catch a few episodes of St Elsewhere but never really got into it.
So I gather JMS has an issue with SFX magazine. What's that about?
Yes, he and they had a falling out a few years back...
Hell if I can remember why, anymore, but he vowed never to do another interview with them nor to ever allow them to publish any article relating to his work.
Oh yes.. now that I read the article I remember. To summarize.. people were illegally showing copies of B5 in various places and when JMS and Warner attempted to put a stop to it, SFX got in the middle of it and acted like the people showing the videos were some sort of underdog. JMS kindly attempted to set the record straight, at which point SFX got belligerent, and JMS responded by cutting them out of the B5 loop entirely.
I remember when that happened actually.. few people I knew had any sympathy for SFX.
but I didn't much care for The Legend of the Rangers movie and probably wouldn't have watched the series.
In fact, Babylon 5 as a series was [is] so moving and inspiring to me that the mere production of Legend of the Rangers almost pushed me to abandon the series entirely. But I decided I would just ignore the fact that movie was ever made and enjoy the other great productions.
In regards to the Very Long Night.. I once had a very difficult night to get through, years ago, and spent the entire night writing something I entitled "The Very Long Night of ___", as an homage to the grace and power that episode contained.
Ehhh. In many ways that series changed my outlook on the world, and I gladly give it its due.
It has NO "previously on Babylon 5" or other helpers at all
Those kinds of helpers didn't really catch on until the very late 90's, even up to 2001 and 2002. I do remember seeing a few of them Star Trek TNG and DS9, and a few other non-sci-fi shows, but they were really not that popular.
On the other hand, B5 did make much of its name by breaking out of the box so it might have been helpful to have them, but I didn't really get into the series until the end of the 2nd season. Even still, I thought it so well done that I stuck through the parts that didn't make sense and eventually the pieces fell into place. Watching the re-runs eventually helped and made me appreciate the first 2 seasons even more, since I knew what they were foreshadowing.
We are fundamentally built to consider ourselves above animals for basic survival reasons.
Hmm.. more specifically, we are fundamentally built to consider other humans more important than animals, for basic survival reasons. 'Above' is a subjective term without much meaning, but that distinction isn't terribly important since it's not really the issue.
And yes, humans are naturally omnivores, so leave off about the vegetarian options.
In an ethics class, I once challenged my (very left-leaning, [random pet cause] rights) professor that vegetarianism sometimes doesn't make sense since there are so vastly many different human physiologies. Eskimos, for example, can live entirely on a diet of fish protein, and have little need for vegetables, while other cultural groups do not handle any kind of meat protein well at all. In short, people need food (sometimes meat food) so it's a fact of life that we kill animals to live.
His response was "well we have other options now, people don't need to kill an animal to eat." Of course, that response ALREADY ASSUMES that it is wrong to eat animals and is not itself an argument for vegetarianism.. but I have never seen an animal rights activist actually understand that.
Now, I myself eat an almost exclusively vegetarian diet, simply because I have serious digestive problems that prohibit me from digesting most meats.
In fact, the only good argument in favor of vegetarianism I have ever seen is people who refuse to eat meat because of how the animals are treated before they're killed. That's very simply voting with your dollars and not something I have a problem with.
But I do not buy any moral arguments that killing animals to eat is somehow bad; we're as much a part of the natural world as any lion and the fact that life consumes life is not something we can moralize out of existence.
Public policy should be based on real events and risks, not on how many credulous left-wing dimwits believe every conspiracy theory they hear.
I completely agree, but you should note I wasn't talking about public policy. I was talking about the people's perceived integrity of their government and that it is worrying that people are increasingly able to believe stories of corruption and dictatorship, even if those stories are false.
I guess you're really buying the corporate justification argument. Copyrights, patents, trade secrets, were not created to benefit society at large, but to create IP rights.
Actually, it seems to be you who has an insufficient understanding of the issue - what corporations have done is take that original, VALID justification for copyright and manipulate it to their own purposes. THEY say the same thing that our founders did when the founders codified those rights into the Constitution - only the corporations say it in order to remove "intellectual property" from the culture, rather than share it.
It's not either-or, but rather "how things started" and "how things became this way."
Copyrights, patents, trade secrets, were not created to benefit society at large, but to create IP rights.
People respect the fact that the government has a big stick to hit them with, so they do what they're told, in the vast majority of cases without knowing or caring why they have to do it, only that they do.
Hehe. What'll really twist your noggin is that you're both right and wrong; wrong only because your admonishment is insufficiently specific.
It was Aristotle who said "I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."
For the great many, they do what is right because it is right, and for others, because they simple have no reason to do otherwise. As down on the "sheeple" as Slashdotters like to be, the average human being is quite decent (and that is in fact a difficult admission for me to make, because it means that creating change in the world is significantly harder than merely guilting people into it).
For the few who have a great deal to gain from violating the law (which was originally written down in an attempt to codify what societies thought were good basic rules to live by), there's nothing that would prevent them from violating it anyway.
What my original point was is that the only reason that those rights were originally codified into law at all is that our founders believed there to be a great common benefit to doing so. That had nothing to do with smashing people over the head with the law.
Slashdot Mirror
And they'll be demonstrating so very clearly why unrestrained capitalism doesn't work - because capitalism cares nothing for people, even to the point of considering people and human needs a hindrance to the collection of capital. Capitalism as imagined by its proponents only works when humans are machines, and I don't expect that to be true for awhile.
Don't get me wrong - I think Capitalism has some wonderful aspects to it. But it cannot be taken as a tabula rasa for admiring *every* aspect of capitalism, particularly the aspects of it that have appeared in the past 75 years.
Oh for the love of Joe, would somebody please give this person mod points..
And while everything you said may be accurate, there's enough bullshit on all sides to go around. Rhetoric almost always has, and has always had, far more sway on opinion and behavior than the truth, and you know that.
Oh, wait...
Ah, and this is the real crux of the matter, isn't it? You're immune to ideas that may be different than yours. People are so happy with their point of view, regardless of what it may do to the culture. I'm not saying your ideas are right OR wrong - I'm simply saying that outright refusal to consider other ideas is becoming a big problem, everywhere.
Not at all, I enjoy talking about this stuff. No worries.
In the end, that is the most anyone can do - this is an admirable quality.
Here's where we have a problem.. while that may be true of you, it unfortunately is not the way our culture operates. Force and control are the only tools our culture has at its disposal, because it is fundamentally dependent on making everyone act essentially the same.
Now, I'm not talking about things like religion or your favorite food or what to wear to work - I'm talking about the fact that at the end of the day, everyone works to continue building this civilization - whether they really want to or not. You have to eat, so you do what you're expected to do - go to school, get a job, raise a family, earn a living. There's nothing else, for the most part.
My philosophy is predicated upon the belief that "There is no one right way to live"; unfortunately we live in a culture that does not agree. People living another way than this one isn't 'efficient.' Bloody savages.
Absolutely
Hypothetical: What if it accomplished this by placing a camera in your bedroom? I'm not saying this bill does this - this is merely a hypothetical question. Which value would you choose? "Think of the children", or your own freedom?
There are no laws saying you can wear what you want. That's the definition of freedom - you can do anything you're not explicitly prohibited from doing.
Oh, and we've already got (both in the US and Canada) several dozen laws making child pornography of any sort illegal. You still seem to think I'm advocating making kiddie porn legal. I'm not. In fact, more power to you, pass thousands of laws making it illegal. My problem is not that it is illegal - my problem is their methodology in this case. THAT's where it seems to get complicated for you.
Seriously. I had no intention of pulling out that quote, because I don't like that quote.
With all due respect, I doubt you have any idea whom comprises our government, in terms of personal familiarity with those individuals. But either way, WHO makes up our government really wasn't any part of my point.
I am glad you said that. I couldn't agree more, and this point in fact is the real truth of the matter. But nobody ever seems to talk about this point.
What I am talking about is that bills like this one are the sort that grant permission to the government to tell us what is ok and what isn't. It is THAT which I find unacceptable.
Well, then bring on more of the same. Since it's already this way, it MUST be ok. Hmm, I think you'll find large segments of the population disagreeing with you..
You've got it backwards. The culture itself thought it was alright, so the government did too. Likewise, WE, moral beings, believe stealing to be wrong - I don't know about you, but that's why I don't steal. You're saying you'd steal if the government said it was ok, but you really thought it was wrong?
*coughs* *points to display name*.
Balance doesn't always swing the way you hope it will, unfortunately.
Nor does the US's behavior excuse the behavior of terrorists and the like.
In fact, behavior on NEITHER side is excusable - we're all just a bunch of pathetic children throwing temper tantrums and playing grown-up. We really are quite sad.
You'll be giving up your children's freedom, too. Is that the choice you want to make? Do you want your children growing up in a world where the government is what teaches them good from bad, instead of you? Once we acknowledge that it is appropriate for the government to tell us what is OK to look at and what isn't, we've given away the very rights and freedoms which make us unique, and which make us, well, 'free'.
I recognize that this means that sometimes bad people do bad things, but taking away the rights of all future generations in order to stop rare, individual actions is not the appropriate response. I realize it's easy to knee-jerk and respond by doing the first thing that comes to mind, but 'wisdom' is so-called for a reason - it involves reflection and rational thought, not knee-jerk reactions.
Oh, for mod points..
Blah blah, typical defensive tripe. Think about the issue a lot more and get back to me.
The nation is going bankrupt, and the gap between the rich and poor is growing ever wider... but, the US economy has more freedom now than it did during Clinton.
Hmmm, I wonder where all that freedom came from.. it sure as hell feels like my pocket.
Wow. Dreary bletherings, indeed!
Hell if I can remember why, anymore, but he vowed never to do another interview with them nor to ever allow them to publish any article relating to his work.
Oh yes.. now that I read the article I remember. To summarize.. people were illegally showing copies of B5 in various places and when JMS and Warner attempted to put a stop to it, SFX got in the middle of it and acted like the people showing the videos were some sort of underdog. JMS kindly attempted to set the record straight, at which point SFX got belligerent, and JMS responded by cutting them out of the B5 loop entirely.
I remember when that happened actually.. few people I knew had any sympathy for SFX.
In regards to the Very Long Night.. I once had a very difficult night to get through, years ago, and spent the entire night writing something I entitled "The Very Long Night of ___", as an homage to the grace and power that episode contained.
Ehhh. In many ways that series changed my outlook on the world, and I gladly give it its due.
On the other hand, B5 did make much of its name by breaking out of the box so it might have been helpful to have them, but I didn't really get into the series until the end of the 2nd season. Even still, I thought it so well done that I stuck through the parts that didn't make sense and eventually the pieces fell into place. Watching the re-runs eventually helped and made me appreciate the first 2 seasons even more, since I knew what they were foreshadowing.
In an ethics class, I once challenged my (very left-leaning, [random pet cause] rights) professor that vegetarianism sometimes doesn't make sense since there are so vastly many different human physiologies. Eskimos, for example, can live entirely on a diet of fish protein, and have little need for vegetables, while other cultural groups do not handle any kind of meat protein well at all. In short, people need food (sometimes meat food) so it's a fact of life that we kill animals to live.
His response was "well we have other options now, people don't need to kill an animal to eat." Of course, that response ALREADY ASSUMES that it is wrong to eat animals and is not itself an argument for vegetarianism.. but I have never seen an animal rights activist actually understand that.
Now, I myself eat an almost exclusively vegetarian diet, simply because I have serious digestive problems that prohibit me from digesting most meats.
In fact, the only good argument in favor of vegetarianism I have ever seen is people who refuse to eat meat because of how the animals are treated before they're killed. That's very simply voting with your dollars and not something I have a problem with.
But I do not buy any moral arguments that killing animals to eat is somehow bad; we're as much a part of the natural world as any lion and the fact that life consumes life is not something we can moralize out of existence.
You know, it's a good thing you're trolling (I can recognize a troll when I see one) or I'd actually think you were serious.
It's not either-or, but rather "how things started" and "how things became this way."
You would do well to understand What Thomas Jefferson actually thought about Copyright [as he wrote that section of the Constitution] as well as a nice discussion of copyright law from a Jeffersonian perspective.
It was Aristotle who said "I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law."
For the great many, they do what is right because it is right, and for others, because they simple have no reason to do otherwise. As down on the "sheeple" as Slashdotters like to be, the average human being is quite decent (and that is in fact a difficult admission for me to make, because it means that creating change in the world is significantly harder than merely guilting people into it).
For the few who have a great deal to gain from violating the law (which was originally written down in an attempt to codify what societies thought were good basic rules to live by), there's nothing that would prevent them from violating it anyway.
What my original point was is that the only reason that those rights were originally codified into law at all is that our founders believed there to be a great common benefit to doing so. That had nothing to do with smashing people over the head with the law.
Errr...
Doh. Hehe, you got me.