Shame you burned any mod points you might have posting this
what does that mean? serious question
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Shame you burned any mod points you might have posting this
what does that mean? serious question
my argument: valid moral and logical point that you do not consider
your response: empty insults
you didn't make any arguments against what i said, you just threw empty insults
that's an intellectually dishonest person's way of conceding a point
so you're welcome for the education
grow and learn
stupidity makes me angry
warring european states leapfrogged india, middle east, china technologically and started the colonial era instead of india, middle east, and china, exactly because they were warring states
if india or china or the middle east's internal make up was fierce rivalries lasting many centuries between small proud states, then india, china, or the middle east would have been colonizing europe with more advanced technology
now, europe is united under one political umbrella
and before the warring states period, it was tiny tribes increasingly united due to external warlike forces (rome, huns, mongols, etc)
meaning the trajectory of history of clear: always conflict, but conflict between increasingly larger groups
now it is united europe versus india, china (middle east is still fragmented)
that's progress, and that's real
and in the future, after we contact someone out there or they contact us, humanity will quickly unite behind a single banner, and war and rivalry will continue, but earth versus someone else. the trajectory of history preserved
btw, star trek was never peaceful
in star trek we have peaceful allies (vulcans, etc), but we also have warring neighbors who would gladly destroy us: romulans and klingons (whom always seemed to me to be symbolizing china, and ussr, respectively)
and the episodes were also always full of totally new unforeseen horrible dangers. no episode was "hi strangers, we come in peace, and everything is wonderful, the end"
so star trek is nothing but the stories from the age of exploration, the colonial era, and the cold war era, repackaged
my thought on the future and optimism is this:
when we meet someone out there, we will unite as one planet, and war with them
because: peace is stagnation, like india and china before being visited by europeans from the high seas. therefore if we become a peaceful united planet BEFORE meeting someone else, we will be stagnant technologically, and we will be devoured. like india or china in the colonial era
and if another planet was entirely peaceful, they would never have gone into space to meet us, they would have stagnated. and so we will meet them first, and colonize them like india or china or the aztecs or incans
in this way, i'm glad russia is pissing us off. we need to destroy and colonize russia, as china will most certainly do with siberia. split russia between europe and china. and advance technologically to preserve our fighting spirit in this way. and we will do this most certainly because russia is a belligerent, and weak, asshole
if there is no scramble, there is no reason to advance
but scramble we will
So... how many people do believe in "1984" or "Brave New World"? Or "Neuromancer"?
all those who complain about that and do nothing. they believe in slavery. then they act like a slave
all of the cynics who call reality today just like 1984, they believe in it. and make it true, by defining an oppressive reality, then doing nothing about it and agreeing to be oppressed. "today is just like 1984!" (goes back to playing video games)
there's always vile people at work in the world. you can almost excuse them, for being honest about who they are and what they intend
it's the cowardly cynical lazy motherfuckers, who whine and moan about a problem, then don't do a fucking thing about it, that you really can't excuse. the person who sees someone intend malice to them, and then accepts it and takes it and helps in their own enslavement?
"The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it."
- Albert Einstein
merely complaining about a problem is not enough. if you do nothing about it, you ACCEPT it, and you HELP those you hate. you believe in your own subjugation when you identify it, then do nothing about it
you become a slave, not because there are slavemongers, but because you act like one: whine and moan and think you can't change anything
well indeed: a coward can't change anything. because their cowardly beliefs define their reality. only those with heart and who believe in something positive change this world (and then get ridiculed by the cynical slaves, who don't deserve the person with heart at all, because they work against the person of heart, by siding with the malicious in their cynical beliefs)
this is the psychological basis of whining cowards, complicit in their own enslavement:
Learned helplessness is a behaviour in which an organism forced to endure aversive, painful or otherwise unpleasant stimuli, becomes unable or unwilling to avoid subsequent encounters with those stimuli, even if they are escapable. Presumably, the organism has learned that it cannot control the situation and therefore does not take action to avoid the negative stimulus. Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses may result from a perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation. Organisms that have been ineffective and less sensitive in determining the consequences of their behaviour are defined as having acquired learned helplessness.
teach yourself a new trick, slave
the dogs in the learned helplessness experiment were shocked, and could not escape. then they opened the door, and shocked the dogs again. some escaped, but others just lay down and accepted the shocks rather than escape. made slaves. their belief became their reality. no oppression needed, the oppression is all in their head without the slightest finger needing to be lifted by the slavemonger
humanity doesn't adapt to the world, we adapt the world to us. we don't grow fur in cold weather, we kill animals and drape their skins on us. we don't forage for berries, we plant berry seeds and grow them when and where we want them. we don't lie outside in the rain and sun, we build our own caves out of peat, mud, thatch
point is: we are emergent phenomenon, not static reflectors. we believe something, then we make it happen for real. and if we believe in unreal things, don't laugh, because maybe someday we really will fly like birds and walk on the moon
that also means fatalism and pessimism is what is really for losers. a child's crazy dream today is our reality in a few years
lust like our group beliefs and efforts become our reality, individual lives are reflections of individual attitudes. so if you believe things will never get better, you're right, they won't... but only in your life
don't mistake your stunted imagination and your ignorant empty cynicism for our reality. your defeatist attitude is a self fulfilling prophecy only for you, not all of us
oh i see, it's more of this "al gore flew on a gas guzzling jet airplane once, therefore he is a hypocrite, therefore climate change is not a problem" ignorant bullshit
"i knew a guy once who got away with a crime... therefore this guy right here should get away with murder too, it's only fair"
hey genius: "two wrongs don't make a right"
ever hear of it?
do you know what that means, morally?
it means that just because you can criticize democrats for something, anything, it doesn't mean suddenly all republican crimes now magically disappear
the fact that everyone fucks up doesn't mean actual criminal douchebags are immune. i jaywalk, you point out that horrible crime of mine, and now the fact you killed someone is excused because we both committed crimes? this is what you call right and wrong?
real morality: you criticize the democrats of what they *specifically* do wrong, and you criticize the republicans for what they *specifically* do wrong, and you keep your criticism proportional to the crime, and you don't equate minor bullshit with a major outrage
imagine fucking that: actual valid moral reasoning
because the bush administration did so well with the "jump in guns blazing" routine
which, btw, led to the creation of ISIS
much like the economic crisis of 2008, also miraculously blamed on obama, conservatives have this stunning routine where they fuck up, and liberals are at fault for it somehow with creative loopy psychological projection
btw, the economy was fixed under obama, much like he is also trying to fix the mess created by neocon chickenhawks in the middle east, like an adult
while all the hot headed children do their best to start a war, waste money and lives, and make things worse. you and those like you (hi, netanyu, you protocol disrespecting fuck, you've permanently damaged us-israeli relations for a little temporary macho chest thumping) think more war in the middle east will actually fix things. because you geniuses haven't learned from the last half dozen decades what messing around in the middle east actually leads to
oh, and a small tip for you:
"pinko" expired as an effective insult in the cold war era, which ended 25 years ago, which might be the last time you had a coherent thought on the topic you inject your ignorant belligerence into
that's a valid complaint
some scientific discoveries go against conventional wisdom and are originally ridiculed. for example, some australian scientists discovered stomach ulcers are caused by a certain species of bacteria in the 1980s. they were rejected, laughed at, people got angry at them. the belief at the time was acid and spicy food formed ulcers. wrong. eventually they won the nobel prize for medicine for their discovery
but this process is mediated by serious researchers who, adhering to the scientific method, are compelled to reverse themselves in spite of their preliminary reactions
meanwhile, we have antivaxxers, moon landing deniers, GM food ignorance, creationists, climate change deniers, fluoride fearmongers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists babbling about burning airplane fuel and steel, etc... assorted douchebag crackpots who are absolutely, undeniably factually wrong, and oftentimes dangerous (to public health, for example), but enthusiastically keep spreading their lies nonetheless
stupid shitbags like this for example are working very, very hard to kill children:
not they they understand their efforts only work to kill children: they're ignorant braindead assholes, pridefully arrogant in their lack of education
so they need to be shut down in other ways. your freedom to be a moron ends when your beliefs put my life and liberty in danger. so thank you, google
google's algorithm would downplay revolutionary new scientific evidence, like the ulcer causing bacterium, indeed. but this is a short time period, squarely in the realm of brand new scientific research, where, after enough weight, change would come quickly, and so to google's algorithm, if it gets its signals from solid peer reviewed journals that present genuine science
meanwhile, lies and idiocy are not peer reviewed and grow like fungus in the dark and will never, ever change
so they need to be buried at the bottom of google as the brain numbing, sometimes genuinely dangerous puerile prideful ignorance they are
intolerance of intolerance
not the same thing
pointing a gun at a man
pointing a gun back
not the same thing
if you really can't tell the difference between who initiates a transgression and who defends against it, you're not worth the time. you lack fundamental social and moral sense
when you're working, can you do it in the middle of a concert hall? the middle of an interstate highway? in between a screaming fighting couple?
or do you benefit from having a private room/ cubicle?
the wide world is full of nasty chemical interactions and potent free radicals ready to destroy anything they touch. rooms help immensely
not only do they protect, they isolate. a self-replicating process can sputter out if not restricted to it's own products
go pour a little soap/oil in some water and shake it
congratulations, you've "made" micelles
micelles are self organizing. you don't "make" sea foam, it's a simple product of natural wind and wave with sufficient chained carbon compounds
micelles occurred naturally in the early earth out of non organic processes that produced simple hydrocarbons
then the rudmientary self-replicating processes also occuring naturally in that time period, and sputtering out, uncontained, joined up with micelles and sustained. because now they have a safe container to continue in
thus the first cell, from which all the rest has sprung
i've laid out my reasoning intelligently and convincingly. all you've done is bounce one empty unsupported insult reflexively. you haven't reasoned with me at all, you've made no argument. because you have no argument. when someone is left with nothing more than sputtering insults, they've lost the argument
if you're not the same AC (anonymous COWARD), as the other one i'm responding to, then here is genuine reasoning for your education:
good luck on opening your mind and understanding your problem
"no, you!" is not a valid argument
me arguing against bigotry is not the same as bigotry
if i define bigotry, and say it is wrong, going "so you're the bigot!" is only a reflexive, thoughtless defense on the order of 5 year olds
it's like you point a gun at me, so i point one back in defense, and you go "see! you're a murderer!" the defense taken against a transgressive action is not the same as the actual transgressive action. defining and condemning bigotry is not the same as bigotry. do you understand?
Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."
intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself
example: charlie hebdo: if you have a society that respects free speech, and one group says "we will kill you until we get to restrict your free speech!" does that group get to claim bigotry and intolerance when their bigotry and inteolerance is opposed? no
is society violating it's principles by restricting speech... that advocates violent restriction of speech? see the self-contradiction? incitement to violence and murder to end free speech, is not protected by the principle of free speech, because it threatens the very concept of free speech itself
another example: nazi imagery in germany. is germany violating free speech by restricting nazi imagery? no, because nazi imagery in germany is not some abstract notion, it is the symbol of the ideology that violently destroyed free german society. there's no contradiction
you cannot attack a principle, and depend upon that principle, at the same time
you cannot claim bigotry, when being singled out for your bigotry
try again and good luck
C for yourself.