Forgot your password?

Comment: not far enough (Score 1) 2

by Bill Dog (#48232107) Attached to: Communist Manifesto Reading Club Part I

we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders

Even when you start with an uncomplicated arrangement, of society into a single order, some part of it has to have power over the rest, to maintain and enforce the rules of the society.

But people will always strive to live a more comfortable life. With a tap into the wealth of all, necessary to support governing operations, greed (the bad kind) eventually compounds until it manfests in the governing sector of the society granting more exclusive privileges to itself than the ones it started with that were necessary for it to do its special job.

When awareness of this inevitably grows, it attracts more and more people to want to join them, who then implement more of exactly what they got into it for, causing a snowballing of growing wealth and privilege in that sector, transforming it into an order of its own.

And consequently it repulses some people, who oppose and resist the others' growing privilege over them and at their expense.

I don't see how it cannot be the case that the real class struggle is and will always be between the governors and the governed, where economics is just one facet of the issue, and not the actual issue itself.

Comment: Re:it's corruption (Score 1) 21

by Bill Dog (#48213511) Attached to: Way to go, Republican loser

p.s. And I don't mean to imply anything like I think it's like Lefties' stupid idea of a "hate crime", where somehow the crime is worse if there's something more sinister going on behind it. The damage is the damage, so the crime is the crime. Being primarily motivated by trashing the system versus primarily by empowering oneself doesn't make the crime any worse. It just means there's something additional the voters ought to be watching out for from that "representative".

Comment: Re:racial divisions are not supposed to be exact (Score 1) 15

by Bill Dog (#48202891) Attached to: How the worm turns

Not to me. To me, "Left" and "Right" have rich and highly contrasting meanings. I might partially agree however on the "Democrat" vs. "Republican" thing, esp. since non-Progressives are such pariahs in both parties (if they exist at all anymore in the D's). And while I might agree that the Progressives in each have both targeted constituencies for votes and cash (kinda redundant, since both are loosely "speech" when it's about politics), less so on the carving and harvesting, as I consider the GOP to have been/be doing a very poor job of building up or maintaining their target GOP Progressivism -sympathetic constituency.

I.e. I while I think there's some truth in what you're saying here, I don't think they're really equivalent enough to be "equivalencing" them like that. (Considering the two sides as basically equivalent can also be a "cheap distraction", seemingly only perpetuated by one side, while they lunge for your wallet and rights.)

Comment: racial divisions are not supposed to be exact (Score 1) 15

by Bill Dog (#48193117) Attached to: How the worm turns

A club was never meant to be used as a scalpel. I just love it when Conservatives talk about how unanalytical or how untruthful some position or approach on the Left is. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ANY OF THOSE THINGS!!! It's just supposed to win them power (so that ultimately they can perpetually chase after every one of their stupid ideas of "fairness"). Lefties don't give two shits about ethnic minorities; it's just about handing out from amongst a set of goodies, to cobble together enough of a coalition to grow their powerbase. Once the Left completely owns things, it won't matter if your skin is purple and your sexual preference is for pandas, you'll be robbed from and redistributed to just the same as everyone else.

Comment: Re:Tradition of small government? (Score 1) 18

by Bill Dog (#48193039) Attached to: like hot ice

That link sounds good, but it's an ideal, where everyone in the society is unified spiritually, like say the Amish.

But then what keeps such a community from being ripped to shreds by another community of a different mindset? A higher order level of governance, which, not having the luxury of presiding over a state of shared values, must try to remain neutral*, and only exist to protect our rights.

So maybe subsidiarity at the micro level, and libertarianism at the macro level, might be the least-worst.

*And must be kept small, so as not to be able to run roughshod over lower levels. Like overstepping a supporting role and trying to take over solving problems that are better addressed at a lower level.

Comment: Re:Tradition of small government? (Score 1) 18

by Bill Dog (#48184377) Attached to: like hot ice

I fail to see your point. All government in this life is government by man, so is doomed to failure. This is because we cannot resist the temptation to mistreat others. Most of the ability to mistreat others comes from having power over others. More power over others means more ability to mistreat them. Government is power, so small government is the least-worst.

Comment: Re:Oh-oh, here we go :-( (Score 1) 124

by Bill Dog (#48183129) Attached to: Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?

BTW, note that the thing you rail against Christians about, stubborn hubris, is exactly what you're exhibiting. You've become that which you hate. Better to take a more deferential stance, and understand that you don't have all the answers, and be less judmental (in your case about God and religion) as you'd wish His followers would be (about the kinds of things they're so negative and high-and-mighty about). We shouldn't be at war about things that are mistakes. (If I'm going to go to war with you, it'll be over Leftism, that man-made, Satan-stoked false religion that is actually the world's #1 religion.)

Comment: Re:Oh-oh, here we go :-( (Score 1) 124

by Bill Dog (#48182979) Attached to: Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?

I apologize again for the pain that my side has wrongly inflicted upon you. I wish you wouldn't blame God for that.

Deut. 22.5: "A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this."

I thought you insisted that you're actually a woman, just born with a male body. Then even if some others mistake your wearing women's clothes as a sin, God knows the truth about you.

God made you the way you are, it's not a mistake, and whether I understand it or not, I'm commanded to love you. Christians need to obey God more, and know their place (while God gave me a brain to reason with, and communicated to me certain prohibitions, when things get complicated, we should leave the judging to the Judge).

Comment: Re:Oh-oh, here we go :-( God as bad parent (Score 1) 124

by Bill Dog (#48182725) Attached to: Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?

Here's a god who sets up his first two offspring for failure,...

He could've sanitized everything, but without temptation to disobey, how could there ever be a choice presented to us to ever not follow Him. Free Will would be meaningless then, because there'd be no possible way to ever exercise it, if the only things there are, are all things that are allowed.

Your skewed thinking on this subject is in your focusing on the one (1) thing that was disallowed. We lived in paradise with everything taken care of and not a worry in the world, and there was all of one whole prohibition in the whole place. So it's of course highly imbalanced thinking to paint the situation then as some kind of raw deal.

So the Garden shows us two things: 1) God loves us and wants us to be in paradise, and 2) what bigger fools are there than human beings. The takeaway is that God can provide paradise for us, and we certainly can't.

To be around him forever, worshiping him? No thanks.

And that's fully how I expect Hell to be populated. Frankly, I'd have a hard time loving a god who sent people to Hell, no matter how justified. But I'm convinced He'll actually not need to send anyone, that the lost will voluntarily choose it on their own.

The rest of this is too galling for me, complaining about a totalitarian system when that's exactly what the Left is actually setting up. Satan has you guys tricked into building hell here on earth. And you're convinced the Left is about teh freedom. This is why I cut off my visibility of DR's and Fusta's comments on Slashdot, because I got tired of hearing about some irrevelent opposite-world.

Look, you've obviously got a lot of rage and hate built up over God, accumulated over probably a long time, and that couldn't be undone over one weekend. I'll just say that I wish you peace.

Comment: Re:Oh-oh, here we go :-( (Score 1) 124

by Bill Dog (#48179523) Attached to: Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?

It appears that the nature of your error in the math is that you artificially constrain it to the unsupportable notion that if there is a God, He must be able to fit Himself completely in what He created.

On Romans 9, in general I don't subscribe to Calvinist intepretation. If I thought God chose some for damnation, I wouldn't be worshipping Him, as He would be undeserving of my love. I'm pretty sure that the Calvinist strain is a minority angle in Christianity (although may be over-represented in conservative sects, and hence appear central to Christianity, if that's all you know).

I gather that the historic context of this book of the Bible is that most of the Jews were unbelievers (in the Messiah) at the time, and yet God had promised Israel the kingdom of heaven. Paul was speaking to the Jews primarily, basically saying salvation is not a birthright, it comes through faith in Jesus. (9:6 - "For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.") To them, the Gentiles around you have faith, so they are saved. And if you're angry about that, well, really, who are you question your Creator anyways. God makes the rules, and those are the rules.

But it does not say that it was God who fitted certain vessels for destruction. My Bible cross references 9:22 with Proverbs 16:4: "The Lord works out everything for his own ends -- even the wicked for a day of disaster." God took a haughty, stubborn unbeliever, Pharoah, and used him to show His power, that He is worthy of our respect, and His mercy to the Israelite slaves, despite being imperfect sinners, and therefore that He is worthy of our love. Because we're all sinners, and therefore vessels deserving of destruction. He does things to show the magnitude of His power, and the magnitude of His mercy.

It also does not say that I was fitted for glory. I believe my name was written in the Book of Life before the beginning of (this universe's) time, not because God chose me to be saved, but because He could foresee that I would accept His offer and be saved, and therefore prepared a place for me in Heaven. The off-putting view that God made some of us winners and some losers in the game of eternity is inconsistent with what seems to be our purpose to God. He's looking for us to love Him. Would He pick as winners in eternal life some who do not love Him? Have people in Heaven who are like, meh, about God? Of course not. So only those who love Him will get to Heaven. But then if He hand-picked those who were going to Heaven, He'd have to make sure all the hand-picked loved Him. It seems like the only ways He could do that are, 1) make us automatons and program those He picked for Heaven to have no choice but to love Him, or 2) foresee who would end up loving Him. But if He opted for 1), that's hardly true love.

As for the rest, it's really verse 51 and beyond that you're citing in Luke 12, not 21, but I know your eyesight isn't perfect! But Jesus' (first) coming meant that now there would be the saved and the lost. In the Gospels it says that people will hate believers because of Him. Even within a family there could be strife between the saved and the lost wrt this touchy subject. As for the "black and white thinking", if you don't follow Jesus, then you follow something else; there is no middle ground. God wants us to live His way, and if we choose to live our own way instead, that's in opposition to what God wants.


And let's not even get into what was said about those like me in both the old and new testaments ...

Those like you?

Comment: Re:In defense of Javascript (Score 1) 194

by Bill Dog (#48178463) Attached to: JavaScript and the Netflix User Interface

I for one (and maybe the only one on Slashdot!) never hated js, always liked it, I just don't feel it belongs outside where it was invented, because it has compromises due to what is was created for, where outside that environment there are much more suitable choices. Neither would I like seeing SQL turned into a language across other layers of an application.

And I understand your point that less cost in development opens up more things for it to be economically sensible to automate. I just don't want my occupation to turn into writing shitty code for every little thing.

Comment: Re:Oh-oh, here we go :-( (Score 1) 124

by Bill Dog (#48178407) Attached to: Why do so many liberals despise Christianity?

Then you're an atheist because you did the math wrong. (Which, essentially, is how all atheists come to settle on atheism. For example, the reason my dad believes there is no god? "The vastness of space." In his mind, somehow, the billions and billions of planets out there means, in some way, that the likelihood that there is a god is infitesimally small.)

Where on earth did you get the idea that an infinite being must not be able to interact with the finite?!? If you create something, you're not bound by it, yet you can interact with it. And I don't know if you can say that about the universe; I would say it as our perception of our (His?) universe is bounded both in time and size. But we're dimensional beings of dimension n, whatever number you might want to give to n. A higher dimensional being could work with our n like we can work with all of our (n-1), (n-2), etc.

And finally, wisdom and propriety and respect for human sovereignty and dignity points to boundaries on how much you help, independent of how much is being asked.

Comment: Re:Javascript (Score 1) 194

by Bill Dog (#48178101) Attached to: JavaScript and the Netflix User Interface

Well, whatever emerges, will be about enabling the less-skilled (in software engineering), and hence lower paid, to take up programming.

But I shuddered when Google I think it was was making some kind of Java to JavaScript translator. I thought people who only knew and only cared to know Java would end up having much of the software industry catered to them, to where development ceased in the languages of other environments.

Now I'm wondering if it'll be js instead. I wouldn't be suprised if next there'll be a js way to query and manage relational databases, so that "JavaScript Engineers" don't have to learn SQL DDL and DML.

All constants are variables.