>it is unconscionable that we support the literal mass murder and ill-treatment of billions of animals each year when there are alternatives that require no suffering and no death.
There are ways to put down animals which require no suffering.
And no, there are no alternatives to death. Plants are living things too. Why is it okay to murder a plant but not an animal?
>Also there's no such thing as a negative emotion. Everything we feel is a necessary (or at least programmed) reaction to our experience.
Have you ever met someone with emotional issues, i.e. anger management issues? There are indeed many people with habitual "programmed" emotional responses which are detrimental to their well being and are extremely difficult to manage.
You might like to read the works of the evolutionary pyschologist and athropologist Dr. Paul Eckman. He posits that emotions are valuable life saving forces that help us act quickly in critical situations without having to think. However, our emotional habits have also evolved over many thousands of years, and so many of the emotional responses which may have saved our life as a paleolithic hunter gatherers may no longer be relevant and can have the opposite effect in a civilized society.
Nowadays I'm back in university, studying psychology (I just started).
As far as I know, the problem with anger management is not the anger itself, it's how you deal with it so it doesn't overwhelm you, and so you can have less of it. What I mean is that it's a symptom, not the issue itself. It's normal to be angry when someone is a jerk to you, it's healthy even, and so it's not* inherently "bad" (as we so often portray anger and sadness). The problem is when you let it get away from you.
I hope I understand correctly that your last paragraph is agreeing with my comment. If not, then I should have extended the notion of "necessary" to "useful", in the sense that you are describing. However the problem with evo psych is that it's largely non-falsifiable. The part you are describing is somewhat an obligatory aspect of evolution, but evo psychologists and anthropologists tend to draw conclusions that aren't rigorous (in my opinion). This is coming from someone who has 30 credits in Anthropology from a few years back :)
Generally there is no harm in theorizing, but I consider psychology and psychotherapy to be too important to allow ourselves to consider untested information. I do agree that other people may find Dr Eckman interesting... I don't but others might ;)
>Generally there is no harm in theorizing, but I consider psychology and psychotherapy to be too important to allow ourselves to consider untested information.
Psychology and psychotherapy are almost wholly theoretical, subjective, soft sciences, rather than objectively testable hard sciences like physics and biology.
>psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests".[1][2]
How is that relevant to the fact that many people are more worried about marketers than the NSA? Nobody's questioning that some people are in fact so monitored. "I am more concerned about A than B" is not a claim that B does not exist, nor is it a claim that "I" am unconcerned about B.
You seem to have a problem with adjectives. "Many" is not most. I don't need a "survey" to establish the "many" when I can just read many people expressing their concerns on HN. That's "many" enough for me.
Now, to be clear, by "people" I mean "humans" not "abstract sentients including AIs that don't yet exist", and by "concerns" I mean "things that are at least slightly negative to the thinker" and not "things that keep the thinker up at night wetting the bed and driving them to fits of existential madness", etc. etc.
And how many "Kings" do you know personally?/s What me (and presumably, OP) trying to say is, that an ordinal person should be much more worried about their private data being collected and used (virtually) unconstrained by the shady companies than three letter agencies. This doesn't imply that mass surveillance isn't wrong and evil, these two things are orthogonal.
> Dr. King was monitored by the NSA for "thought crimes". Is that "100% tinfoil hat mode"?
Probably 'yes' for you, 'no' for him.
Sorry, but a random HN commenter is extremely unlikely to be targeted for the level of surveillance and treachery that Dr King was. If he feared it, he had good reason. If you are some random IT worker building the next smart pillow you cannot expect them to prioritize spying on you, that's all I'm saying. Mass surveillance isn't the same as targeted.
Actually, I'd say a random HN commenter is extremely likely to be targeted for surveillance and exploitation compared to general population at least. Not because they personally are important, but because of their jobs. So many administrators, programmers, etc. with access to relevant data.
Yes, I almost mentioned the Belgacom sysadmins in one of my responses.
How many people here work for Google, Facebook, Apple, etc? What if you could compromise their workstations and get privileged access to the backend of social networks, email systems, etc? We are being actively hunted and there's evidence of that.
Some years ago FreeBSD had an intrusion via one of the commiter's machine or stolen SSH key, I don't remember which any more, but I do remember that it took months for the package building infrastructure to get fully operational again. I think they never got to the bottom of that (who did it or why). Linux had a very similar incident if I'm not mistaken.
It's such a standard and effective method in human intelligence, that it's extremely naive to think an analogue wouldn't be used extensively in signals intelligence too.
Fair enough. Though my concern is not for myself, but rather for any potential great leader who could be silently neutralized/blackmailed/extorted by mass surveillance techniques.
Whether the culprits' organizational classification is public or private is of negligible importance.
>Mass surveillance isn't the same as targeted.
Mass surveillance is the first step in the discovery process, targeted surveillance is the second step after a target has been flagged by the dragnet.
Actually a random HN commenter is precisely the person to target, they're more likely to have technical skills and access to servers. It isn't just about surveillance it's about increased attack vectors when your information is distributed.
A random IT worker building the next smart pillow has no reason to target you...but the creepy pervy sales manager at the same company might have reason to.
When suing in a case like this, punitive damages would be paid out of the governments budget, rather than the personal assets of those personally responsible, correct?
1,300,000 people die each year in car wrecks and another 20,000,000 - 50,000,000 more are injured and/or disabled.
Google's motto is "Don't be evil" after all. Is valuing short term profits over millions of lives not "evil"?
>Don’t be evil. We believe strongly that in the long term, we will be better served — as shareholders and in all other ways — by a company that does good things for the world even if we forgo some short term gains.
Who's to say that opening up the data will save more lives than Google continuing on their current course?
If google opens the data (that I would argue is still incomplete), and irresponsible actors are given a means (via incomplete LIDAR maps, algorithms, etc) to mislead people already screaming TAKE MY MONEY, that would likely lead to a TERRIBLE image for self-driving cars if and when those race-to-the-bottom companies cause injuries and deaths.
I could foresee that those irresponsible actors could then scapegoat Google's data as the source of issues, whether or not that is true.
BUT I suppose injuries, deaths, and ensuing lawsuits are what prompts stricter licensing and oversight committees. I believe however that strict enforcement of self-driving cars will be an eventuality, no homebrew kits I'm afraid.
Killing a dog is a direct action. Yes it is wrong, at least unless there was a shortage of food.. then I guess it beats cannibalism.
Running a private experiment to gather data.. that data is private. Sharing that data is opt-in, not opt-out. Google has no obligation to release it. (If they do, cool. But not evil of them not to).
Now it is valid to say the government should run more studies on self driving cars and share that data. But I am not sure any business would exist in this country if every private R&D effort they did got open-sourced.
>I had reasoned this out in my mind; there was one of two things I had a right to, liberty, or death; if I could not have one, I would have the other; for no man should take me alive;
Perhaps if I experienced slavery, I would prefer death, but from where I sit now, I would rather be alive than dead, even if it meant not being free.
I can't imagine what my grandparents went through in concentration camps, but it seems to me that they did everything they could to survive...and I am grateful for that, otherwise, I wouldn't be here today!
Mentioning your grandparents is irrelevant. We don't dislike Israel because it is Jewish or because we have no sympathy for what happened to Jews in the past. We dislike it because it is a nation (nothing to do with jewishness or any religion; a political entity) of educated people with western outlooks and lifestyles which fails spectacularly (they all do, but even more than most) to live up to the moral standards we expect of such nations.
I mentioned my grandparents in the context of freedom vs. dying...a very relevant point.
I wasnt talking about Israel in that comment nor did I invoke Judaism or the holocaust in its defense anywhere else.
However, considering how you went on the defensive to a point that wasnt relevant at all (this post isnt about liking Israel, it is about censorship and the limits of free speech)...
It really does beg the question if you dislike Israel for reasons other than the moral standards to invoke from your high horse...I dont know you so I have no opinions about your own prejudices, but I think you should take a hard look in the mirror...if only to be truthful to yourself.
> It really does beg the question if you dislike Israel for reasons other than the moral standards to invoke from your high horse...I dont know you so I have no opinions about your own prejudices, but I think you should take a hard look in the mirror...if only to be truthful to yourself.
Talk about slippery slope! Pulling the ideological taser the way you did is not just libelous, it is intellectually dishonest.
I just re-read this thread and realized there was a miscommunication.
My comment was intended to be a real world example of someone choosing life in slavery over dying in response to the idea of "give me liberty or give me death"...
I reread my comment and can see how someone might misinterpret it as invoking the holocaust to defend the state of Israel. That was never my intention and does not reflect my viewpoints on Israel. I dont believe the holocaust or antisemitism has anything to do with the right of the state of Israel to exist.
OK, thanks for the clarification. I agree they have nothing to do with the right of Israel to exist. And of course it has a right to exist, like any state. In order to be taken seriously as a modern state it does of course need to change its ways and acknowledge that as a state it is for all people of all religions and of none, and that it is not in any sense a state "for" people of any particular religion.
You do however still need to apologize for accusing me of criticizing Israel out of antisemitism. You did it implicitly ("...reasons other...hard look in the mirror..") but it was clear enough that one other commenter has independently criticized you for it. It is for that reason that I have used the rather impolite adjective "deluded" in reference to you -- it's of course extremely common for supporters of Israel to accuse their critics of antisemitism, aiming that accusation at young western liberals who don't even remember the times when antisemitism was an issue in their societies. Those accusations are delusional, or just cynical deliberate inaccuracy; one or the other.
You are right. I apologize. Before I re-read my comment,just based on my intent of that comment, it seemed like you took a very big leap, which begged the question...but now that I have the benefit of seeing how the comment can easily be interpreted the way you did, I was completely wrong to imply your position was anything other than what you stated (you expect more/better from Israel.)
All that being said, to your point of delusion...
> "when antisemitism was an issue in their societies"
Antisemitism IS STILL very much a problem today, even in the US.
Here is a quote from the FBI's Websites most recent hate crime statistics (2014)
Religious bias
Of the 1,140 victims of anti-religious hate crimes:
56.8 percent were victims of crimes motivated by their offenders’ anti-Jewish bias.
----------------
> "it's of course extremely common for supporters of Israel to accuse their critics of antisemitism, aiming that accusation at young western liberals who don't even remember the times when antisemitism was an issue in their societies. Those accusations are delusional, or just cynical deliberate inaccuracy; one or the other."
The way I feel is that the belief that anti-semitism isn't relevant and tangled into peoples perception of Israel warrants the same criticism..." Those accusations are delusional, or just cynical deliberate inaccuracy; one or the other."
-------------
Regardless, all things being equal...give two conflicting positions, both legitimate views based on how the issues are framed and perceived by each side, I would always err on the side of caution and saving a life...
This might be an unfair characterization or comparison(regardless, I ackowledge my own bias on this point)...but given the choice between wrongly accusing someone who is anti israel as antisemitic, versus the alternative of blindly ignoring signs that can lead to antisemitic violent hate crimes, such as we see over 500 times a year in the US alone (much worse in Europe), the choice to me is obvious...Hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst.
That might sound delusional and paranoid...and I can't disagree with that position from a logical standpoint...but, that doesn't change the reality that there were warning signs for years before the Holocaust, and it took years for the US to intervene despite reports about concentration camps...so, even if the position is seen by the world as crazy and that "the holocaust" could never happen again... forgive us paranoid Jews, from having a plan B...and trying to stop Anti-Semitism proactively, to the point of offending some liberals sensitivities about being accused of being a racist.
----------------------
All of this being said, I do apologize for implying your position against Israel is anti-semitic, clearly that isn't the case with you and maybe even with most liberals...but it's a mistake to think it's not the case with others, just because you are more sensible and reasonable.
-----------------------
For what it's worth, the sooner both sides learn to recognize the sincerity and legitimacy of the other sides conflicting perspective, peace will never be achieved. We are all humans, we all have our biases, many of which we are not aware of...and there is a lot to improve on all sides... Israel is not above reproach, and the people who throw out antisemitic accusations against anyone who disagrees with Israel, is delusional...but that doesn't mean they aren't right some of the time...
Reminds me of the saying, "Just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean people aren't after me."
GP criticized you, as I did, because your comment clearly reveals you to have a paranoid, and delusional, belief that others dislike Israel out of antisemitism.
Sorry, I meant westerners. You're laughing presumably because many Arabs dislike Israel out of antisemitism. That's true enough. But I'm referring to the fact that most university-educated people in Europe and America under the age of 40 find the inhumane collective punishment meted out by Israel to be disgusting and unforgivable. It's not due to antisemitism, however much deluded people like you would like to believe it is.
There are ways to put down animals which require no suffering.
And no, there are no alternatives to death. Plants are living things too. Why is it okay to murder a plant but not an animal?