Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; yet for some reason it is popular to completely misunderstand it and use it as an argument. When you claim something is a "slippery slope" so we should stop the 1st steps from happening because it'll slip down into the extremes--- you are literally invoking the NAME of the fallacy while you are also committing the fallacy!!!
I can't even think of a word to describe such "reasoning"-- its like out of the mouth of some stupid fictional character trying to be funny (but obviously something else since apparently most wouldn't get the slippery slope joke.)
Sad that the fallacy itself has become a popular label for advocating the use of it in arguments.
Sure, one can characterize the opposition to claim they want to progressively go to some extreme and they quite possibly intend to do so; however, logically each step is separate and not connected to the other steps without a valid linking argument. (sadly, slippery slope is used to link them all in 1 move despite its purpose is to say that move is illegal.)
"Slippery slope" might be a "logical fallacy," but that is how things work in the real world. That's how change happens in the law.
If a judge who desires a certain result faces a smooth logical wall, he's not going to try to make up law on his own. But if there is one logical 'hook' in there, it gives him an opportunity to make a little change and to add a new 'hook' into the wall. Pretty soon there are enough 'logical' 'hooks' in the wall so that anybody can climb over the once smooth wall.
Not just prosecutors, though. It's about whether we are going to spend our tax money to support civil litigation.
In other words can the virtual victim sue the virtual thief for real damages that can be enforced by real sheriffs in the real world. All that stuff costs money too.
I agree. Contracts are key to the definition of property rights in a virtual world.
Assume that a virtual world contract imposed a duty of honesty and fair dealing among the virtual world's occupants. Assume that virtual items can be purchased with real money. Then, lets assume that somebody cheats.
Are we going to devote our tax dollars to litigation over a disupte over whether a person wrongfully put a spell on another player's avatar, thereby causing that other player damage?
So I'm playing an FPS and I have an average sniper rifle. I then (virtually) knife my teammate and take his above-average sniper rifle.
Have I just stolen from my teammate? Should our tax money be spent to fund my prosecution for a crime? Should our tax money be spent to enable his lawsuit against me? What remedies do my "property rights" afford me in the law?
Property isn't really property without an enforcement right connected to it.
It is about working with an individual person in a way that teaches that person how to individually learn and solve problems. It is also about teaching that individual how to work with other people to cooperatively learn and solve problems.
In my elementary school gym class there was a rope hung from the rafters and the gym teacher told the kids to try to climb it. Some kids could and they got verbal reward. Other kids couldn't, and they got negative feedback (especially from the other students). All that's okay and normal. But what pisses me off now--something I didn't realize until long after--is how that lazy shit gym teacher responded to that experience. What did that fuck do? Nothing! What should he have done? He should have worked with each individual kid to train that kid so that the kid could climb the rope--even a little bit. He should have trained the strong kids to climb the rope faster. He should have taught the kids how to train themselves to get stronger. At least he should have tried. But he was worthless.
When you've got great teachers, give them room. When you've got shit teachers, impose doctrine upon them from above.
Mistakes were made by my predecessor. They were unfortunate, but we have to deal with them now. There is no point in dwelling in the past. Let's get on with the future. We've already seen the worst of it. There's no point in overregulating emissions anymore. Let the coal fires burn, baby!
People are foolish if they think corporations will rule us if we abandon our government. Corporations can't even rule themselves.
Corporations would devolve into cartels and trusts and monopolies and those organizations would pick governments that suited them. Like the railroads did in the second half of the 19th century.
dent loan debt is nondischargeable in bankruptcy unless the debtor can meet a very high burden of proving hardship.
It's no wonder that lenders lend insane amounts, when they can hound their borrowers for years and years.
No way is this in the long term interest of business, but since when has business ever cared about the long term. They buy their congressmen and this is what they get.
Same thing for the goddamn mortgage industry. Banks get super-protection for their residential mortgages in bankruptcy, so they can write stupid mortgages without fear that the mortgage will be modified in a Chapter 13. This is a contributor to all the stupid loans.
Then business sells us on the idea that it's all the debtor's fault. That's the stupidest thing of all. Sure it's the debtor's fault. When the moron takes the stupid home loan or the stupid mortgage, he has only himself to blame. But business interests want us to think: Fuck him. He can sort his own sorry shit out. And we're morons if we agree with that. If our stupid ass neighbor goes down with a bad mortgage--our property values suffer, our banks suffer, and we all suffer. We're all interdependent. Looking out for other people is looking out for ourselves. The frontier ethic doesn't work anymore when we're jammed together in cities.
Enough of a rant. Now I'll get flamed by the small government people who would rather be governed by banks than by elected representatives.
When we can send an unmanned pod to Mars or Venus that will self-sufficiently create shelter, food, and the resources for continued expansion--then we will be ready.
The emails were private. They were unlawfully seized. The DA takes those private, unlawfully seized emails and compounds the wrong by commenting upon them in the media in a derogatory way.
He has absolute immunity for being a prosecutor, but he has no immunity for making stupid-ass statements based on illegally obtained information.
This is an easy section 1983 case, albeit for limited damages. This stupid DA just cost his municipality a few thousand dollars.
Kids are not encouraged to maximize their potential. They are encouraged to respond to the bell (like in a factory) and to process the learning work in synchronization with the others (like in a factory).
If you have the credit union opportunity and can get away from BoA, you should consider doing it. They rip you off in fees. Price compare. It isn't hard to see the difference and changing a bank account isn't that difficult. You'll thank yourself in the long run.
Good idea not to keep all the eggs in one basket, not a good idea to keep 7/10 of them in 1 basket either when it comes to a fundamental that keeps our technology spiraling forward.
We should definitely not keep all of our computing eggs in one basket, lest the fate of Ringworld become ours.
As I see it, the US could afford the current high level of regulation as a result of the fruits of the Guilded Age. Conversely, we'll be lucky to slide back into the Guilded Age as a result of our overly regulated age. Exaggerating the ills of the Guilded Age doesn't make modern US workers any more valuable or desired.
This statement is intellectually dishonest. The GILDED age (not Guilded) occurred around the turn of the Century. The regulation that this poster talks about arose after the GREAT DEPRESSION.
The Great Depression followed the excesses of the Gilded Age.
Republican trickle-down economics doesn't trickle down water.
Slashdot Mirror
You're describing inflation.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy; yet for some reason it is popular to completely misunderstand it and use it as an argument. When you claim something is a "slippery slope" so we should stop the 1st steps from happening because it'll slip down into the extremes--- you are literally invoking the NAME of the fallacy while you are also committing the fallacy!!!
I can't even think of a word to describe such "reasoning"-- its like out of the mouth of some stupid fictional character trying to be funny (but obviously something else since apparently most wouldn't get the slippery slope joke.)
Sad that the fallacy itself has become a popular label for advocating the use of it in arguments.
Sure, one can characterize the opposition to claim they want to progressively go to some extreme and they quite possibly intend to do so; however, logically each step is separate and not connected to the other steps without a valid linking argument. (sadly, slippery slope is used to link them all in 1 move despite its purpose is to say that move is illegal.)
Not just prosecutors, though. It's about whether we are going to spend our tax money to support civil litigation.
In other words can the virtual victim sue the virtual thief for real damages that can be enforced by real sheriffs in the real world. All that stuff costs money too.
I agree. Contracts are key to the definition of property rights in a virtual world.
Assume that a virtual world contract imposed a duty of honesty and fair dealing among the virtual world's occupants. Assume that virtual items can be purchased with real money. Then, lets assume that somebody cheats.
Are we going to devote our tax dollars to litigation over a disupte over whether a person wrongfully put a spell on another player's avatar, thereby causing that other player damage?
Of course I'm trying to be difficult. The problem is difficult.
You raised the issue. Now tell me how you would define what is part of a computer game and what is not?
It is weird. What is stopping Wikileaks from publishing? All it takes is an Internet connection somewhere.
This isn't about principle or money. It's about Assange fighting for the Wikileaks brand name.
So I'm playing an FPS and I have an average sniper rifle. I then (virtually) knife my teammate and take his above-average sniper rifle.
Have I just stolen from my teammate? Should our tax money be spent to fund my prosecution for a crime? Should our tax money be spent to enable his lawsuit against me? What remedies do my "property rights" afford me in the law?
Property isn't really property without an enforcement right connected to it.
If the government wins on this one, they'll get support for making the same arguments about filming on the public highways or public sidewalks.
It is about working with an individual person in a way that teaches that person how to individually learn and solve problems. It is also about teaching that individual how to work with other people to cooperatively learn and solve problems.
In my elementary school gym class there was a rope hung from the rafters and the gym teacher told the kids to try to climb it. Some kids could and they got verbal reward. Other kids couldn't, and they got negative feedback (especially from the other students). All that's okay and normal. But what pisses me off now--something I didn't realize until long after--is how that lazy shit gym teacher responded to that experience. What did that fuck do? Nothing! What should he have done? He should have worked with each individual kid to train that kid so that the kid could climb the rope--even a little bit. He should have trained the strong kids to climb the rope faster. He should have taught the kids how to train themselves to get stronger. At least he should have tried. But he was worthless.
When you've got great teachers, give them room. When you've got shit teachers, impose doctrine upon them from above.
Enough venting for now.
Don't forget step 5:
Mistakes were made by my predecessor. They were unfortunate, but we have to deal with them now. There is no point in dwelling in the past. Let's get on with the future. We've already seen the worst of it. There's no point in overregulating emissions anymore. Let the coal fires burn, baby!
People are foolish if they think corporations will rule us if we abandon our government. Corporations can't even rule themselves.
Corporations would devolve into cartels and trusts and monopolies and those organizations would pick governments that suited them. Like the railroads did in the second half of the 19th century.
Where does it go from there? Revolution.
When we start seeing effective and socially acceptable population management . . . .
dent loan debt is nondischargeable in bankruptcy unless the debtor can meet a very high burden of proving hardship.
It's no wonder that lenders lend insane amounts, when they can hound their borrowers for years and years.
No way is this in the long term interest of business, but since when has business ever cared about the long term. They buy their congressmen and this is what they get.
Same thing for the goddamn mortgage industry. Banks get super-protection for their residential mortgages in bankruptcy, so they can write stupid mortgages without fear that the mortgage will be modified in a Chapter 13. This is a contributor to all the stupid loans.
Then business sells us on the idea that it's all the debtor's fault. That's the stupidest thing of all. Sure it's the debtor's fault. When the moron takes the stupid home loan or the stupid mortgage, he has only himself to blame. But business interests want us to think: Fuck him. He can sort his own sorry shit out. And we're morons if we agree with that. If our stupid ass neighbor goes down with a bad mortgage--our property values suffer, our banks suffer, and we all suffer. We're all interdependent. Looking out for other people is looking out for ourselves. The frontier ethic doesn't work anymore when we're jammed together in cities.
Enough of a rant. Now I'll get flamed by the small government people who would rather be governed by banks than by elected representatives.
That is a really cool idea. If you can't bring the mountain to Mohammed, bring Mohammed to the mountain!
When we can send an unmanned pod to Mars or Venus that will self-sufficiently create shelter, food, and the resources for continued expansion--then we will be ready.
Until then, we're just space tourists.
Why can't a group of people just derive the same information from different (public domain) sources?
Perhaps you'd be better off working on a better gaming system.
Perhaps you'd be better off regulating those unlimited greedheads on Wall Street!
The emails were private. They were unlawfully seized. The DA takes those private, unlawfully seized emails and compounds the wrong by commenting upon them in the media in a derogatory way.
He has absolute immunity for being a prosecutor, but he has no immunity for making stupid-ass statements based on illegally obtained information.
This is an easy section 1983 case, albeit for limited damages. This stupid DA just cost his municipality a few thousand dollars.
That is one best excuses for not coming to court that I have ever heard!
Redundancy.
Stock bears no relationship to ownership of the company when the company can give stock to employees in the future.
Wall Street has rigged the game.
Kids are not encouraged to maximize their potential. They are encouraged to respond to the bell (like in a factory) and to process the learning work in synchronization with the others (like in a factory).
If you have the credit union opportunity and can get away from BoA, you should consider doing it. They rip you off in fees. Price compare. It isn't hard to see the difference and changing a bank account isn't that difficult. You'll thank yourself in the long run.
The only way they hear you is if you leave.
We should definitely not keep all of our computing eggs in one basket, lest the fate of Ringworld become ours.
This statement is intellectually dishonest. The GILDED age (not Guilded) occurred around the turn of the Century. The regulation that this poster talks about arose after the GREAT DEPRESSION.
The Great Depression followed the excesses of the Gilded Age.
Republican trickle-down economics doesn't trickle down water.