yo mama Stop poking me, Vicki.  ¶ 7:40 AM 0 comments

  victor: Well it seems that the crisis in Sudan has not abated after all this time. I was talking to my friend yesterday about the genocide in Rwanda a few years back and how the international community took their sweet time in coming in to placate the situation. Hundreds of thousands died in the Rwanda conflict that raged between the tutsi and hutu. So having learned from that mistake, why isnt the international community stepping into Darfur to prevent the same atrocities from repeating? Perhaps you could argue that it is a regional matter (in the western view point Sudan has little influence on their economies or policies) but then why dosnt the AU (African Union) step up and take the UN's place? I mean if the world wants to rid its dependence on old colonial powers they need to take a proactive stance upon regional affairs. Well given this, I still think the UN has responsibility towards the people in Darfur to prevent the genocide from happening. Obviously the Sudanese government has no qualms about thinning out its african demographic so it is the moral responsibility for those who have to ability to step in to do so. Sometimes you just cant stand aside and pretend you dont notice.  ¶ 12:52 PM 0 comments

  Victor: Man, those people down in Indonesia just have all the luck. Someone needs to give them a break.  ¶ 3:20 PM 0 comments

  [dzahsh] http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war45.html  ¶ 9:25 PM 0 comments

  if you want to get technical, any substance that changes your mental state is a "drug" and since that includes things like tylenol, then i think it's safe to say that almost everyone here uses "drugs" to some effect.

if you want to narrow the term "drugs" down to things like alcohol, cigarettes, marijuana, shrooms, acid etc. then the percentage of people in this forum that use "drugs" is lowered, but not significantly.

however as a general rule, when people say the word "drugs" they're conciously leaving out alcohol and cigarettes due to the large quantity of people that use them regularly, so if you cut those two out of the group then the percentage is once again lowered, but not significantly.

one of the biggest issues in american society today is the use of "illegal substances," but if you sit down and look at it, the only reason why most of them remain "illegal" is because of the lack of consistency in the way our laws are created. if you want to use the arguement that these illegal substances are more dangerous than things like alcohol, cigarettes, or over the counter/perscription medication, go talk to a scientist. you'll discover something that's completely logical but has been blatantly ignored. any substance that is used in excess becomes extremely dangerous, even cigarettes.

so really the questions that need to be asked are "what is the difference between legal and illegal substances?" and "why are they still categorized in the manner in which they are?"  ¶ 3:58 PM 2 comments

  [admin post] thanks to dzahsh and clark for the links to open sources, they are now posted for everyone to use   ¶ 11:01 PM 0 comments

  victor: talking about the death penalty, I am just wondering if there are any of you out there for it? I am very ambivalent about most things in my life but I feel strongly against the use of the death penalty. I suppose it stems from my nature but I just dont think killing someone for crimes they have commited is helping anyone. I think that there is always room for reform and repentance. Taking a life away is terminating all the chances for that individual to set things right and what about those wrongly accused... life is not something we can freely give back to those we have executed. Well, most of the world has the right idea about it... I just dont think we do.  ¶ 12:16 AM 9 comments

 

dzahsh: seeing how victor seems to like all this open source stuff, and there were some links posted as a comment to victors message, i was reminded that i know some sites that sort of define and promote all these wonderful ideas, "another world is possible", they say:

sourceforge.net
the official archive of open source software projects of every type

Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird - internet browser and email program, completely open source, user built, free, high quality, better than anything microsoft has out [esp. outlook, uhhg]

www.eff.org
Electronic Frontier Foundation
dealing with rights of openness and freedom generally throughout the digital world

creativecommons.org
works with archive.org to provide a wide variety of "share and
share alike" copyleft licenses for music, film, art, etc. similar to
the FSF's GPL[general public license] for open source software

www.freeculture.org
[free as in speech not free as in beer] deals with freedom within
art and culture as a whole, rooted in strong arguments "against
interpretations of copyright that could stifle innovation and
discourse online", based on a book by Lawerence Lessig
[www.lessig.org] who chairs both creativecommons.org and eff.org
also www.libresociety.org, www.firstmonday.org

www.wikipedia.org
www.wikinews.org
a comprehensive open source encyclopedia and news source, written by you and me, by thousands of volunteers, anyone can enter a definition for any topic, write a news story, which then will be reviewed for accuracy and then posted, wikimedia is all about making open journalism work, people keep saying "oh how can anything be trusted to be unbiased and accurate when anyone can write the entries," but wiki is dedicated to a completely unbiased library of information, they have forums on which people discuss and argue topics that they think might have been defined biasly [for example, for the wiki article on anti-globalization, they claim that "the neutrality of this article is disputed" and links you to the discussion page where you can read about exactly what people claim is biased]


the ideas of free culture are based on the thought that releasing intellectual property [creations of the mind, ideas, i.e. inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, images, design, etc.] from copyrights and trademarks will allow these ideas to freely move throughout our culture, allowing them to be freely used and reused by others to create newer and better ideas. copyrights and trademarks only restrict ideas from being taken in and improved upon to a select few who have the money to pay for the right to use it.

this is especially an issue today since our culture is becoming more and more solely defined by the images, art, music, film, ideas of the corporate entertainment industry. it has come to the point where some argue that our mainstream american culture has become entirely privately owned by a select number of multinationals. we as a society do not own our own culture, we have become so completely separated from our culture that we now have to pay to have complete access it. the most progressive of today's mainstream art [music, film, design] is no longer created by the artist, but by the logo-ed corporation [universal, pixar, sony, mtv, disney] and exists solely to make profit, even if they base their works on humanist, environmentalist, etc. ideas, it still in the end exists to satisfy the demands of the shareholder

the open source movement in software was a sort of revolution because it really proved that taking an element of our culture and removing all copyrights and barriers actually worked to allow thousands of people to come together to volunteer for a cause[!] and collectively create something as complex as an computer operating system [linux] that matched the quality of software once thought was only able to come out of highly internal, closed doors companies [windows]. and even more, it showed that people can still make a living off of it by providing services, packaging, assistance, etc. for those who what to use the product [red hat, SuSE]. and because linux is completely and legally free for anyone to download off the internet, SuSE is able to sell their packaged version of linux for like $30 while the latest upgrade to windows xp retails at like $300. but, linux really hasnt gotten popular as a personal OS outside of circles of computer nerds, but it is highly highly popular when running the servers and computer networks of large companies because of how inexpensive it is

so its kind of unclear able how exactly this process can be applied to art, architecture, culture in general, no one is advocating stuff like illegal P2P music and movie sharing, they more want to see music and movies made that are created to be shared and traded freely in the first place, which is why you have archive.org and creativecommons.org, people seem to be confused as to why anyone would willing create something that they wouldnt be directly making money off of, but it worked for linux because there was a cause, this sort of movement to create something that belonged to everyone, where that separated relationship between the producer and the consumer was nonexistent, we are now both, we create our own, its very grassroots and very real, very punk rock, working hard for the cause and for what you believe in, its what everyone wants, right? thats whats so amazing about the internet, we are now more able than ever to give back to our culture, create our own cultures and sub-cultures of idea trading and opinion making, its blogging/open-journalism sites like this one that prove that it is actually possible for people to create and and write and discuss without wanting to get paid to do it.

  ¶ 9:49 PM 0 comments

  Right to Die...
Brittany: I suppose that by this point, most individuals have probably heard about the “right-to-die” case in Florida. It concerns Terri Schiavo, a woman who has been in a vegetative state for fifteen years. Schiavo’s husband insists that his wife would not want to be kept alive artificially (he has been fighting for her right to die for seven years), but her parents feel that she could improve over time. Blah. This one gets messy. State government declares that lawmakers should act on behalf of Schiavo since she is incapable of acting for herself. A bill was passed in 2003 that ordered doctors to restore Schiavo’s feeding tube six days after it had been removed. “Late Wednesday, the U.S. House passed legislation that would delay the removal of the feeding tube by moving the case to federal court. Federal judges have twice turned down efforts by the parents to move the case out of Florida courts, citing a lack of jurisdiction (Yahoo News).”

The first major snare seems to be the fact that there is discrepancy between Michael Schiavo and his wife’s parents. When dealing with life or death situations, the family of the individual should be in agreement before such weighty decisions are made. Another problem is the fact that Schiavo did not leave specific instructions in regards to such care. Even if she had prepared a living will, that might not have been enough to do away with her feeding tube. Families have the option to decline a feeding tube, but once one is installed, it is much harder to get rid of. Individuals are pulled off of life-support every day, but Schiavo does not fall under this category because she is self-breathing and has a certain level of consciousness.

It certainly seems inhumane to allow another human being to starve to death (lawmakers claim it violates constitutional rights), but I can understand that fifteen years of seemingly senseless suffering would become rather cumbersome. If in a similar state, I do not think that I would want to be artificially supported, but yet there is always a chance that she might improve. There seem to be so many uncertainties regarding this situation, so it seems that the safest bet would be to allow her to live. As of today, federal lawmakers reached a compromise that will restore Schiavo’s feeding tube (which was removed Friday afternoon) and push the “right-to-die” case back into court. I dunno…I’m interested to see where this will go.  ¶ 7:15 PM 0 comments

  [admin post] I have added Red Hat to the links for open source on the sidebar. They are affliated with the OS Linux who try to proliferate open source ideologies.   ¶ 9:10 AM 0 comments

  victor: on the drive to work this morning I heard on NPR that the newly elected iraqi government is trying to regulate national processes like taxes, education, etc and ran into a problem. Apparently this issue was so touchy that it brought the whole process to a stand still and currently the differing factions are trying to work it out. What is this issue? The weekend. Yes, that is right, they are arguing over which two days to make the official weekend of Iraq. If I understood it correctly, all Islamic nations reserve Friday as a holy day and opt for one other day (either Thursday or Saturday) as the other day. Well the Iraqi government decided that Saturday would be good considering that it would conflict the least with buisness practices in the rest of the world but groups within the government are calling it a Zionist (isreali) plot to undermine the Islamic faith. They say this because apparently Saturday is an important day in the Jewish faith and Isreal reserves that day as a day off. This is utterly ridiculous I think... people over there have other things to worry about.  ¶ 11:30 AM 0 comments

  Brittany: Ahh, the power of music...  ¶ 1:41 PM 1 comments

  victor: an excerpt from my friend's paper (its a long one):

"If Wittgenstein (Witt) had read Levy-Bruhl’s (LB) discourse on primitive thought, he would have agreed with parts of LB’s argument of primitive thought but disagreed with others.
To LB, every type of society has its distinct mentality, and each mentality is derived from the collective representations of its respective society, which are obligatory. In other words, a society’s mentality is imposed on and binds an individual to his society. The collective representations that form a society’s mentality are the fundamental elements on which the society operates. Witt would have agreed that the primitives have a different mentality because he countered Frazer’s theory that the primitive man is forming fallacious theories about his world. The primitive man is not making fallacious theories because he is not forming theories about his world at all. With the idea of a different mentality, the primitive man assumes a certain set of values which are his fundamental understandings of the world. To a primitive man, there is no alternative way of perceiving things, just as there is no alternative way for Frazer to look at religion but the one in which science will eventually replace all religions. However, Witt would not have agreed with LB’s suggestion that there are distinctive mentalities. According to LB, there are two major types of mentalities – the primitive and the civilized. Witt would have countered this view with the same argument that he put forth concerning Frazer’s use of the word “ghost” in describing a primitive’s perspective, as Frazer obviously understood the primitive’s view if he used a familiar word to describe it. If there were distinctive mentalities, Witt would have argued, we would be unable to communicate with the primitives because we form understandings of things by making connections. If our mentalities were mutually exclusive (distinct, discrete), there would be no way for us to make connections to others’ perspectives. While Witt was an anti-universalist, he acknowledged the similarities (i.e. connections) between different perspectives.
Furthermore, LB believed that the main difference between the primitive and the civilized minds is that the civilized mind is scientifically orientated while the primitive is dominated with the supernatural. Witt would have again criticized LB, as LB was clearly crossing his own mentality boundaries of the scientific into the supernatural. To be able to arrive at the notions of “scientific” and “supernatural”, one has to be aware of both perspectives. Since LB knew about the essence of the primitive mentality (the supernatural), he was able to identify this essence within himself. [Witt might have commented that LB’s spiritual life was broader Frazer’s.] If LB did not know what the supernatural was, with his civilized mentality, he would not be able to distinguish between science and the supernatural, just as the primitive is not able to do so. In the civilized mind, science and the supernatural are two opposing forces. If there is no rich, there is no poor. Science is defined by the lack of supernatural forces, and vice versa. In addition, to the primitive, science and the supernatural are one. The primitive man does not believe in supernatural forces, just as he does not believe that a banana is yellow. Supernatural forces exist, and a banana is yellow. These are the facts of life. Witt would have argued that there is no distinction between science and the supernatural in the primitive mind. If there is no distinction, how can LB say that the primitive mind is supernaturally orientated? If we are 3-dimension creatures, how can we move in the directions of the fourth?
LB also suggested that the primitives are prelogical in the sense that their reasoning is not subjected to the same conditions of Aristotelian logic, as they do not avoid contradictions. The primitives reason with the rules and mentality that they were given by their society. Witt would have agreed with this, for different peoples have different perspectives. LB went on to suggest that the primitive man does not reason incorrectly individually, but the primitive society as a whole reasons incorrectly. As Witt refuted Frazer’s claim that the primitive man errors individually, Witt would have refuted LB’s similar claim about an entire society. Again, Witt would have argued that no error is made because a primitive society is not formulating theories about the world but simply prescribing a set of values and perspectives with which its members may function.
Another major point of LB’s discourse on the primitive thought is the law of mystical participation. The collective representations of the primitives are comprised of a network of mystical participations. To the primitives, all things are connected and are affected by one another. With this, Witt would have agreed. The primitive’s way of understanding the world fits snugly with Witt’s perspicuous presentation, which is a holistic understanding of the world by establishing connections between different things. Witt would have suggested that when the primitive man participates in his shadow, his name, his totem, etc, he is making the final connection to himself. LB expressed that as everything is connected, to the primitive man, there is no distinction between objective and mystical actions. [LB seemed to have contradicted his previous argument. He is as prelogical as his primitives!] Witt would have agreed with this because, as stated earlier, the primitive perceive science (the objective) and the supernatural (the mystical) as one."

(my response to it)

I think it would have helped alot if I read those papers because it references alot of things that I just had to take for granted. Its an interesting subject though. Did they ever talk about the evolution of the primitive to the modern? Because it seems that the dichotomy between these two societies existed well into the 20th century. Several isolated cultures still existed in the pacific, africa, and south america alongside the "developed" civilization so then wouldn't we have to further delineate or at the very least define how we define a society as a whole as primitive or modern? Sociological ideologies were all derieved from these primitive mentalities so arguably, in general, they both share common characteristics. The modern societies all retain ideologies from the past (Shinto, Hindu, Islamic, Judeo-Christian, Native American,Aboriginal... these being example of modern ideologies developed from
primitive thought) so perhaps our modern thought is built upon the same mystical principals that they were criticizing in your paper. People, in general all, possess the same capability to progress and adapt into either a primitive or modern mentality so therefore it is unfair to characterize an individual as being primitive or not... its just a result of society... but i suppose that was what u were talking about. ahah ok, im being distracted by tv... ill write more later.

(her response to me)

yes. these thinkers are from the turn of the 19th to 20th
century, so they were very much influenced by Darwin's theory of
evolution. Frazer, one of the thinkers i referenced to, claimed that
religion evolved in
the following way: magic to religion to science. he claimed that ultimately,
the people in the primitive societies will see that they have reasoned
fallaciously about the world around them and eventually become
scientists. this evolutionary approach and others like it have been
thrown out because
obviously, what makes Frazer higher up the evolutionary ladder and what makes
the primitive man lower down? Frazer was analyzing the primitive religions
(and the origin of religions) through his ethnocentric views. also, Frazer
offered no mechanism in which this evolution of religion could have operated
except that the smarter people in the population would eventually see fault
in religion.

also, concerning your definition of society. yes, that is a problem too.
Durkheim, another thinker on the topic, said that religions cannot be
analyzed from the psychological view of Frazer, in which the primitive man
reasons his way to science. religions have to be analyzed by their relation
to the societies. religion is a function of society. religion IS society,
in a sense, if there is no society, there is no religion.  ¶ 3:00 PM 0 comments

  [admin post] I am glad to welcome Charlene to the forum. I hope you like your time here!   ¶ 9:56 PM 0 comments

  Victor: for those who care to tackle this one be my guest.

"I never was, am always to be,
No one ever saw me, nor ever will
And yet I am the confidence of all
To live and breathe on this terrestrial ball."

who am i?


(ill post the answer in a few days)  ¶ 9:50 PM 3 comments

  Johnathan - Oh man... Here's another interesting news article I found. Who knew there were so many stupid people in this world? Here's a novel idea, parents... how about raising your kids to not do stupid things and actually keeping an eye on them for once, too. I can hear it now... "Wow! Keeping an eye on my kids? So that's part of parenting, too!?" Yeah... Who'da thunk?  ¶ 8:39 PM 1 comments

  Brittany: I was going to post this as a comment under Victor's topic, but decided that it was entirely too long.

Some try to argue that the Ten Commandments are merely ethical standards that are observed by most countries. The last six (honor thy father and mother, do not steal, do not kill, do not covet, do not commit adultery, and do not lie) are all ethical standards that are encouraged by many U.S. laws. The first four commandments, however, are strictly religious (one God before thee, no graven images, observe the Sabbath, and do not take God's name in vain). While the government can endorse the last six, it is required to remain neutral concerning the first four.

I do not feel that it can be argued that the Ten Commandments should be allowed to be displayed as a historical document UNLESS you are willing to display similar documents from different cultures in the same setting.

I am a Christian, so it doesn't bother me to see the Commandments displayed...in fact I have always found it rather comforting, but I DO see the other side of the issue. I think that it is understandable to say that it should not be displayed in the courts because that is a branch of government. I think the problem comes in when you try to carry it even further (and they will). I see no problem with displaying the TC in a museum as a piece of heritage, observing the Judeo-Christian norms of the western world (after all, most museums contain artifacts from many cultures, and those beautiful granite tablets should be displayed somewhere - hehe). I'm fine accepting that they shouldn't be allowed on government property, but what happens when their appearance on ANY public property is challenged? I think the latter will eventually come down to the states to decide how much they are going to regulate (or restrict) the display of religious documents. THAT'S when I will have a problem.

Individuals are still allowed to display the Ten Commandments in their front yards as much as they want. Anyone is free to express any religious opinion as long as it is on their property...not the government's. Until my individual rights of expression are threatened, I probably won't be overly concerned. To tell the truth, it makes me kind of sick that people are capitalizing on this by selling those yard signs like hot cakes. "Ten Commandments yard signs are now available at a new low price!" Ugh. I dunno...maybe a church can sell them as a fundraiser or something...that would be better. Hehe.

A similar situation that I was annoyed by was the one involving "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I think that one reeeeaaaally has to be stretched to be viewed as the nation imposing religion. After all, no one can be required to recite the Pledge. It just seemed a bit more ridiculous. (Just a little side note: the phrase "under God was actually added in 1954 during the Cold War against "Godless Communism") The word "God" is mentioned four times in the "Declaration of Independence" and once in the Articles of Confederation.

President's still utter "so help me God" at inauguration, and the same phrase is used to swear in individuals in court. Very few seem to feel that these expressions violate the Constitution, but I suppose that is only a matter of time. ::sigh:: Reknowned atheist Madelyn Murray O'Hare (sp?) admitted to wanting to completely wipe all references to God from society. That kind of thing is worrisome because the more you give, the more people are going to take.

Anyway! I would love to see the Ten Commandments stay, but I realize that it can be
considered a violation of the Constitution (although the phrase "separation of church and state isn't actually IN the Constitution - heh - not freedom FROM, but freedom OF...but that's a totally different story), and therefore do not expect them to be allowed to remain in the courts. Wow. Long post. Sorry bout that. If only I could muster the same enthusiasm for academic posts...  ¶ 4:02 PM 4 comments

  victor: well it seems the issue of the ten commandments are back in the courts. Its a touchy issue no doubt. I have mixed feelings about having them displayed in the courts. The courts are secular in nature. They are meant to hear cases in a unbais and equal manner apart from a religious context but in all actuality personal beliefs are always taken into account in courts of law in this country. Inherently each judge, no matter how much they try, brings to court their own beliefs and discrepencies which, however minor, will influence their views on the case. I understand that our nation was built on fundamental christian beliefs, which I do support, but we also boast of providing equal and fair opportunities to all people, regardless of religion. So what are we to do? Do we keep the foundation upon which our nation was built? I mean I believe many of the principals behind the 10 commandments are fundamental ethical teachings in most societies. Dont kill, do no bear false witness, dont covet etc. Perhaps its just the association with the title "Ten Commandments" that is bothering people? Yet if we start stripping away at the very fundamentals of our society what is going to happen next? Is the national morale going to keep slowly eroding away until everything outside of our personal and religious lives becomes a dull and neutral grey, when, at that time, everyone will have been placated rendering our nation free of moral ideologies which will impeade upon the judgement of law... which would then inherent the role as the national morale? (hmm that was and strange loop) Maybe we are there already... but for those that disagree perhaps the American ego will never let it get to that point. im just get a little tired of all the bickering sometimes. I am by no means a expert at law so please correct me if I am going off on a legal tangent. I feel that its a wonderful thing that we can all speak our minds and challenge the injustices around us and this issue is something that will have to be addressed at one time or another, but at some point we will have to stop attempting to erase our heritage and embrace our national identity.  ¶ 9:57 AM 0 comments

  [admin post] since so many referenced news articles on the forum, i figured i should include links to some of the major news agencies. you can find them on the sidebar to the right and if that fails, google it.  ¶ 9:18 AM 0 comments

  Brittany: This morning I saw a squirrel fall out of a tree. It landed on all fours like a cat. Who knew?  ¶ 11:31 AM 1 comments

  Johnathan - This is ridiculous... What next? People arrested for thoughts?

Man... I sure hope nobody turns me in to the police for having "Brass Meth" written on my class schedule (instead of "Brass Methods") on account of having some top secret new drug lab...  ¶ 10:20 AM 3 comments

  Victor: well the second snow of the year seems to be falling as i type. im looking outside my bedroom window right now and i see a thin layer of snow covering the vegetation outside. there is are fairly constant billows of white moving past my window and from the horizontal gusts of the snow, it looks like its fairly windy as well. i have always associated snow with good things but I think that is a result of the geographic locale which I call home. people in the south find it a novelty rather than a nusiance. We get snow, two... three times a year and it never really stays around for more than a couple of days, even with the "heavy stuff". My cousin up north has informed me over and over again how sick of snow she is. She says its depressing and it confines her to the indoors most of the time. I suppose living where the mean temperature is 40-50 something in the winter with spring rearing its head in the middle of Janurary, its nice to have an excuse to stay in a day or two out of the week. oh nevermind... the sun is out again... damn georgia.  ¶ 10:00 AM 0 comments