Imagine if TV licences were like driving licences; like, you had to earn (not just pay for) the right to have one. I think there's definitely a sci-fi story in this...
NOTE: This post was inspired by my receiving a TV licence
Which Great US President Are You Most Like?
created with QuizFarm.com
|You scored as Dwight Eisenhower |
34th President, in office from 1953-1961
It seems to me that Europe cannot rid itself of its old habit of re-drawing its maps every fortnight, at least.Lol. Who's to argue?
Call it instability?
From the section Psychological reality > Language acquisition (Plato's problem) > Parameter setting. Quite why a book published in the UK should have to have American spelling I don't know. Anyway, there now only remains to pass on the memetic information to the next memeration. The blogs to receive the memome are:
From a position where language learning (even if not teaching) was self-evidently the correct way of conceptualizing the child's development of its first language, we now have a position where the favored conceptualization is in terms of the switch-setting metaphor of Principles and Parameters theory: a selection process.
If this view is correct, and if the discussion in chapter 2 to the effect that parametric variation is limited to the set of functional categories is right, we can turn to the prediction that language acquisition should be largely endogenously driven rather than being just a reaction to external stimuli. The development of other biological systems is subject to maturational control, often taking place in a particular window of opportunity referred to as the critical period.
a deformity or shortcoming in the human personality, because the religion keeps stressing how humble it is, and how meek it is, and how accepting, and, um, almost to the point of [...] It actually makes extraordinarily arrogant claims, because it says, "I suddenly realize the universe is all about me".Given, then, that human cosmic insignificance is not just maintained but actually welcomed, it becomes exceedignly difficult to see how on atheism human dignity and value can be affirmed is a sense more robust than that of bald assertion. So it should hardly be surprising that some take the logic of this line of thought further than others. Here is an example of some of the stuff Pekka-Eric Auvinen was coming out with on the 'net before he put his money where his mouth was and shot up his school:
Now, these implications are worrying. And Paul Wright has taken this on board. In a comment on my last post he relates some of his "ultimate fallback position" in case human value cannot be established on atheism:
Life is just a coincidence… result of long process of evolution and many several factors, causes and effects. However, life is also something that an individual wants and determines it to be. And I… I’m the dictator of my own life. [...]
HUMANITY IS OVERRATED!
Human life is not sacred. Humans are just a species among other animals and world does not exist only for humans. Death is not a tragedy, it happens in nature all the time between species. Not all human lives are important or worth saving. Sometimes I feel like no-one is really worth of life at all. [...]
There are no other universal laws than the laws of nature
Humans are valuable because I say so. If you agree, we'd better convince others of that, work to bring about a society which believes that, and oppose (by force if necessary, as it was in World War II, to use your example) those who want to treat people as things. A consequence of the lack of ethical absolutes is that we can lose and the universe will not care. We're all treading water in the deep ocean and we can't touch bedrock to hold us up. Better get working.I hope Paul won't mind my saying that the comment has something of the feel of unfinished business about it after our last discussion on the topic, so readers may find that useful background reading (the bit about morality is almost right at the end) .