[PLUG-TALK] reliance on technology (was: Redhat changes, fedora)

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Nov 7 19:44:21 UTC 2003


On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Russ Johnson wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 November 2003 05:31 pm, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > In this instance, it doesn't.  You ASSUMED that I wouldn't agree with
> > me because I'm not as old as you are.  That's not honor, that's
> > ignorant prejudiced stereotyping (also known as bigotry).
>
> Well, I do have opinions that many people that are young, are also
> idealistic and in some ways naive about how the world works. I don't
> believe that makes me bigoted.

It makes you bigoted when you assume that someone is too foolish to
understand something and do not simply because they are young.  You
assumed without any knowledge other than my relative age.

> The opinions I have witnessed from you lead me to believe that in some
> ways, you have beliefs that don't mesh well with the way the world
> works. Maybe the world should be different, and maybe your world is
> different than mine, but in my world, a lot of the things that I see you
> profess just don't work for me.

All of this is true.  I believe different things than you believe.  I
believe the world does not always mesh well with my beliefs.  I also
believe the world should be different.  It's necessarily true that your
world is different from mine and the things I "profess" (mostly peace,
love, and understanding) don't work for you.

I don't see how any of this is relates to our relative ages.

> > First, honor should be given equally to all human beings.
>
> However, those who have done, should be listened to.

However?  What do you mean by "however"?  You agree, but would like to
provide an exception or counterpoint?

You should listen to everyone you possibly can.

> It took me until I was almost 30 to realize that my dad was a lot wiser
> than I believed him to be. There are many things that my dad is
> downright ignorant about. But those things that he does know, are well
> worth listening to.

Well, if you'd respected all people and listened to them regardless of
your opinions, you might have realized that sooner.

> Honor and respect are earned. Earning them takes time.

The concepts of "earning" and "deserving" is stupid and harmful.

If honor and respect must be earned and you cannot respect those who do
not respect you, you're in a Catch-22 and nobody will ever respect anybody
else.

We're just a bunch of people doing stuff.  Everyone does what they can and
the more we work together, the more we can attain the higher goals of
health, happiness, and knowledge.

> When I was in the Air Force, we had a saying for officers that were
> complete idiots. We had to respect the rank. However, we were not
> required to respect the person in the uniform.

Honestly, I just think that's dumb.  You're just looking for was to
pretend you have individuality in the machine of militarism.

"Oooh, I'm intellectually insubordinate, look at me!", you say on the
inside.
"Sir, yes, sir!", you say on the outside.

The effect is the same (you do whatever shit you're told to do -- hence
this person's will is carried out), but your own will is suppressed and
your frustration and dissatisfaction increases.

It's all very ugly.

> > Second, mere survival no longer denotes any kind of greater wisdom or
> > maturity.  Modern civilization allows even the most foolish and lazy
> > to become "elders".
>
> It should.

No, it shouldn't.  If mere survival required more of each individual,
those who were not capable of this raised standard would suffer.
Rightfully, modern civilization has worked to decrease suffering.  In this
one respect, we have succeeded.

> > Lastly, you're not that much older or more experienced than I am... I
> > just look good for my age.
> As do I. How old are you?

Younger than you.  I believe you wrote earlier that you are not yet 40 (no
comment on whether or not you look it).  I'm not yet 40, either.  So you
can't be that much older than I am.

> > I personally believe pragmatism is very destructive.  You can never
> > get from bad to good with compromises.
>
> Never is a horrible word. Nothing is absolute.

Don't be more foolish, Russell.  A hyperbolic curve will never touch it's
asymptotic line.  1/x will never equal 0, no matter how big you make x.

There are absolutes and some things will never happen.  Compromising with
bad might bring you arbitrarily close to good, but you will never reach
it.

> > The "goodness" of an idea has nothing to do with how many people do
> > it.
> Not usually.

Not ever.

> Lots of people drive cars. You believe this to be a bad thing.

Case in favor of my point.

> > I would say that "not failing" is succeeding.
> That doesn't make sense, given that my statement was, "repeated failure
> is a road to depression."

It makes sense regardless of your statement.  It's not a reference to that
statement.

> "not failing" is succeeding. But failing is also not succeeding.

Hold that thought.

> When you define your goal, you define what constitutes success. If you
> don't attain success, you've failed in that goal.

And that's exactly where we differ.  YOU are the one setting yourself up
for failure because you have defined success too narrowly.

Your goal, as you state it here, is "to succeed" where "to succeed" is
defined by some set of explicit (however arbitrary) requirements.  That
means that no matter what you do, if you don't do these few things, you've
failed.

I propose that you wouldn't have your depression issues if you redefined
"to succeed" to be "not to fail" and then put narrow requirements on
failing.  That way, no matter what you do, so long as you don't do those
few things, you've succeeded.

> > Hate to break this to you, but Yoda is a fucking muppet.
> So? So's Big Bird, but he teaches many pre-schoolers the alphabet.

We're not pre-schoolers.  I don't think we have anything to learn from
muppets.

> > And how does that make you not willfully ignorant and not a leech?
>
> I don't believe it makes me that way, because I don't have to know all
> that is knowable in order to be a productive member of society. I can
> give back more than I receive without learning many things.

That's a restatement of your personal philosophy, but it doesn't address
whether or not this fits the definitions of "willfully ignorant" and
"leech".

First, you write that you don't think you need to know some things.  That
means you CAN know them and choose not to even try.  That is willful
ignorance.

Second, you write that you give back more than you receive.  That is
patent bullshit.  What do you contribute to society that is as great as,
say, the english language which society gave you freely... or knowledge of
and access to food and clothing; the distinction between nutrients and
poisons and the cut and weave of cloths that promote health, comfort, and
movement?  Nothing comes close.  The GREATEST contributors (say, Einstein
or Pauling or Bach or even Christ) were working from a base far higher
than anybody could ever build in their tiny lifetime.

So, how about it?

> > > How is that not a bicycle? The training wheels are temporary. I've
> > > never heard anyone say that bolting on training wheels truns a bike
> > > into something else.
> >
> > Bicycles have two wheels.  It's another one of the pesky definitions.
>
> And a bike with training wheels does have two wheels. It also has props
> that have wheels on them so they don't scrape.

That's absurd.  That's like saying an automobile is a motorcycle because a
motorcycle is a motorized vehicle with two wheels and an automobile is a
motorized vehicle with two wheels that also has two other wheels so that
the sides of the vehicle don't scrape.

A bicycle is a two-wheeled velocipede; not a velocipede with AT LEAST two
wheels, exactly two wheels.

> Are you saying that if I removes the wheels from the training wheels,
> leaving the brackets on, it would be a bike?

It would.  It would be a bicycle if I afixed any number of non-wheel parts
to it... and even wheels, so long as they don't touch the ground.

> Training wheels are an accessory to a bicycle to allow a person to learn
> to ride said bicycle.

That's fairly debatable.

> It doesn't make a bicycle any less a bicycle than adding a camper to a
> pickup changes what a pickup is.

Putting a camper on a pickup makes it an RV.  Just ask at a campsite.

> > Yes, they do.  They can't do it, but they know HOW to do it.
>
> That's contradictory. If you know how to do something, then you CAN do
> it.

No, that's not true.  Being able to do something means that it's possible
with the given resources.  You can have all the knowledge and none of the
resources and that would mean you know how, but can't.

And that's only one reason why that's not a contradiction.  Think about
these things before you make broad statements.

> > Well, as has been shown, gyroscopic effects have nothing to do with
> > bicycles.
>
> Not "nothing". Maybe less than I thought, but I know that as you go
> faster, it's easier to maintain an upright attitude.

That's mostly an illusion, I think.  The gyroscopic forces are
demonstrably very, very small compared to the static forces.  You can spin
a wheel really fast in your hand and you can still move it around.  It
puts up some resistance, but it's not much in comparison with the weight
of a human being.

And are you arguing this just to argue?

> Also, the reason a bicycle falls when it's rear wheel is spinning is
> simply that it's static mass is still able to overcome the effect
> generated.

Duh.  That's what makes the gyroscopic forces unimportant.

> For the record, I had a bike that I could turn the handlebars backwards.
> I could ride it as well either way.

That might just say something about how well you can ride.  But I have no
idea what this has to do with anything we're discussing.

> "If thine enemy wrong thee, buy each of his children a drum." - Chinese
> Proverb

That's some hateful shit, sir.  You should maybe think about whether you
want the world to be nice or tense and frustrating.  The Golden Rule might
help here, too.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list