Essential to a working society? I doubt it. Maybe to society in its current form, but essential to ANY working form I very much doubt. Lies are a lazy (and/or capacity limited) coping mechanism. It really depends a lot on the people and relationships involved. My wife knows I don't pander or offer false compliments. That doesn't make me insensitive, mainly because I'm responsible enough not to say everything that rises to consciousness, and really sensitivity should be perceived as blunting negative truths with perspective rather than trying to paint them as completely unreal things. When I do have positive things they carry more weight, because the people around me know I'm sincere all the time and not just BSing them to be polite.
Quite frankly, on the rare occasions where I lie, it's to people I think are beneath contempt. If I place any value on a relationship, I will expect the value of the person to be equal to the task of integrating any truth from perception to conception. Those that cannot do that for want of some intellectual or emotional deficiency, aren't worth the time of inventing pleasing unrealities to pander to their problems.
Granted, though at least I'm not one of the army of tards that swap you're and your, their and there, effect and affect, principle and principal, capitol and capital...
Aye, gang bangers don't target shoot. Simply possessing a gun doesn't mean you can magically hit something with it, especially if you're holding it sideways with one hand. While no armed man is a joke, I would be magnitudes less worried about a gang banger actually killing me at any distance over 20' than somebody with a decent amount of range time.
I am unequivocally convinced that if the drafters of the Constitution had any inkling of the form of government we would end up with, the document would have been radically different. Anybody who has actually read what Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams et al. wrote about government and the citizenry at large would agree.
I think this Republic was lost at the point when people became too lazy to muster for militias as proscribed by the Militia Act of 1792.
Mod parent up. You're forgetting that forbidding anything can now be justified on the basis of made up numbers thrown into a junk science computer model. Every legislator must stampede to outdo each other in getting on the green bullshit bandwagon so that they don't lose votes to somebody who says they're even MORE hardcore crazy about doing everything as ridiculously 'green' as possible.
I know this is off-topic, and will hold no grudge if it is moderated so, but congratulations on your bigotry. In another couple generations, my kids will look back on people like you the way we look back on the KKK. Can't let them gays get out from under today's Jim Crow laws, no sir. We have to make sure they get treated differently by the law because of their dirty, dirty genes.
This is supposed to be America, where laws are not justified on the basis of whether people are significantly harmed by being deprived of freedom. Instead, the standard by which laws are supposed to be judged is whether significant harm is done unless stopped by legislation. If this were enacted, the effect it has on climate probably couldn't be empirically measured *at all*. No doubt some tree-humping twit will invent some numbers to throw into an over-dramatized computer model, but there will be no real, measurable benefit. There's no 'good intent' here, just a bunch of legislators tripping over themselves trying to prove how hardcore they are for this green bullshit bandwagon.
You sound like a legislator yourself. The public isn't *that* stupid. You know how many laws are written in the terms of "in counties that are composed entirely of islands" like somehow that doesn't mean only two specific counties here in WA. Or the latest retarded bill in committee right now, HB 2316 that says that lobbyists shouldn't be able to 'threaten' to relocate manufacturing, as though that doesn't mean Boeing. Their 'ethics' (lol) might be called into question if they singled out specific companies, but really, who's so stupid that they can't see intent?
If there's no black paint that meets this new legal spec, then they are functionally and willfully banning black paint. It's that damn simple.
You're forgetting that the method of environmentalists is to always assume the worst, then multiply that until it's newsworthy. Then claim it's 'scientific evidence' just because somebody made a computer model with values that don't actually exist.
You're right, relatively small scale child abuse probably doesn't carry the same weight as the deaths of hundreds of millions, killed by policy-driven famine, violent torture for dissent, being shot on sight by border guards keeping people in their workers paradise, etc. Yup, it's pretty insulting to child pornographers to compare them to communists.
Slavery could not have happened without the individual right to bear arms.
So... what about all the other nation- and city-states over the many millennia prior to the historic emancipations in the modern era? I suppose slavery just disappeared in Athens when Pisistratus disarmed the citizenry? Revisionists like you make me sick. You want so desperately to sink private ownership of arms that you'll reach out and tie it to anything and everything abhorrent that you possibly can. I once had a person tell me that if the Jews of Europe hadn't been disarmed by the Nazi's gun control laws in the 30's that the holocaust would have been worse because if Hitler were assassinated it would have made him a martyr. The willful disingenuity of it all is staggering.
You would have people believe that it was the Southern states alone who pushed for the amendment, ignoring the precedents in the constitutions of Delaware, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. I suppose facts like that get in the way of conning people into negative associations.
It's sad that you're getting karma burned for saying something completely true./. needs to be here for the things that the major news agencies aren't covering to death.
Quite a liberal use of a qualifier like 'evidently'. What 'evidence' is there that it is a fraud besides the word of some jerks who would be gravely embarrassed if it were not a fraud?
I believe Jonathan Swift, if he lived in this era and understood Slashdot moderation, would just as soon moderate that Troll as anybody else. Swift's satire was coherent and relevant, which this is not.
Slashdot Mirror
That is the most insightful, cogent evaluation of the issue I've ever seen.
Essential to a working society? I doubt it. Maybe to society in its current form, but essential to ANY working form I very much doubt. Lies are a lazy (and/or capacity limited) coping mechanism. It really depends a lot on the people and relationships involved. My wife knows I don't pander or offer false compliments. That doesn't make me insensitive, mainly because I'm responsible enough not to say everything that rises to consciousness, and really sensitivity should be perceived as blunting negative truths with perspective rather than trying to paint them as completely unreal things. When I do have positive things they carry more weight, because the people around me know I'm sincere all the time and not just BSing them to be polite.
Quite frankly, on the rare occasions where I lie, it's to people I think are beneath contempt. If I place any value on a relationship, I will expect the value of the person to be equal to the task of integrating any truth from perception to conception. Those that cannot do that for want of some intellectual or emotional deficiency, aren't worth the time of inventing pleasing unrealities to pander to their problems.
Granted, though at least I'm not one of the army of tards that swap you're and your, their and there, effect and affect, principle and principal, capitol and capital...
Oh ho ho, touche.
If by awesome you mean tediously pandering to professors' subjective biases, then yes, always awesome.
Aye, gang bangers don't target shoot. Simply possessing a gun doesn't mean you can magically hit something with it, especially if you're holding it sideways with one hand. While no armed man is a joke, I would be magnitudes less worried about a gang banger actually killing me at any distance over 20' than somebody with a decent amount of range time.
I am unequivocally convinced that if the drafters of the Constitution had any inkling of the form of government we would end up with, the document would have been radically different. Anybody who has actually read what Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams et al. wrote about government and the citizenry at large would agree.
I think this Republic was lost at the point when people became too lazy to muster for militias as proscribed by the Militia Act of 1792.
Mod parent up. You're forgetting that forbidding anything can now be justified on the basis of made up numbers thrown into a junk science computer model. Every legislator must stampede to outdo each other in getting on the green bullshit bandwagon so that they don't lose votes to somebody who says they're even MORE hardcore crazy about doing everything as ridiculously 'green' as possible.
I know this is off-topic, and will hold no grudge if it is moderated so, but congratulations on your bigotry. In another couple generations, my kids will look back on people like you the way we look back on the KKK. Can't let them gays get out from under today's Jim Crow laws, no sir. We have to make sure they get treated differently by the law because of their dirty, dirty genes.
This is supposed to be America, where laws are not justified on the basis of whether people are significantly harmed by being deprived of freedom. Instead, the standard by which laws are supposed to be judged is whether significant harm is done unless stopped by legislation. If this were enacted, the effect it has on climate probably couldn't be empirically measured *at all*. No doubt some tree-humping twit will invent some numbers to throw into an over-dramatized computer model, but there will be no real, measurable benefit. There's no 'good intent' here, just a bunch of legislators tripping over themselves trying to prove how hardcore they are for this green bullshit bandwagon.
You sound like a legislator yourself. The public isn't *that* stupid. You know how many laws are written in the terms of "in counties that are composed entirely of islands" like somehow that doesn't mean only two specific counties here in WA. Or the latest retarded bill in committee right now, HB 2316 that says that lobbyists shouldn't be able to 'threaten' to relocate manufacturing, as though that doesn't mean Boeing. Their 'ethics' (lol) might be called into question if they singled out specific companies, but really, who's so stupid that they can't see intent?
If there's no black paint that meets this new legal spec, then they are functionally and willfully banning black paint. It's that damn simple.
You're forgetting that the method of environmentalists is to always assume the worst, then multiply that until it's newsworthy. Then claim it's 'scientific evidence' just because somebody made a computer model with values that don't actually exist.
Mod parent up.
Bleh I messed up the formatting on that so hard. Obviously I was trying to quote what the AC said, not what the GP had said.
You're right, relatively small scale child abuse probably doesn't carry the same weight as the deaths of hundreds of millions, killed by policy-driven famine, violent torture for dissent, being shot on sight by border guards keeping people in their workers paradise, etc. Yup, it's pretty insulting to child pornographers to compare them to communists.
Slavery could not have happened without the individual right to bear arms.
So... what about all the other nation- and city-states over the many millennia prior to the historic emancipations in the modern era? I suppose slavery just disappeared in Athens when Pisistratus disarmed the citizenry? Revisionists like you make me sick. You want so desperately to sink private ownership of arms that you'll reach out and tie it to anything and everything abhorrent that you possibly can. I once had a person tell me that if the Jews of Europe hadn't been disarmed by the Nazi's gun control laws in the 30's that the holocaust would have been worse because if Hitler were assassinated it would have made him a martyr. The willful disingenuity of it all is staggering.
You would have people believe that it was the Southern states alone who pushed for the amendment, ignoring the precedents in the constitutions of Delaware, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, and Vermont. I suppose facts like that get in the way of conning people into negative associations.
It's sad that you're getting karma burned for saying something completely true. /. needs to be here for the things that the major news agencies aren't covering to death.
That would be epic.
Quite a liberal use of a qualifier like 'evidently'. What 'evidence' is there that it is a fraud besides the word of some jerks who would be gravely embarrassed if it were not a fraud?
I'm pretty sure that's a sincere point of error, not a joke, and further that the poster is more likely a 'she'.
Don't believe what the government or its contracted agents say about themselves. I mean really, how naive do you have to be?
If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.
I believe Jonathan Swift, if he lived in this era and understood Slashdot moderation, would just as soon moderate that Troll as anybody else. Swift's satire was coherent and relevant, which this is not.
Redcoats?