Re: Brin: Re: Six devastating issues
JDG wrote: First, Democrats will have a difficult time rebranding themselves as the anti-government Party. After all, you have previously defined the Democrats on this List as being the Party that favored *every* big-government program over the past 100-or-so years over Republican opposition. That is an awful lot of history to jujitsu. Democrats have the reputation as big spenders, but it's recently been documented on the list that Republicans are the most irresponsible when it comes to spending. 1) I somehow don't think that it is a winning strategy for the Democrats to argue that the nation aught to be preparing the armed forces to take on another major... mission.Moreover, such a debate would inevitably turn into a referendum on the merits of the Iraq War, and the Republicans have already won the last time that was tried. CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. April 1-2, 2005. N=1,040 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq? Approve 43% Disapprove 54% Unsure 3% All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not? . Worth Going To War 45% Not Worth Going To War 53% Unsure 2% Do you think the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American public about whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, or not? Yes, Misled 50% No,Did Not 48% Unsure 2% Dr. Brin didn't even mention the issue that I find most egregious; Geneva Convention and human rights violations by the administration. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
(no subject)
JDG: Nick: I really don't mean to inflame things by asking, but would you apply cost- benefit analysis to abortion? Is war really so different? No, as cost-benefit-analysis can never be used to justify an intrinsicly evil action. For example, if cost-benefit-analysis showed that our civilization would be better off by rounding up and euthanizing the homeless, I would be opposed to that policy. Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a just war exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate consideration in recommending for or against a war. OK, but what's that got to do with abortion? -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 07:23 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Apr 13, 2005, at 3:12 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 12:06 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I don't see a difference, at least not a functional one, between the statements The Iraq war is unjustifiable and the *debate-style* Resolved: The Iraq war is unjustifiable. Discuss. How about, In my personal opinion, the Iraq war is unjustifiable. Here's why I believe that . . . YMMV, and I will respect you for your opinion even if it disagrees from mine, because I could be wrong.? :D rant The point of taking that implicitly, as opposed to explicating it with every sentence, is twofold, I think. 1. Of COURSE that's how opinions should be read and responded to. Duh. 2. Such disclaimers, in addition to wasting time and effort (as they're already understood by any being capable of reason), resemble the crap you see at the ends of emails that say things like This is a personal email and doesn't represent the views of BlaCorp... and five more grafs of utterly worthless, totally unnecessary legalese tacked on by lawyers with far too much time on their hands and nowhere near enough real issues to tackle. (Or, more succinctly, beings incapable of reason. ;) Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? In my opinion, this thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to discussion on the topic ... kind of wordy if we can *presume* that the statement this thing is invalid is already an opinion and all the other verbiage associated therewith is understood to be applicable in all cases. IOW, pissing and whining about a lack of disclaimers and qualifiers added to every! goddamned! opinion! is so much like behaving as a corporate attorney might that it's really offensive to the intelligence of the readers. Isn't it? Or should we behave as though everyone we correspond with is too stupid to grasp that when we write an expression of how we see or think, we're really just stating an opinion? Do we really truly need to label opinions as such, or can we safely assume all of our readers are bright enough to know where the opinions are? Hey, here's a crazy idea. How about instead of attacking the way an idea is expressed, the idea itself gets to be the target of discussion for a while? It's nuts, I admit -- but it might just yield some interesting and meaningful results. Certainly it's not been tried around here much lately. Maybe then we'll see more light and less heat, huh? /rant Here's a very short summation. I'm not going to change the way I express my opinions (nor the way I express myself in general) to suit the sensibilities of others. Okay, how about the shorter version: I could be wrong, but I think the war in Iraq is unjustifiable because . . . Of course, since it seems that the whole point of 99+% of such discussions on any topic, whether OL or in RL, is for the speaker to prove that s/he is right and that anyone who disagrees is wrong, as opposed to entertaining various possibly contrasting views and attempting to find the Truth or at least reach a consensus, admitting at the start that one might be wrong in one's opinion is counterproductive to the primary goal . . . :P -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 05:48 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, John DeBudge wrote: Applying opportunity costs to something like government spending on war is a great way to use a bunch of unknowns to prove your side of the argument. Unfortunately it will not be of much use to someone who disagrees with the basic cost/benefit analysis of the war in the first place. Any benefit you claim for increased spending in some government agency could easily be countered by a claim that failure to have spend the money on war would have led to XYZ bad things. You will not believe that such bad things would have happened and they will not be convinced that they would not. Thus you will both just talk past one another. Plus you will get bogged down into the argument of what if spending. If we double research money the government spends on cancer research will we halve the time it takes to find a cure (assuming a cure is the goal, and it is achievable)? How about AIDS research ? What if we spent more on road safety to limit deaths? Clearly programs like education, defense, the Smithsonian, NASA, farm subsidies, and so on are not as important as saving just one more life! Right? If the idea is that life is so valuable that saving lives is worth any financial cost, then the only logical thing is to ban all forms of transportation, since all have a finite, nonzero probability of death . . . as does just getting out of bed in the morning, as does staying in bed in the morning . . . There are no guarantees in life, and just because we might be able to do something with more funding does not mean it will happen. In fact we might cause more problems (just as someone in a big software project how helpful it is to suddenly have your team size double and deadlines get cut in half). Someone else has read The Mythical Man-Month, I see . . . Just spending more on something does not result in the benefit of that program going up. Viz, public schools. While at the same time the pro-war supporter can point to real world changes that have happened. If all you counter with is theoretical what ifs, you will have a weak and unpersuasive argument. Opportunity costs is part of economic theory that tries to help businesses decide how best to allocate available capital. It is not exact, it involves lots of guess work, and it only really cares about return on investment in pure financial terms. Trying to apply it to desired policy outcomes is not going to be a perfect fit. In the end I think that you will find few people who supported the war swayed by the opportunity costs argument. Just like I doubt anyone who supported the war could use the opportunity costs of NOT going to war to change your mind. John ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 06:51 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Warren Ockrassa wrote: 2. Many times it seems to me that 12-step programs really substitute one addiction (to [substance]) for another (to the program). This doesn't really solve the problem. It doesn't strike at the root, the source of the addiction. It simply replaces one behavior with another behavior, but offers no guarantees that backsliding won't happen. To eliminate addiction, one must fundamentally alter oneself and one's responses to the world, not just to [substance], and I'm uncertain that any 12-step program provides the necessary tools to accomplish that fundamental transformation. In the mid-80s, my mom was doing training to answer phones at a suicide prevention hotline. Part of the requirement for training was to attend an AA meeting (Narcotics Anonymous probably would have done, as well), for what reason I don't remember. Anyway, there was a limit for her tolerance for cigarette smoke, and so she wanted to go to a smokeless AA meeting. She could find only one during the week she was supposed to attend an AA meeting, while there were probably at least 3 meetings per day during that period in the area in which she was looking. So these folks were sober, but some of them were chain-smoking through the meetings, which might support your point. Unless things have changed recently, hospitals make one exception to the smoke-free policy for all patients, employees, and visitors: patients receiving in-patient mental-health care, because, as I have heard it explained, many of them smoke and they have enough on their plates undergoing whatever treatment they are undergoing. Others have suggested that one reason people with mental problems of one sort or another are more likely than the average person to drink or use illegal drugs (I'm not sure about smoking, but istm that it might also be included) is that they are actually self-medicating for their illness, sometimes with whatever is available to them (frex if they are unemployed and do not have insurance or easy access to healthcare). -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: 24? **correction**
At 06:52 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Ronn!Blankenship wrote: At 11:21 AM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 10:25 AM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Alberto Monteiro wrote: Julia Thompson wrote: 4! No, if 4! = 24, then 24? = 4 The interesting thing is that 10? = 3.390 or so. I was taking it to mean what is 24? And the answer to that question is 4*3*2*1, among other things :) Back in the days when a mainframe with a total of 8K 16-bit words of magnetic core memory was the biggest thing I had available, I wasted a bit of time programming it to calculate exact values up to 25! That should read 2500! , which, with iirc 7412 digits, was the largest one I could squeeze into the amount of memory available (the OS took up about 2K of that memory). Sometimes Nothing Really Matters Maru -- Ronn! :) And sometimes it's not a number, it's a text string. Some programmers don't seem to realize this. At least, some programmers writing code for programs at the university I attended didn't at some point. It's annoying to have the grade report arrive a few days late because the zip code was treated as a number when you (unlike most of the attendees) live in New Hampshire, where all zip codes start out 03. (I'll spare everyone the similar rant about Social Security numbers being treated as numbers rather than text strings. Just assume there is one.) And the thing is that if those programs were originally written long ago and so were in legacy COBOL, it is a rather easy matter to specify a field as a ZIP code or a SSN. Did Anyone Notice Any Significant Improvement In Their Zone Starting On 1 July 1963 Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
At 09:44 PM Wednesday 4/13/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: Dan Minette wrote: Well, if you honestly feel that you are capable enough to set the standards to know that a Soro's fellow working in international relations is making unreasonable arguements that are impossible to support, I guess you need to say that. But, I guess I am not as convinced by my superiority to others as you may be of yours. That type of statement takes a lot of chupaz in my book. By chupaz did you mean chutzpah? (My dictionary doesn't list anything between chunnel and church) Not even the shoreline? The worshippers must get their feet wet, then . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a just war exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate consideration in recommending for or against a war. You don't believe that just war doctrine argues that a lesser evil is sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me that even when talking about a just war, most every theologian acknowledges that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of evil -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. Turning to the positive side of these issues, I greatly appreciate the Catholic Church's statements on having a consistent ethic of life, which presumes heavily against any action that takes away life. Pope John Paul II: Where life is involved, the service of charity must be profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is an indivisible good. That sacredness and inviolability of life seems to me to make war intrinsically evil. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 09:05 AM Thursday 4/14/2005, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a just war exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate consideration in recommending for or against a war. You don't believe that just war doctrine argues that a lesser evil is sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me that even when talking about a just war, most every theologian acknowledges that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of evil -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. Turning to the positive side of these issues, I greatly appreciate the Catholic Church's statements on having a consistent ethic of life, which presumes heavily against any action that takes away life. Pope John Paul II: Where life is involved, the service of charity must be profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is an indivisible good. That sacredness and inviolability of life seems to me to make war intrinsically evil. What is the Catholic policy on self-defense? If one is a good Catholic man at home one night with his family when a home invader kicks in the door and threatens his wife and kids, does he or does he not grab his son's baseball bat from the closet¹ and whack the intruder over the head? _ ¹I'm presuming he wouldn't have a firearm in the house. -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turning to the positive side of these issues, I greatly appreciate the Catholic Church's statements on having a consistent ethic of life, which presumes heavily against any action that takes away life. Pope John Paul II: Where life is involved, the service of charity must be profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is an indivisible good. That sacredness and inviolability of life seems to me to make war intrinsically evil. What is the Catholic policy on self-defense? Its called the Doctorine of Double Effect and it basically says yeah, go for it. Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
On 12 Apr 2005, Nick Arnett wrote ... I hadn't read this before writing the words above, but it seems to fit quite well. Protecting, preserving, preparing and providing are collaborative efforts. In a network, this is the storage and retrieval of information that may be needed later. ... along with the more detailed `Rs', reason, rigor, reality, and responsibility; and the honesty of reports. And these are largely individual tasks, even though they may be shared. In a network, these are the creation and processing of information. This is a very interesting comment. I dreamed about it last night. When I wrote the words, I thought of `protecting, preserving, preparing, and providing' as general ways of evaluating policies: as in, does this policy _preserve_ the natural environment enough for us humans to continue? Does this policy _prepare_ millions of Chinese for the requisits kind of transport for whose will live in cities and hope to be richer a generation from now? But they also mean the kind of information you can store and retrieve. At the same time, I had thought of `reason, rigor, reality, and responsibility, the honesty of reports' as ways of evaluating political parties: as in, is the Republican party being _responsible_ in selling so many IOUs to foreigners, rather than running a more frugal government and raising taxes? Is the Democratic party being _realistic_ in its opposition to all things military, rather than just some? For example the `honesty of reports' notion led to uncertainty factors, establishing trust, and transcultural communications. But they also mean the creation and processing of proposals. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
On 12 Apr 2005, Nick Arnett wrote As a metaphor, consider genetic material as a communications network that contains a great deal of information, not just about how to compete, but how to adapt to a changing environment. Why consider it a metaphor? Suppose we had a world of self-replicating robots, as in Hogan's 1983 novel, `Code of the Lifemaker'. Presume they transmitted blue-prints to each other via radio rather than through physical `bodily fluids', as humans do. In such a world, we would definitely say that the transfer and mixing of blue-prints was through a communications network. Why should we think the communications network is a metaphor because the medium of exchange uses physical entities rather than radio entities? (By the way, I have heard that in earthly biological entities, the error rate for reduplication of blue-print material is something like one base-four error per ten million copies. This is for mutations, not sex-induced variation. The number, rather vaguely, applies to all kinds of biological life, including bacteria. Does any one know better?) -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
spelling: Westfalia -- Westphalia
Oops! I think I should have called the 1648 `Treaty of Westfalia' the `Peace of Westphalia'. As far as I can figure, in German the region is `Westfalen' with an `f', but in English the location is called `Westphalia' with a `ph'. Moreover, what we would now call a `Treaty' was then called a `Peace'. Perhaps someone else knows better? -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 09:57 AM Thursday 4/14/2005, Martin Lewis wrote: On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Turning to the positive side of these issues, I greatly appreciate the Catholic Church's statements on having a consistent ethic of life, which presumes heavily against any action that takes away life. Pope John Paul II: Where life is involved, the service of charity must be profoundly consistent. It cannot tolerate bias and discrimination, for human life is sacred and inviolable at every stage and in every situation; it is an indivisible good. That sacredness and inviolability of life seems to me to make war intrinsically evil. What is the Catholic policy on self-defense? Its called the Doctorine of Double Effect and it basically says yeah, go for it. As in make my day? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That sacredness and inviolability of life seems to me to make war intrinsically evil. What is the Catholic policy on self-defense? Its called the Doctorine of Double Effect and it basically says yeah, go for it. As in make my day? No. In the punk's position you would be commiting suicide, frowned upon by the Catholic church I believe, and in Harry's position you would be intending harm and hence breaking Double Effect, that harm is only a side effect. Also its go ahead, isn't it? Martin ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 11:05 AM Thursday 4/14/2005, Martin Lewis wrote: On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That sacredness and inviolability of life seems to me to make war intrinsically evil. What is the Catholic policy on self-defense? Its called the Doctorine of Double Effect and it basically says yeah, go for it. As in make my day? No. In the punk's position you would be commiting suicide, frowned upon by the Catholic church I believe, and in Harry's position you would be intending harm and hence breaking Double Effect, that harm is only a side effect. Also its go ahead, isn't it? Okay, gotcha . . . FWIW, around these parts, entering the homes of many practicing religious persons with apparent ill intent would be tantamount to committing suicide, whether you are a human or a snake (thread convergence again) . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments)
On Apr 14, 2005, at 6:02 AM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote: Okay, how about the shorter version: I could be wrong, but I think the war in Iraq is unjustifiable because . . . Of course, since it seems that the whole point of 99+% of such discussions on any topic, whether OL or in RL, is for the speaker to prove that s/he is right and that anyone who disagrees is wrong, as opposed to entertaining various possibly contrasting views and attempting to find the Truth or at least reach a consensus, admitting at the start that one might be wrong in one's opinion is counterproductive to the primary goal . . . :P Yes. Thank you. That is and has been all along my point. The disclaiming verbiage takes up space, is a waste of time, and it belies the essence: That when we hold an opinion, we believe it to be *correct*, which is why we hold that opinion. I think the thing that some object to is that I frankly and openly begin from the assumption that I'm correct, verbally as well as in my head, rather than trying to pretend I'm willing to be dissuaded long enough to get my teeth into something and bulldog it relentlessly. The approach is rather blunt, but I think it's also the essence of the approach that *everyone else* takes in any discussion, regardless of how many I might be wrongs are inserted between arguments. Why write something I simply don't believe? If I thought a given point of view was wrong, I wouldn't have that point of view in the first place. So why behave as though I possess no certainty, or at least a reasonable approximation thereof, in areas where I feel it? If I'm wrong, I'll be shown it and I'll have to change my position. Pretty simple, I think, but rather than focus on a *topic* it seems some are more content to attack the message's *language*, which is pointless. That said, there always *is* the chance that my opinion is based in error (I'm not sure it's meaningful to call an opinion wrong) and can be refined/corrected/improved, but again, why add the disclaimers? They take up space, I think they're implicitly understood anyway, and in my view they weaken the impact of a statement. Profoundly. This is a perfect case. No one responded with any heat to In my opinion, the Bush strategy in dealing with Iraq was at least partly mistaken, but I toss in a single adjective -- unjustifiable -- and the collective bowel movements are enormous. (BTW no one's yet really taken up the actual gauntlet and attempted to overturn my assessment, which I find interesting. There's just been dissembling over the word itself, which as I said before is pointless.) Now I might be inclined to insert qualifiers in places were I feel uncertain, at least if I'm paying attention and/or am not aiming to use evocative language, but I don't feel a need to do so if I'm reasonably sure of my point of view. Lukewarm language yields lukewarm discussions, and makes it pretty difficult to feel inspired to any action. It also makes for some fairly dull debates. I'd rather see a little fire in the dialogue than letter after letter of mutually-stroking milquetoast. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Peaceful change
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:51:35 -0400 (EDT), Robert J. Chassell wrote On 12 Apr 2005, Nick Arnett wrote As a metaphor, consider genetic material as a communications network that contains a great deal of information, not just about how to compete, but how to adapt to a changing environment. Why consider it a metaphor? Genetic networks may well be political, but for now, I feel safer assuming that they aren't thinking. In all seriousness, though, this does beg the question of what intelligence is. Genetics networks seem very smart. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Weird e-bay auction
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=5573572030 Apparently random ones go for a lot cheaper than this is going for Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Weird e-bay auction
Now Julia, you should have been more careful in titling your message. You seem to be very certain that this auction is, as you say, weird, but I know of at least one degree'd individual who knows a lot more about weird than you probably do, and if that person doesn't agree it's weird, then obviously you're guilty of tremendous hubris. What you should have titled your post was I could be wrong, but in my opinion there's what appears to be an auction going on on what is allegedly eBay, and I think you could consider the possibility of defining it as rather outre or, perhaps, even slightly weird. There now. Isn't that ever so much more clear, non-confrontational and anti-inflammatory? On Apr 14, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=5573572030 Apparently random ones go for a lot cheaper than this is going for Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Weird e-bay auction
I was just reflecting the categorization. :) If you look carefully, it's under Everything Else Weird Stuff Totally Bizarre. If you have a problem with the categorization, you may certainly take it up with the seller. Or should I have typed Totally Bizarre e-bay auction as my Subject line, so as to more accurately reflect the categorization? If so, feel free to change it in your response! Julia Warren Ockrassa wrote: Now Julia, you should have been more careful in titling your message. You seem to be very certain that this auction is, as you say, weird, but I know of at least one degree'd individual who knows a lot more about weird than you probably do, and if that person doesn't agree it's weird, then obviously you're guilty of tremendous hubris. What you should have titled your post was I could be wrong, but in my opinion there's what appears to be an auction going on on what is allegedly eBay, and I think you could consider the possibility of defining it as rather outre or, perhaps, even slightly weird. There now. Isn't that ever so much more clear, non-confrontational and anti-inflammatory? On Apr 14, 2005, at 12:44 PM, Julia Thompson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=5573572030 Apparently random ones go for a lot cheaper than this is going for Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Weird e-bay auction
At 02:44 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, Julia Thompson wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=5573572030 Apparently random ones go for a lot cheaper than this is going for Julia Perhaps her top secret project involves rationalizing the denominator? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: (no subject)
Nick: I really don't mean to inflame things by asking, but would you apply cost- benefit analysis to abortion? Is war really so different? JDG: No, as cost-benefit-analysis can never be used to justify an intrinsicly evil action. For example, if cost-benefit-analysis showed that our civilization would be better off by rounding up and euthanizing the homeless, I would be opposed to that policy. Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a just war exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate consideration in recommending for or against a war. Doug: OK, but what's that got to do with abortion? There are people -- I'm assuming that JDG is one of them -- who believe that abortion is intrinsically evil: that there is no such thing as a just abortion. There are other people -- I'm reading Nick's message as indicating that he is one of them -- who believe that war and abortion are not really so different. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a just war exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate consideration in recommending for or against a war. You don't believe that just war doctrine argues that a lesser evil is sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me that even when talking about a just war, most every theologian acknowledges that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of evil -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. I fail to see why there would need to be a just war doctrine if war was not intrinsically evil. I mean, there's no just lunch doctrine justifying the consumption of a mid-day meal, nor is there such a doctrine for any of a nearly infinite number of not-intrinsically-evil human endeavors. It is because war is intrinsically evil that it needs a special-case doctrine. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote way too much on the topic of disclaimers: Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? In my opinion, this thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to discussion on the topic ... kind of wordy if we can *presume* that the statement this thing is invalid is already an opinion and all the other verbiage associated therewith is understood to be applicable in all cases. I started this drift. I never intended that anyone lard their statements of opinion with disclaimers. This thing is invalid differs from I cannot see the validity in this thing in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent. With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. I cannot see the validity in this thing expresses the speaker's state in trying to understand this thing and invites others to agree, disagree or leave the speaker with his or her doubts. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
At 05:58 PM Thursday 4/14/2005, Dave Land wrote: On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote way too much on the topic of disclaimers: Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? In my opinion, this thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to discussion on the topic ... kind of wordy if we can *presume* that the statement this thing is invalid is already an opinion and all the other verbiage associated therewith is understood to be applicable in all cases. I started this drift. I never intended that anyone lard their statements of opinion with disclaimers. This thing is invalid differs from I cannot see the validity in this thing in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent. With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. I cannot see the validity in this thing expresses the speaker's state in trying to understand this thing and invites others to agree, disagree or leave the speaker with his or her doubts. Agreed. One approach invites discussion which, with luck, may lead to discovery of the truth about the subject or to building a consensus of opinion, or at least leave the participants agreeing to disagree. The other approach is an invitation to an argument or a flamewar . . . I personally prefer the first type of discussion. YMMV. Though There Are Days When I Am In The Mood To Throw Gasoline On The Fire Maru -- Ronn! :) IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humo(u)r or irrational religious beliefs (including atheism). If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although that ugly little yapping dog next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:08 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a just war exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate consideration in recommending for or against a war. You don't believe that just war doctrine argues that a lesser evil is sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me that even when talking about a just war, most every theologian acknowledges that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of evil -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. I fail to see why there would need to be a just war doctrine if war was not intrinsically evil. I mean, there's no just lunch doctrine justifying the consumption of a mid-day meal, nor is there such a doctrine for any of a nearly infinite number of not-intrinsically-evil human endeavors. It is because war is intrinsically evil that it needs a special-case doctrine. There is a Just Lunch doctrine. At least where I work there is. Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. xponent No Beer Either Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:08 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a just war exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate consideration in recommending for or against a war. You don't believe that just war doctrine argues that a lesser evil is sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me that even when talking about a just war, most every theologian acknowledges that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of evil -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. I fail to see why there would need to be a just war doctrine if war was not intrinsically evil. I mean, there's no just lunch doctrine justifying the consumption of a mid-day meal, nor is there such a doctrine for any of a nearly infinite number of not-intrinsically-evil human endeavors. It is because war is intrinsically evil that it needs a special-case doctrine. There is a Just Lunch doctrine. At least where I work there is. Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. xponent No Beer Either Maru rob You don't telecommute, then. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
- Original Message - From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 6:32 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war On Thu, 14 Apr 2005, Robert Seeberger wrote: - Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:08 PM Subject: Re: Opportunity costs of war On Apr 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:51:25 -0400, JDG wrote Since I don't consider war to be intrinsically evil - that is I believe that a just war exists, cost-benefit-analysis becomes an appropriate consideration in recommending for or against a war. You don't believe that just war doctrine argues that a lesser evil is sometimes necessary to overcome a greater evil? It seems to me that even when talking about a just war, most every theologian acknowledges that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of evil -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. I fail to see why there would need to be a just war doctrine if war was not intrinsically evil. I mean, there's no just lunch doctrine justifying the consumption of a mid-day meal, nor is there such a doctrine for any of a nearly infinite number of not-intrinsically-evil human endeavors. It is because war is intrinsically evil that it needs a special-case doctrine. There is a Just Lunch doctrine. At least where I work there is. Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. xponent No Beer Either Maru rob You don't telecommute, then. Most of the world doesn't. xponent Dinner Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
* Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is a Just Lunch doctrine. At least where I work there is. Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. Better to just skip just lunch and go straight to the chocolate cake and fudge brownies...get your just desserts! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
PlaysForSure ... not?
Apple's latest quarterly results are out and the iPod now has a 90% share of the (US) HD MP3 player market (including the HP marketed ones) and the new Shuffle Flash players have already taken 43% of that market giving Apple about 70% of the whole business. Meanwhile Microsoft's PlaysForSure logo now guarantees incompatibility with 70% of players and the music store with a 70% market share. Surely that's misleading advertising? Although ProbablyWon'tPlay isn't so catchy of course... And there's Real as well... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babble theory, and comments))
Dave, I also understand what you are saying and I would like to add my agreement to it as well. I can relate to the comments that Warren was making with respect to ones beliefs always being right from ones own point of view. I myself have gotten into many discussions with friends about that very subject. Most people either think the point is trivially true, or completely misunderstand it. So I just want to make it clear that I also agree with those comments. Even though I happen to feel that at any given time my current thoughts on a subject are right I still am able to recognize that many of my currently correct points of view differed in the past. When presented with new information I am thus rather confident that such views might stand the chance of changing in the future. While I feel that some views which have not changed in a long time might never change, I still must acknowledge the possibility (even if I only acknowledge it internally). However the fact that my right ideas might change in the future has nothing at all to do with the idea that someone else might (and very well dose) hold a differing view point on the subject. I might feel that they are wrong, but I still should be able to acknowledge without rancor that they do in fact equally believe in their right thoughts. Their thoughts clearly are based on different data than my own, or they interpret the same data differently than I do. Thus the point of any conversation with someone who holds a vastly differing idea than my own would be for me to learn any new data that they had, explain new data to them, or try to understand why our interpretations of common data differ. If we are able to agree on all of the major data points associated with a given subject, and also come to have similar interpretations of this data, then our ideas should largely be in sync. If you start out by dismissing the very possibility of someone else having valid data or valid interpretations this type of mutual exchange will not happen. In affect you are telling the other person that everything they know about the subject is wrong, or they are interpreting everything wrong, or both. You are claiming that there is nothing they can give to you, and instead they must, if they want to continue the conversation, start only listening to, and agreeing with your data and interpretations. It might not be your intention, but that is how it comes across. Please note the difference here between having to always admit that you are only expressing your own opinions vs trying to leave open the possibility that the other person might be right, even if you do not understand why yet. This subject is important to me because I am often (always?) a strong reductionist in any kind of argument. I always reduce complex things to one or two discrete elements and then build up from there (conversations are the transmission of data and interpretations of data...;). I am well aware however that the very act of a reduction has the chance of outright rejecting a large part of someone else's basis for their beliefs. I try to be away of this, but I do not always catch it. As a result I do my best to being open to correction if I do such a thing. Not having been a reader of this list for long though (and having only started contributing in the last couple of days) I could very well be missing some old arguments or personality conflicts. Leaving that aside I did not take Dave's comments to be as aggressive as some are taking them to be. It read a lot more like an honest attempt at allowing a more fruitful conversation to take place. John P.S. There are only two kinds of people in the world, people who put everyone into two kinds of people, and everyone else. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
On 4/14/05, Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If the idea is that life is so valuable that saving lives is worth any financial cost, then the only logical thing is to ban all forms of transportation, since all have a finite, nonzero probability of death . . . as does just getting out of bed in the morning, as does staying in bed in the morning . . . Exactly. I was trying to make the point that a pure assessment of will fund allocation X result in more good than fund allocation Y is tricky in many situations. There are many people involved in the national budget making decisions, and each of them has their own interests groups that they listen to and attempt to satisfy. Thus the large number of, and variety of programs that receive funding. Trying to tell one group that they did not take the opportunity costs of not allocating funds to some other project into account is not going to result in much success. This is why I am always skeptical when people try to use economic arguments and tools to comment on non-economic subjects. Yes you can try to assign a cost to anything, but as Nick points out, many people are going to (and should) assign priceless to many different things, and they will probably contradict each other. This makes a pure economic assessment using things like opportunity cost very difficult, if not impossible. Thus my comments on why I feel it is not a good tool (for each side) to use when trying to convince their counter parts. Someone else has read The Mythical Man-Month, I see . . . I really wish the only experience I had in that subject was from a book. John ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babbletheory, and comments))
- Original Message - From: Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 5:58 PM Subject: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babbletheory, and comments)) On Apr 13, 2005, at 5:23 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote way too much on the topic of disclaimers: Why add more disclaimer than point to a discussion? In my opinion, this thing is invalid, but of course I could be wrong and I'm open to discussion on the topic ... kind of wordy if we can *presume* that the statement this thing is invalid is already an opinion and all the other verbiage associated therewith is understood to be applicable in all cases. I started this drift. I never intended that anyone lard their statements of opinion with disclaimers. This thing is invalid differs from I cannot see the validity in this thing in important respects having to do with rhetorical intent. With this thing is invalid, the speaker draws a line in the sand and throws down an implied challenge to wrong-thinking this thing is valid believers. I cannot see the validity in this thing expresses the speaker's state in trying to understand this thing and invites others to agree, disagree or leave the speaker with his or her doubts. I agree with your assessment. As an addition, I will note that one tends to see a significant variance in the frequency of use of each of these statements in various forums. When I was trained in experimental particle physics, we were strongly encouraged to use the I cannot see variation. If the former was used, then one would have to defend one's absolute proof of one's statement against all comersincluding very talented professors. If it is the latter, one is opening up a discussion that is usually fruitful for all. I've seen this when I've taken a graduate seminar in ancient history/literature. The same techniques of scholarship that I used applied there. Good technique is good technique, sloppy technique is next to worthless. Making statements of fact that are not a long term general consensus is considered a prime example of bad technique. My ancient history prof told us that when we read two books in the first week of class that we should have known one wasn't very good (he bought a first run because a previous book by the author was good..and apologized for the book he had us buy). We should have known, even thought it was our first reading in the area of study, because the technique was bad. So, for the most part, one finds this technique associated with good scholarship (there is of course of the guy with low EQ who is tolerated because he actually has some good work and a Feynman who actually might know more than everyone else put together. :-) ) The other technique (I'm right and y'all are wrong) is common in Usenet forums, particularly those frequented by teenage boys. I tend to prefer scholarship over teenage boy macho. Dan M. I'm not sure about your fields, but in experimental particle physics, claims of experimental results often had 1, 2, or 3 bottles of wine beside themindicating how strongly the speaker felt about each idea. I've also known that, in historical studies, the same is true. From reading a book on technique ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opportunity costs of war
Erik Reuter wrote: * Robert Seeberger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: There is a Just Lunch doctrine. At least where I work there is. Just lunch..no nooner..just lunch. Better to just skip just lunch and go straight to the chocolate cake and fudge brownies...get your just desserts! I was actually going to do that today, but they were out of brownies and I didn't want a cookie (they don't sell cake there), so I had to settle for a sub. It was a decent sub, with exactly the ingredient set I specified, but it just wasn't the same as a brownie. (I have no idea why they were so crowded at 1:15PM, either. Last week at the same time, it was pretty dead and someone was able to help me as soon as I was ready to be helped. This time I had to stand in line for over 5 minutes.) Julia who will provide the name and location of the sub shop if it's requested ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Opinion Disclaimers (was Re: The Other Christianity (was Re: Babbletheory, and comments))
On 15 Apr 2005, at 3:04 am, Dan Minette wrote: The other technique (I'm right and y'all are wrong) is common in Usenet forums, particularly those frequented by teenage boys. I tend to prefer scholarship over teenage boy macho. Really? Then why do you post so much tin-foil-hat nonsense to the list? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ 'The true sausage buff will sooner or later want his own meat grinder.' -- Jack Schmidling ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Intrinsic Evil Re: Opportunity costs of war
At 03:08 PM 4/14/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: I fail to see why there would need to be a just war doctrine if war was not intrinsically evil. I mean, there's no just lunch doctrine justifying the consumption of a mid-day meal, nor is there such a doctrine for any of a nearly infinite number of not-intrinsically-evil human endeavors. It is because war is intrinsically evil that it needs a special-case doctrine. I think that you are misunderstanding what it means for an action to be intrinsically evil. In Catholic teaching, an intrinsically evil action can *never* be justified. It is not permissible to do evil in the name of good. To use the example from the Catholic Catechism, it is not permissable to condemn an innocent man in order to save the nation. So, why need a just war doctrine? Well, because in Catholic theology the morality of an action is based upon three characteristics: 1) The inherent nature of the act 2) The intent of the act 3) The totality of circumstances surround the act Thus, even if a given act is not intrinsically evil, it is only morally justified if the intent and totality of circumstances are good as well. At 07:05 AM 4/14/2005 -0700, Nick wrote: It seems to me that even when talking about a just war, most every theologian acknowledges that war is failure, that it arises not out of goodness, but out of evil -- that war is an evil to be resisted whenever possible. While war may arise out of the fallen state of man, the existance of a just war would not be possible if war were evil. What is just may not be evil. Thus, mainstream Catholic theologians would disagree with the above. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
