Home arrow static arrow Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
Warning: Creating default object from empty value in /www/htdocs/w008deb8/wiki/components/com_staticxt/staticxt.php on line 51
Java Programming [Archive] - Kurt Goedel
This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | ... 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | Next »

Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 12:26 PM (reply 255 of 635)

"For those who abuse his name, there will be no escape on judgment day." - Silent Warrior (Enigma)

Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 12:26 PM (reply 256 of 635)

Oops... "For those who abuse His name, there will be no escape on judgment day." - Silent Warrior (Enigma)

Registered: 02-11-14
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 12:31 PM (reply 257 of 635)

Why is this a natural impact of having a bureacracy?
Or being organized? I think that is an assumption
that is disagreed upon.

You do agree that large organizations have large
bureaucracies right?


Do you think it is more or less likely that for any
given large organization that some bureaucrats are
selected and retained not because they meet the goals
of the organization but rather because they "do their
work well"?

Hmmm, you seem to be seperating 'doing their work well' from 'meeting the goals of the organization.' I s would argue that a person only 'does their work well' when thet 'meet the goals of the organization.' Under what other terms would an organization measure 'doing their work well?'

On average how many workers do you think in the
bureacracy of a large organization are retain because
they "do their work well"?

Do you think that someone that is retained because
they "do their work well" is more or less likely to,
on average, support the goals of the organization vs
someone who is retained because they support the goals
of the organization?

And here you are assuming that being retain for one reason precludes being attained for other reasons as well. Perhaps these people are retained because the exemplify the companies goals and perform their task admirally? I work for a hospital, and know of many case of doctors, scientists, and staffers being let go because they did not act according to a code of conduct the hospital has set for its workers to represent itself to the public. So from my experience (and as was said earlier narrow though it be) this concept of retaining people because the meet the goals of the organization is quite likely.

Change the word then - they will.

Then your statement becomes:

Secondly the individuals selected to carry out the task will be selected for reasons other
than their commitment to carrying out the good deed (and have other goals in mind.)

In which you are plainly saying that a person will be hired for other reason than they want to do good. This is a huge statement in which you try to define how every one who ever hired anyone in a large organization has acted... They WILL be selected for other reasons... And you KNOW this?

In a large church organization there will be some
people who fervently want to help abandoned children.
There are other individuals, just as fervent, who
want to help homeless people. Or single mothers. Or
even to increase the monies of the organization so
they can actually do all of those other things more

All of them showing a commitment to carry out a good deed...

Even how one meets the objectives of a single one of
those goals can produce differing goals. One person
might want to help abandoned children by building and
staffing orphanages. Another might want to address
that by increasing education and providing community

Still showing a commitment to carry out good deeds...

To be ultimately successful each of those goals and
methods to achieve those goals is at cross purposes
with the other. With a finite amount of resources
only some of any part can be done.

With respects to specific good deeds... but the commitment to do a good deed still remains...

And of course those goals change as someone gains more
political power in the organization (however it is
attained) and those individuals have their own
specific agenda for doing good and their own methods
for achieving it.

And still the commitment for a good deed done remains...

This leads to processes that exist not to support the
good works but rather to support the dynamics of the

Yes, there will be processes that exist to support the organization, rather than directly affecting the commitment to doing good deeds. This does not detract from the good deeds.

I want to feed the poor. I spend all the money I have buying food for the poor, except for the money I use to buy the food off of which I survive. Is my donation to the hungry less because I supported my own future? Or would they have been better served if I starved and died (and was thus unable to spread my wealth to them)?

I didn't say that - someone else did.

There are however examples of organizations that have
used less than ideal means to achieve other goals than
the ones they have stated.

That there are examples of this does not argue against the existance of or even prevalance of organizations that do good for the sake of doing good . So I am not sure what the goal of this argument was.

Registered: 8/30/01
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 12:37 PM (reply 258 of 635)

With religion, the followers derive their morality
from it.

I don't know about that. Isn't it possible that a lot
of people join churches that are aligned with their
own concept of morality, rather than joining a church
and then adapting their morals accordingly?

That is a good point. People derived a morality from somewhere free of the churches morality and aligned them selves with it. Whats more not all churches and religions are so hierarchical that their morality does not evolve with the changing beliefs of their congregation or followers. Religious institutions tend not to be very democratic.

Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 12:47 PM (reply 259 of 635)

Hierarchical != unchanging

Registered: 6/14/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 12:47 PM (reply 260 of 635)

Oops... "For those who abuse His name, there will be
no escape on judgment day." - Silent Warrior (Enigma)

Don't know if you're ribbing me or not nasch_, but for the record, I wasn't assuming everyone here either was religous, had the same religion, or believes in God or a god. I was simply offering my own opinion on what seemed to be a pretty 'open' discussion about such things, and since I have strong beliefs of my own, though I have absolutely no desire to impute them to others, when I do express them I feel compelled to do so within the realm of my own conception of God; I can not do otherwise. If you feel more prone to use the lowercase form of 'god', you obviously don't need to run it by me first. I was also not suggesting that everyone of whatever other viewpoint was some kind of heathen. My main point was simply that Religion has, throughout the centuries, missused its power and missrepresented the God for their own benefit. Perhaps you don't agree ... that's alright with me.

But know you the little I do, I'd say you're pulling my leg ... again. You are a big kidder ;o)

Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 12:52 PM (reply 261 of 635)

I am indeed a big kidder, but there was no leg-pulling in that one. Besides finding the capital letter more appropriate myself, IIRC that's how Enigma spelled it as well. I could be wrong about that one, though.

Registered: 02-11-14
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 12:59 PM (reply 262 of 635)

You are providing a definition by its nature precludes
any discussion.....

Sorry, I was not meaning to define what I meant about criminals, fanatics and the like with that statement. I was merely suggesting that these people were fighting wars for one reason, and stating another...

They did something bad, therefor they must be a
"fanatic, criminal or villian" and thus is has nothing
to do with the religion.

That is not nearly what I meant to say, and if that is the way it came across, I stated it poorly.

I do concede I went over the top: You had said "church has played a major factor in most, if not all..."
Which is true enough, they had played a factor in the wars... I was still arguing against:
"we as humans have been have been at war with each other over difference in religious
beliefs, from the modern "Holy Wars" to the "Crusades""
Which I disagree with. I was restating that I do not believe that wars have been fough
over solely because of religious doctrine. Religious doctrine may help recruit more people (my point)
but does not incite the war. Other things (mostly political) encite the wars.

You definition is wrong.

There were specific wars and conflicts, and still are,
that were fought over doctorine and not over
"money, land or influence".

Name one.

There are probably 50+ nations in the world today
have a state religion. Do you not think that that
an influence on the politics of the country? Or
you suggesting that all of those countries are
"fanatics and criminals"?

These countries, having a state religion, does not
make them fanatics and criminals. Show me the ones
whose organized religious doctrine says that war
against all other religions is the goal. They
criminals and fanatics when they begin wars and
that is the religion that requires them to do it.
This is only a lie used to persuade masses to join
their side.

Again you are applying your definition.

And I never said anything about a war against all
other religions.

Or any other religion. Doesn't make a differnce. What I am saying is that war against other
religions is not part of any religion's doctrines that I know of. If the doctrine does not
state the need for war, the war is caused by people who decide the war is necessary, and not
from the religion's doctrine itself. Wars 'based' on religion then does not comment on the
religion itself, but only speaks of those who choose to name it as a reason for the war.
Damning a religion (or all religions) because of people who act poorly saying its name is to
believe the excuse and ignore the reason. It is like make stereotype based on newspapers.
The representatives that you know of do not speak for the group in total.

The statement of your viewpoint indicates that you are
speaking of a "truth" and not of a reasoned analysis.

You are welcome to your beliefs but try to seperate
your beliefs (assumptions, definitions) from those
conclusions that have been reached by following a line
of reasoning.

I am sorry you feal that I had been unreasonable. Perhaps this post will help sort that out...

Registered: 02-11-14
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 1:00 PM (reply 263 of 635)


The difference is that the religion says their rules
are backed by a supreme being(s), while a government
says its rules are backed by the governing body

Actually there are religions where the rules are not
handed down by supreme beings and even where there is
seemingly no supreme being at all.

I concede... Not exactly central to the argument though...

Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 1:03 PM (reply 264 of 635)

Besides which I remembered the line wrong anyway.

"For the ones who abuse His name, there'll be no chance to escape on judgment day."

The previous lines are pertinent as well.

"White men won in the name of GOD
With the cross as alibi.

There's no GOD who ever tried
To change the world in this way."


Registered: 6/14/99
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 1:03 PM (reply 265 of 635)

"Besides finding the capital letter more appropriate myself, IIRC ... "

I ??? Roman Catholic?

Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 1:05 PM (reply 266 of 635)

If I recall correctly. :-)

Registered: 02-11-14
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 1:10 PM (reply 267 of 635)

Yeah, Maybe I should try to be more clear as to how/why I am discussing this.

I am not really defending any actions, blaming any people, or trying write a revisionist form of revisionist history ... erm if that makes any sense :P

I am merely saying that saying organized religion (or whatever) can not be blamed for the blemishes caused on its behalf. The religion didn't go to war, those followers of the religion did. Dammit, still not making sense...

The general religion is not dirtied by the bad eggs... The Germans aren't evil because Hitler was their leader, Republicans aren't fat, even though I am both Republican and fat. These are the things that are being said, that one of the arguments that organized religion is wrong is because the bad things done in its name...

Sheesh. Am I making sense?

Registered: 1/25/04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 1:17 PM (reply 268 of 635)

I think you're making sense, but you have to remember that a church is made up of people. Saying that the Roman Catholic Church was not responsible for the Crusades (or Inquisition, or whatever) because it was really the people within the church that did it, is missing the point IMO. The leaders of the church directed those actions. At the same time, it's wrong to blame the current RCC for that, or to blame the whole collection of all churches for it.

P.S. There's no need to pick historical nits if someone disagrees about what exactly happened in the Crusades. That's not my point, I was just making an example and it's what came to mind.

Registered: 06.04.04
Re: Kurt Goedel  
Jun 3, 2004 1:22 PM (reply 269 of 635)

A nice anecdote: every year I deduct 100 euro from my income tax for 'governmental inefficiency'.
I never received a single complaint or whatever over all those years ... ;-)

But if you did receive a complaint, wouldn't you object to the inefficiency of spending hundreds of
euros of tax officials' wages to recover 100 euros?

Yes I would; and I would show them figures showing them that those 100 euros missed are nothing
compared to all the costs they're making attempting to collect those 100 euros ... I can hardly wait ;-)

kind regards,

This topic has 635 replies on 43 pages.    « Previous | 1 | ... 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | Next »