Hate speech is a term devised by people who want to dismiss somebody else's argument without the need to properly address it.
(Along which the suffices ..phobia, ..deniers).
As such the term "hate speech" is itself (in a sense) hate speech.
If you think someone is saying something bad then do everyone the courtesy of taking on the actual content of what was said and don't resort to the cheap tactic of classifying it as "hate speech".
If the avionics aren't air-gapped from entertainment, then there's a way.
There's also a way for the entertainment system DRM to crash the plane- after all the content companies freaked out when it was suggested that they should allow an exemption to DRM anti-circumvention laws for safety reasons.
The massacre of Dresden is regarded to this day as a catastrophe, and one that is regrettable with uncertain value towards the allied victory. Imagine, then, if it were in industrial city in France that we bombed, and the civilians in question were not Germans, but occupied French.
Actaully we did bomb occupied French civilians - because we bombed factories in France where they worked - although it is true that efforts were sometimes made to minimise such casualties. (As in the Case where Leonard Cheshire dived low over a factory twice - at huge personal risk - to warn the workers to get out).
The reality is that in war there will always be civilian casualties - our ability to minimise them depends on a combination of technology, good military tactics and personal heroism.
The rather more gung ho attitude of the British during WW2 is explained by the fact that Britian was fighting for its life in a way that the USA really wasn't - and had suffered considerable civilian casualties itself during the blitz.
The pressure on morality due to expediency is well explained by Freeman Dyson: "I began to look backward and to ask myself how it happened that I let myself become involved in this crazy game of murder. Since the beginning of the war I had been retreating step by step from one moral position to another, until at the end I had no moral position at all. At the beginning of the war I believed fiercely in the brotherhood of man, called myself a follower of Gandhi, and was morally opposed to all violence. After a year of war I retreated and said, Unfortunately non-violent resistance against Hitler is impracticable, but I am still morally opposed to bombing. A few years later I said, Unfortunately it seems that bombing is necessary in order to win the war, and so I am willing to go to work for Bomber Command, but I am still morally opposed to bombing cities indiscriminately. After I arrived at Bomber Command I said, Unfortunately it turns out that we are after all bombing cities indiscriminately, but this is morally justified as it is helping to win the war. A year later I said, Unfortunately it seems that our bombing is not really helping to win the war, but at least I am morally justified in working to save the lives of the bomber crews. In the last spring of the war I could no longer find any excuses. … I had surrendered one moral principle after another, and in the end it was all for nothing. "
The problem at present is that we don't understand the war that we are in, don't understand who our friends really are and don't know waht kind of fight we should involve ourselves in. Consequently everything we do seems to hurt our friends more than our enemies and leave the situation worse than it was.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians are as bad and how about screw you relgious nutjobs
Historian Gwynne Dyer recently wrote had an excellent overview of why the Armenian genocide "was genocide through panic, incompetence and deliberate neglect, but it cannot be compared to what happened to the European Jews.
She considered only a small part of said genocide - which in fact started in the 19th century long before the first world war and continued after it.
The first person to compare the two was Hitler - when he said "who now remembers the Armenians" when he was advocating the the Nazi policy.
I was pointing out that if we decide that faith in Islam connects with the antisocial behaviors they exhibit and the antisocial beliefs they hold, we would have to apply the same logic to people with other faiths, such as Christianity.
But it is naive to do this without examining the core beliefs of the ideology in question.
The antisocial behaviour can be connected to the ideology IF AND ONLY IF you can make a direct connection between the core content of the ideology and the behaviours isn question.
If you do otherwise then you are guilty of confusing correlation with causation. If you can construct a theory that explains the causal mechanism then the empirical evidence can be regarded as endorsing that theory.
I recognize there are plenty of good Christians and good Muslims, and what drives someone to, say, terrorism or heeding misogynistic tradition is going to stem from a more complex background than merely Islam.
Good Christians are people who obey Christ's commandments and emulate his life.
Good Muslims are people who obey Mohammed's commandments and emulate his life. Muslims who in fact obey Christian commandments cannot be good muslims.
Read the lives of the two founders and you will understand.
I would similarly argue that John Newton's life deserves a more sophisticated analysis than he was born again and all his virtuous steps are because of his new relationship with Jesus.
Because otherwise it contradicts your position.
If the politics of the United States would allow for the irreligious (not even atheist -- just those for whom Sunday school isn't a big deal) to also rise to power and show their hypocrisy, I might not so eagerly associate it with Christianity.
How parochial!
Is not the example of Soviet Russia good enough for you?
You seem to be happy to make the connection between bad things and people's faith without evidence - sauce for the goose?
You said In the last century the Christian world had WWI, WWII, the holocaust and the nuking of two cities - with clerics and padres on BOTH the German and Allied sides assuring their respective troops that God thought it was peachy-keen.
Well I would say, using your own argument, that in their heads Christianity was a separate matter from the war.
Can you provide any example of non-rivalrous property ?
• It is common to describe property as a “bundle of rights.” These rights include the right to possess and use, the right to exclude, and the right to transfer
Actually sometimes they ARE stolen - as in when a big content company uses content ID to monetise a YouTube music video that they don't actually have the rights to.
Re: Scripture is useless when no-one considers it.
It's more important to Christian churches worldwide to increase the marginalization of gays and women. That sounds contrary to any love your neighbor message.
Re: Re: pre-infringement... it's all how you look at it.
copyright on sporting events is fucking nuts.
More to the point - to claim that a sporting event is covered by copyright is tantamount to admitting that it has been "fixed" - which is itself an offence.
Re: Looks like you're trying to cherry pick scripture again.
Consider how few Christians regard their neighbors as they would themselves, and considering how little uproar there is for it, I'd submit that loving your neighbor as you would yourself is no longer even a Christian ethic.
I think Jesus got there before you on this one: "21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Matthew Ch 7
Also what is it with your American so called Christians? From where I'm sitting it looks like being American is the problem rather than being Christian! This is reinforced by the manner in which some of your so called marginalized minorities themselves behave.
These paragraphs from the Wikipedia article seems to imply it to me:
" He apologized for "a confession, which ... comes too late ... It will always be a subject of humiliating reflection to me, that I was once an active instrument in a business at which my heart now shudders." "
"Newton later came to believe that, during the first five of his nine years as a slave trader, he had not been a Christian in the full sense of the term: "I was greatly deficient in many respects ... I cannot consider myself to have been a believer in the full sense of the word, until a considerable time later."
On the post: Press, University Say Study Shows Link Between Gaming And Alzheimer's; Spoiler: No It Doesn't
More Likely
Google Video Game Alzheimers and you get this
Video game boosts cognitive control for older people
SO this report is worse than wrong - it's actually backwards!
On the post: Finding And Responding To The Media's Favorite Ridiculous And Misleading Free Speech Tropes
Re: Re: Re: Re: "hate" speech
Hate speech is a term devised by people who want to dismiss somebody else's argument without the need to properly address it.
(Along which the suffices ..phobia, ..deniers).
As such the term "hate speech" is itself (in a sense) hate speech.
If you think someone is saying something bad then do everyone the courtesy of taking on the actual content of what was said and don't resort to the cheap tactic of classifying it as "hate speech".
On the post: Finding And Responding To The Media's Favorite Ridiculous And Misleading Free Speech Tropes
Re: Re: This is maddening
But saying that lying is not protected by the first amendment is protected by the first amendment!
On the post: FBI Investigating Chris Roberts For Hacking Flight WiFi, Taking Control Of Engines
Re: Re:
There's also a way for the entertainment system DRM to crash the plane- after all the content companies freaked out when it was suggested that they should allow an exemption to DRM anti-circumvention laws for safety reasons.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Naive readings of history
Actaully we did bomb occupied French civilians - because we bombed factories in France where they worked - although it is true that efforts were sometimes made to minimise such casualties. (As in the Case where Leonard Cheshire dived low over a factory twice - at huge personal risk - to warn the workers to get out).
The reality is that in war there will always be civilian casualties - our ability to minimise them depends on a combination of technology, good military tactics and personal heroism.
The rather more gung ho attitude of the British during WW2 is explained by the fact that Britian was fighting for its life in a way that the USA really wasn't - and had suffered considerable civilian casualties itself during the blitz.
The pressure on morality due to expediency is well explained by Freeman Dyson:
"I began to look backward and to ask myself how it happened that I let myself become involved in this crazy game of murder. Since the beginning of the war I had been retreating step by step from one moral position to another, until at the end I had no moral position at all. At the beginning of the war I believed fiercely in the brotherhood of man, called myself a follower of Gandhi, and was morally opposed to all violence. After a year of war I retreated and said, Unfortunately non-violent resistance against Hitler is impracticable, but I am still morally opposed to bombing. A few years later I said, Unfortunately it seems that bombing is necessary in order to win the war, and so I am willing to go to work for Bomber Command, but I am still morally opposed to bombing cities indiscriminately. After I arrived at Bomber Command I said, Unfortunately it turns out that we are after all bombing cities indiscriminately, but this is morally justified as it is helping to win the war. A year later I said, Unfortunately it seems that our bombing is not really helping to win the war, but at least I am morally justified in working to save the lives of the bomber crews. In the last spring of the war I could no longer find any excuses. … I had surrendered one moral principle after another, and in the end it was all for nothing. "
The problem at present is that we don't understand the war that we are in, don't understand who our friends really are and don't know waht kind of fight we should involve ourselves in. Consequently everything we do seems to hurt our friends more than our enemies and leave the situation worse than it was.
On the post: UK Government Review Says Use Prizes, Not Patents, To Produce Much-Needed New Antibiotics
Interesting
The disregard of the patent system during the wars was one reason for the rapid innovation that happened at the time.
On the post: Iranian Cleric Suggests The West Ban And Criminalize Negative Portrayals Of Muslims To Prevent Radicalization
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Christians are as bad and how about screw you relgious nutjobs
She considered only a small part of said genocide - which in fact started in the 19th century long before the first world war and continued after it.
The first person to compare the two was Hitler - when he said "who now remembers the Armenians" when he was advocating the the Nazi policy.
On the post: Iranian Cleric Suggests The West Ban And Criminalize Negative Portrayals Of Muslims To Prevent Radicalization
Re: Re: Re: Speculation
But it is naive to do this without examining the core beliefs of the ideology in question.
The antisocial behaviour can be connected to the ideology IF AND ONLY IF you can make a direct connection between the core content of the ideology and the behaviours isn question.
If you do otherwise then you are guilty of confusing correlation with causation. If you can construct a theory that explains the causal mechanism then the empirical evidence can be regarded as endorsing that theory.
I recognize there are plenty of good Christians and good Muslims, and what drives someone to, say, terrorism or heeding misogynistic tradition is going to stem from a more complex background than merely Islam.
Good Christians are people who obey Christ's commandments and emulate his life.
Good Muslims are people who obey Mohammed's commandments and emulate his life. Muslims who in fact obey Christian commandments cannot be good muslims.
Read the lives of the two founders and you will understand.
I would similarly argue that John Newton's life deserves a more sophisticated analysis than he was born again and all his virtuous steps are because of his new relationship with Jesus.
Because otherwise it contradicts your position.
If the politics of the United States would allow for the irreligious (not even atheist -- just those for whom Sunday school isn't a big deal) to also rise to power and show their hypocrisy, I might not so eagerly associate it with Christianity.
How parochial!
Is not the example of Soviet Russia good enough for you?
On the post: Iranian Cleric Suggests The West Ban And Criminalize Negative Portrayals Of Muslims To Prevent Radicalization
Re: Speculation
You said In the last century the Christian world had WWI, WWII, the holocaust and the nuking of two cities - with clerics and padres on BOTH the German and Allied sides assuring their respective troops that God thought it was peachy-keen.
Well I would say, using your own argument, that in their heads Christianity was a separate matter from the war.
On the post: Iranian Cleric Suggests The West Ban And Criminalize Negative Portrayals Of Muslims To Prevent Radicalization
Re: "your analysis is incompatible with this phrase."
Given his commitment to the faith it seems unlikely to me that anything "in his head" was separate from his faith.
On the post: Iranian Cleric Suggests The West Ban And Criminalize Negative Portrayals Of Muslims To Prevent Radicalization
Re: Re: Re: Scripture is useless when no-one considers it.
Also there is a big difference between even the most extreme Christian position on this subject and a typical Islamic position.
On the post: How To Use 'Intellectual Property' Properly
Re: Re: Re:
• It is common to describe property as a “bundle of rights.” These rights include the right to possess and use, the right to exclude, and the right to transfer
All of which are rivalrous.
On the post: How To Use 'Intellectual Property' Properly
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually sometimes they ARE stolen - as in when a big content company uses content ID to monetise a YouTube music video that they don't actually have the rights to.
On the post: Iranian Cleric Suggests The West Ban And Criminalize Negative Portrayals Of Muslims To Prevent Radicalization
Re: Scripture is useless when no-one considers it.
This isn't to say that Islam is any better,
I think that the facts speak for themselves.
Here is a link to a map of the world by religion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam#/media/File:Prevailing_world_religions_map.png
an d here are the countries supporting/opposing/neutral/ on the UN charter on LGBT rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_in_Islam#/media/File:LGBT_rights_at_the_UN.svg
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: pre-infringement... it's all how you look at it.
More to the point - to claim that a sporting event is covered by copyright is tantamount to admitting that it has been "fixed" - which is itself an offence.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Public Domain
Not in their minds it isn't!
On the post: Iranian Cleric Suggests The West Ban And Criminalize Negative Portrayals Of Muslims To Prevent Radicalization
Re: Looks like you're trying to cherry pick scripture again.
I think Jesus got there before you on this one:
"21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Matthew Ch 7
Also what is it with your American so called Christians?
From where I'm sitting it looks like being American is the problem rather than being Christian!
This is reinforced by the manner in which some of your so called marginalized minorities themselves behave.
On the post: Iranian Cleric Suggests The West Ban And Criminalize Negative Portrayals Of Muslims To Prevent Radicalization
Re: Definitely a corellation-but-not-necessarily-causation situation.
" It will always be a subject of humiliating reflection to me, that I was once an active instrument in a business at which my heart now shudders."
On the post: Iranian Cleric Suggests The West Ban And Criminalize Negative Portrayals Of Muslims To Prevent Radicalization
Re: Not seeing it.
" He apologized for "a confession, which ... comes too late ... It will always be a subject of humiliating reflection to me, that I was once an active instrument in a business at which my heart now shudders." "
"Newton later came to believe that, during the first five of his nine years as a slave trader, he had not been a Christian in the full sense of the term: "I was greatly deficient in many respects ... I cannot consider myself to have been a believer in the full sense of the word, until a considerable time later."
On the post: Iranian Cleric Suggests The West Ban And Criminalize Negative Portrayals Of Muslims To Prevent Radicalization
Re: Re: Re: Christians are as bad and how about screw you relgious nutjobs
I think you need a citation on that one.
Next >>