Speaking of logical fallacies [wikipedia.org], there's a world of difference between large groups of people and the politicians who often fail to properly represent them.
1) That's not a logical fallacy
2) I was speaking specifically of the Democrats, as "progressives" is a meaningless and inconsequential label, and useless for identification. Your choice of labels matter little to me, and does not apply.
3) You haven't identified a single "progressive" in congress that isn't a Democrat, so if I were attempting to use the labels interchangeably, you have failed to demonstrate why that is incorrect. At best you may find a few exceptions, but the vast majority of "progressives" will in fact be Democrats, justifying their grouping.
I don't mind being corrected, but you should try to be correct before you do so, and you've failed at that simple requirement.
Are you not aware that welfare -- at least in the sense that most of the population thinks when they hear the term -- does not exist anymore? And hasn't existed for several years?
With all sincerity, please correct me if I'm wrong.
I never said anything about defending Apple, just that from a legal point of view then it isn't necessarily cut and dry as they do provide you with a way to say "oh, I shouldn't be using this".
Except it is and you're wrong. Your arguments ALL fail.
You seemed like you might have reasonable arguments when you actually researched the EULA that stood up in court and then you suddenly went and had paddy about me being "a fanboy".
Sorry, you were acting like one. You still are.
I'm not saying it's entirely the end user's fault,
Two things here. One, it's not in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER the end user's fault, your arguments are all vacuous and not worth further rebutting. Second, your total inability to make any type of intelligent analysis of the subject means I stopped caring about what you're saying.
but from a legal standpoint there's a definite "well you could have read the conditions and you didn't, so ignorance of a condition is not a defence" position.
No there isn't. That point has been refuted several times, and you apparently haven't bothered to read the refutations because you keep posting the same failed arguments.
You don't have any points, your logic is crap, and your position is wrong and stupid.
Stop repeating the same ridiculous crap just because you're not smart enough to realize why you're wrong.
This specifically states that the manor of holding election- an aptitude test would be included- _can_be established by each state.
No it doesn't. The bolded part is wrong.
Furthermore, if you knew your history a little better, you would know that poll test where commonly instituted by democrats in order to stop blacks from voting "republican" after the civil war.
I know that, what is the point of statements like "if you knew your history a little better" when we haven't even attempted to broach the subject if history? Is it that important to you to attempt to demonstrate your superiority that you jump to conclusions about someone else's level of education on a subject that hasn't even been discussed? Are you really that immature?
Also, you're wrong. Poll tests have been ruled unconstitutional for everyone but non-English speaking citizens, which you apparently were unaware of. I guess I know my history better than you thought.
A minimal amount of searching would have popped this article that is available from the US DOJ website which shows exactly that a poll test is legal as long as it doesn't discriminate based on race, gender, color or previous condition of servitude (covered by the 15th and 19th amendments).
Um, no it doesn't, you've misread your own link.
I suggest that you stop insisting on others to educate you and instead make a conscious effort to understand the topics you are discussing.
Ok, you are that immature. Well I suggest that when you post, you at least try to your facts correct, you haven't yet. And honestly, why would I want to continue a conversation with you when you can't accurately address the subject and think personal attacks do anything but destroy your (already shaky) credibility.
Don't bother replying, I won't read it, you've proven fairly conclusively that you won't say anything worth hearing.
In the last seven years, progressives have been dismissed
This doesn't really hold with the indisputable fact that the Democrats have controlled the House since the 2006 election. It's impossible to claim they have been dismissed while being in control of one of the most powerful institutions in the world, unless you're trying to destroy your own credibility.
And your entire post is one large Tu quoque argument.
Have you ever read the Constitution? For starters, the 14th Amendment [usconstitution.net] specifies that people denied the vote for "participation in rebellion or other crime" still be counted for purposes of apportioning Representatives, implying that voting is not a right.
Apparently having read it does nothing for your comprehension of it. The apportionment of representatives is based on population, including children who cannot vote. Your assumption that the apportionment of Representatives has anything to do with the right to vote is a total non sequitur. The removal of the right to vote from criminals by due process of law in no way changes the fact that it is a right.
They're free to put whatever other restrictions they wish on voting.
No they aren't. Jim Crow laws are an example that falsifies your assertion.
I strongly suggest you revisit the subject of civics, you are seriously ill informed.
I disagree, and no argument exists that will be able to justify your statement.
Whether McCain is at that level I don't know, but maybe the GP poster does.
All I know about him is from his posts, and based on that, I'd have to say he doesn't possess the tools necessary to accurately determine much of anything.
Your attempt at playing fast and loose with definitions fails.
The act of defining a privilege as a right does nothing to make a right a privilege. A privilege can in fact be a right, but that does nothing to accurately define what a right is.
A little reflection or pondering on this topic will probably confirm this for yourself. (in fact, all the comments from this thread prove this as they're all arguing the same thing but changing the term).
I reflected, then checked the definition, and found yopu are incorrect. I think the reason you're having such a hard time understanding the arguments that refute you is because you're using part of a definition as the whole definition, which is disingenuous and silly.
Privileges can be rights. There is no requirement of any kind that rights be privileges, and in fact they are not.
Yeah, damn straight he's the enemy at this election.
I'm ashamed that at the end of the day that, no matter how much more research I've done, no matter how many more debates I've listened to, no matter how much better informed a citizen I am, people like you get a vote that counts the same as mine.
It's sad that you have so much hatred inside you that you genuinely believe a politician trying to get elected is an "enemy" and not just an "opponent".
I agree, there is lots of waste and corruption in government spending. However, it's also clear that for certain kinds of issues, government has filled a role that private enterprise just doesn't. Stuff like protecting the environment, food, police, military, interstate highways, etc.
I don't care. I have an intense opposition to any government that takes more than they need, and in doing so, their claims to positive outcomes are mooted by their abuse.
Wealth also tends to be used to build more wealth via monopolistic and unfair practices, leaving society worse off in general.
No. Your assumption that wealth built through monopolistic practices, which are not always illegal, or unfair practices, which if not illegal shouldn't be considered because "unfair" is a ridiculous meaningless qualifier that people use to baselessly attack their opponents, is wrong. There is no guarantee that said practices don't produce positive outcomes, even though you seem to be assuming otherwise.
I read your post, and you agreed with me while not really rebutting anything.
I would assign more relevance to your post if you could tell me why it shouldn't be ignored because there's no mention of aptitude tests in the Constitution, and thus has no bearing on my post.
First, you are proceeding from a faulty assumption
"Now why shouldn't those extra dollars be taxed in order to benefit the society it was gained from?"
There are two assumptions here, I will refute the first. Taxing people cannot be said, with any kind of accuracy, to "benefit the society it was gained from". The level of graft, waste, and corruption means that my answer to that question is, it shouldn't when the government cannot be trusted to intelligently dispose of the tax revenue, and they currently can't.
In other words, you get more when you show you actually need it and prove you're not wasting it. If the government is taking a cent more than it needs, and wasting anything, then they need to get that situation in hand first.
Second, those "extra dollars" are capital, and generally, wealthy individuals reinvest their money, thus if they get to keep it, it really does go to benefiting the society it was gained from, instead of being wasted by the government.
So the answer to your question is, "because giving it to the government doesn't benefit the society it was gained from at all, even though you incorrectly think it does".
Seems to me that if there is an argument to be made here, then the argument should be made. Intelligent people will listen, even women.
An argument was made. Your response to it was
By used to be, I assume you mean back before we allowed women to vote?
Which really had nothing at all to do with the OP or any statement he made, and was clearly done to inflame and close off debate. Veiled accusations of misogyny will do that, especially when they're plucked out of thin air.
Which then leads me to the conclusion that either you are wrong about intelligent people listening or you are missing a necessary qualifier for the "intelligent person" label.
You fanbois are embarrassing, the second day prize was $10,000. I know inside your reality distortion field people will give up 4+ Macbook Air's worth of prize money just to get a single Macbook Air, but the rest of us aren't rabid fanbois so we find this logic a little thin.
After experimenting with unmanned balloons and flights with animals, the first balloon flight with humans on board took place on October 19, 1783 with the scientist Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier, the manufacture manager, Jean-Baptiste Réveillon and Giroud de Villette, at the Folie Titon in Paris. Officially, the first flight was 1 month later, 21 November 1783. King Louis XVI had originally decreed that condemned criminals would be the first pilots, but a young physicist named Jean-François Pilâtre de Rozier and the Marquis Francois d'Arlandes successfully petitioned for the honor.
All the Montgolfier's did was make a hot air balloon. The Chinese had done that at least 1500 years earlier.
Fanboy? I don't use iTunes, I don't know if a feature is available, I run Fedora Linux, and I'm a fanboy?
If the "I defend Apple for dumb decisions, to the point of logical absurdity" t-shirt fits...
As I said somewhere else, maybe they offered it because their updater can't tell the difference between Windows on Mac and other Windows
Then that would place the totality of the blame squarely on them.
The truth is I'm done with this. I only replied to you to stress how ridiculous it is that you think it's the end user's fault in any way for being actively solicited to install and use a piece of software by the company who makes the software, only to find out that the software is illegal.
Can you source this please, because I really don't think it's accurate.
When the government exercises eminent domain, they don't have to honor the lease. They can just tell you they want the property, give you a check, and kick people out with as little notice as they wish.
In my state at least that would be incorrect, can you show me where the courts have ruled otherwise? I follow eminent domain rulings and I am not aware of any that have the result you claim.
Slashdot Mirror
"Australia.... remarkably similar to the US in terms of how I might die...without the freedom we gave up in the name of "safety"."
Congratulations, you gave up some of your freedom for safety. Why are you proud of that?
1) That's not a logical fallacy
2) I was speaking specifically of the Democrats, as "progressives" is a meaningless and inconsequential label, and useless for identification. Your choice of labels matter little to me, and does not apply.
3) You haven't identified a single "progressive" in congress that isn't a Democrat, so if I were attempting to use the labels interchangeably, you have failed to demonstrate why that is incorrect. At best you may find a few exceptions, but the vast majority of "progressives" will in fact be Democrats, justifying their grouping.
I don't mind being corrected, but you should try to be correct before you do so, and you've failed at that simple requirement.
Classy.
It was NATO.
You're wrong.
Except it is and you're wrong. Your arguments ALL fail.
Sorry, you were acting like one. You still are.
Two things here. One, it's not in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER the end user's fault, your arguments are all vacuous and not worth further rebutting. Second, your total inability to make any type of intelligent analysis of the subject means I stopped caring about what you're saying.
No there isn't. That point has been refuted several times, and you apparently haven't bothered to read the refutations because you keep posting the same failed arguments.
You don't have any points, your logic is crap, and your position is wrong and stupid.
Stop repeating the same ridiculous crap just because you're not smart enough to realize why you're wrong.
No it doesn't. The bolded part is wrong.
I know that, what is the point of statements like "if you knew your history a little better" when we haven't even attempted to broach the subject if history? Is it that important to you to attempt to demonstrate your superiority that you jump to conclusions about someone else's level of education on a subject that hasn't even been discussed? Are you really that immature?
Also, you're wrong. Poll tests have been ruled unconstitutional for everyone but non-English speaking citizens, which you apparently were unaware of. I guess I know my history better than you thought.
This doesn't really hold with the indisputable fact that the Democrats have controlled the House since the 2006 election. It's impossible to claim they have been dismissed while being in control of one of the most powerful institutions in the world, unless you're trying to destroy your own credibility.
And your entire post is one large Tu quoque argument.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
If you're going to get upset about the "debacles of the last seven years" you need to lay blame where it belongs, and you haven't.
Apparently having read it does nothing for your comprehension of it. The apportionment of representatives is based on population, including children who cannot vote. Your assumption that the apportionment of Representatives has anything to do with the right to vote is a total non sequitur. The removal of the right to vote from criminals by due process of law in no way changes the fact that it is a right.
No they aren't. Jim Crow laws are an example that falsifies your assertion.
I strongly suggest you revisit the subject of civics, you are seriously ill informed.
I disagree, and no argument exists that will be able to justify your statement.
All I know about him is from his posts, and based on that, I'd have to say he doesn't possess the tools necessary to accurately determine much of anything.
The act of defining a privilege as a right does nothing to make a right a privilege. A privilege can in fact be a right, but that does nothing to accurately define what a right is.
I reflected, then checked the definition, and found yopu are incorrect. I think the reason you're having such a hard time understanding the arguments that refute you is because you're using part of a definition as the whole definition, which is disingenuous and silly.
Privileges can be rights. There is no requirement of any kind that rights be privileges, and in fact they are not.
I'm ashamed that at the end of the day that, no matter how much more research I've done, no matter how many more debates I've listened to, no matter how much better informed a citizen I am, people like you get a vote that counts the same as mine.
It's sad that you have so much hatred inside you that you genuinely believe a politician trying to get elected is an "enemy" and not just an "opponent".
I don't care. I have an intense opposition to any government that takes more than they need, and in doing so, their claims to positive outcomes are mooted by their abuse.
No. Your assumption that wealth built through monopolistic practices, which are not always illegal, or unfair practices, which if not illegal shouldn't be considered because "unfair" is a ridiculous meaningless qualifier that people use to baselessly attack their opponents, is wrong. There is no guarantee that said practices don't produce positive outcomes, even though you seem to be assuming otherwise.
I read your post, and you agreed with me while not really rebutting anything.
I would assign more relevance to your post if you could tell me why it shouldn't be ignored because there's no mention of aptitude tests in the Constitution, and thus has no bearing on my post.
As sad as it makes me to say this, no, I don't think "we" (the American people) are capable of this anymore.
That's it is a right and can only be removed by due process of law.
I agree.
"But veiled accusations of the feminization of society are not?"
No. Claiming otherwise doesn't make it so.
"If you can't enter a discussion with anything beyond a shallow thought, don't be surprised when it gets buried so easily."
Physician heal thyself.
"Nobody is allowed to call an argument stupid and ridiculous, because it demeans the person making the argument."
Well, you clearly seem to be a "person" so it would have to be the other part of that qualifier that you're missing.
First, you are proceeding from a faulty assumption
"Now why shouldn't those extra dollars be taxed in order to benefit the society it was gained from?"
There are two assumptions here, I will refute the first. Taxing people cannot be said, with any kind of accuracy, to "benefit the society it was gained from". The level of graft, waste, and corruption means that my answer to that question is, it shouldn't when the government cannot be trusted to intelligently dispose of the tax revenue, and they currently can't.
In other words, you get more when you show you actually need it and prove you're not wasting it. If the government is taking a cent more than it needs, and wasting anything, then they need to get that situation in hand first.
Second, those "extra dollars" are capital, and generally, wealthy individuals reinvest their money, thus if they get to keep it, it really does go to benefiting the society it was gained from, instead of being wasted by the government.
So the answer to your question is, "because giving it to the government doesn't benefit the society it was gained from at all, even though you incorrectly think it does".
An argument was made. Your response to it was
Which really had nothing at all to do with the OP or any statement he made, and was clearly done to inflame and close off debate. Veiled accusations of misogyny will do that, especially when they're plucked out of thin air.
Which then leads me to the conclusion that either you are wrong about intelligent people listening or you are missing a necessary qualifier for the "intelligent person" label.
I think I'll probably also be the third person who doesn't get what they've asked for.
it would find me.
Wait, what?
You fanbois are embarrassing, the second day prize was $10,000. I know inside your reality distortion field people will give up 4+ Macbook Air's worth of prize money just to get a single Macbook Air, but the rest of us aren't rabid fanbois so we find this logic a little thin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuge_Liang
What's that you say? At least they took the first manned balloon flight? Sorry, no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon#Premodern_Balloon
All the Montgolfier's did was make a hot air balloon. The Chinese had done that at least 1500 years earlier.
If the "I defend Apple for dumb decisions, to the point of logical absurdity" t-shirt fits...
Then that would place the totality of the blame squarely on them.
The truth is I'm done with this. I only replied to you to stress how ridiculous it is that you think it's the end user's fault in any way for being actively solicited to install and use a piece of software by the company who makes the software, only to find out that the software is illegal.
You did nothing to disabuse me of that idea.
In my state at least that would be incorrect, can you show me where the courts have ruled otherwise? I follow eminent domain rulings and I am not aware of any that have the result you claim.