OT: Will non net-neutrality kill the internet?

[BGB / cr88192]

Without electricity, our entire technologic infrastructure is useless.
Destroy the power grids, and it's game over for modern civilization.

fair enough.

destruction of the power-grid could also cause large-scale death in urban
settings if evacuation is not possible.


however, destruction of the grid is likely to be a temporary (as in, several
decades or more), rather than permanent, setback:
later on, people would begin rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure, or,
worst case, technology is likely put back around 100 or 150 years or so,
although re-advancement is likely to happen much faster given lots of people
would be around who were familiar with the prior technologies (150 years
ago, essentially the world was largely non-industrialized, and electricity,
indoor plumbing, ... were a rarity available only to a select few).

moving back much further would be harder, as one would then also have to
manage to largely destroy literacy and knowledge of the sciences and basic
mathematics as well.


in the case of one country vs another, it is likely to recover faster, since
the destroyed country can then be used as a market and as a source of cheap
labor (much like Japan or the PRC a number of decades ago), and so a country
is essentially re-developed by their prior enemies.


it would be like, say, a situation where the PRC was the world superpower
and holds the position of economic superiority, and many US companies are
having to learn Chinese to try to be competitive in the global market.

 

[BGB / cr88192]

How do you account for the poor that became rich? BTW, how much do you
have to make a year to be defined as rich?

FWIW, capitalism has generally tended to turn out much better for the
average person than socialism and communism typically have.

it is not necessarily the case that uneven distribution of wealth is a bad
thing either.

typically, those people who possess the resources, also possess the means to
most effectively utilize them, and will often do so, and hence tends to lead
to better results than would be the case had wealth been more evenly
distributed, but with no one really having the masses accumulated wealth and
resources actually needed to do much of anything significant.

for example, a corporation is very good at doing what a corporation does:
to create and market products and services.

then, the average person uses what little money they have to buy said
products, and are in turn payed by corporations to work creating more
products and services, to gain more money for themselves in which to go buy
more products.

it would seem like a pointless circle, except that there tends to be more
value created in this cycle than is effectively lost, so everyone ends up
being better off in the end.

like, a company will develop better products to get ahead, and then gain
money, and give it back to their employees. although the money has gone in a
big circle, the amount and quality of the products has increased, and so
everyone is happier and better off in the end.


OTOH, socialist economies have usually degraded and collapsed.

in the greater benefit of the common good, egoism is likely better than
altruism.

the only real example of an economically successful communist country is the
PRC, but the funny thing is, in an economic sense, they are no longer really
communist anymore.


or such...

 

[Chris H]

yes, but although it did some damage, the effected area was not, itself, all
that large.
most of the deaths were likely because, yes, it was an urban target.

set off a small nuke in the middle of NYC or LA, and the death count would
likely be a bit higher...

however, to take out a larger city entirely, say, Las Angeles or Las Vegas
or Phoenix or ...
one would likely start having to lay down the things in large numbers.

to effectively pull off a "doomsday" scenario (AKA: damn near everyone
dead), well, that would take a lot of nukes, either that, or bombs large
enough to take out an entire large city at a time (say, with a 10-20 or more
mile blast radius), and having lots of them for all the cities, or having
enough small bombs to effectively cover pretty much the entirety of dense
and moderate population areas.

granted, yes, by taking out many of the major cities, one could throw a
country into anarchy (and allow military takeover by another country), but
this is not quite the same as a near-anihilation of the populus.

You only need one small bomb and the threat of more. Panic will do the
rest

 

[Nick Keighley]

these are part of the OT (Old Testament) law, which was specifically revoked
in the NT (New Testament).

ok the dietarylaws were repealed what about the uncleanliness of women
or male circumcision. Seems to me you get to treat Leviticus as
multiple choice.

well, if a bunch of these complaining liberal types go to a Muslim country,
they can see just how "extreme" and "opressive" the typical US Christian
is...

I've been to muslim countries people seemed very helpful and nice. Now
I know their governments aren't pleasant and I never ran astray of the
law but that wasn't what we were talking about was it?

which is to say, not much.
in the US, maybe someone will say some seemingly disagreeable words.
they go there, and try this same sort of stuff, and they may be liable to
end up decapitated with a hacksaw or similar.

these are not at all the same thing...

no agreed. There is no doubt America is a freer country than many
(most? all?) muslim countries. But you might be surprised how normal
and ordinary people were in a city in a relativly well off stable
muslim country.

But my point was if whiney liberals (I'm a card-carrying Liberal)
object to certain religious opinions then going somewhere with even
stronger religious opinions is not going to change their minds. From
where the whiny liberals are standing the fundamentalist christians
and muslims are at the same end of the spectrum. I'll agree we don't
get many fundamentalist christians with bombs strapped to them.

yes, this is also OT law.

and also in Leviticus

technically, these rules were changed in the NT, and so people are no longer
obligated to enforce the morals of others. however, for those who continue
on in immoral ways, meanwhile them knowing better, ..., punishment does
await them, so either way the activity is not acceptable.

so does the nT reiterate the prescription against homosexuality?

"He who is vile, let him be vile", ...

it would be complicated to explain (there are large piles of doctrine in the
way), but the basic idea is that with the death of Jesus and a few other
things, much of the OT law became no longer binding.

the rules one is bound by are then understood to be those things which were
restated in the NT.
FWIW, the NT rules are a lot softer than the OT laws in these regards.

some rules are revoked more explicitly, such as the condemnation of eating
certain kinds of animal, of requiring circumcision, ...

so, yeah, maybe ones' ancestors are bound by certain rules, but one
themselves is not.

<snip>

 

[John Kelly]

does the nT reiterate the prescription against homosexuality?

Romans 1:24-27
1 Timothy 1:9-11
Jude 7 (sodomy; see Genesis 19:4,5,24,25)

 

[BGB / cr88192]

ok the dietarylaws were repealed what about the uncleanliness of women
or male circumcision. Seems to me you get to treat Leviticus as
multiple choice.

yeah.

the usual idea is that things like the OT laws can be interpreted more as a
big collection of "principles" rather than a more rigid "do this or die"
type interpretation.

but, then there is the issue that "principles" are usually ambiguous, and so
it is easier to assume more simply that most of these rules were revoked.

a common explanation for how this works is the notion of dispensationalism,
where history is divided up into a large number of dispensations (or eras)
where most of the old rules are revoked, and a new ruleset is established.
under this interpretation, when Jesus comes back again, the current ruleset
may be itself revoked and replaced by something different (although, as for
the specifics of what exactly might happen here, there is much
disagreement).

I've been to muslim countries people seemed very helpful and nice. Now
I know their governments aren't pleasant and I never ran astray of the
law but that wasn't what we were talking about was it?

yeah, but probably you were not going up to taliban people and then making a
big fuss over "gay rights" and similar, or trying to go and organize
pride-parades, ...

this is more common in the US, but not likely to go over so well.


it is not that the people themselves are sitting around being generally
unpleasant, just don't try to mess with them or belittle their beliefs, or
make a mockery of them and their religious figures, ..., as this is when
things would turn messy.

this, however, is fairly common in the US, where many people feel the need
to make a mockery of the "stupid fundie stereotype", and start raising a big
fuss just as soon as someone says anything that implies them having
religious beliefs.

no agreed. There is no doubt America is a freer country than many
(most? all?) muslim countries. But you might be surprised how normal
and ordinary people were in a city in a relativly well off stable
muslim country.

fair enough.

But my point was if whiney liberals (I'm a card-carrying Liberal)
object to certain religious opinions then going somewhere with even
stronger religious opinions is not going to change their minds. From
where the whiny liberals are standing the fundamentalist christians
and muslims are at the same end of the spectrum. I'll agree we don't
get many fundamentalist christians with bombs strapped to them.

yeah.


the most a typical fundamentalist is likely to do is claim that something is
immoral, with the usual implication "keep doing this and you are liable to
end up with eternal punishment". some may start making a fuss over the whole
evolution vs creationism thing, ...

but, this is the limit of what is done.

the point though is that "fundies" are really not all that imposing or
oppressive, just they don't buy into most of this "progressive" stuff
either, since to do so would run against beliefs...

and also in Leviticus

yeah.

everything prior to Matthew is the Old Testament, and everything Matthew and
after is New Testament.
OT is mostly about stuff going on in Israel, and the NT is mostly about
Jesus and the organization of the early churches (lots of stuff written by
Paul and a few others).


another way it can be viewed:
the OT is all the books shared with Judaism, and the NT is all the books
which are not.

so does the nT reiterate the prescription against homosexuality?

yes.

Paul mentions it several times in several different letters (IIRC: Romans,
Corinthians, ...), among many other things.

this is generally what is understood to be Christian morals.


but, it is nothing severe or drastic, more like:
people that do this stuff (long lists of stuff) have no real chance of going
to heaven.
gayness is mentioned several different times and in not so pleasant terms
(also reference to things like "them taking punishment within themselves",
....). so, it is fairly solidly understood to be immoral.

also generally understood to be immoral is fornication (AKA: people
becomming physically involved who are not yet married), occult practices
(such as spiritism, being a medium, and divination, or in modern terms,
trying to perform saences, have spirits talk through them, and tell people
their futures, among other things).

adultery and prostitution is also condemned, as is idolotry (as in,
worshipping physical objects representing dieties), ...
....


absent however is anything promoting taking action against someone who does
any of this (OT stuff contains this, but the NT does not repeat it).
combined with other things, the interpretation would be to just leave them
alone and let them do whatever, and then fall into punishment on their own.

however, it is mentioned that one is not supposed to hide their beliefs
either, and there is an expectation that one is to make their beliefs known
to others, ... (such as via evangelism and similar).

 

[John Kelly]

everything prior to Matthew is the Old Testament, and everything
Matthew and after is New Testament. OT is mostly about stuff going
on in Israel, and the NT is mostly about Jesus and the organization
of the early churches

The idea of an old vs. new is a popular misconception. The God of Moses
is the same as Paul's. Few Bible readers understand how they harmonize,
or how God views the fleshly nation of Israel today.

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

My opinion on all this topic:

- human beings (and societies) can have rational motivation and irrational, transcendent (like the "PI" number or the natural exponent base number) motivation.
- the whole history of religion is - being the social institution of the transcendent motivation.
- for now, transcendent motivation is _tabooed_ in the Western world.
- it was not always such in the West. For instance, the Crusades surely had this transcendent motivation (surely being not only the raids for ransom).
- but modern West, based mostly on the ideas of French materialists like Russeau (followed by the US founders, French Jacobins and the Russian communists - who are actually Jacobins 2.0) - _banned the transcendentality from being a major social institute_.
- all these anti-extremism laws is mainly to prevent the return of transcendentality to its former glory, and one of the major social motivators.
- and what about fundamental Islam? it is the society with the transcendental motivation. Just this. "Islam" is not mandatory in this. For instance, the Russian Old Rite Orthodox "sectants" of 1800ies were nearly the same fundamentalistic.
- as about all those talks about "freedom" - for now, it's mainly _consumption_ freedom. The Western civilization is a consumerist one. It has "pies" as consumer goods, and also has "whips" as, say, the terroristic threats. But it has no transcendentality, which is banned from growing outside of the family level.
- skinheads (the ones from RaHoWa and 14/88 subculture) are not as stupid as somebody can imagine. They have their intellectual leaders (worldwide), which are introducing some racial theories (mostly based on works of the social scientists of late 1800ies when racism was a mainstream). And, in these theories, the Aryan race is considered to be _transcendentally better_ then the other races. So, transcendentality again.

Sorry for my bad English (enough for most common talks and for professional talks, not so enough for such ones).

 

[BGB / cr88192]

The idea of an old vs. new is a popular misconception. The God of Moses
is the same as Paul's. Few Bible readers understand how they harmonize,
or how God views the fleshly nation of Israel today.

yes, but they are categorized differently, exist in different timeframes,
and have different contents.

it is much the same as how AD and BC are different.

AD is generally the NT timeframe, and BC the OT timeframe.

it is much like how one can divide the OT (or Tanakh) into the Torah
(Pentateuch, or Genesis - Deuteronomy), and the Nevi'im and Ketuvim.


but, no one claims that God himself changed, only that one timeframe ended,
and another began, and in the process that some of the basic rules were
changed.

like, one will have Easter, and another will hold a Seder...


or such...

 

[BGB / cr88192]

fair enough...

however, to be fair, under this interpretation, most liberals and atheists
would also have to keep quiet as well, since they also make transcendental
claims (for example, that gayness and fornication are not immoral or that
socialistic economics is somehow better than capitalistic or laisez-fair
economics, or in the case of atheists that nothing exists beyond the
physical world).

personally, I don't expect it should be the case that everyone is expected
to remain silent or not hold opinions on these matters, only that people
should refrain from becomming offended that others may hold differing
opinions or may disagree with them over these matters.

yet, it is also notable that many people seem to take things like this
personally.


much like, the skinheads can hold their views if they want, but as soon as
they start acting out, say, for example, making issue for me personally due
to not entirely fitting with their fairly narrow definition of "whiteness",
well then, this is when problems arrise...


My opinion on all this topic:

- human beings (and societies) can have rational motivation and
irrational, transcendent (like the "PI" number or the natural exponent base
number) motivation.
- the whole history of religion is - being the social institution of the
transcendent motivation.
- for now, transcendent motivation is _tabooed_ in the Western world.
- it was not always such in the West. For instance, the Crusades surely
had this transcendent motivation (surely being not only the raids for
ransom).
- but modern West, based mostly on the ideas of French materialists like
Russeau (followed by the US founders, French Jacobins and the Russian
communists - who are actually Jacobins 2.0) - _banned the transcendentality
from being a major social institute_.
- all these anti-extremism laws is mainly to prevent the return of
transcendentality to its former glory, and one of the major social
motivators.
- and what about fundamental Islam? it is the society with the
transcendental motivation. Just this. "Islam" is not mandatory in this. For
instance, the Russian Old Rite Orthodox "sectants" of 1800ies were nearly
the same fundamentalistic.
- as about all those talks about "freedom" - for now, it's mainly
_consumption_ freedom. The Western civilization is a consumerist one. It has
"pies" as consumer goods, and also has "whips" as, say, the terroristic
threats. But it has no transcendentality, which is banned from growing
outside of the family level.
- skinheads (the ones from RaHoWa and 14/88 subculture) are not as
stupid as somebody can imagine. They have their intellectual leaders
(worldwide), which are introducing some racial theories (mostly based on
works of the social scientists of late 1800ies when racism was a
mainstream). And, in these theories, the Aryan race is considered to be
_transcendentally better_ then the other races. So, transcendentality again.

Sorry for my bad English (enough for most common talks and for
professional talks, not so enough for such ones).

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

however, to be fair, under this interpretation, most liberals and atheists

Depends on what atheism you're speaking about.

If you're about Soviet atheism - then the real central dogma under it was: "mankind is omnipotent".

Yes, mankind as a whole. Yes, on a very long historical period. But omnipotent.

That's why the Soviet ideology required no God. The mankind itself will do everything which - for religious people - the God does. Just in some later future, when the scientists will make a couple more discoveries.

Science and technical progress were considered to be something like "omnipotence tools", and thus nearly sacralized in the USSR.

This is what about the Soviet materialism.

As about gays - probably what we are observing now is _dismantling of all transcendental moral_.

Gays were classically considered immoral due to _transcendental_ reasons. Only due to them.

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

under this interpretation, when Jesus comes back again, the current ruleset
Western civilization (including its distant parts like the Slavic states of ex-USSR) is still mostly living in a Christian ruleset, but yes, the last 100 years there were serious attempts to overthrow it, both in theory and in practice, the Nazi Germany being the most major one.

What Nazis did is: they set absolutely new rules about the value of the human life, the rules which contradict the Christianity (in nearly all its branches from Roman Catholic to LDS) - a lot.

Nazis are probably the most major _practical_ attempt to demolish the Christian ruleset. As about theory - F. Nietzsche is one of such figures in phylosophy.

The non-Christian-at-all ideas even came to some belletristic books like the Tolkien's coprus of texts - sorry, but the idea of "orcs" (hereditary subhumans with the souls irreversibly maimed) - is not Christian at all. Yes, some Christian churches like the Calvinist one are very much intolerable about sinners, but "orcs" are even more "hardcore" then the Calvinist sinners.

They are more like Gnostic "hylics", and Gnosticism (according to some books on history of Christianity I have read) was abolished and cursed _exactly_ due to the reason of having the notion of "hylics" - hereditary subhumans uncapable of receiving the divine grace. In Christianity, divine grace is for everybody, there are no subhumans uncapable of it.

 

[BGB / cr88192]

however, to be fair, under this interpretation, most liberals and atheists

<--
Depends on what atheism you're speaking about.

If you're about Soviet atheism - then the real central dogma under it was:
"mankind is omnipotent".

Yes, mankind as a whole. Yes, on a very long historical period. But
omnipotent.

That's why the Soviet ideology required no God. The mankind itself will do
everything which - for religious people - the God does. Just in some later
future, when the scientists will make a couple more discoveries.

Science and technical progress were considered to be something like
"omnipotence tools", and thus nearly sacralized in the USSR.

This is what about the Soviet materialism.
-->

yeah, I was thinking more the US variety.
but, it gets fuzzy...


<--
As about gays - probably what we are observing now is _dismantling of all
transcendental moral_.

Gays were classically considered immoral due to _transcendental_ reasons.
Only due to them.
-->

I think they are generally considered immoral due to there having been rules
written against them...

it is much the same like why someone can't smoke weed in the US, only less
baseless, and applied more universally as a matter of observance (like, if
one does this, they can't properly be part of the religious group), as well
as the threat of eternal punishment for doing so (much like the long prison
sentence for drug possession in the US, ...).

one can always write new rules, but then they are not the same rules.
much like, a new standard is not equivalent to an older standard due to not
saying the same thing, ...
like, C90 and C99 are different entities, despite both being largely similar
and C99 being mostly backwards compatible.


or such...

 

[BGB / cr88192]

yes, fair enough...

I had dealt some with Calvinists before, like where I was before, they
represented the majority theological mindset. doctrinally, it all gets a
little complicated though.

not much else to comment on though...



Western civilization (including its distant parts like the Slavic states of
ex-USSR) is still mostly living in a Christian ruleset, but yes, the last
100 years there were serious attempts to overthrow it, both in theory and in
practice, the Nazi Germany being the most major one.

What Nazis did is: they set absolutely new rules about the value of the
human life, the rules which contradict the Christianity (in nearly all its
branches from Roman Catholic to LDS) - a lot.

Nazis are probably the most major _practical_ attempt to demolish the
Christian ruleset. As about theory - F. Nietzsche is one of such figures in
phylosophy.

The non-Christian-at-all ideas even came to some belletristic books like the
Tolkien's coprus of texts - sorry, but the idea of "orcs" (hereditary
subhumans with the souls irreversibly maimed) - is not Christian at all.
Yes, some Christian churches like the Calvinist one are very much
intolerable about sinners, but "orcs" are even more "hardcore" then the
Calvinist sinners.

They are more like Gnostic "hylics", and Gnosticism (according to some books
on history of Christianity I have read) was abolished and cursed _exactly_
due to the reason of having the notion of "hylics" - hereditary subhumans
uncapable of receiving the divine grace. In Christianity, divine grace is
for everybody, there are no subhumans uncapable of it.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

however, to be fair, under this interpretation, most liberals and
atheists would also have to keep quiet as well, since they also make
transcendental claims (for example, that gayness and fornication are not
immoral or that socialistic economics is somehow better than
capitalistic or laisez-fair economics, or in the case of atheists that
nothing exists beyond the physical world).

As a lifelong atheist, that belief is news to me. So, tell me, do I also
believe in astrology? Phrenology? Do I believe the moon is made of
green cheese? I ask, because you seem to think you know what I believe
better than I do.


f-ups set to more sensible group.

 

[Maxim S. Shatskih]

I think they are generally considered immoral due to there having been rules

written against them...

Attitude against gays comes from 2 sources:

a) old religion books like the OT

b) some sub-mind psychological features of usual non-gay men, deeply connected to all those Oedipal stuff, and causing most usual non-gay men to at least despise the situation of being the "object" for some gay, if not despise to the very idea of male homosexuality.

The good modern psychologist who writes about such things is Otto Kernberg, a great person, kinda a modern Freud.

Female homosexuality - and female attitudes against male gays - are not so charged.

 

[Chris H]

The idea of an old vs. new is a popular misconception. The God of Moses
is the same as Paul's. Few Bible readers understand how they harmonize,
or how God views the fleshly nation of Israel today.

The Bible also shares several books with the Koran. All three religions
Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all from the same root and book.

However it is arrogance beyond belief for any human to claim to know the
mind of God.

 

[Chris H]

Romans 1:24-27
1 Timothy 1:9-11
Jude 7 (sodomy; see Genesis 19:4,5,24,25)

Yet we have a large number of practising Homosexuals as clergy in the
Anglican Church up to the level of Bishop.

Of course in the Roman Catholic Church there appears to be more child
abusers than homosexuals.

 

[BGB / cr88192]

Yet we have a large number of practising Homosexuals as clergy in the
Anglican Church up to the level of Bishop.

Of course in the Roman Catholic Church there appears to be more child
abusers than homosexuals.

yeah...

the ELCA also recently decided to start ordaining gays as pastors and
similar, and the people I knew were somewhat unhappy over this one.

I guess the main difference is that most protestant denominations allow
people to be both married and hold positions as clergy (so presumably the
level of deviance is a little lower than if the clergy are expected to
remain chaste).

or such...

 

[John Kelly]

Yet we have a large number of practising Homosexuals as clergy in the
Anglican Church up to the level of Bishop.

So what does that tell you about the church?

To me it says, "false religion."