"That's why the freedoms provided in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution are so precious."
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution in no way "provide" any kind of freedom. The freedoms are inherent, and would exist even if said documents crumbled to dust tomorrow.
The US military is a whore for funding. I'd bet my first born child, my kidneys, and my soul that they would claim inferiority to the Girl Scouts if it got them a budget increase.
"Why people THINK Americans are uneasy about China: Their own wishful thinking, combined with ignorance, specifically relating to the economic situation between China and the US."
There, that's what your post should have said. I immediately dismiss scaremongering such as yours, mostly because of gross overstatements such as "China owns American hand, foot, and soul". That statement is so far from accurate that I find it difficult to believe anyone with an informed opinion could make it.
"Really? And how many guns does the IOC have? 'Cause the Chinese government has *lots*."
And?
These are Olympic athletes under the full spotlight cast by the television presence at the Olympics. What exactly do you think China is going to do with those guns? How could anyone honestly think China would use force to silence Olympic athletes.
"anytime he opens his mouth he is very likely to be 100% full of crap."
I'd like to see your source for this. What facts did you use to determine it "very likely" that his is 100% full of crap?
Or are you making up your own set of facts? Or are you going to cop out and pretend that your declaration was just an "opinion", in which case, what makes your inflammatory, factually incorrect opinion any better than his?
"Wrong. Being able to spout ridiculous comments like 'blacks are genetically less intelligent' is no more conducive to open debate than yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is to free speech. With freedom comes responsibility, so you don't make comments like that unless you can damn sure back it up."
Thank you so much for demonstrating exactly what he meant. You are an example of the very problem he was addressing.
You have decided, without even hearing the argument. You dismiss it first, THEN go on to claim "you don't make comments like that unless you can damn sure back it up." What if he could? Had you even given him the chance to present his evidence before you declared his point "ridiculous". Why would someone even bother to converse with someone so closed minded as to dismiss a point before hearing the evidence?
Were you genuinely interested in honest debate, your dismissal of said claim would be based on the evidence presented. Between reasonable people, we can both admit the claim stated would seem silly, but it was done for effect, and to prove a point. Some issues are so contentious that people will refuse to even discuss them, and quash ANY attempt at reasoned debate.
"While yes, there are those on the left who say one thing and do another, there are just as many, if not more, folks on the right who are just as hypocritical."
WHO CARES?
If you're doing something wrong, it is completely irrelevant that someone else is doing it too and in no way absolves you.
Saying "he did it too" is the kind of thing that belongs in an elementary school classroom, not in a discussion amongst adults. And yes, that applies just as equally for the people who scream "BILL CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB!!!!" every time someone says something about Bush.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR LEADERS WHO BEHAVE LIKE CHILDREN.
"You might want to look in the mirror the next time you think only one side are hypocrites."
I see no claim of that anywhere. Nowhere in the post is any attempt to claim that it is only liberals that are hypocrites. No other claims were forwarded, or even implied.
It is not ok if liberals behave hypocritically, even if every single non liberal does behave hypocritically. Sadly, your reaction is all too common, despite the fact that so many Slashdotters profess to be more educated and enlightened.
Well, I'll step up I guess and do what you didn't. Yes, liberals behave hypocritically. The question is not whether it occurs, but whether it benefits the greater good when it happens. Hypocrisy is not by itself an indicator of anything except a willingness to reconsider one's position if necessary. I would hope my leaders would do that, specifically, if they realize a previous policy decision had failed.
See how easy that was? I was able to derail the "hypocrisy" argument without resorting to 3rd grade rhetoric. It saddens me that people genuinely think an appropriate response to criticism of their leaders is to denounce the other guys choices.
"I will not give in to George Bush. I will not become fearful."
Too late. You're clearly so afraid of him that you'll blindly defend people who don't deserve it. The way to "not give in" is to INSIST that your leaders are better, and answer for what they do, not cover up criticism of them with attacks on the other side.
"Ah, the idiocy of the right. What is it about you people that means you can't accept the fact that better educated, more intelligent people may have considered an issue more carefully than you have and simply come to a different conclusion?"
"We will be using home made explosives, and importing rockets, pistols, rifles, automatic weapons, grendades and ammo from black market arms dealers. We won't be much different than the Iraqi's current 'insurgents', and fighting for much the same reason..."
This presupposes that the military will act as one, with no internal dissension from the soldiers who will be asked t fight against their friends and family.
Frankly, that assumption is ridiculous, and any argument that comes from it isn't worth considering.
I have several that disagree, and several that are contradictory.
Also, why are you assuming that "does not deter" automagically helps the crook "see what he is doing"? I didn't see a single study that supported that idea, and many that rebutted it.
Slashdot Mirror
"That's why the freedoms provided in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution are so precious."
The Bill of Rights and the Constitution in no way "provide" any kind of freedom. The freedoms are inherent, and would exist even if said documents crumbled to dust tomorrow.
Your rights aren't dependent on a piece of paper.
"The US military seems to think otherwise"
The US military is a whore for funding. I'd bet my first born child, my kidneys, and my soul that they would claim inferiority to the Girl Scouts if it got them a budget increase.
"Why Americans are uneasy about China:"
We're not.
"Why people THINK Americans are uneasy about China: Their own wishful thinking, combined with ignorance, specifically relating to the economic situation between China and the US."
There, that's what your post should have said. I immediately dismiss scaremongering such as yours, mostly because of gross overstatements such as "China owns American hand, foot, and soul". That statement is so far from accurate that I find it difficult to believe anyone with an informed opinion could make it.
"Really? And how many guns does the IOC have? 'Cause the Chinese government has *lots*."
And?
These are Olympic athletes under the full spotlight cast by the television presence at the Olympics. What exactly do you think China is going to do with those guns? How could anyone honestly think China would use force to silence Olympic athletes.
Can you say "international pariah"?
So the answer is "Yes, really."
First you say
"no one is entitled to their own set of facts"
Then you say
"anytime he opens his mouth he is very likely to be 100% full of crap."
I'd like to see your source for this. What facts did you use to determine it "very likely" that his is 100% full of crap?
Or are you making up your own set of facts? Or are you going to cop out and pretend that your declaration was just an "opinion", in which case, what makes your inflammatory, factually incorrect opinion any better than his?
"Wrong. Being able to spout ridiculous comments like 'blacks are genetically less intelligent' is no more conducive to open debate than yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is to free speech. With freedom comes responsibility, so you don't make comments like that unless you can damn sure back it up."
Thank you so much for demonstrating exactly what he meant. You are an example of the very problem he was addressing.
You have decided, without even hearing the argument. You dismiss it first, THEN go on to claim "you don't make comments like that unless you can damn sure back it up." What if he could? Had you even given him the chance to present his evidence before you declared his point "ridiculous". Why would someone even bother to converse with someone so closed minded as to dismiss a point before hearing the evidence?
Were you genuinely interested in honest debate, your dismissal of said claim would be based on the evidence presented. Between reasonable people, we can both admit the claim stated would seem silly, but it was done for effect, and to prove a point. Some issues are so contentious that people will refuse to even discuss them, and quash ANY attempt at reasoned debate.
And you just proved it.
"While yes, there are those on the left who say one thing and do another, there are just as many, if not more, folks on the right who are just as hypocritical."
WHO CARES?
If you're doing something wrong, it is completely irrelevant that someone else is doing it too and in no way absolves you.
Saying "he did it too" is the kind of thing that belongs in an elementary school classroom, not in a discussion amongst adults. And yes, that applies just as equally for the people who scream "BILL CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB!!!!" every time someone says something about Bush.
STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR LEADERS WHO BEHAVE LIKE CHILDREN.
"You might want to look in the mirror the next time you think only one side are hypocrites."
I see no claim of that anywhere. Nowhere in the post is any attempt to claim that it is only liberals that are hypocrites. No other claims were forwarded, or even implied.
It is not ok if liberals behave hypocritically, even if every single non liberal does behave hypocritically. Sadly, your reaction is all too common, despite the fact that so many Slashdotters profess to be more educated and enlightened.
Well, I'll step up I guess and do what you didn't. Yes, liberals behave hypocritically. The question is not whether it occurs, but whether it benefits the greater good when it happens. Hypocrisy is not by itself an indicator of anything except a willingness to reconsider one's position if necessary. I would hope my leaders would do that, specifically, if they realize a previous policy decision had failed.
See how easy that was? I was able to derail the "hypocrisy" argument without resorting to 3rd grade rhetoric. It saddens me that people genuinely think an appropriate response to criticism of their leaders is to denounce the other guys choices.
"I will not give in to George Bush. I will not become fearful."
Too late. You're clearly so afraid of him that you'll blindly defend people who don't deserve it. The way to "not give in" is to INSIST that your leaders are better, and answer for what they do, not cover up criticism of them with attacks on the other side.
"Ah, the idiocy of the right. What is it about you people that means you can't accept the fact that better educated, more intelligent people may have considered an issue more carefully than you have and simply come to a different conclusion?"
What does that have to do with the left?
"We will be using home made explosives, and importing rockets, pistols, rifles, automatic weapons, grendades and ammo from black market arms dealers. We won't be much different than the Iraqi's current 'insurgents', and fighting for much the same reason..."
This presupposes that the military will act as one, with no internal dissension from the soldiers who will be asked t fight against their friends and family.
Frankly, that assumption is ridiculous, and any argument that comes from it isn't worth considering.
"You'll have to explain this better because I see little difference."
It's the difference between wining because of the evidence vs. winning because of a procedural mistake.
I have several that disagree, and several that are contradictory.
Also, why are you assuming that "does not deter" automagically helps the crook "see what he is doing"? I didn't see a single study that supported that idea, and many that rebutted it.
http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/crime.html