Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Knowledge (Score 1) 1037

by wrf3 (#46677851) Attached to: How the Internet Is Taking Away America's Religion

If there is such a thing as absolute moral law, then it really has to be absolute, meaning God isn't exempt from it.

That's a big "if". How would you go about showing that there is one moral law to which both man and God are accountable? And what does it even mean to hold God accountable to something? God is existence itself. Surely you cannot undo existence. The best you can do is close your eyes and pretend it has gone away.

And the God you refer to is guilty of multiple genocides.

And you're right back to the "in my opinion God is evil" accusation. But you don't have anything behind it other than your notions of good and evil. Your notions of good and evil are, in part, formed by nature's use of the iterated prisoner's dilemma to ensure some cooperation between individuals where extended cooperation is necessary for raising young. This, in turn, drives the notion that God must (in some way) cooperate with man. When He doesn't, He offends our moral sensibilities. The problem with this is that God does not need our cooperation, so it's a mistake to think that He has to follow our rules.

If he exists, then it is mankind's duty to find him and drag him to Le Hague for trial.

And then what?

Comment: Re:Knowledge (Score 1, Insightful) 1037

by wrf3 (#46676085) Attached to: How the Internet Is Taking Away America's Religion

Essentially, that makes God a really king size asshole.

Notice what you did. You made a value judgement which requires knowledge of good and evil. Instead of judging God to be good, you've declared Him to be evil.
But that is something you logically cannot do, since God is the ultimate arbiter, not you. There is no moral yardstick that is external to God and to which both God and man must conform in order to be "good." He, himself, is that yardstick. But, instead, you've made yourself the yardstick.

God has put you in a bind in which there are only two possibilities: either man is "broken" or there is no God. Since we don't like to think of ourselves as broken (and, heaven forbid, agree with what the Bible says about us) some choose the "no God" path. But, since it's based on faulty reasoning, it's akin to whistling past the graveyard.

Comment: Re:Remember: (Score 1) 474

by wrf3 (#39575103) Attached to: Arizona Attempts To Make Trolling Illegal

... I have no idea where people came up with the notion they have some inalienable right to not be offended.

Moral relativism run amok. Since each individual decides what is right for themselves, and we have the right to be secure in our own possessions, and our mind is our greatest possession, you don't have the right to upset the world I've constructed in my head. In other words, we've confused feeling good with being good.

Comment: Re:Yes, Thank Turing We're Not the Media Hype Mach (Score 1) 293

by wrf3 (#35201580) Attached to: Watch IBM's Watson On Jeopardy Tonight

Watch tonigh and prepare to believe a machine can think.

Being able to answer a certain class of questions (ok, determining a correct question from an answer) does not demonstrate self-awareness. I'm not sure that extrospection without introspection qualifies as thinking, at least, not in the human sense.

Comment: Re:What is the issue? (Score 1) 319

by wrf3 (#33097330) Attached to: Broadway Musicians Replaced With Synthesizers

There are some people who enjoy going to the same live show multiple times. They relish in what is the same as well as what is different in each performance. A synth is not even close to a live performer. A recording gets mundane to those who go to multiple showings.

There's no reason that a synthesizer has to generate the same performance each time. I'm sure someone will come up with heuristics to give a synthesized performance a "live" feel.

Comment: Re:Obvious abuse of power (Score 1) 1123

by wrf3 (#32447676) Attached to: Police Officers Seek Right Not To Be Recorded

Of course you don't subdue them with impact forces. You use impact to get them down so that you can try to restrain them. And when someone goes on a rampage in short quarters, you use what's at hand. I am not a cop, and I'm relating a real-life incident from an officer that I happen to trust. And the incident was 10-15 years ago, so my memory may be faulty. YMMV.

Comment: Re:One Fundamental difference: (Score 1) 1123

by wrf3 (#32446984) Attached to: Police Officers Seek Right Not To Be Recorded

There's a lot of reasons why you can't point a gun at a cop. ... the fundamental difference is that a Camera is not lethal.

I'd write a Law & Order episode where a suspect reached for a camera, the cop thought it was a gun and shot the suspect. It was dark, the area was poorly lit, and the officer is acquitted. Has it already been done? Well, it doesn't matter now that L&O is off the air.

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Working...