Slashdot Mirror

It's a deterrent against a government ever disregarding the will of enough people to spark a civil war.

Now here lies the fundamental problem with democracy. Say 49% of people think purple pants should be compulsory. 49% think they should be totally banned.

Whichever way der gubment goes it's "disregarding the will" of a substantial majority.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

"They both belonged in jail. Too bad they were both too privileged, pretty white boys to serve even a day."

No, get your eyeglass prescription renewed, moron:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretty

The "pretty" reveals your sexual preferences

Learn to read, moron.

, I think

Certainly NOT.

America is winning a worldwide race to the bottom.

This happened in Canada, dumbass.

America has many problems, including the fact that many of its citizens believe it to be the center of the Universe—if not the entirety of it.

Canada lies in (North-)America, dumbass.

The United States of America have many problems, including the fact that many of its citizens believe it to be the center of America—if not the entirety of it.

Note the first link on that Wikipedia page.

Of course, there are also a more authorative sources

You keep using that word

You once used this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You keep using that word

You once used this word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

There are some [young people] who act on principal

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

There are some [young people] who act on principal

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Drunk driving is not a "mistake". You chose to get drunk. You chose to drive. You know it's wrong. You know it's dangerous. You know you may kill someone. You choose to do it anyway. That's not a "mistake", that's wilful culpable recklessness.

"mistake: an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc."

Seems pretty cut and dry that drunk driving is a mistake.

I agree with you that the author you are replying to has a weak opinion. However, that doesn't mean he hates women.

A careful look at what I wrote will reveal that my misogyny accusation was not directed at the author. Notice that the title of my post was "How does this get +5 insightful?" and then I speak of him and his post in the third person, while I make the misogyny accusation in the second person. In other words I was saying, "...don't let science get in the way of your [Slashdot moderators'] shit headed misogyny".

Calling him a misogynist because you don't like his opinion is a false argument ad hominem.

OK, so even if I had been calling the author a misogynist, it would only be ad hominem if I had used his misogyny as disproof of his premise. But my disproof of his premise was that it was contrary to scientific data. Even if I had gone on to claim he were a misogynist, which I didn't, it wouldn't have technically been ad hominem.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny (a hatred of women)

OK, I think you are trying to say that a feeling of superiority to women is not the same as hatred. Yes, that's true, but that's not precisely the definition of misogyny I was picturing. See http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/misogyny (noun: hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.). I think I would have been within my liberty to have accused of mistrust given the following from the author:

But if you need someone to get you to the moon--your best bet is still the guy

And yet, to be clear again, that's not what I was doing. I was noting that the quickness that this shot up to +5 (before anything else even had +3) was (yet more) evidence of the rampant misogyny in the ranks of the Slashdot moderation crowd. I'm happy to see that cooler heads eventually brought it all the way back down.

The government has the right to do, whatever its elected officials decide to do, and is not deemed unconstitutional. I believe its called democracy

That's not democracy, that's tyranny. Verbatim.

which makes you a lawless teabagger.

Oh, cute, an ad hominem attack. I take it, then, that you fail to realize attacking the messenger instead of the message implies that your own argument holds no water.

FWIW, of the nine relevant definitions for "Christian" at dictionary.reference.com, not a single one references the Trinity. The same is true for the five definitions of "Christianity".

The first definition for the adjective "Christian" is listed as "of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings". The LDS Church most definitely fits that definition, regardless of the Trinity doctrine. Our doctrines are indisputably "of, pertaining to, or derived from Jesus Christ or His teachings", regardless of whether the rest of the Christian world agrees with our interpretation thereof.

Pirate: a person who robs or commits illegal violence at sea or on the shores of the sea.

Thief: a person who steals, especially secretly or without open force; one guilty of theft or larceny.

Rob: to take something from (someone) by unlawful force or threat of violence; steal from.

So we can see from this that a pirate is a thief at sea or on the shores of the sea. Pirates have been labelled as thieves since the middle ages. That's why people who steal/fraudulently obtain/infringe on the internet are characterized as pirates. By labeling these users' actions as piracy even when trying to defend them from being called thieves, it seems you've already been indoctrinated by the systemic manipulation without even realizing it.

Pirate: a person who robs or commits illegal violence at sea or on the shores of the sea.

Thief: a person who steals, especially secretly or without open force; one guilty of theft or larceny.

Rob: to take something from (someone) by unlawful force or threat of violence; steal from.

So we can see from this that a pirate is a thief at sea or on the shores of the sea. Pirates have been labelled as thieves since the middle ages. That's why people who steal/fraudulently obtain/infringe on the internet are characterized as pirates. By labeling these users' actions as piracy even when trying to defend them from being called thieves, it seems you've already been indoctrinated by the systemic manipulation without even realizing it.

Pirate: a person who robs or commits illegal violence at sea or on the shores of the sea.

Thief: a person who steals, especially secretly or without open force; one guilty of theft or larceny.

Rob: to take something from (someone) by unlawful force or threat of violence; steal from.

So we can see from this that a pirate is a thief at sea or on the shores of the sea. Pirates have been labelled as thieves since the middle ages. That's why people who steal/fraudulently obtain/infringe on the internet are characterized as pirates. By labeling these users' actions as piracy even when trying to defend them from being called thieves, it seems you've already been indoctrinated by the systemic manipulation without even realizing it.

For the last few years, I've been using Android tablets ... I started out with a Motorola Xoom

How can you have been using something "for the last few years" when it's been out less than 2?

I'd personally consider 1 year and 10 months to be a "few years", and apparently so would merrian-webster, reference.com, and oxford. Even if "few" required it to be 2 (which is does not), I'd still consider that close enough to 2 to not get your panties in a bunch over it.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/light+bulb?s=t
"light bulb, noun: An electric light."

So I guess it depends on your definition. And even if you require it to be glass, contain a gas, and a filament, then a fluorescent lamp is still a bulb. I guess my LED ones don't quite fit that, though.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impact

Refer to definitions 9 and 11 as well as the usage note at the end of the entry. I apologize but the language has changed without your consent.

Your hands will fracture, break, bend, and sometimes emulsify... Especially the forefinger middle knuckle and the top pinky knuckle = 'the boxer break.' Over and over.

I thought maybe there was a definition of "emulsify" that I wasn't aware of. Doesn't seem like it? Unless some really funky stuff is going on when you're boxing.

"Defence" is perfectly acceptable.

Is that so?

I find it difficult to believe that you've not encountered any of the following:

1) At least one major dictionary supporting my definition
2) Literature over thousands of years in which the definition, obviously in various languages, has been disputed. Somehow I don't think you're resolving that debate in a pseudonymous Slashdot post

Well, a quick google search gives lots of result ( http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic , http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic , http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic and so on) with descriptions like the following:

a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic

a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

Perhaps I have just misunderstood something, but to me those definitions do support my view of what agnosticism is. If I am incorrect then I do not know the proper definition for a person who takes no stance on the existence of gods or such beings.

So an Slashdot commenter thinks Iran is a neighbor of Israel? Your post should be scored interesting or funny.

2. a person or thing that is near another.

Neighbor is a fairly nebulous term. I suppose it's relative too. For someone living in Jordan, no, they would probably not consider them to be neighbors with each other(Iran and Israel). However someone in Ohio may consider them to be. Just as the same person in Jordan may consider Ohio and Illinois regional neighbors.

Idealists are those who are willing to sacrifice themselves for an idea. This would be perfectly fine if they weren't so often willing to take those around them with them for the ride.

You keep using that word.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/idealist?s=t
Idealist:
1. a person who cherishes or pursues high or noble principles, purposes, goals, etc. Synonyms: optimist, perfectionist, reformer, visionary, utopianist. Antonyms: pragmatist, skeptic, cynic.
2. a visionary or impractical person. Synonyms: romantic, romanticist, dreamer, stargazer. Antonyms: realist, materialist.
3. a person who represents things as they might or should be rather than as they are: My friend is an idealist, who somehow thinks that we always agree.
4. a writer or artist who treats subjects imaginatively.
5. a person who accepts the doctrines of philosophical idealism, as by representing things in an ideal form, or as they might or should be rather than as they are.

Welcome to the web , a medium based on hyperlinks

Fixed !

Welcome to the web , a medium based on hyperlinks

Fixed !

Welcome to the web , a medium based on hyperlinks

Fixed !

Welcome to the web , a medium based on hyperlinks

Fixed !

Welcome to the web , a medium based on hyperlinks

Fixed !

Welcome to the web , a medium based on hyperlinks

Fixed !

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

I'm not sure if you've fallen victim to the syndrome described in my sig or not. The word is 'precedent', not 'president'.

Lots of civilizations do it. Thus, it must be civilized

Sorry, didn't realize English wasn't your first language. Let me help you out -

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilized

civilized
civ-i-lized

[siv-uh-lahyzd]

adjective

1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; well-bred; refined.
3. of or pertaining to civilized people.

Wow. What amazing ignorance. The United States of America is called America. See the post you are replying to if you need an example of it in a sentence. If you need to see a dictionary to believe something is true: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/america

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compromise?s=t

Then you don't have a constitution

Except we do have a constitution. What we don't have is a Constitution. At least, according to dictionary.com's definitions:

"3. the fundamental political principles on which a state is governed, esp when considered as embodying the rights of the subjects of that state"

"4. ( often capital ) (in certain countries, esp Australia and the US) a statute embodying such principles."

So there are different meanings; one refers to the principles, the other refers to a document that lists those principles. The UK is governed through the principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty (perhaps with a healthy dose of respect for the Rule of Law and Human Rights thrown in, but perhaps not if you ask the current Government). But this isn't written down in one single document - it is reflected throughout hundreds of years of Acts of Parliaments and judgments.

So succession = racism? Does the OP work for MSNBC and Chris "Tingles" Matthews?

Probably not. English much? succession

Someone said it earlier, racism is defined by using power to cause harm.

No it isn't.

Propaganda isn't information.

Yes, it is.
propaganda[prop-uh-gan-duh] noun
1. information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/propaganda

So does the Eastern mystical woo you're selling.

Just a quick note: the Christian tradition also has a history of meditation, although they tend to call it prayer. But who would "pray" as in sending a little message to God for several hours? I think it's meditations of the same sort as in India, but perhaps less formalized. I am told the pre-Christian indigenous religions of Europe had something similar as well.

Is this related to the usage of "woo" you used above?

to seek to persuade (a person, group, etc.), as to do something; solicit; importune. Synonyms: petition, sue, address, entreat; butter up.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/woo

Atheists believe that there is no god.

Entirely incorrect. Atheists are those without a belief in a god or gods. It's not an assertive position. Theism is the assertive position; an atheist is any person not taking that position - the 'a' in atheism literally means "without"; "theism" is belief in a god or gods.

Entirely incorrect, eh? That's bold talk from a one-eyed fat man.

You posit that lack of belief in a god or gods does not imply disbelief in the existence of same.

Au contraire. A lack of belief (confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof) in something (god, the tooth fairy, whatever) necessarily implies belief in the the lack of that thing.

Let's try a little experiment:
belief == confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
Lack of belief == a lack of confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof >/p>

One who lacks confidence in the existence of god == atheist.

Thanks for playing. I sure hope you're an ESL person.

"[citation needed]"

right now I know you're just a troll.
nice little political bit too.

it's so offensive to compare the army screwing up over a massive fuckup/abuse then shitlisting the guy who tried to follow the proper chain.

he ignores the chain of command and sent letters to every congressman, who with only a few exceptions ignored it too until they couldn't any more.

human rights abuses happen in the army. if you try to follow the proper chain your career is over because you're then known as the guy who fucked over his workmates and CO's.

show me someone in the army who followed the proper procedure over a major human rights abuse who's career didn't end shortly afterwards.

Stop feeding the troll dude. He/She/It banters the word "reasonable" then goes for the ad homenium response. Reading through his posts I'm already where I'm ignoring AC now.

I start with the definition of the word reasonable - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reasonable

Reasonable people don't just follow the chain of command. Illegal instructions ARE supposed to be disobeyed.
Reasonable people don't just follow orders. They should first think about what they are being instructed to do before doing whatever it is.
Reasonable people ASK questions especially if it doesn't feel right.

Reasonable people. I don't see anything reasonable about belittling people (I call it what it is. Being a bully).

And the AC's comment about Congress. Reasonable people believe Congress is a joke considering their historic low approval rating. And the UN? Don't get me started :-)

Screw the french fries, they're Belgian !

I have always wondered how the Belgians felt about our labeling their dish as "French fries"? If I was Belgian I kind of think that would annoy me.

The "French" part comes the type of cut of the potato. French cut: sliced lengthwise into long, thin strips.

* straw man, strawman (a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted)

* straw man: a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument: The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man.

* A straw man, also known in the UK as an Aunt Sally,[1][2] is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[3] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

You were attacking a superficially similar yet unequivalent comment that I didn't make, creating the illusion of a successful refutation. Remeber this the next time you hear the term "straw man".

The word exists and is in use.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amerindian
"a specialist word, esp in linguistics and anthropology, for American Indian"

http://www.le-dictionnaire.com/definition.php?mot=Amerindien
"relatif aux Indiens d'Amérique"

2 580 000 results for Amerindian (English)
1 330 000 results for Amerindiens (French)
957 000 results for Amerindi (Italian)
881 000 results for Amerindios (Spanish / Portuguese)

> Catholic church trying to find heretics among their own priests

That is not surprising when you realize the word "heretic" and "heresy" comes from the Greek "choice", and Latin "school of thought".

Along with the fact that the Catholic church banned bibles at one time so people couldn't read or study them for _themselves_

COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.
Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heretic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heresy

> Catholic church trying to find heretics among their own priests

That is not surprising when you realize the word "heretic" and "heresy" comes from the Greek "choice", and Latin "school of thought".

Along with the fact that the Catholic church banned bibles at one time so people couldn't read or study them for _themselves_

COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.
Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heretic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heresy

You mean "scrutinize the inscrutable".

Inscrutable has nothing to do with screwing, it means "unable to examine" / "unknowable", or "difficult to understand", or "unable to be seen".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inscrutable

Scrutinize, on the other hand means to investigate carefully, or to examine in detail.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scrutinize

You mean "scrutinize the inscrutable".

Inscrutable has nothing to do with screwing, it means "unable to examine" / "unknowable", or "difficult to understand", or "unable to be seen".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inscrutable

Scrutinize, on the other hand means to investigate carefully, or to examine in detail.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scrutinize

• soteriology
• eschatology
• syncretized
• Scholasticism

I made it easy for you to use this thing called a dictionary...clicky clicky.