So.. providing an example of what I described actually happening is "worthless"
Yes.
For several reasons, not the least of which is that I don't believe you. More than that, pretending AN incident is anything more than a statistical outlier (you gave ONE example, which means, at best, you can demonstrate it happened ONE TIME IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION.
So, if I didn't think you were lying, you'd have one example, which isn't supported by anything more than your word, which is useless.
So yes, as I said worthless. Your opinion about it is irrelevant.
even though it shows that the scenario isn't "ridiculous hyperbole", but that it has already happened to at least one person. Hmmm.
See, that's why you're wrong. It only shows that YOU CLAIM it happened "happened to at least one person". Your claims are worthless, so your anecdote is worthless.
Where, in any of my posts, did I advocate for censoring anyone else, telling them what they CAN and CAN NOT do?
Right here
Such as, acknowledging that you are not the sole arbiter of truth or reason, and therefor showing basic respect to others is quite simply more effective than not showing it.
You lose. Go force your PC bullshit on someone else, thanks.
If you're tired of looking
Why would I be tired, it was easy and fast. You made it so.
I in no way support external censorship of any kind.
You're a liar and that quote proves it. Saying "nuh uh" doesn't change that.
I would simply suggest that if that happens, you might not have to wonder why.
I wouldn't wonder, people like you do that when caught red handed. Just like you did in that last post.
Actually, that part of my post was entirely tangential and has no bearing on my main argument.
You sound like a politician.
That you were factually, demonstrably wrong about something you could easily check calls all of your facts and insights into question.
You lied about something.
It doesn't surprise me at all that you think being a liar isn't relevant to your post.
You lose, try again.
If I ever needed proof that you knew you were full of shit, that was it. You may as well have written "I'm rubber you're glue" or some other such nonsense.
Please look everyone. This is what fascism looks like.
Please look everyone, this is what stupidity, hyperbole and obliviousness look like.
I'm not the one who said "your right to swing your fist ends and the tip of my nose" but one of you imbeciles just modded that AC up for essentially saying "no, that's facism".
But, the appeal that society is more important than the individual is a strong fascist tennet.
No wonder you posted AC, you can't fucking read and don;t want to show it.
NOWHERE did I claim that "society is more important than the individual", and your straw man aside, that wasn't even remotely near my point.
Do you assholes read what you're replying to, or do you just have these diatribes ready to post at the drop of a hat?
It's called "Gallows humor", it's a very appropriate, very common coping mechanism, and you'll notice no one is calling you names for dealing with this tragedy in your own way. Yet you seem to think you have a monopoly on the correct way to deal with tragedy.
It's normal. You being a douchebag about it is not.
than have to deal with the consequences of their poor choices.
You mean like prison right? Which I pay for So not only would they be dealing with the consequences, I would be paying for them. AND their emergency care, AND the food for their babies (unless you advocate starving the babies too).
Yeah, you need to think through your arguments next time so you don't look so ridiculous.
I fail to see how forcing someone by law to be somewhere involuntarily for 6 hours / day 5 days / week 39 weeks / year for about 12 years can not be considered a form of imprisonment.
See, you'd learn why it's not a form of imprisonment in school. Do you want everyone to be as ignorant as you?
There are organizations dedicated to monitoring conditions in prisons, and keeping them from being inhumane.
Of course, and no one is doing the same at schools...
Why do people like you insist on posting such inflammatory stupid crap? The list of agencies that monitor schools is miles ling and you completely destroy the point your post barely makes bay saying something so idiotic.
Not that the rest of your post wasn't nearly as bad, and wrong. Just that that particular bit of ridiculousness was too far over the top and stupid to be tolerated silently.
Who know what they're talking about. What do I mean?
putting them somewhere they can't get any education
Most Juvenile Detention Centers I am aware of have classes for the detainees. That you didn't know this, or are pretending it's not true speaks to your ability to intelligently discuss this topic.
Now, they're not good classes, and the education, as expected, is difficult. But your statement is still more false than true, and your arguments stemming from it fail as a result of your demonstrated ignorance.
And I guess its more important to you that we throw out that pesky Constitution with all its worthless protections?
The fact that you've said this means you either don't have any idea what the Constitution says about due process, or you didn't read the article.
Anyone that thinks it's good idea to strip away civil liberties to somehow 'help' the children is an enemy of all our freedoms.
So children who have severe mental disorders and will repeatedly harm themselves shouldn't be institutionalized, or are you going to admit your puerile one-size-fits-all view of civil rights isn't actually valid?
And I love that "is an enemy of all our freedoms" crap, you sound like the fundies with their "why do you hate america" nonsense.
It's pretty clear you're pissed, so what have you done about this problem other than complain? What is YOUR solution?
Or are you yet another reactionary slashtroll who didn't read the article but thinks he's safe complaining about something he neither understands nor cares about. That is, doesn't care about until it shows up on his favorite web board where he can safely run off at the mouth about the issue then fade back into obscurity, doing not one fucking thing to solve the problem.
I see you talking. I'm sure that's all you're doing.
If someone wants to be a complete screw-up, then it is a requirement of a free society that we let them be a screw-up
Um, no. That's just wrong. We institutionalize screw ups all the time.
The screw up only has a right to be a screw up until it begins to effect someone else. Then they're screwing up society at which point society has a right to do something about it.
So, now that you've ranted, do you want to address MY point, or are you going to continue talking without saying anything on the subject?
Because nothing you said refuted me in any way, and only served to prove my point.
Perhaps self-censorship does serve a purpose.
Who cares? This isn't about "Self-Censorship" it's about censorship by PEOPLE LIKE YOU who think it's in my best interest to have a "productive" conversation.
Such as, acknowledging that you are not the sole arbiter of truth or reason, and therefor showing basic respect to others is quite simply more effective than not showing it.
So what you're saying is, it's ok to acknowledge that one is "not the sole arbiter of truth or reason" while simultaneously asking people to abide by your definition of a "productive way to run a conversation". It seems you are refuting your own poorly thought out point in the very paragraph you made it, or rather, you are expecting us to listen to YOUR version of what YOU think a "productive conversation" is.
Which is, of course, in line with the thinking of people like yourselves, that you know what's best, do as I say, not as I do.
FUCK YOU. See, my aim there was to show my contempt for that type of blatant hypocrisy. It was EXTREMELY effective.
"When you try to express a concept that might piss people off, and you aren't trying to piss people off, saying so and expressing sensitivity to their beliefs isn't "PC", it's basic technique of a civilized person in conversation."
No, that's just what people like you say to try and censor the things you don't like.
Calling it "civilized" is your interpretation, and I disagree. Meanwhile, there is no possible argument that it is not censorship, even if you think it's for a "civilized" reason.
Censorship isn't "civilized" no matter how you rationalize it.
The car belongs to a 22 year old male, a 50 year old woman is driving it, obviously stolen. Pull over and handcuff the driver with my gun drawn and ready to shoot if she gives me any lip./ridiculous hyperbole
I hypothetical tax increase targeted specifically at married couples due to the fraction of the 10% of the country that is gay getting married is not in any way "demonstrable".
There is nothing hypothetical about it. Married couples pay different taxes than non-married couples, it's in the law. Again, nothing hypothetical about it.
More married couples = a change in current tax burdens. It's irrefutable, and yet still you try.
If you had any refutation to anything I said worth considering, you would have come up with something that was actually demonstrable and not hypothetical.
I did, you just can't reute it, so you refuse to acknowledge it. That doesn't make you right, it makes you stubborn and obtuse.
As if your follow-on logic that making such a point directly infers that anything else I say is wrong.
YOU said, and I quote "does not have any affect whatsoever" which means that ANY affect makes you wrong. I demonstrated an irrefutable change that will occur as the LAW REQUIRES IT ALREADY, and your response to that was "it's hypothetical". That is of course, wrong. If couples get legally married, the law will change their tax burden. That cannot be argued. A change in their tax burden will also change the tx burden of others. That also cannot be argued.
Hence, your desire to paint it as "hypothetical" when what you mean is "I have no refutation, so I must pretend I'm right and your irrefutable point is hypothetical"
That is a demonstrable logical fallacy
ANd yet you failed totally to demonstrate ANYTHING.
Do married couples pay the same taxes as non-married couples? YES OR NO?
Can a large change in tax collection be reasonably expected to impact everyone who pays tax? YES OR NO?
The answer to both is yes (unless you're so married to your point that you insist on pretending otherwise like you have) so yes, you are WRONG.
and thus by your own faulty logic you are not worth listening to.
In other words, after attempting to paint my point as hypothetical and failing, and attempting to call me out for a logical fallacy you can neither name nor demonstrate, you find a ridiculous excuse to avoid admitting you are wrong.
Why? The problems we are experiencing have nothing to do with the amount of energy we use, but with where the energy comes from. If we were 100% solar for instance, what would be your argument for reducing consumption?
Reducing our consumption is nice, and will benefit in the short term, but the idea that the entire human population should be on an energy diet forever makes no sense.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes.
For several reasons, not the least of which is that I don't believe you. More than that, pretending AN incident is anything more than a statistical outlier (you gave ONE example, which means, at best, you can demonstrate it happened ONE TIME IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION.
So, if I didn't think you were lying, you'd have one example, which isn't supported by anything more than your word, which is useless.
So yes, as I said worthless. Your opinion about it is irrelevant.
See, that's why you're wrong. It only shows that YOU CLAIM it happened "happened to at least one person". Your claims are worthless, so your anecdote is worthless.
Right here
You lose. Go force your PC bullshit on someone else, thanks.
Why would I be tired, it was easy and fast. You made it so.
You're a liar and that quote proves it. Saying "nuh uh" doesn't change that.
I wouldn't wonder, people like you do that when caught red handed. Just like you did in that last post.
Please look everyone, this is what stupidity, hyperbole and obliviousness look like.
I'm not the one who said "your right to swing your fist ends and the tip of my nose" but one of you imbeciles just modded that AC up for essentially saying "no, that's facism".
No wonder you posted AC, you can't fucking read and don;t want to show it.
NOWHERE did I claim that "society is more important than the individual", and your straw man aside, that wasn't even remotely near my point.
Do you assholes read what you're replying to, or do you just have these diatribes ready to post at the drop of a hat?
You didn't. "Moral rights" is a made up nonsensical term with no useful definition.
And the answer is still, NO, they do not have the same rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallows_humour
It's called "Gallows humor", it's a very appropriate, very common coping mechanism, and you'll notice no one is calling you names for dealing with this tragedy in your own way. Yet you seem to think you have a monopoly on the correct way to deal with tragedy.
It's normal. You being a douchebag about it is not.
You mean like prison right? Which I pay for So not only would they be dealing with the consequences, I would be paying for them. AND their emergency care, AND the food for their babies (unless you advocate starving the babies too).
Yeah, you need to think through your arguments next time so you don't look so ridiculous.
See, you'd learn why it's not a form of imprisonment in school. Do you want everyone to be as ignorant as you?
Of course, and no one is doing the same at schools...
Why do people like you insist on posting such inflammatory stupid crap? The list of agencies that monitor schools is miles ling and you completely destroy the point your post barely makes bay saying something so idiotic.
Not that the rest of your post wasn't nearly as bad, and wrong. Just that that particular bit of ridiculousness was too far over the top and stupid to be tolerated silently.
No, no they can't. Nor can they drink alcohol legally.
No, they do not have the same rights. Why are you asking such a ridiculous question?
Most Juvenile Detention Centers I am aware of have classes for the detainees. That you didn't know this, or are pretending it's not true speaks to your ability to intelligently discuss this topic.
Now, they're not good classes, and the education, as expected, is difficult. But your statement is still more false than true, and your arguments stemming from it fail as a result of your demonstrated ignorance.
The fact that you've said this means you either don't have any idea what the Constitution says about due process, or you didn't read the article.
So children who have severe mental disorders and will repeatedly harm themselves shouldn't be institutionalized, or are you going to admit your puerile one-size-fits-all view of civil rights isn't actually valid?
And I love that "is an enemy of all our freedoms" crap, you sound like the fundies with their "why do you hate america" nonsense.
It's pretty clear you're pissed, so what have you done about this problem other than complain? What is YOUR solution?
Or are you yet another reactionary slashtroll who didn't read the article but thinks he's safe complaining about something he neither understands nor cares about. That is, doesn't care about until it shows up on his favorite web board where he can safely run off at the mouth about the issue then fade back into obscurity, doing not one fucking thing to solve the problem.
I see you talking. I'm sure that's all you're doing.
Um, no. That's just wrong. We institutionalize screw ups all the time.
The screw up only has a right to be a screw up until it begins to effect someone else. Then they're screwing up society at which point society has a right to do something about it.
Because nothing you said refuted me in any way, and only served to prove my point.
Who cares? This isn't about "Self-Censorship" it's about censorship by PEOPLE LIKE YOU who think it's in my best interest to have a "productive" conversation.
So what you're saying is, it's ok to acknowledge that one is "not the sole arbiter of truth or reason" while simultaneously asking people to abide by your definition of a "productive way to run a conversation". It seems you are refuting your own poorly thought out point in the very paragraph you made it, or rather, you are expecting us to listen to YOUR version of what YOU think a "productive conversation" is.
Which is, of course, in line with the thinking of people like yourselves, that you know what's best, do as I say, not as I do.
FUCK YOU. See, my aim there was to show my contempt for that type of blatant hypocrisy. It was EXTREMELY effective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_media
"The history of digital starts with the development of the number 0 (see 0 (number)) by the Babylonians about 2000BC."
Digital, as in digits. A piece of paper can be "digital media".
"If you read his post again, it is _satire_ not trolling."
Is that what you call it when you troll and get caught now?
Methinks that if you genuinely think that was satire, you couldn't identify satire if it bent you over and raped you.
"Sorry, I should have reversed the owner/driver"
Wouldn't make any difference, it would still be ridiculous hyperbole.
That's it's slightly more realistic, and supported by a worthless anecdote doesn't make it less ridiculous.
"When you try to express a concept that might piss people off, and you aren't trying to piss people off, saying so and expressing sensitivity to their beliefs isn't "PC", it's basic technique of a civilized person in conversation."
No, that's just what people like you say to try and censor the things you don't like.
Calling it "civilized" is your interpretation, and I disagree. Meanwhile, there is no possible argument that it is not censorship, even if you think it's for a "civilized" reason.
Censorship isn't "civilized" no matter how you rationalize it.
"On the other hand, this statement might be a violation of the Fifth Amendment which protects a person from self incrimination"
No, just no.
You clearly have no idea wtf you're talking about, specifically regarding the fifth amendment.
You must not be familiar with this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_amendment.
Your proposed solution would be unconstitutional, of course that's rarely stopped the federal government from expanding its powers before.
FYP.
We are already, Mr. Smarty-pants. Go visit a juvenile court room sometime.
However, your point has fuck all to do with what I said. Reread it so you don't completely misunderstand my post again.
There is nothing hypothetical about it. Married couples pay different taxes than non-married couples, it's in the law. Again, nothing hypothetical about it.
More married couples = a change in current tax burdens. It's irrefutable, and yet still you try.
I did, you just can't reute it, so you refuse to acknowledge it. That doesn't make you right, it makes you stubborn and obtuse.
YOU said, and I quote "does not have any affect whatsoever" which means that ANY affect makes you wrong. I demonstrated an irrefutable change that will occur as the LAW REQUIRES IT ALREADY, and your response to that was "it's hypothetical". That is of course, wrong. If couples get legally married, the law will change their tax burden. That cannot be argued. A change in their tax burden will also change the tx burden of others. That also cannot be argued.
Hence, your desire to paint it as "hypothetical" when what you mean is "I have no refutation, so I must pretend I'm right and your irrefutable point is hypothetical"
ANd yet you failed totally to demonstrate ANYTHING.
Do married couples pay the same taxes as non-married couples? YES OR NO?
Can a large change in tax collection be reasonably expected to impact everyone who pays tax? YES OR NO?
The answer to both is yes (unless you're so married to your point that you insist on pretending otherwise like you have) so yes, you are WRONG.
In other words, after attempting to paint my point as hypothetical and failing, and attempting to call me out for a logical fallacy you can neither name nor demonstrate, you find a ridiculous excuse to avoid admitting you are wrong.
Why? The problems we are experiencing have nothing to do with the amount of energy we use, but with where the energy comes from. If we were 100% solar for instance, what would be your argument for reducing consumption?
Reducing our consumption is nice, and will benefit in the short term, but the idea that the entire human population should be on an energy diet forever makes no sense.