i partially agree with you on this. We all could definitely benefit from a more balanced diet and more exercise. But yoga, etc. will not work for everyone, it's just not realistic. First of all a lot of people especially in the southern america this is a seemingly impossible suggestion as they view "heathen" religions to be tied to yoga and are thus afraid of it. While this problem can eventually be overcome, it takes a long time, after all race is still an issue. Beliefs are a strong thing, and i count mine and yours as being strong as well (and strange: *my own beliefs not excluded*).
Now is where i'm a little less cordial. The issues raised in my above paragraph can only be settled through discussion. Active and intelligent discussion is the only way that conflicting ideas, governments and people can co-exist. So i'm afraid that your statement that lots of discussion does nothing (which also oddly enough if true invalidates your entire statement) is ill-conceived.
nice comment but unfortunately the assertion that you make about people taking chemicals, etc. is negligible since insurance companies already have policies restricting people with self-inflicted wounds from receiving benefits. For instance anyone who smokes cigarettes has to pay more for life insurance due to the fact that it will most likely end their lives early. Insurance companies have many other restrictions which apply to their coverage also (read the clause on your life insurance policy that goes, "act of god, armed conflict, etc. etc.").
Also in cases like this one perhaps there is an even better option: state sponsored drug rehabilitation programs for those who harm themselves in this way. It's simple, we'll pay for your health-care as long as you agree to comply with the restrictions of the program and as soon as you fail to do so the government should no longer be obligated to take care of you since you fail to be a productive member of society. I'm sure we could think of other restrictions and addendums to this law that would make it as fair as possible. The point being that with a little bit of innovation there's no reason that we couldn't have universal health care. The actions of a few bad apples do not ALWAYS have to ruin the proverbial apple pie.
I'm not really sure how any part of this statement could be any more WRONG than it is.
Where do i begin?
First off allow me to refer you to your original argument about the current subject in this thread. You mentioned that the reason/.'ers realized that the handing over of private encryption keys to investigative agencies was a supid idea was because they were indoctrinated to the subject that the idea dealt with by being a part of the community, but that those same people could not reasonably make decisions involving health-care, etc. because they were not a part of a community that had to deal with the repercussions of that policy on a daily basis. Now while i don't disagree with your statements i do believe that there are exceptions, but i did not invoke your previous message to pick it apart, in fact i would like for you to read over your own views on this and then think about the fact that in this latest post you were making assumptions on a field that you yourself are completely unfamiliar with (ie: Political Science). Now, I am not a political scientist, i am a server and pc sales representative, however i actually was a political science major in college (although i didn't graduate) and while this may not make me an expert on the subject i think it puts me a little bit above the public baseline. That being said...let's discuss shall we?
It means that you have been fully indoctrinated to accept the political and social assumptions of your society
Incorrect. They are called political scientists for a reason. A scientist does not blindly "accept" anything at all, they use knowledge that has been gathered to make assumptions but no scientist worth their salt simply accept the assumptions made by others without proof. The job of a political scientist is actually to review and critique government policies not tow the party line. You seem to be confusing political scientists with political cronies. This is tantamount to assuming that the religious equivalent of a political scientist is a priest instead of a theologist, although that's silly... no one could possibly make an error like that could they...?
You are to the modern state what a priest is in Catholisism.
....Oh my roman catholic vatican approved god you have got to be SHITTING me...
Okay so i guess some people can make that illogical jump. This is all the more reason why discussion like this is necessary in a civilized society, because just as i can't understand a factory owners reasoning for not wanting stricter environmental laws, that factory owner can't understand my point of view on the same issue. The fact is that we are all affected by the policies that our governments enforce. We have different opinions on them because based on our stations in life they affect us in different ways and many times because of our lack of ACTIVE involvement with the policies we don't realize how we may be hurt by them.
People from all walks of life deserve the right to speak up about their beliefs and feelings concerning public policy. People from all walks of life deserve to be heard when they speak. The words spoken by people from all walks of life deserve to be considered when making policy and treated with respect, but NO ONE should make negative assumptions about a people that they do not know and could not possibly understand whether that be a community of diverse people with similar interests like/. , a group of diverse professionals in the same field like doctors, IT engineers or political scientists, OR a race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., etc., etc.
Your words are WRONG. Your views are invalidated by your own admission due to the ignorance that backs them up, but i am still glad that you said them because it gave me a chance to inform you that you are wrong and gave me a chance to evaluate my own actions as well. Hopefully this error will allow both of us and maybe even other people who read it grow and mature as human beings.
cheese is an allowable substance in an emotionally charged discussion. i for one bow to your level of composure. that previous post could very well have degenerated into a: OMfGLol...U r teH SUxxorz....um...you get the point
definitely a good point. but this just reinforces what i was saying. which is that people don't VOTE 3rd party because they don't think anyone else will VOTE third party...it's almost like a fucked up version of game theory...and it is by definition apathy that's the only point i was trying to make.
and i whole-heartedly agree with you, third party candidates SHOULD seek more senate and house seats, or even STATE legislative seats and nader i believe would make a really good senator, hell after a few years as senator he may even have a SHOT at getting elected to president.
i was only trying to point out the universality of apathy...but in as much as third party candidates are going about trying to gain power the wrong way...i concede the point.
it still shows though that people aren't willing to risk voting for their ideals if they feel that it will have a significant bearing on the outcome. ie: voting for a 3rd party senator and losing a senate seat to the "greater of the two evils" isn't as big a deal as voting for a 3rd party president and losing the entire executive branch.
wow...i don't even know where to begin...i appreciate your enthusiasm but...well i'll just pick out one little detail.
the founders of this country were NOT overwhelmingly liberal (ever read the federalist papers?). if you want another example of this look at the 2nd ammendment, conservatives love it and democrats hate it.
oh...and libertarianism is HARDLY the purest form of liberalism, as you stated yourself liberalism is monetary government control and civil freedoms, while libertarianism is for no control over either (to be more specific it is not for no control but for just enough government control to keep individuals from infringing upon one anothers rights)
i think that's going a little too far. as someone who was raised in a fundamentalist christian family (and town) i can tell you that a good number of the people there (in fact our district has voted overwhelmingly democrat for longer than i've been alive) reject bush's ideals, many of them reject the war in iraq simply BECAUSE they feel that it's a sign of the end-times. most of the christians that i know who voted for bush did so because of his stance on things like homosexuality and (supposedly) less government intrusion (ala' traditional conservative ideals) they fail to recognize that traditional conservatism is dead in the current republican party. now while i don't agree with these peoples reasoning it's not nearly as bad as voting for him to "lead us to the end-times". in fact ALL of the christians who i know that voted for bush actually reject his current views on foreign policy for the same reasons listed above. although christians tend to think w/ their bibles and not their heads that doesn't mean they're morons, they tend to be intelligent people just like the rest of us. unfortunately intelligence and scientific thought are discouraged by most fundamentalist religions, who opt in favor of blind devotion instead.
see and i would've assumed that anyone who was involved in terrorist activity and smart/dangerous enough to evade detection for more than say...1 day, would have already assumed that ALL of their phone calls (let alone international ones) were unsecure and tried to seek alternate/more secure channels of communication. but apparently terrorists are dumb and until something comes out in the newspapers they never consider it to be a possibility. jesus christ...that's like expecting that nothing you ever say on/. will be seen by anyone
i'm apathetic much like other people who hate both parties are apathetic; because we don't like either of the parties...but i still vote for the lesser of the two evils. which brings us to another form of apathy. you say that you don't like everything that the democrats stand for? then why not vote third party? i'll tell you why you don't vote third party. because you're apathetic. you feel that voting any way other than democrat or republican is a waste of a vote and the worst part is that because everyone else in the country feels the same way...you're right.
just because you don't like the way things are going and complain about it doesn't mean that there's something wrong with you. in fact if we all talked about it a lot more, we may actually start growing some balls and voting for what we really believe in, instead of voting AGAINST what we fear.
i'm not one for writing what will probably appear to be a flame post but...
#1: americans aren't the only ones who have been the victims of terrorist attacks...or did you just conveniently forget the london bombings? just because we're hated the most (and with good reason since we're assholes) doesn't mean that you're not in the same boat boyo.
#2: I for one have no problem w/ armed citizens and not for any of that macho "i can shoot the criminal before he shoots me" bullshit but for the real reason why the 2nd ammendment (the right to bear arms in case you're not familiar with it) exists, and that is so that the people and their government are on a more even keel. now granted i don't ever actually want a revolution to occur, hell i hate guns, and i know that in comparison with what our military has amassed that a few rifles won't turn the tide in our favor, but if the gestapo comes knocking on your door would you rather be the one without a gun? also i realize that not even the cops have guns in great britain but that's not much of a consolation to me since the military still does.
in closing...just think about what you're saying next time. the whole world sucks...not just the U.S. or just Britain, and the sooner we all realize that, the sooner we can start to affect a positive change instead of ranting on message boards (ironic?)
--just because they're after me doesn't mean...*message censored by the evil empire*
i also am a guitar player who enjoys the game.
the thing that makes guitar hero great is that it allows you to "feel" like you're playing the song without requiring the same level of concentration that playing an actual guitar does.
as someone who was raised in a church and later defected i can say that the above statement is pretty spot-on. in fact i remember being told specifically that many "christian scholars" believe that the mark of the beast will be "a microchip implanted into your hand that will store your bank and personal information such as DL#, SS#, etc." There's also mention of those who don't submit to the mark going through hard times and how God will provide for them. Also i'm not so sure that Orwell was commenting on the evils of a totalitarian government so much as expressing general dismay at the fact that in order for a government to do what every governements ultimate goal is to do (which is to protect it's citizens) then it has to take away it's citizens rights to live for themselves and cause them to instead live for the government which protects them. that's why i'm an anarchist. and i'm not so sure that i really like the idea of the RFID's either, but that's mostly because #1 people will eventually find a way to crack it so you'll have people "RFID-driving" instead of war-driving and #2 it will only be a matter of time before a better device is found and i don't like the idea of having to upgrade my implants every couple of years, this is a great idea. but i personally would like to hold off until we reach the other end of the technological bell-curve before i jump into it...although the watch is a good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
i partially agree with you on this. We all could definitely benefit from a more balanced diet and more exercise. But yoga, etc. will not work for everyone, it's just not realistic. First of all a lot of people especially in the southern america this is a seemingly impossible suggestion as they view "heathen" religions to be tied to yoga and are thus afraid of it. While this problem can eventually be overcome, it takes a long time, after all race is still an issue. Beliefs are a strong thing, and i count mine and yours as being strong as well (and strange: *my own beliefs not excluded*).
Now is where i'm a little less cordial. The issues raised in my above paragraph can only be settled through discussion. Active and intelligent discussion is the only way that conflicting ideas, governments and people can co-exist. So i'm afraid that your statement that lots of discussion does nothing (which also oddly enough if true invalidates your entire statement) is ill-conceived.
nice comment but unfortunately the assertion that you make about people taking chemicals, etc. is negligible since insurance companies already have policies restricting people with self-inflicted wounds from receiving benefits. For instance anyone who smokes cigarettes has to pay more for life insurance due to the fact that it will most likely end their lives early. Insurance companies have many other restrictions which apply to their coverage also (read the clause on your life insurance policy that goes, "act of god, armed conflict, etc. etc.").
Also in cases like this one perhaps there is an even better option: state sponsored drug rehabilitation programs for those who harm themselves in this way. It's simple, we'll pay for your health-care as long as you agree to comply with the restrictions of the program and as soon as you fail to do so the government should no longer be obligated to take care of you since you fail to be a productive member of society. I'm sure we could think of other restrictions and addendums to this law that would make it as fair as possible. The point being that with a little bit of innovation there's no reason that we couldn't have universal health care. The actions of a few bad apples do not ALWAYS have to ruin the proverbial apple pie.
I'm not really sure how any part of this statement could be any more WRONG than it is.
/.'ers realized that the handing over of private encryption keys to investigative agencies was a supid idea was because they were indoctrinated to the subject that the idea dealt with by being a part of the community, but that those same people could not reasonably make decisions involving health-care, etc. because they were not a part of a community that had to deal with the repercussions of that policy on a daily basis. Now while i don't disagree with your statements i do believe that there are exceptions, but i did not invoke your previous message to pick it apart, in fact i would like for you to read over your own views on this and then think about the fact that in this latest post you were making assumptions on a field that you yourself are completely unfamiliar with (ie: Political Science). Now, I am not a political scientist, i am a server and pc sales representative, however i actually was a political science major in college (although i didn't graduate) and while this may not make me an expert on the subject i think it puts me a little bit above the public baseline. That being said...let's discuss shall we?
....Oh my roman catholic vatican approved god you have got to be SHITTING me...
/. , a group of diverse professionals in the same field like doctors, IT engineers or political scientists, OR a race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc., etc., etc.
Where do i begin?
First off allow me to refer you to your original argument about the current subject in this thread. You mentioned that the reason
It means that you have been fully indoctrinated to accept the political and social assumptions of your society
Incorrect. They are called political scientists for a reason. A scientist does not blindly "accept" anything at all, they use knowledge that has been gathered to make assumptions but no scientist worth their salt simply accept the assumptions made by others without proof. The job of a political scientist is actually to review and critique government policies not tow the party line. You seem to be confusing political scientists with political cronies. This is tantamount to assuming that the religious equivalent of a political scientist is a priest instead of a theologist, although that's silly... no one could possibly make an error like that could they...?
You are to the modern state what a priest is in Catholisism.
Okay so i guess some people can make that illogical jump. This is all the more reason why discussion like this is necessary in a civilized society, because just as i can't understand a factory owners reasoning for not wanting stricter environmental laws, that factory owner can't understand my point of view on the same issue. The fact is that we are all affected by the policies that our governments enforce. We have different opinions on them because based on our stations in life they affect us in different ways and many times because of our lack of ACTIVE involvement with the policies we don't realize how we may be hurt by them.
People from all walks of life deserve the right to speak up about their beliefs and feelings concerning public policy. People from all walks of life deserve to be heard when they speak. The words spoken by people from all walks of life deserve to be considered when making policy and treated with respect, but NO ONE should make negative assumptions about a people that they do not know and could not possibly understand whether that be a community of diverse people with similar interests like
Your words are WRONG. Your views are invalidated by your own admission due to the ignorance that backs them up, but i am still glad that you said them because it gave me a chance to inform you that you are wrong and gave me a chance to evaluate my own actions as well. Hopefully this error will allow both of us and maybe even other people who read it grow and mature as human beings.
see...now THAT'S the kind of balls i've been talkin' about that we should all grow
brother i can't give you a mod point but i can at least say that you speak the truth
cheese is an allowable substance in an emotionally charged discussion. i for one bow to your level of composure. that previous post could very well have degenerated into a: OMfGLol...U r teH SUxxorz....um...you get the point
definitely a good point. but this just reinforces what i was saying. which is that people don't VOTE 3rd party because they don't think anyone else will VOTE third party...it's almost like a fucked up version of game theory...and it is by definition apathy that's the only point i was trying to make.
and i whole-heartedly agree with you, third party candidates SHOULD seek more senate and house seats, or even STATE legislative seats and nader i believe would make a really good senator, hell after a few years as senator he may even have a SHOT at getting elected to president.
i was only trying to point out the universality of apathy...but in as much as third party candidates are going about trying to gain power the wrong way...i concede the point.
it still shows though that people aren't willing to risk voting for their ideals if they feel that it will have a significant bearing on the outcome. ie: voting for a 3rd party senator and losing a senate seat to the "greater of the two evils" isn't as big a deal as voting for a 3rd party president and losing the entire executive branch.
wow...i don't even know where to begin...i appreciate your enthusiasm but...well i'll just pick out one little detail.
the founders of this country were NOT overwhelmingly liberal (ever read the federalist papers?). if you want another example of this look at the 2nd ammendment, conservatives love it and democrats hate it.
oh...and libertarianism is HARDLY the purest form of liberalism, as you stated yourself liberalism is monetary government control and civil freedoms, while libertarianism is for no control over either (to be more specific it is not for no control but for just enough government control to keep individuals from infringing upon one anothers rights)
i think that's going a little too far. as someone who was raised in a fundamentalist christian family (and town) i can tell you that a good number of the people there (in fact our district has voted overwhelmingly democrat for longer than i've been alive) reject bush's ideals, many of them reject the war in iraq simply BECAUSE they feel that it's a sign of the end-times. most of the christians that i know who voted for bush did so because of his stance on things like homosexuality and (supposedly) less government intrusion (ala' traditional conservative ideals) they fail to recognize that traditional conservatism is dead in the current republican party. now while i don't agree with these peoples reasoning it's not nearly as bad as voting for him to "lead us to the end-times". in fact ALL of the christians who i know that voted for bush actually reject his current views on foreign policy for the same reasons listed above. although christians tend to think w/ their bibles and not their heads that doesn't mean they're morons, they tend to be intelligent people just like the rest of us. unfortunately intelligence and scientific thought are discouraged by most fundamentalist religions, who opt in favor of blind devotion instead.
see and i would've assumed that anyone who was involved in terrorist activity and smart/dangerous enough to evade detection for more than say...1 day, would have already assumed that ALL of their phone calls (let alone international ones) were unsecure and tried to seek alternate/more secure channels of communication. but apparently terrorists are dumb and until something comes out in the newspapers they never consider it to be a possibility. jesus christ...that's like expecting that nothing you ever say on /. will be seen by anyone
apathy works both ways...
i'm apathetic much like other people who hate both parties are apathetic; because we don't like either of the parties...but i still vote for the lesser of the two evils. which brings us to another form of apathy. you say that you don't like everything that the democrats stand for? then why not vote third party? i'll tell you why you don't vote third party. because you're apathetic. you feel that voting any way other than democrat or republican is a waste of a vote and the worst part is that because everyone else in the country feels the same way...you're right.
just because you don't like the way things are going and complain about it doesn't mean that there's something wrong with you. in fact if we all talked about it a lot more, we may actually start growing some balls and voting for what we really believe in, instead of voting AGAINST what we fear.
they've lied to you about everything else...you expect them to be honest about this?
i'm not one for writing what will probably appear to be a flame post but... #1: americans aren't the only ones who have been the victims of terrorist attacks...or did you just conveniently forget the london bombings? just because we're hated the most (and with good reason since we're assholes) doesn't mean that you're not in the same boat boyo. #2: I for one have no problem w/ armed citizens and not for any of that macho "i can shoot the criminal before he shoots me" bullshit but for the real reason why the 2nd ammendment (the right to bear arms in case you're not familiar with it) exists, and that is so that the people and their government are on a more even keel. now granted i don't ever actually want a revolution to occur, hell i hate guns, and i know that in comparison with what our military has amassed that a few rifles won't turn the tide in our favor, but if the gestapo comes knocking on your door would you rather be the one without a gun? also i realize that not even the cops have guns in great britain but that's not much of a consolation to me since the military still does. in closing...just think about what you're saying next time. the whole world sucks...not just the U.S. or just Britain, and the sooner we all realize that, the sooner we can start to affect a positive change instead of ranting on message boards (ironic?) --just because they're after me doesn't mean...*message censored by the evil empire*
i also am a guitar player who enjoys the game. the thing that makes guitar hero great is that it allows you to "feel" like you're playing the song without requiring the same level of concentration that playing an actual guitar does.
as someone who was raised in a church and later defected i can say that the above statement is pretty spot-on. in fact i remember being told specifically that many "christian scholars" believe that the mark of the beast will be "a microchip implanted into your hand that will store your bank and personal information such as DL#, SS#, etc." There's also mention of those who don't submit to the mark going through hard times and how God will provide for them. Also i'm not so sure that Orwell was commenting on the evils of a totalitarian government so much as expressing general dismay at the fact that in order for a government to do what every governements ultimate goal is to do (which is to protect it's citizens) then it has to take away it's citizens rights to live for themselves and cause them to instead live for the government which protects them. that's why i'm an anarchist. and i'm not so sure that i really like the idea of the RFID's either, but that's mostly because #1 people will eventually find a way to crack it so you'll have people "RFID-driving" instead of war-driving and #2 it will only be a matter of time before a better device is found and i don't like the idea of having to upgrade my implants every couple of years, this is a great idea. but i personally would like to hold off until we reach the other end of the technological bell-curve before i jump into it...although the watch is a good idea.