No, no it's not. Had you said "speciesist" or some such, maybe I'd have listened. But when people are so intellectually lazy that they group every bit of so-called discrimination they see into racism, I engage in my own bit of laziness and refuse to keep reading.
"Also, please look up the definition of "straw man", you seem to be misusing it."
Ok let's check.
"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."
Hmm, looks like exactly what you did. EXACTLY what you did. If you think otherwise, then you need to brush up on the definition yourself. You used a classic straw man
"I was responding to the vague implication..." RIGHT THERE!!!. There it is. No one made that argument, you conjured it up, then stumped against it.
"It isn't nebulous at all." "International law is a mesh of treaties, agreements, and voluntary organizations,"
Those two statements directly contradict one another. If you were aware of the "mesh" of which you speak, you'd realize "nebulous" is an understatement.
First, online gambling was not made illegal by the UIGEA. It specifically outlines what is being made illegal, and that is the funding of online gambling through banking institutions. This is effectively a ban, but no one will be prosecuted for playing.01/.02 PLO at Pstars. UIGEA is really only a problem for banks and funding providers, like Neteller and Firepay.
Second, the UIGEA allows for online gambling. Specifically, it allows states where gambling is legal to establish online gaming sites as long as the player pools are totally within that state. So UIGEA doesn't outlaw online gambling at all, just online gambling between states.
Also unlike most people, he can actually back up what he thinks with vast amounts of cash, allowing him to buy as much face time as he needs.
Fixed that for you.
Cuban says what he says and does what he does because he has "fuck you" money. Otherwise he'd just be another guy ranting that no one gave a flip about.
You have continually attempted to redefine the argument when I have refuted you.
If you are incapable of accurately representing your position, that is your fault not mine. If you are incapable of making a coherent point without resorting to semantic trickery, that's your problem not mine.
In every single case I have refuted your argument with facts, yet you continue to accuse me of moving the goalposts.
Yet it is you who are redefining words to suit your meaning, ignoring carefully constructed points when they refute you, and being dishonest in your debating.
You have done nothing more than show what I initially suspected, that you are simply not capable of a rational discussion with someone. You have yet to prove anything beyond your ability to ignore facts when they are inconvenient, and that you'll lie when it suits you.
I couldn't care less who has the last word in this discussion. I have had the good words, the true words, the important words. That they are also the last means little to nothing to me.
In the future, should you wish to share your opinion, take this to heart. Admitting you're wrong is not a failing, it's a strength. Had you done so when I showed you you were wrong, instead of smarmy attempts to twist the discussion by redefining common terms to mean something only you agree with, you wouldn't appear as foolish as you do now.
As an aside, I read almost none of your post. Your previous attempts made it clear it would be more of the same, that being incoherent nonsense from an individual far too impressed with themselves, and having no inherent value whatsoever.
Then why would you say "I see your point"? Were you lying? Or are you lying now?
"The original poster said: "Words are by their nature are harmless." Please parse me the difference. "
Words are collections of symbols with no inherent meaning. Let's assume you don't speak German, and I call you an "esel". That word has no meaning to you currently. Then you look it up at a German/English dictionary, and find it means "donkey". Later you ask your native German friend, and he tells you it means "a profoundly ignorant individual". The word NEVER changed. So what did change that causes you to be offended now? That's what he meant.
"You are moving the goalposts. You said, "There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat." I'm sorry, but that's not part of the generally accepted definition of the word "threat". Just stating intent is enough, and it is generally understood that even indirect statements of the form "I hope you " can be construed as threats even if they do not explicitly state intent, because such statements are provable predictors to future harm."
No, that's wrong. At this point you're trying to win an argument and discounting fact. "I hope someone kicks your ass" is not prosecutable. "I'm going to kick your ass" is. One is a crime, the other is nothing but a statement. It is not even a threat, as it does not meet any definition of the word except yours, which is demonstrably wrong. A threat requires a declaration of intent as you said, but "hoping" doesn't meet that standard, and claiming it does like you did is at best disingenuous. You accuse me of moving the goalposts, then attempt to redefine the word to suit your meaning. In any case, it's wrong both legally and by the "generally accepted definition" of the word. You could not be more wrong about this point.
"The previous poster and yourself seem to me to believe that only the possibility of imminent physical harm is important to the credibility or impact of a threat"
"Of course I take your point, but I think my meaning was plain. Straw man."
Which is it, do I have a point or is it a straw man? The answer is that I do have a point, and it most certainly IS NOT a straw man. When you're discussing the impact of words, you don't get to dismiss the difference between "threat" and "threat of imminent violence".
"Threats are made of words. The poster said that words can't hurt you"
No, the poster most certainly DID NOT. Again, if you're going to debate the strength of words to influence people, you don't get to paraphrase what you thought was said.
"No, an empty threat is still a threat."
NO, it's an EMPTY threat. It has that qualifier for a reason. If you're going to debate the ability of words to inflict harm, you don't get to dismiss some of the words when they're inconvenient.
"Finally, if you're arguing that Ms Sierra's harassers did not intend to denigrate or intimidate her, that's clearly a non-starter."
Now THAT is a straw man. Nowhere, in any of my post, is there anything that could remotely be considered as an argument of such.
"You can argue about intent but at some point a line was crossed and it is quite clear Ms. Sierra now feels very uncomfortable"
It's not clear to me at all. What's clear to me is that Ms. Sierra CLAIMS she feels very uncomfortable, which is a far cry from proving to me that she actually is uncomfortable. Her actions in this situation leave me with my own feelings, generally that she's trying to play us.
"and society as a whole expects individuals not to harass or threaten others."
No. This statement is at best a half truth, and needs extensive qualification. For example "If you do not come to work tomorrow, you will not have a job." Threat. Perfectly acceptable. "If you don't get back to work and stop horsing around, I'll be standing in your office watching you finish this proposal" Threat AND harassment. Perfectly acceptable. The idea you're trying to engender, that of some kind of absolute type of harassment or threat, doesn't exist. I suspect you haven't considered this though.
"Wrong again. Threats are intended to intimidate"
No buddy you're wrong. Words are not threats, yet you equate the two. There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat. The distinction is one that I suspect you have not sufficiently considered. Hoping something happens to someone is not a threat by any definition. You may not like that, but it doesn't matter.
"So that leaves $9000 to cover everything else, attorney, booking fee (believe it or not some counties make you pay for being arrested even if you're innocent), misc court fees (for filing petitions to clear your name) etc."
Sure. And 9500 (not 9000) is still way too high, like well outside the realm of what's possible for that list of costs too high. You're talking attorney + a few hundred dollars. It still doesn't add up.
"If he had a bail, he probably had a bail hearing. If he had a hearing, he probably had a lawyer."
Possibly, and possibly. In neither case is it a certainty. More importantly, 14000 is astoundingly high for a bail hearing. In neither case was it a guarantee. Bail is often (very often) set without the presence of an attorney, so your assumptions are at best, possible, and more likely, wrong.
And as I said, even if he did have an attorney, 14000 is a ridiculously unrealistic sum for attending a bail hearing.
"Shinnick was finally released around 11:30 p.m., after his father paid $4,500 of $45,000 in bail. Within 24 hours, the district attorney's office dropped all charges against Shinnick.
In July, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled that Shinnick was innocent by "findings of fact" -- a decision that essentially erases all record of the case.
But by this time, Shinnick said, he'd spent about $14,000 clearing his name. He wanted that money back and he felt BofA should pay it. "
The charges were dropped, but he went to court anyway? Huh? And the money he spent defending himself from what? Charges that were dropped already?
What's missing here? Something just doesn't add up.
"If it's really "it's okay if Clinton does it, but not Bush!" then why didn't anyone complain then? Maybe because what's happening now isn't the same thing?"
Not to take sides, but this logic is... iffy. If it wasn't wrong then, then it wasn't wrong then. Why would anyone complain about something that wasn't wrong then?
As to whether Bush did the same thing, or something different and less acceptable, I have to say it was different, but I have no real idea if it was wrong because I don't particularly trust the news sources that seem to be covering it.
And how many of those armies were composed of US citizens? Like it or not, the US volunteer army isn't interchangeable with other armies.
So yours is an ignorant, incorrect argument.
In the future when you're not capable of making a reasonable contribution, try to avoid calling others' arguments "meaningless". You sound silly when you do so.
"Maybe in the 18th century, but today I'd like to see any of that stand up to US Armed Forces tanks, snipers, bombs, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons."
Who do you think makes up the US Armed Forces? Citizens. I love when your response is given, because it displays a profound ignorance of reality. If you believe the US Armed Forces would, as a whole, wage all out war against their families, friends and neighbors, then you are beyond reasoning with.
You haven't thought about it, you're just regurgitating anti-gun propaganda.
Relevance. The idea that Hillary may compromise civil liberties exists for some people. As far as I'm aware, no one believes she can shoot electricity from her fingertips.
X10 is a joke. Our company is one of the largest home automation/lighting control integrators in the state, and we wouldn't use X10 if they gave it to us.
These are the big guys, the ones the pros (us) use.
I'll be happy to, as soon as you tell me what that has to do with anything.
Stop guy, seriously. Defending your point is fine, but you're making up objections out of thin air that are totally unrelated to the article or the discussion.
Why does it seem like so many neat-freaks are responding with their reasons why neatness is better as a rule, and why this article is bunk, but the slobbos tend to be responding with "clutter works for me because..." with the focus being on how they as individuals benefit? Why do the neat freaks seem to feel the need to impose their idea of "order" on everyone?
Slashdot Mirror
"The name's racist."
No, no it's not. Had you said "speciesist" or some such, maybe I'd have listened. But when people are so intellectually lazy that they group every bit of so-called discrimination they see into racism, I engage in my own bit of laziness and refuse to keep reading.
"Also, please look up the definition of "straw man", you seem to be misusing it."
Ok let's check.
"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."
Hmm, looks like exactly what you did. EXACTLY what you did. If you think otherwise, then you need to brush up on the definition yourself. You used a classic straw man
"I was responding to the vague implication..." RIGHT THERE!!!. There it is. No one made that argument, you conjured it up, then stumped against it.
Also
"respond."
Yeah, you'll do that for sure
"I'd be happy to listen.."
Yeah, um, not so much.
Except that everything you just assumed was conjured up by you out of nowhere as a straw man against which to stump about your views.
"It isn't nebulous at all." "International law is a mesh of treaties, agreements, and voluntary organizations,"
Those two statements directly contradict one another. If you were aware of the "mesh" of which you speak, you'd realize "nebulous" is an understatement.
First, online gambling was not made illegal by the UIGEA. It specifically outlines what is being made illegal, and that is the funding of online gambling through banking institutions. This is effectively a ban, but no one will be prosecuted for playing .01/.02 PLO at Pstars. UIGEA is really only a problem for banks and funding providers, like Neteller and Firepay.
Second, the UIGEA allows for online gambling. Specifically, it allows states where gambling is legal to establish online gaming sites as long as the player pools are totally within that state. So UIGEA doesn't outlaw online gambling at all, just online gambling between states.
Also unlike most people, he can actually back up what he thinks with vast amounts of cash, allowing him to buy as much face time as he needs.
Fixed that for you.
Cuban says what he says and does what he does because he has "fuck you" money. Otherwise he'd just be another guy ranting that no one gave a flip about.
"I've been around americans, and some of my best friends are americans..."
That part made me chuckle.
I have only one thing left to say to you.
You have continually attempted to redefine the argument when I have refuted you.
If you are incapable of accurately representing your position, that is your fault not mine. If you are incapable of making a coherent point without resorting to semantic trickery, that's your problem not mine.
In every single case I have refuted your argument with facts, yet you continue to accuse me of moving the goalposts.
Yet it is you who are redefining words to suit your meaning, ignoring carefully constructed points when they refute you, and being dishonest in your debating.
You have done nothing more than show what I initially suspected, that you are simply not capable of a rational discussion with someone. You have yet to prove anything beyond your ability to ignore facts when they are inconvenient, and that you'll lie when it suits you.
I couldn't care less who has the last word in this discussion. I have had the good words, the true words, the important words. That they are also the last means little to nothing to me.
In the future, should you wish to share your opinion, take this to heart. Admitting you're wrong is not a failing, it's a strength. Had you done so when I showed you you were wrong, instead of smarmy attempts to twist the discussion by redefining common terms to mean something only you agree with, you wouldn't appear as foolish as you do now.
As an aside, I read almost none of your post. Your previous attempts made it clear it would be more of the same, that being incoherent nonsense from an individual far too impressed with themselves, and having no inherent value whatsoever.
"Not really."
Then why would you say "I see your point"? Were you lying? Or are you lying now?
"The original poster said: "Words are by their nature are harmless." Please parse me the difference. "
Words are collections of symbols with no inherent meaning. Let's assume you don't speak German, and I call you an "esel". That word has no meaning to you currently. Then you look it up at a German/English dictionary, and find it means "donkey". Later you ask your native German friend, and he tells you it means "a profoundly ignorant individual". The word NEVER changed. So what did change that causes you to be offended now? That's what he meant.
"You are moving the goalposts. You said, "There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat." I'm sorry, but that's not part of the generally accepted definition of the word "threat". Just stating intent is enough, and it is generally understood that even indirect statements of the form "I hope you " can be construed as threats even if they do not explicitly state intent, because such statements are provable predictors to future harm."
No, that's wrong. At this point you're trying to win an argument and discounting fact. "I hope someone kicks your ass" is not prosecutable. "I'm going to kick your ass" is. One is a crime, the other is nothing but a statement. It is not even a threat, as it does not meet any definition of the word except yours, which is demonstrably wrong. A threat requires a declaration of intent as you said, but "hoping" doesn't meet that standard, and claiming it does like you did is at best disingenuous. You accuse me of moving the goalposts, then attempt to redefine the word to suit your meaning. In any case, it's wrong both legally and by the "generally accepted definition" of the word. You could not be more wrong about this point.
"The previous poster and yourself seem to me to believe that only the possibility of imminent physical harm is important to the credibility or impact of a threat"
No, that's a straw man. Again.
"Of course I take your point, but I think my meaning was plain. Straw man."
Which is it, do I have a point or is it a straw man? The answer is that I do have a point, and it most certainly IS NOT a straw man. When you're discussing the impact of words, you don't get to dismiss the difference between "threat" and "threat of imminent violence".
"Threats are made of words. The poster said that words can't hurt you"
No, the poster most certainly DID NOT. Again, if you're going to debate the strength of words to influence people, you don't get to paraphrase what you thought was said.
"No, an empty threat is still a threat."
NO, it's an EMPTY threat. It has that qualifier for a reason. If you're going to debate the ability of words to inflict harm, you don't get to dismiss some of the words when they're inconvenient.
"Finally, if you're arguing that Ms Sierra's harassers did not intend to denigrate or intimidate her, that's clearly a non-starter."
Now THAT is a straw man. Nowhere, in any of my post, is there anything that could remotely be considered as an argument of such.
"You can argue about intent but at some point a line was crossed and it is quite clear Ms. Sierra now feels very uncomfortable"
It's not clear to me at all. What's clear to me is that Ms. Sierra CLAIMS she feels very uncomfortable, which is a far cry from proving to me that she actually is uncomfortable. Her actions in this situation leave me with my own feelings, generally that she's trying to play us.
"and society as a whole expects individuals not to harass or threaten others."
No. This statement is at best a half truth, and needs extensive qualification. For example "If you do not come to work tomorrow, you will not have a job." Threat. Perfectly acceptable. "If you don't get back to work and stop horsing around, I'll be standing in your office watching you finish this proposal" Threat AND harassment. Perfectly acceptable. The idea you're trying to engender, that of some kind of absolute type of harassment or threat, doesn't exist. I suspect you haven't considered this though.
"Wrong again. Threats are intended to intimidate"
No buddy you're wrong. Words are not threats, yet you equate the two. There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat. The distinction is one that I suspect you have not sufficiently considered. Hoping something happens to someone is not a threat by any definition. You may not like that, but it doesn't matter.
"On the other hand, women who enjoy sex ("sluts") are ostracized and considered tainted."
You're absolutely right, now excuse me, it's time for "Sex in the City"
"So that leaves $9000 to cover everything else, attorney, booking fee (believe it or not some counties make you pay for being arrested even if you're innocent), misc court fees (for filing petitions to clear your name) etc."
Sure. And 9500 (not 9000) is still way too high, like well outside the realm of what's possible for that list of costs too high. You're talking attorney + a few hundred dollars. It still doesn't add up.
"If he had a bail, he probably had a bail hearing. If he had a hearing, he probably had a lawyer."
Possibly, and possibly. In neither case is it a certainty. More importantly, 14000 is astoundingly high for a bail hearing. In neither case was it a guarantee. Bail is often (very often) set without the presence of an attorney, so your assumptions are at best, possible, and more likely, wrong.
And as I said, even if he did have an attorney, 14000 is a ridiculously unrealistic sum for attending a bail hearing.
Did you read this part?
"Within 24 hours, the district attorney's office dropped all charges against Shinnick."
And something smells funny specifically this part
"Shinnick was finally released around 11:30 p.m., after his father paid $4,500 of $45,000 in bail. Within 24 hours, the district attorney's office dropped all charges against Shinnick.
In July, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled that Shinnick was innocent by "findings of fact" -- a decision that essentially erases all record of the case.
But by this time, Shinnick said, he'd spent about $14,000 clearing his name. He wanted that money back and he felt BofA should pay it. "
The charges were dropped, but he went to court anyway? Huh? And the money he spent defending himself from what? Charges that were dropped already?
What's missing here? Something just doesn't add up.
"If it's really "it's okay if Clinton does it, but not Bush!" then why didn't anyone complain then? Maybe because what's happening now isn't the same thing?"
Not to take sides, but this logic is... iffy. If it wasn't wrong then, then it wasn't wrong then. Why would anyone complain about something that wasn't wrong then?
As to whether Bush did the same thing, or something different and less acceptable, I have to say it was different, but I have no real idea if it was wrong because I don't particularly trust the news sources that seem to be covering it.
And how many of those armies were composed of US citizens? Like it or not, the US volunteer army isn't interchangeable with other armies.
So yours is an ignorant, incorrect argument.
In the future when you're not capable of making a reasonable contribution, try to avoid calling others' arguments "meaningless". You sound silly when you do so.
"Why would I encourage laws that will take away the weapons I already own?"
Good question. I can't speak to your motivation.
"So now that I'm clear that I'm not anti-gun,"
That doesn't disqualify you from regurgitating anti0gun propaganda. You did that, whether you're anti-gun or not.
"Maybe in the 18th century, but today I'd like to see any of that stand up to US Armed Forces tanks, snipers, bombs, chemical, biological, nuclear weapons."
Who do you think makes up the US Armed Forces? Citizens. I love when your response is given, because it displays a profound ignorance of reality. If you believe the US Armed Forces would, as a whole, wage all out war against their families, friends and neighbors, then you are beyond reasoning with.
You haven't thought about it, you're just regurgitating anti-gun propaganda.
"What is that characteristic?"
Relevance. The idea that Hillary may compromise civil liberties exists for some people. As far as I'm aware, no one believes she can shoot electricity from her fingertips.
Eating babies on the other hand... (I kid, I kid)
X10 is a joke. Our company is one of the largest home automation/lighting control integrators in the state, and we wouldn't use X10 if they gave it to us.
These are the big guys, the ones the pros (us) use.
http://www.control4.com/
http://www.lutron.com/
http://www.crestron.com/
http://www.homeauto.com/
They're quality. X10 is... not.
I'll be happy to, as soon as you tell me what that has to do with anything.
Stop guy, seriously. Defending your point is fine, but you're making up objections out of thin air that are totally unrelated to the article or the discussion.
Why does it seem like so many neat-freaks are responding with their reasons why neatness is better as a rule, and why this article is bunk, but the slobbos tend to be responding with "clutter works for me because..." with the focus being on how they as individuals benefit? Why do the neat freaks seem to feel the need to impose their idea of "order" on everyone?
"And only the military Hummers last 300K miles the commercial version doesn't even come close."
Source?
Watching someone denounce a study as inaccurate because of made up numbers, then use made up numbers makes me laugh.