Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Problem? (Score 2) 211

I honestly don't want to engage in the debate whether commies were a threat. The ones in Russia with the bombs, most likely. The idiots running around in the US? Very debatable.

I know the hearing between Welch and McCarthy rather well (I dare say most likely better than most non-US people). Its importance is less in what transpired, what mattered is what effect it had. It was the end of the witch hunts. Because that's what the whole zeal to find commies turned into. What went down in the US during those years around whether or not someone was a commie was not far from what happened in Russia with whether or not someone was anti-commie. The main difference being mostly that the outcome was less lethal in the US. The process itself, though, was the same mix of hysteria, opportunism and people who used it to get rid of opponents, as well as an excuse to do "whatever is necessary" and "end justifying any means".

I cannot help but find the same attitude now towards the proverbial four horsemen of the infocalypse. Is there a threat? Yes. Is it as big as we're led to believe? Hell no. But it is a very neat vehicle to get whatever you want because nobody may oppose it without provoking the question "or are you a commie/terrorist/pedo/whatever?"

Black and white. You're on one side or the other. The idea that BOTH sides could be wrong is not even offered as an option.

Comment: Re:When the cat's absent, the mice rejoice (Score 1) 211

Maybe you could kindly elaborate how

"The criminals here worthy of being described as scum and deserving confinement are the people involved in child pornography, not the investigator."

does not fit the description of

"Disagreeing with one crime is no excuse for agreeing with another."

Comment: Re:it's means it is (Score 2) 93

by mjwx (#47905057) Attached to: 3D-Printed Car Takes It's First Test Drive

I figured as much; but don't knock that. Talk to anybody who has wrecked the plastic on their sport motorcycle. If you could print that stuff at a reasonable price, that wold be HUGE.

Not just motorbikes. Today I noticed another scratch on my quarter panel (Perth, this is why we cant have nice things). If I knew I could replace the thing for less than $100 I wouldn't care so much (then again, the people who think it's OK to bang their door carelessly against my car might become even more reckless).

Comment: Re: illogical captain (Score 1) 727

by sumdumass (#47905011) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Actually, you can ignore it. You see, the science in conflict doesn't say religion is incompatible, it says religion isn't needed and here is how this is processed.

As for the religios, if a supernatural being created everything, that being very much could have created it in ways it could be understood and usefull to our progress. So no conflict there either. And again, science does not say any religious conflict is wrong, just that it is not needed.

Comment: Re:Great idea! Let's alienate Science even more! (Score 1) 727

by mjwx (#47904983) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

If bigot Yankees wouldn't have started to teach Creationism at school, or open the Creation Museum, or all the bizarre stuff I periodically read about religion in the US, maybe atheists would not have felt the need to "fight back" in that way...

The Creation Museum was founded by an Australian.

Not any more... he had to give up his Australian citizenship to get US citizenship.

He's your nutbar now.

Comment: Re:Fallacy (Score 1) 727

by mjwx (#47904933) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Sorry this whole story is some attempt to fill a boring summer void.

The pedant in me desperately wants to point out that Spock is half human and feels emotions too.

The pendant in me desperately wants to point out that the Vulcans have emotions, they just control (suppress) them and because of his Vulcan upbringing, Spock learned to do the same.

Comment: Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (Score 1) 727

by mjwx (#47904903) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

I think part of what you're pointing out is that atheism is not a belief system, and so people shouldn't expect atheists to all think the same way or believe the same things.

This,

People who dont understand what the word "atheism" means dont know that atheism describes everyone from the non-religious to LeVayan Satanists to Buddhists (yep, Buddhism is an atheist religion, they dont believe in a god or gods).

Comment: Re:No, no. Let's not go there. Please. (Score 1) 727

by mjwx (#47904881) Attached to: Why Atheists Need Captain Kirk

Exactly. I get so tired of being asked "Then what *do* you believe?" with the emphasis on the do. My usual response is "Concerning what?" And there the questioner typically falters because they simply cannot wrap their minds around divorcing that question from some supernatural belief.

By all means, not all religious people are like that. My ex's father was a prof emeritus with five friggin' degrees in theological studies and we got along and understood each other just fine. He was, however, exceptional.

People who spend a lot of time studying beliefs are the ones that are typically most accepting of others who dont share their beliefs. Its the lay preachers and blind believers that are intolerant of any viewpoint except their own. I think this is because they haven't thought about why they believe what they believe and find any idea that challenges their blind adherence to be uncomfortable and must be silenced.

A theist who commits themselves to study their own faith will find the flaws of it pretty quick. This does not mean they'll stop believing, but it makes them more rational when dealing with people who dont share their faith.

Comment: Re:Where is the misuse of military equipment charg (Score 2) 211

No, he was not convicted of an illegally broad search. The appeals court found that the search was illegally broad so following the poisoned fruit doctrine, all evidence obtained that was connected to that search could not be used in the conviction of someone distributing child porn. The naval officer and the navy itself was not convicted of anything and likely will not face charges.

The title is misleading if you consider guilty as a conviction in a criminal court. The issue at hand was the court found as a "matter of fact" that the search was overly broad and violated a law so the evidence could not be used. When doing so, it is actually saying the navy did something wrong or illegal but no one was prosecuted over that act so no one was convicted (so far).

For once, the good guys win.

I would actually suggest that this should read "for once, the over reach of government loses". I'm not entirely sure the navy is the bad guys and I'm pretty positive the guy with kiddie porn is not exactly the good guy.

Comment: Re:Another liberal activist judge (Score 1) 211

So the end justifies the means?

I guess then we may assume you'd be in favor of weekly raids of your house (and everyone else's)? That should pretty much ensure we can eliminate any and all drug cooking and growing happening nationwide.

The end justifies the means, after all.

Comment: Re:Problem? (Score 1) 211

So I guess the whole security theater that sprung up after 9/11 is ok? If it only saved the life and virtue of even one....

Child porn, terrorism, or in earlier days communism. I can only hope that one day we'll have some Welch again asking "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"

To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing. -- Elbert Hubbard

Working...