They are representative of the state of the world in that we still allow them to go on. If you think your hands are clean in any of that, then you are sorely mistaken.
> If you think your hands are clean in any of that, then you are sorely mistaken.
Oh yes, original sin. Wonderful. That makes sense. Can I buy some plenary indulgence from you, or is it a 'salvation by grace' thing now?
> They are representative of the state of the world in that we still allow them to go on.
The world once allowed the Black Plague and religions based on human sacrifice to 'go on', as you say. Darfur and North Korea are nothing compared to those.
Wow, you have some serious distortion glasses on there. When did I say anything about original sin? And as for 'allowing' the Black Plague and human sacrifice to go on, that's an entirely different timeframe when the world wasn't globalized in the way it is now. At that time, people were isolated enough that direct social effects across societies were hugely limited. This isn't true now -- everything that goes on in the US directly affects the quality of life for people around the world, and vice versa. Any other poorly thought out responses you want to throw this way?
> I think the idea that humans are getting smarter and nobler is hogwash.
OK, find me a duel and a bear-baiting match in America and I'll believe you. Otherwise you're just mindlessly cynical, like any number of other teenagers.
UFC is not a duel in the traditional sense, nor is it 'violent' in the same way a war or aggravated assault is 'violent'. It's a technical sport (well UFC is a league of MMA fighters, where MMA is the sport) with well-defined rules designed to minimize damage to participants. Saying that the popularity of MMA shows that our society is getting more violent doesn't make sense, on the contrary - it's proof that we are able to channel primary urges to measure ourselves with our fellow humans in controlled and structured ways.
As for your link, an anecdote does not data make. If you want to argue that our society is getting more violent you need to prove that the amount of violent episodes now is higher than in the past, not that there happen violent events now. And as a matter of fact, overall in most of the Western world, the amount of violent crimes has been on a steady decline for the last 50 years at least (the amount of other crimes has gone down too, by the way).
> I'm not sure if Americans "expect to be bailed out all the time," but I do know that we expect as consumers not to have our rights trampled on arbitrarily.
Right. Personal responsibility means companies must be held responsible if they don't follow ethical standards, something that goes strictly beyond obeying the law. Personal responsibility is thus the foundation of a free market.
Ning provided a service, has realized that it's not financially feasable, and in the interest of (I presume) their owners/shareholders have decided to discontinue that service. They're allowing groups to continue using the service for a fee if they so desire.
Personal responsibility means weighing the pros/cons of trusting services to "the cloud". It's why there are a few things I still run on a machine in my basement, rather than move to an online provider, even though it could be cheaper for me. It's why I actively back up important documents (and yes, photos) to more than one location.
It's your ethical responsibility, whether as an individual or a corporation, to only let people rely on you if you're reliable. If you're not, you have to go out of your way to prevent people from leaning on you, because you know they'll fall over when you step aside. It is their ethical responsibility as well to find out if you're reliable, but it goes both ways.
The 'Noble Savage' myth is the last vestige of racism still taken seriously by educated Westerners. It seems harmless enough, because the stereotype is positive, but it's still an assumption about moral character based on race.
The problem with the Noble Savage myth is that it is a ridiculous romanticization, much akin to the myth of the "simple, merry country folk." The idea in itself doesn't have anything to do with the race of the savages in question.
> Without their culture, community, and absolute freedom to roam the planet and carve a corner for themselves, they would be another zoo/museum curiosity, a biological anomaly paraded before us for pennies.
By this argument, we should destroy all zoos and let the species in them die off. It's counter to all biological knowledge.
> Even if a sizable population of them were granted full human rights and a habitat, they would forever owe us their existence, and their debt to humans would hang over anything they achieve for themselves in terms of growth and survival.
So? How is that different from the debt you owe your parents?
> Our future generations will also treat them as an experiment gone awry, should they ever threaten the slightest human interest.
This happens to minority ethnic groups all the time. Look at the new Arizona immigration law.
> It's hard enough watching dying racial and linguistic minority groups; their last remaining few members made into coursework for "our" undergraduates.
So... trying to understand ourselves is morally wrong? It's horrible to preserve our dying ways as best we know how?
> Bringing back a Neanderthal is to kill him twice, after granting him a brief purposeless life for our own edutainment. Let them rest in peace.
This applies equally to the California condor and the panda. We should just let all endangered species rest in peace, I suppose.
This library thinks Franz Kafka and Charlie Chaplain were the funniest people ever, particularly as epitomized in The Trial and Modern Times, respectively.
> Nope, these are actual guidelines Microsoft uses to make hiring, promotion, and compensation decisions. city41's comment is 100% accurate about how these things are used.
So... it's edgy humor in the form of a terrifying practical joke? Maybe Andy Kaufman didn't die after all.
