Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 1) 1152

by mkoenecke (#41817079) Attached to: Dr. Richard Dawkins On Why Disagreeing With Religion Isn't Insulting
Mea culpa: I now acknowledge that is not what Dawkins said in the interview. (As is practically accepted practice on Slashdot, I did not originally view the interview.) I was responding more to Dawkins's history and to what many antitheists commonly post on Slashdot. My point was, and is, that if the goal is to convince of the truth his approach is irrational. And that deploying irrational strategies to further reason is particularly ironic.

Comment: Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 1) 1152

by mkoenecke (#41817007) Attached to: Dr. Richard Dawkins On Why Disagreeing With Religion Isn't Insulting
I assume the "load of rubbish" you are referring to is my statement that a true atheist should not characterize theists as ignorant hillbillies. My point is that is an irrational response to the issue: attitudes like yours do nothing to convince, but rather alienate. If your goal is to convince people of the truth, insulting them is counterproductive. And if you are not interested in convincing people of the truth, why are you bothering to engage with them at all?

Comment: Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 1) 1152

by mkoenecke (#41816949) Attached to: Dr. Richard Dawkins On Why Disagreeing With Religion Isn't Insulting
It depends on what you are being accused of being ignorant of. Sure, I am profoundly ignorant of the things you are, and many, many more subjects; I have no problem admitting that. But if someone accuses me of being ignorant of basic scientific principles *because I am a theist*, that is insulting. Now, I acknowledge that is not what Dawkins said in the interview. Mea culpa: I was responding more to Dawkins's history and to what many antitheists commonly post on Slashdot.

Comment: Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 2) 1152

by mkoenecke (#41806613) Attached to: Dr. Richard Dawkins On Why Disagreeing With Religion Isn't Insulting
Sorry, I should have clarified: I personally do not feel insulted. I'm well aware that many, if not most, participants on Slashdot think all theists are stupid and ignorant; that is their problem, not mine. I was commenting on how Dawkins's approach is, from a rational point of view, preaching to the choir, and utterly ineffectual in its stated purpose.

Comment: Re:Distinguishing conflict from disagreement (Score 4, Insightful) 1152

by mkoenecke (#41805855) Attached to: Dr. Richard Dawkins On Why Disagreeing With Religion Isn't Insulting

Don't have any current mod points, so I'll just comment: quite so. Disagreeing with someone is not insulting; *insulting* someone is insulting. Dawkins does plenty of the latter. Calling theists "ignorant" is indeed insulting when said theists are well-educated (even in evolution, which I learned as an accepted fact - in Catholic school), and quite well aware of your arguments. For what it's worth, I did read "The God Delusion," and found it trite: his arguments have been answered many times over. Certainly, to an atheist, the answers are not persuasive, but it is foolish to act as though theists are ignorant of the questions posed.

I'm quite sympathetic to the atheistic worldview, but it seems to me that a true atheist would accept the "God Delusion" as as much a product of evolution as tribal instincts, and focus on the advantages of moving past such a delusion, as opposed to characterizing those subject to the "delusion" as ignorant hillbillies. Rationally speaking, that mode of argument only appeals to those who agree with you already. Dawkins is more of an antitheist, or perhaps a "theophobe."

Comment: Re:Kill XP? (Score 1) 405

by mkoenecke (#41415349) Attached to: Maybe With Help From Google and Adobe, Microsoft Can Kill Windows XP

Yes, it's the X64 version. I have that on my laptop; I have XP on my desktop. Sure, I only have about a year left of MS tech support, but I've always been my own tech support anyway and have never relied on MS. I already have a migration path mostly set for what is necessary, and am preparing for the day my desktop croaks. But I'm not in a screaming rush to replace it, either.

Comment: Re:Kill XP? (Score 1) 405

by mkoenecke (#41386297) Attached to: Maybe With Help From Google and Adobe, Microsoft Can Kill Windows XP

I still use XP on my business desktop because I have a few very old 16-bit programs (e.g., Corel InfoCentral) that I find very useful. Under Windows 7, these have to be run under a Windows XP virtual machine (either using VMWare of Windows 7 Pro's native facility). Although the virtual machine can work fairly seamlessly, it (1) is much slower to access these programs and (2) the does not integrate well with other programs. I do have 7 on my laptop, and it runs quite well, but my desktop machine, customized as it is with Windows PowerPro and Everything search, works just fine as is.

Comment: Re:Nothing to surprising (Score 1) 1271

by mkoenecke (#37327504) Attached to: Marx May Have Had a Point

"Greed" is defined as "excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions." Personally, I would define it as "wanting more than one deserves or is entitled to."

The trouble with this: who defines what is "excessive," or what a person "deserves" or "is entitled to?" Under professedly Communist regimes, that has always wound up being the government.

In reality, "greed" is simply the flip side of envy: a person who is "greedy" is someone who has a lot more stuff than I do, which is perceived as unfair. It is not an objective standard by any means.

Communism is fundamentally flawed not because people are "greedy," but because they naturally act in their own self interest,

Comment: Re:I Predict... (Score 1) 307

by mkoenecke (#26342331) Attached to: A Look Back At Kurzweil's Predictions For 2009

Since you said "seriously," I'll answer. Because otherwise no one would invest in any business that they were not personally operating. Suppose you own some shares in a mutual fund. Is it reasonable to hold you personally responsible for actions of businesses whose stock you hold? Exxon has millions of shareholders. Is it reasonable to track down each one of them and shake them down for the costs of the Exxon Valdez cleanup? How many of them had any *control* over Exxon's corporate policies?

Limited liability is an essential component of having any sort of industry beyond the cottage level. How likely would you be to invest $10,000 in a startup business if you knew you would be personally liable for all the business's debts if it failed?

Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are.

Working...