That's what I was thinking before I posted that comment. I figured the emphasis should be on the science of statistics however, instead of on the law profession.
Since I don't lie, you must be wrong. Though I'll leave you with one reference at least. There's at least one scientist (that I referenced) who doesn't believe in the "defective character" explanation that people like yourself and the vast majority of the media mythologize. Usually most people only here the journalism of these issues.
Wow, just wow, I have never had my political beliefs summed up so succinctly and so badly.
Granted, there are assumptions, perhaps you don't fit the stereotype. Maybe some parts of you do...
However if you believe that anyone has the right to indiscriminately kill...
No, I'm not talking about rights, and I'm not (even) talking about indiscriminate either. You seem to be implying that you believe in the philosophy of Free Will. If you keep on tormenting a dog it will generally grow up to be vicious, not necessarily all the time, and it's similar with other species like humans. Maybe you weren't born with enough testosterone or adrenaline, maybe you are just a coward, maybe you have "normal" parents, maybe your frontal lobes are not fully developed... Or maybe, just maybe, you free-willed yourself to be physically passive towards your tormentors. Sometimes people have some amount of "normal" that they can fall back on.
Their response to Silver's accusation? 'We have a call in to our attorney on this and fully intend to take action that will vindicate us.'"
Generally, I would expect a logical course of action from an honest and transparent firm would be to hire a statistician to vindicate themselves. Lawyers don't make a reputable firm appear any less reputable.
Anyway, "center" or "center-right" conservatives (neoconservatives) aren't generally the ones who are adamantly pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-gun, and so on.
Just a quick reference to the Wikipedia (et al) shows that neoconservatives supported Ronald Reagan and his ilk.
I'm not really interested in arguing over definitions. Like most or all labels (especially of the political kind) the terms have their vagaries[1] of definition and usage. If I knew a of better term for what I describe, then I would use it.
End notes: 1. With all the attention paid to neo-conservatives in the global media today, one would think that a standard definition of the term would exist. Yet, despite their now being credited with a virtual takeover of U.S. foreign policy under President George W. Bush, a common understanding of 'neo-cons' remains elusive.
I generally don't comment on things that I don't know about. As a Loser, I've spent way too much time in the Library and on the Internet researching, studying, and analyzing political and social systems, and the psychology of the people who inhabit them. What I've noticed is that most neoconservatives don't call themselves neoconservatives but "center" or "center-right" conservatives. I don't think you understand the psychology of a neoconservative or the behavioral aspects of their beliefs systems.
If someone is narcisistic enough to kill tens of people in order to prove how mistreated they are by society, it is unlikely that this is the first antisocial thing they've done.
It is quite possible to become popular by treating people well, and the best way to have people hate you is to mistreat them. Arseholes generally do not have many friends and a lot of people without many friends are arseholes.
If you would consider killing a bunch of people to prove that you are miserable, you are a terrible person and this is why nobody else wants to be your friend, nothing about clique politics.
You parrot the attitudes that you here off the news and from your "friends". People obviously don't kill just because they are an "asshole". It's obvious from the people who take the time to actually study these things and look more deeply into the circumstances that they were actively demonized and scapegoated by people like you, and encouraged to be the way they were. Even after columbine the bullies said they did the right thing. Yes, people like you will always blame their victims.
And as for "friends", it's obvious that birds of a feather flock together. So, like I am constantly told to work slower in the factory by my peers and work faster in the factory by my boss, everybody will have something negative to say to Human Resources about me because I am incapable of playing the dishonest mind games of socialization. I am unable to lie, cheat and steal like people like you, so I will never fit in. And people like you will always physically try to intimidate me and financially make sure that I am at the bottom of the pecking order. Through your gossip and socialization skills you will make sure that I am the loser that you want me to be, because it boosts your self-esteem to have other people treated badly. You are evil, but you project your evil unto me, because I am a nice guy.
Stop blaming the victims for trying to make their life better. You neoconservatives are such hypocrites; you are pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-gun, and yet you get upset when your victims try to balance the playing field. You are narcissistic, and your response proves my point.
We usually call people who don't lie and cheat socially inept.
Yes I've been called "socially inept" as well. I've also been called a "loser", amongst other things.
There is a 'too honest' if you want to get along with your peers.
Yeah, I've noticed that people who don't back-stab, peer pressure each other to demonize scape goats to promote social cohesion often end up being demonized themselves when they end up on the news (like Columbine and Virgina tech). Too bad people spend too much time defending their own immorality instead of treating people with respect so that these massacres would not need to occur.
If everyone is doing a thing, it is not immoral, it is natural, like Pirate Bay.
I guess I'm unnatural. I suppose that's why people often say I'm crazy. Though I don't know how a psychiatrist will be able to make me lie, cheat and steal, so I never even considered going to one.
It would be more relevant if they included men in this study. I've found both sexes to be untrustworthy. Normal, socialized humans appear to have an instinct for being immoral.
I disagreed with you, then pointed out a very good reason why it's a positive thing. Sorry if you can't follow that.
I cannot "follow" that. You said;
I like our modern education system better than the feudal BS you're advocating. I also like having free and public education for all, as it helps to get people out of poverty: your system would condemn a million talented people to crap jobs based on their parents' circumstances. Not the country I want to live in.
What you said does not relate to anything I said. In fact I thought that you may have accidentally replied to the wrong person. You may want to double-check the thread.
To emphasize, I originally said;
Schools should focus on "The three Rs", Reading, wRiting, a aRithmetic, and secondarily on physical and sex education so people know how to be healthy.
After they have been taught these things and have mastered English and communication skills enough to differentiate propaganda from civics and distinguish logical fallacies from legal dogma, then they can be taught about the RIAA and copyright in a Political Science class, and not as part of a religion.
And then my next reply was;
So what should schools do with kids after they're done with 2nd grade?
If they've mastered English, Mathematics, and the physical and social science subjects after the second grade they should go to college or university and get a token degree/diploma or try to get an apprenticeship in a field that interests them.
There is obviously no coherent relationship between the ideas that I expressed and your replies. Are you trying to be ironic about the fact that I think school children should have English language skills?
I like our modern education system better than the feudal BS you're advocating. I also like having free and public education for all, as it helps to get people out of poverty: your system would condemn a million talented people to crap jobs based on their parents' circumstances. Not the country I want to live in.
Your reply doesn't make sense. You are completely incoherent.
So what should schools do with kids after they're done with 2nd grade?
If they've mastered English, Mathematics, and the physical and social science subjects after the second grade they should go to college or university and get a token degree/diploma or try to get an apprenticeship in a field that interests them.
Schools should focus on "The three Rs", Reading, wRiting, a aRithmetic, and secondarily on physical and sex education so people know how to be healthy.
After they have been taught these things and have mastered English and communication skills enough to differentiate propaganda from civics and distinguish logical fallacies from legal dogma, then they can be taught about the RIAA and copyright in a Political Science class, and not as part of a religion.
These groups even want compensation for iTunes' 30-second song samples.
Greed often destroys a good business idea. They will sell you the rope to hang them with.
It all works in their favour; the less free advertising they get, the less profits they get and the more pirating goes on (because people want to sample music before they buy it), so they can lobby for more royalties and legal penalties against people and companies who can't afford the lawyers to tell them whether a copyright law has been broken. It's all very bourgeoisie.
It's yet another example that people and companies that have successful and winning ideas are not rewarded for their hard work. If the person is scape goated as being politically incorrect then her efforts will be completely ignored and the winners will be the lazy, incompetent and mediocre. This is the reason why the U.S. economy is so bad. They reward corrupt companies and rescind rewards of companies that do a good job.
If this company was involved in banking I'm sure they would have received an award, or maybe even just government money to ensure they survive and compete against those other companies that are honest and competent.
but the loners go for attacks like bundling kids off the streat into the back of vans
I've read this statistic more than once that rapists (whether their interest is children or not, tend to be social. It certainly fits in with the casual observations that I've made from news stories.) Some of the most heinous and sadistic killers often have a wife and kids and are pillars of their community; the type of people who would easily get jobs as police officers, day care workers, etc. Though it's odd, I never tend to trust people who smile a lot because I've always found these people to be dishonest and unreliable, but they're the same people who tend to get promoted into management or supervisory positions, they're also the sort of people you hear about on the news, "He was a well respected family man..." (if they do ever get caught and exposed for what they are).
And if eBay wants to continue to dominate the auction market...
That appears to be why large companies like eBay don't need to worry too much about quality (in customer service or otherwise). They'll react if and when they think they can increase their bonuses. Unfortunately there's always at least one layer of abstraction between a business practice and a balance sheet. The bean counters usually just react to spread sheet and database triggers (and all their assumptions).
These days it's best to grow your own food and barter with your neighbours. Money is for bankers.
No, people need to adapt to the technology. As technology gets better and smarter, people need to change their way of thinking and become better and smarter themselves in order to use this much more complicated technology. The Chinese had the write philosophy by sculpting the foot to fit the shoe.
Don't argue with customer service. There's a saying in the industry; "Customer service is always right". Don't argue with the people who are paid to help you. Listen to your superiors and clear your cache instead of complaining, because complainers generally tend to get hung-up on and ignored.
Has anybody out there ever seen a school janitor who wasn't a socially awkward misfit??? If they had people skills, they'd have a better job...
The custodians at various schools I attended were always some of the kindest, wisest folks around.
By "people skills" I think he meant people who aren't able, or morally liable, to sell people a bill of goods on their employment records or resumes, though I suspect "janitors" who work in schools would probably need to go through this "vetting" process as well. It's not really about "pedophilia". Britain's democratic and civil decline started before the think-of-the-children hype. If you believe this is about catching "pedophiles" then you are as dumb as the social engineers think you are.
According to the article, if you are a morally upright and responsible person then you will never be hired by those organizations legally required to screen people for "pedophilia".
On the other hand, they (seem to) value "average" and successful personality types; - People who are sycophants - People who gossip and spread rumors (i.e. people who socialize) - People who are constantly exposed to groupthink and value it as a social good - People who accept witch hunts as a normalizing part of society - People who value prejudice - People who value ignorance - People who accept peer pressure and the group as something good, and who have prejudice and malice towards people who don't value their way of thinking and behaving
So only "anti-social" people get to work with children, but pro-social people who are loners don't get to work with children. It's interesting that people who generally tend to get arrested for having sex with children also tend to be very sociable. Most loners don't hang around with people because they don't want to be influenced by evil or bullied by the socialites. It's the social people, like priests and teachers and police officers, who tend to have an interest in children. These social people will continue to get the jobs, and these social people are also the ones who gossip and rumor-monger, and so the problem will only get worse.
The sad thing is that loners generally tend to leave people alone, while social people tend to bully, date rape, stalk, groupthink, and conspire to deny people employment who are different from themselves.
I guess The Little Shop Of Horrors is out for you too.
I watched that movie without being forewarned. I also have a neurotic fear of carnivorous plants. There are too many things in this world that can kill and injure; plants, dentist drills, clowns...
Slashdot Mirror
That's what I was thinking before I posted that comment. I figured the emphasis should be on the science of statistics however, instead of on the law profession.
I really doubt it
Since I don't lie, you must be wrong. Though I'll leave you with one reference at least. There's at least one scientist (that I referenced) who doesn't believe in the "defective character" explanation that people like yourself and the vast majority of the media mythologize. Usually most people only here the journalism of these issues.
Wow, just wow, I have never had my political beliefs summed up so succinctly and so badly.
Granted, there are assumptions, perhaps you don't fit the stereotype. Maybe some parts of you do...
However if you believe that anyone has the right to indiscriminately kill...
No, I'm not talking about rights, and I'm not (even) talking about indiscriminate either. You seem to be implying that you believe in the philosophy of Free Will. If you keep on tormenting a dog it will generally grow up to be vicious, not necessarily all the time, and it's similar with other species like humans. Maybe you weren't born with enough testosterone or adrenaline, maybe you are just a coward, maybe you have "normal" parents, maybe your frontal lobes are not fully developed... Or maybe, just maybe, you free-willed yourself to be physically passive towards your tormentors. Sometimes people have some amount of "normal" that they can fall back on.
Their response to Silver's accusation? 'We have a call in to our attorney on this and fully intend to take action that will vindicate us.'"
Generally, I would expect a logical course of action from an honest and transparent firm would be to hire a statistician to vindicate themselves. Lawyers don't make a reputable firm appear any less reputable.
Anyway, "center" or "center-right" conservatives (neoconservatives) aren't generally the ones who are adamantly pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-gun, and so on.
Just a quick reference to the Wikipedia (et al) shows that neoconservatives supported Ronald Reagan and his ilk.
I'm not really interested in arguing over definitions. Like most or all labels (especially of the political kind) the terms have their vagaries[1] of definition and usage. If I knew a of better term for what I describe, then I would use it.
neoconservatives
I generally don't comment on things that I don't know about. As a Loser, I've spent way too much time in the Library and on the Internet researching, studying, and analyzing political and social systems, and the psychology of the people who inhabit them. What I've noticed is that most neoconservatives don't call themselves neoconservatives but "center" or "center-right" conservatives. I don't think you understand the psychology of a neoconservative or the behavioral aspects of their beliefs systems.
If someone is narcisistic enough to kill tens of people in order to prove how mistreated they are by society, it is unlikely that this is the first antisocial thing they've done.
It is quite possible to become popular by treating people well, and the best way to have people hate you is to mistreat them. Arseholes generally do not have many friends and a lot of people without many friends are arseholes.
If you would consider killing a bunch of people to prove that you are miserable, you are a terrible person and this is why nobody else wants to be your friend, nothing about clique politics.
You parrot the attitudes that you here off the news and from your "friends". People obviously don't kill just because they are an "asshole". It's obvious from the people who take the time to actually study these things and look more deeply into the circumstances that they were actively demonized and scapegoated by people like you, and encouraged to be the way they were. Even after columbine the bullies said they did the right thing. Yes, people like you will always blame their victims.
And as for "friends", it's obvious that birds of a feather flock together. So, like I am constantly told to work slower in the factory by my peers and work faster in the factory by my boss, everybody will have something negative to say to Human Resources about me because I am incapable of playing the dishonest mind games of socialization. I am unable to lie, cheat and steal like people like you, so I will never fit in. And people like you will always physically try to intimidate me and financially make sure that I am at the bottom of the pecking order. Through your gossip and socialization skills you will make sure that I am the loser that you want me to be, because it boosts your self-esteem to have other people treated badly. You are evil, but you project your evil unto me, because I am a nice guy.
Stop blaming the victims for trying to make their life better. You neoconservatives are such hypocrites; you are pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-gun, and yet you get upset when your victims try to balance the playing field. You are narcissistic, and your response proves my point.
We usually call people who don't lie and cheat socially inept.
Yes I've been called "socially inept" as well. I've also been called a "loser", amongst other things.
There is a 'too honest' if you want to get along with your peers.
Yeah, I've noticed that people who don't back-stab, peer pressure each other to demonize scape goats to promote social cohesion often end up being demonized themselves when they end up on the news (like Columbine and Virgina tech). Too bad people spend too much time defending their own immorality instead of treating people with respect so that these massacres would not need to occur.
If everyone is doing a thing, it is not immoral, it is natural, like Pirate Bay.
I guess I'm unnatural. I suppose that's why people often say I'm crazy. Though I don't know how a psychiatrist will be able to make me lie, cheat and steal, so I never even considered going to one.
It would be more relevant if they included men in this study. I've found both sexes to be untrustworthy. Normal, socialized humans appear to have an instinct for being immoral.
Yes, for college kids I have found these things, along with corporal punishment, to be a catalyst to the learning experience.
You said,
I disagreed with you, then pointed out a very good reason why it's a positive thing. Sorry if you can't follow that.
I cannot "follow" that. You said;
I like our modern education system better than the feudal BS you're advocating. I also like having free and public education for all, as it helps to get people out of poverty: your system would condemn a million talented people to crap jobs based on their parents' circumstances. Not the country I want to live in.
What you said does not relate to anything I said. In fact I thought that you may have accidentally replied to the wrong person. You may want to double-check the thread.
To emphasize, I originally said;
Schools should focus on "The three Rs", Reading, wRiting, a aRithmetic, and secondarily on physical and sex education so people know how to be healthy.
After they have been taught these things and have mastered English and communication skills enough to differentiate propaganda from civics and distinguish logical fallacies from legal dogma, then they can be taught about the RIAA and copyright in a Political Science class, and not as part of a religion.
And then my next reply was;
There is obviously no coherent relationship between the ideas that I expressed and your replies. Are you trying to be ironic about the fact that I think school children should have English language skills?
I like our modern education system better than the feudal BS you're advocating. I also like having free and public education for all, as it helps to get people out of poverty: your system would condemn a million talented people to crap jobs based on their parents' circumstances. Not the country I want to live in.
Your reply doesn't make sense. You are completely incoherent.
So what should schools do with kids after they're done with 2nd grade?
If they've mastered English, Mathematics, and the physical and social science subjects after the second grade they should go to college or university and get a token degree/diploma or try to get an apprenticeship in a field that interests them.
Schools should focus on "The three Rs", Reading, wRiting, a aRithmetic, and secondarily on physical and sex education so people know how to be healthy.
After they have been taught these things and have mastered English and communication skills enough to differentiate propaganda from civics and distinguish logical fallacies from legal dogma, then they can be taught about the RIAA and copyright in a Political Science class, and not as part of a religion.
These groups even want compensation for iTunes' 30-second song samples.
Greed often destroys a good business idea. They will sell you the rope to hang them with.
It all works in their favour; the less free advertising they get, the less profits they get and the more pirating goes on (because people want to sample music before they buy it), so they can lobby for more royalties and legal penalties against people and companies who can't afford the lawyers to tell them whether a copyright law has been broken. It's all very bourgeoisie.
It's yet another example that people and companies that have successful and winning ideas are not rewarded for their hard work. If the person is scape goated as being politically incorrect then her efforts will be completely ignored and the winners will be the lazy, incompetent and mediocre. This is the reason why the U.S. economy is so bad. They reward corrupt companies and rescind rewards of companies that do a good job.
If this company was involved in banking I'm sure they would have received an award, or maybe even just government money to ensure they survive and compete against those other companies that are honest and competent.
Girls Wired To Fear Dangerous Animals
It's cute when they scream.
but the loners go for attacks like bundling kids off the streat into the back of vans
I've read this statistic more than once that rapists (whether their interest is children or not, tend to be social. It certainly fits in with the casual observations that I've made from news stories.) Some of the most heinous and sadistic killers often have a wife and kids and are pillars of their community; the type of people who would easily get jobs as police officers, day care workers, etc. Though it's odd, I never tend to trust people who smile a lot because I've always found these people to be dishonest and unreliable, but they're the same people who tend to get promoted into management or supervisory positions, they're also the sort of people you hear about on the news, "He was a well respected family man..." (if they do ever get caught and exposed for what they are).
And if eBay wants to continue to dominate the auction market...
That appears to be why large companies like eBay don't need to worry too much about quality (in customer service or otherwise). They'll react if and when they think they can increase their bonuses. Unfortunately there's always at least one layer of abstraction between a business practice and a balance sheet. The bean counters usually just react to spread sheet and database triggers (and all their assumptions).
These days it's best to grow your own food and barter with your neighbours. Money is for bankers.
broken by design
No, people need to adapt to the technology. As technology gets better and smarter, people need to change their way of thinking and become better and smarter themselves in order to use this much more complicated technology. The Chinese had the write philosophy by sculpting the foot to fit the shoe.
Don't argue with customer service. There's a saying in the industry; "Customer service is always right". Don't argue with the people who are paid to help you. Listen to your superiors and clear your cache instead of complaining, because complainers generally tend to get hung-up on and ignored.
By "people skills" I think he meant people who aren't able, or morally liable, to sell people a bill of goods on their employment records or resumes, though I suspect "janitors" who work in schools would probably need to go through this "vetting" process as well. It's not really about "pedophilia". Britain's democratic and civil decline started before the think-of-the-children hype. If you believe this is about catching "pedophiles" then you are as dumb as the social engineers think you are.
According to the article, if you are a morally upright and responsible person then you will never be hired by those organizations legally required to screen people for "pedophilia".
On the other hand, they (seem to) value "average" and successful personality types;
- People who are sycophants
- People who gossip and spread rumors (i.e. people who socialize)
- People who are constantly exposed to groupthink and value it as a social good
- People who accept witch hunts as a normalizing part of society
- People who value prejudice
- People who value ignorance
- People who accept peer pressure and the group as something good, and who have prejudice and malice towards people who don't value their way of thinking and behaving
So only "anti-social" people get to work with children, but pro-social people who are loners don't get to work with children. It's interesting that people who generally tend to get arrested for having sex with children also tend to be very sociable. Most loners don't hang around with people because they don't want to be influenced by evil or bullied by the socialites. It's the social people, like priests and teachers and police officers, who tend to have an interest in children. These social people will continue to get the jobs, and these social people are also the ones who gossip and rumor-monger, and so the problem will only get worse.
The sad thing is that loners generally tend to leave people alone, while social people tend to bully, date rape, stalk, groupthink, and conspire to deny people employment who are different from themselves.
I guess The Little Shop Of Horrors is out for you too.
I watched that movie without being forewarned. I also have a neurotic fear of carnivorous plants. There are too many things in this world that can kill and injure; plants, dentist drills, clowns...
It doesn't matter that they retracted the story, because it will fuel the beliefs of conspiracy theorists even more.