Having a degree has nothing to do with idiocy. There are plenty of "smart" idiots (i.e. educated people who can't see past their own nose). Look at so-called "climate gate"... I'm not going to take sides on that issue and I don't need to in order to make a point... the mere fact that it happened at all means that a lot of very "smart" people were complete idiots.
Yeah, I forgot to simply remove that line... I think I was going to end with something like "rather than see millions of people pretending that they are civilized and sacrificing their humanity to maintain that illusion."
I am not disputing the scientific significance of the "taming" of the atom, but are you suggesting that murder is justified if we merely use a scientifically significant tool of destruction? That is the precise form of hubris and dogmatic rhetoric that I am talking about.
Also, I am not disputing the atrocity of the Inquisition, but at its height it resulted in the deaths of a few dozen people a year, with a grand total of at most 3,000 to 5,000. (Exact figures are difficult to obtain for various reasons, but these are the best estimates by historians.)
So tell me, which is worse? 5,000 killed for religious reasons or 250k+ killed for scientific/nationalistic reasons? Do the reasons even matter? Innocent death is still innocent death. Right? Where is the compassionate humanism now?
I, on the other hand, have not justified any side. In fact, I've categorically condemned destruction and death... I do not give tyranny any lenience, regardless of who is perpetrating it.
It's one of those crazy notions known as "having principles".
The most juvenile aspect of this is the utter predictability with which/. responds. All one has to do to work posters into a lather is mention the name of Glenn Beck. Just post "Glenn Beck said X"... if "X" is a Good Thing (tm), then we'll get flooded with comments of how "a broken clock is right twice a day". If "X" is a Bad Thing (tm), we get this thread.
And the funny thing is that this is absolutely no different than what was happening 3-4 years ago under Bush./.ers want to pretend that rabid anti-"other side"-ism is the sole purview of the "right wing" fanatics.
If I've noticed one thing in my years of reading/. it is that everyone here likes to claim higher intelligence, but are just as susceptible to buying into propaganda, fear-mongering, and group-think as any other demographic.
Do you honestly believe you are less fear driven than the "right-wing"? Less dogmatic than the "religious"? Less deluded by your own sense of superior knowledge than 19th-century men? The fear, dogma, and delusions are about different things, but they are equally as strong.
For every redneck idiot out there, there is a white lab coat idiot out there. For every right-wing nutcase, there is a left-wing nutcase. Every rabid Republican has a counterpart rabid Democrat. The destruction caused by ignorance is only matched by the destruction caused by hubris.
Destruction is destruction and death is death. Does it matter whether it's caused by the religious zealotry of the Inquisition or by the scientific hubris of the A-bomb? Do we measure human suffering by the numbers killed or by the quality of life lost?
Just because we have more information, doesn't make us smarter and it CERTAINLY doesn't change human nature. We think we are "civilized", but we are still subject to the same desires, motivations, strengths, and weaknesses that ruled our ancestors 100/200/500 years ago. We see our nifty gadgets and think that we are SOOO much more advanced.
Our hubris would be humorous if it weren't so destructive.
The most juvenile aspect of this is the utter predictability with which/. responds. All one has to do to work posters into a lather is mention the name of Glenn Beck. Just post "Glenn Beck said X"... if "X" is a Good Thing (tm), then we'll get flooded with comments of how "a broken clock is right twice a day". If "X" is a Bad Thing (tm), we get this thread.
And the funny thing is that this is absolutely no different than what was happening 3-4 years ago under Bush./.ers want to pretend that rabid anti-"other side"-ism is the sole purview of the "right wing" fanatics.
If I've noticed one thing in my years of reading/. it is that everyone here likes to claim higher intelligence, but are just as susceptible to buying into propaganda, fear-mongering, and group-think as any other demographic.
Do you honestly believe you are less fear driven than the "right-wing"? Less dogmatic than the "religious"? Less deluded by your own sense of superior knowledge than 19th-century men? The fear, dogma, and delusions are about different things, but they are equally as strong.
For every redneck idiot out there, there is a white lab coat idiot out there. For every right-wing nutcase, there is a left-wing nutcase. Every rabid Republican has a counterpart rabid Democrat. The destruction caused by ignorance is only matched by the destruction caused by hubris.
Destruction is destruction and death is death. Does it matter whether it's caused by the religious zealotry of the Inquisition or by the scientific hubris of the A-bomb? Do we measure human suffering by the numbers killed or by the quality of life lost?
Just because we have more information, doesn't make us smarter and it CERTAINLY doesn't change human nature. We think we are "civilized", but we are still subject to the same desires, motivations, strengths, and weaknesses that ruled our ancestors 100/200/500 years ago. We see our nifty gadgets and think that we are SOOO much more advanced. I would rather see rioting in the streets, than to see the millions of
Our hubris would be humorous if it weren't so destructive.
1) Heh heh... I'm not X, I'm increasing the world knowledge database. Where X = whatever annoying internet trope is being used against us at the moment.
2) And you thought there was no useful purpose for rickrolling.
Corruption can take place in any economic system (communist countries are notorious for graft, too) and that is exactly what this is an example of. Don't make this a conservative/liberal thing, when it most definitely is not.
Let's remember that BOTH a Dem and a Repub president have supported this garbage. You thought Haliburton was bad, the graft going on with G-S is FAR worse than Haliburton ever hoped to be.
I think you need to re-read my post... I am saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. You are saying that the intent element of a crime changes the degree based on the "thought process".
My point is that intent is different than motive and motive has never been an element of a crime, only intent. It is a fine legal distinction, but one that I believe makes hate crimes cross the line over to being thought crimes and are a significant deviation from centuries of criminal jurisprudence.
You have never used the legal definition of "intent". You have conflated intent and motivation from the beginning and when I quite nicely pointed out how you were mistaken (ignoring your unfounded ad hominem attack... brilliant debating skills there), you couldn't leave well enough alone.
You think that bringing out a dictionary will prove me wrong, huh? Well, it took a grand total of about 30 seconds to search my copy of Black's Law Dictionary (the only relevant dictionary for this discussion) to make sure my recollection of the real definition of intent, as it applies to criminal law, was correct. (If you're not sure what Black's is, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black's_Law_Dictionary)
Black's reads:
"A person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts."
As I said earlier, intent goes to the act taken.
Furthermore, Black's gives almost word for word the same explanation of the difference between intent and motive that I gave earlier:
"Intent and motive should not be confused. Motive is what prompts a person to act, or fail to act. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted."
Hate crimes criminalize motive, which is a huge deviation from centuries of criminal law jurisprudence.
I'm not going to be upset with you for not understanding the fine nuances of the law. But when you become belligerent with someone who does understand those nuances, you lose all ground. You are choosing to be willfully ignorant.
I had already explained how your understanding was wrong, but instead of doing a bit of research before opening your mouth to argue against an authority you simply entrenched further in your ignorance.
Now, will you remain willfully ignorant or will you concede that you are indeed, as I said, out of your depth?
I know I mentioned that I am a lawyer... what I forgot to mention is that I am a criminal defense attorney, so I know whereof I speak. Arguing "intent" is what I do. You are most definitely out of your depth.
So allow me to first disabuse you of a threshold misunderstanding. This discussion was never about "language", it was about "law". Indeed, TFA was about the law, the PP was about the law, and my post was about the law. I simply chose to inform you about what the law of "intent" actually is. When you got in over your head and your pride prevented you from simply walking away, you tried to change the topic to be about "language". I am sure that is a topic you are far more comfortable with, but as they taught us in law school, you argue the case you have, not the case you want to have.
Of course, I should have guessed from the searing insight into my "racist homophobe" nature that you are no ordinary internet blowhard. You are a man with an exquisite grasp of hyperbole and a world-class knee-jerk reactionary. Anyone who would dare to argue against the golden calf of hate crimes clearly has no other motivation than the subjugation and eradication of minorities and homosexuals.
Because no one ever makes a stand based on principle... every stand is based on politics, bias, and greed. You have uncovered my sinister plot.
But what you lack in knowledge and understanding, you make up for with imagination. Like when you dreamed up a scenario in which a colloquial definition of "intent" trumps the legal definition of "intent". All well and good for winning an argument against the drunks at the local pool hall, but not so effective when going toe-to-toe with a real life attorney.
I spent years and tens of thousands of dollars going to law school to understand the real history and origins of such things. It's not something I can explain in a single online post, especially to someone who's mind is already filled with things that just aren't so.
You are one of four people to say, essentially, the same thing. I am a lawyer and I think you are confusing "intent" and "motivation", so allow me to elucidate:
Intent address the planned outcome of a person's action (I "intend" to get milk at the store), whereas "motivation" addresses the reason behind the intent (I want to eat some cereal tomorrow morning... or I want cookies tonight).
Motivation can explain intent, but they are not the same thing.
For instance: You steal my girlfriend and so I decide that I really don't like you. Based on my dislike of you, I intend to inflict severe bodily harm upon you.
The "intent" (to inflict severe bodily harm) is no different here than in a case where someone hates a person because of their group status.
In both scenarios (stolen GF/group status) the intent was the same, but the motivation was different. When the law starts to look at the motivation, we are treading on very dangerous ground.
The Federal Government has only been around for just over 200 years, you can't expect it to get things right in the first two centuries of its existence. And the Federal Reserve Notes have only existed for just under 100 years... they're still trying to figure out what to do with the unfettered power to print money out of thin air. Have some patience.
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much... to forget it."
It's already illegal to beat someone up. But then we had to go and make special laws that make it "extra bad" if the victim was part of some special minority group (race, sexual orientation, religion, etc...)? If the assault was already a crime, then what we are criminalizing is the person's thoughts. That sounds like dangerous ground to me.
Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to people beating up others because they belong to some minority group, but I'm opposed to anyone beating anyone up for any reason. Unless it's a fair fight and no one is forced into it (i.e. duels). But that's another subject.
That attributes a lot of naivete to elected officials. I think they knew exactly what they were doing and exactly what the peoples' reactions would be. They knew they'd get booted out of office and they... just... didn't... care.
Americans need to wake up to the facade of the two-party system. It is a one party system, with two fronts, so we are given the illusion of choice in elections... but neither side ever truly opposes the other side, they just give a good show for the "masses" to make it look like they're opponents.
Explain, then, how it was that 60% (more in some polls) of the American people opposed Obamacare, yet it got passed anyway? Why would politicians choose to vote for it, knowing that doing so would cost them their jobs? Worse, why would Democrat leadership push so hard for it, knowing that doing so would hurt their party severely, potentially costing them both the House and Senate? (They lucked out and only lost the House, but still lost major ground in the Senate).
One answer: They threw themselves on their swords for the greater good of the party... the single party. They knew they'd get booted, but didn't care because Repubs and Dems are the same thing, just a thin veneer differentiates the two.
That's not necessarily true... Right now, if you've got ten cashiers lanes, that means you have ten sets of magazine/candy/soda racks. Take those out and you'll free up quite a bit of space.
Also, there are a number of stores that do the single queue setup (others have mentioned banks and USPS, but they do it at my local Best Buy and during busy times my local Costco has a guy feeding each line in a quasi-single line method.)
As someone else mentioned, this is not just some arm-chair calculation... there is a whole science to how queues work and the single-queue has been proven time and time again to be the fastest method.
The real blockade is that no one wants to stand in a long line, no matter how fast that line is going. They would rather wait a long time in a short line than wait a short time in a long line.
Once again: PEBKAC... Problem Exists Between Kart And Cashier. (I know, I know... it's "Cart"... but I had to make it work with the old acronym.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'd be interested to hear your definition of "nutball" and how libertarianism fits with that definition.
Having a degree has nothing to do with idiocy. There are plenty of "smart" idiots (i.e. educated people who can't see past their own nose). Look at so-called "climate gate"... I'm not going to take sides on that issue and I don't need to in order to make a point... the mere fact that it happened at all means that a lot of very "smart" people were complete idiots.
Yeah, I forgot to simply remove that line... I think I was going to end with something like "rather than see millions of people pretending that they are civilized and sacrificing their humanity to maintain that illusion."
I am not disputing the scientific significance of the "taming" of the atom, but are you suggesting that murder is justified if we merely use a scientifically significant tool of destruction? That is the precise form of hubris and dogmatic rhetoric that I am talking about.
Also, I am not disputing the atrocity of the Inquisition, but at its height it resulted in the deaths of a few dozen people a year, with a grand total of at most 3,000 to 5,000. (Exact figures are difficult to obtain for various reasons, but these are the best estimates by historians.)
So tell me, which is worse? 5,000 killed for religious reasons or 250k+ killed for scientific/nationalistic reasons? Do the reasons even matter? Innocent death is still innocent death. Right? Where is the compassionate humanism now?
I, on the other hand, have not justified any side. In fact, I've categorically condemned destruction and death... I do not give tyranny any lenience, regardless of who is perpetrating it.
It's one of those crazy notions known as "having principles".
The most juvenile aspect of this is the utter predictability with which /. responds. All one has to do to work posters into a lather is mention the name of Glenn Beck. Just post "Glenn Beck said X"... if "X" is a Good Thing (tm), then we'll get flooded with comments of how "a broken clock is right twice a day". If "X" is a Bad Thing (tm), we get this thread.
And the funny thing is that this is absolutely no different than what was happening 3-4 years ago under Bush. /.ers want to pretend that rabid anti-"other side"-ism is the sole purview of the "right wing" fanatics.
If I've noticed one thing in my years of reading /. it is that everyone here likes to claim higher intelligence, but are just as susceptible to buying into propaganda, fear-mongering, and group-think as any other demographic.
Do you honestly believe you are less fear driven than the "right-wing"? Less dogmatic than the "religious"? Less deluded by your own sense of superior knowledge than 19th-century men? The fear, dogma, and delusions are about different things, but they are equally as strong.
For every redneck idiot out there, there is a white lab coat idiot out there. For every right-wing nutcase, there is a left-wing nutcase. Every rabid Republican has a counterpart rabid Democrat. The destruction caused by ignorance is only matched by the destruction caused by hubris.
Destruction is destruction and death is death. Does it matter whether it's caused by the religious zealotry of the Inquisition or by the scientific hubris of the A-bomb? Do we measure human suffering by the numbers killed or by the quality of life lost?
Just because we have more information, doesn't make us smarter and it CERTAINLY doesn't change human nature. We think we are "civilized", but we are still subject to the same desires, motivations, strengths, and weaknesses that ruled our ancestors 100/200/500 years ago. We see our nifty gadgets and think that we are SOOO much more advanced.
Our hubris would be humorous if it weren't so destructive.
The most juvenile aspect of this is the utter predictability with which /. responds. All one has to do to work posters into a lather is mention the name of Glenn Beck. Just post "Glenn Beck said X"... if "X" is a Good Thing (tm), then we'll get flooded with comments of how "a broken clock is right twice a day". If "X" is a Bad Thing (tm), we get this thread.
And the funny thing is that this is absolutely no different than what was happening 3-4 years ago under Bush. /.ers want to pretend that rabid anti-"other side"-ism is the sole purview of the "right wing" fanatics.
If I've noticed one thing in my years of reading /. it is that everyone here likes to claim higher intelligence, but are just as susceptible to buying into propaganda, fear-mongering, and group-think as any other demographic.
Do you honestly believe you are less fear driven than the "right-wing"? Less dogmatic than the "religious"? Less deluded by your own sense of superior knowledge than 19th-century men? The fear, dogma, and delusions are about different things, but they are equally as strong.
For every redneck idiot out there, there is a white lab coat idiot out there. For every right-wing nutcase, there is a left-wing nutcase. Every rabid Republican has a counterpart rabid Democrat. The destruction caused by ignorance is only matched by the destruction caused by hubris.
Destruction is destruction and death is death. Does it matter whether it's caused by the religious zealotry of the Inquisition or by the scientific hubris of the A-bomb? Do we measure human suffering by the numbers killed or by the quality of life lost?
Just because we have more information, doesn't make us smarter and it CERTAINLY doesn't change human nature. We think we are "civilized", but we are still subject to the same desires, motivations, strengths, and weaknesses that ruled our ancestors 100/200/500 years ago. We see our nifty gadgets and think that we are SOOO much more advanced. I would rather see rioting in the streets, than to see the millions of
Our hubris would be humorous if it weren't so destructive.
Two comments for this one...
1) Heh heh... I'm not X, I'm increasing the world knowledge database. Where X = whatever annoying internet trope is being used against us at the moment.
2) And you thought there was no useful purpose for rickrolling.
But at the rate technology and society progresses, it will only last 17.6 hours.
You celebrated by "having" an 8 inch not-quite-human-proportioned plastic doll? You aussies have strange traditions.
Corruption can take place in any economic system (communist countries are notorious for graft, too) and that is exactly what this is an example of. Don't make this a conservative/liberal thing, when it most definitely is not.
Let's remember that BOTH a Dem and a Repub president have supported this garbage. You thought Haliburton was bad, the graft going on with G-S is FAR worse than Haliburton ever hoped to be.
Justibate away, my friend.
I think you need to re-read my post... I am saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. You are saying that the intent element of a crime changes the degree based on the "thought process".
My point is that intent is different than motive and motive has never been an element of a crime, only intent. It is a fine legal distinction, but one that I believe makes hate crimes cross the line over to being thought crimes and are a significant deviation from centuries of criminal jurisprudence.
Hope that clarifies.
You have never used the legal definition of "intent". You have conflated intent and motivation from the beginning and when I quite nicely pointed out how you were mistaken (ignoring your unfounded ad hominem attack... brilliant debating skills there), you couldn't leave well enough alone.
You think that bringing out a dictionary will prove me wrong, huh? Well, it took a grand total of about 30 seconds to search my copy of Black's Law Dictionary (the only relevant dictionary for this discussion) to make sure my recollection of the real definition of intent, as it applies to criminal law, was correct. (If you're not sure what Black's is, read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black's_Law_Dictionary)
Black's reads:
"A person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his voluntary acts."
As I said earlier, intent goes to the act taken.
Furthermore, Black's gives almost word for word the same explanation of the difference between intent and motive that I gave earlier:
"Intent and motive should not be confused. Motive is what prompts a person to act, or fail to act. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted."
Hate crimes criminalize motive, which is a huge deviation from centuries of criminal law jurisprudence.
I'm not going to be upset with you for not understanding the fine nuances of the law. But when you become belligerent with someone who does understand those nuances, you lose all ground. You are choosing to be willfully ignorant.
I had already explained how your understanding was wrong, but instead of doing a bit of research before opening your mouth to argue against an authority you simply entrenched further in your ignorance.
Now, will you remain willfully ignorant or will you concede that you are indeed, as I said, out of your depth?
I know I mentioned that I am a lawyer... what I forgot to mention is that I am a criminal defense attorney, so I know whereof I speak. Arguing "intent" is what I do. You are most definitely out of your depth.
So allow me to first disabuse you of a threshold misunderstanding. This discussion was never about "language", it was about "law". Indeed, TFA was about the law, the PP was about the law, and my post was about the law. I simply chose to inform you about what the law of "intent" actually is. When you got in over your head and your pride prevented you from simply walking away, you tried to change the topic to be about "language". I am sure that is a topic you are far more comfortable with, but as they taught us in law school, you argue the case you have, not the case you want to have.
Of course, I should have guessed from the searing insight into my "racist homophobe" nature that you are no ordinary internet blowhard. You are a man with an exquisite grasp of hyperbole and a world-class knee-jerk reactionary. Anyone who would dare to argue against the golden calf of hate crimes clearly has no other motivation than the subjugation and eradication of minorities and homosexuals.
Because no one ever makes a stand based on principle... every stand is based on politics, bias, and greed. You have uncovered my sinister plot.
But what you lack in knowledge and understanding, you make up for with imagination. Like when you dreamed up a scenario in which a colloquial definition of "intent" trumps the legal definition of "intent". All well and good for winning an argument against the drunks at the local pool hall, but not so effective when going toe-to-toe with a real life attorney.
I spent years and tens of thousands of dollars going to law school to understand the real history and origins of such things. It's not something I can explain in a single online post, especially to someone who's mind is already filled with things that just aren't so.
Before you make a final decision on that, please read my response, here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932126&cid=34751222
That is not intent. I explained this in another comment on this thread... here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932126&cid=34751222
You are one of four people who have said essentially the same thing. You are confusing "intent" with "motivation". Please read this post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932126&cid=34751222
You are one of four people who have said essentially the same thing. Please read this post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1932126&cid=34751222
You are one of four people to say, essentially, the same thing. I am a lawyer and I think you are confusing "intent" and "motivation", so allow me to elucidate:
Intent address the planned outcome of a person's action (I "intend" to get milk at the store), whereas "motivation" addresses the reason behind the intent (I want to eat some cereal tomorrow morning... or I want cookies tonight).
Motivation can explain intent, but they are not the same thing.
For instance: You steal my girlfriend and so I decide that I really don't like you. Based on my dislike of you, I intend to inflict severe bodily harm upon you.
The "intent" (to inflict severe bodily harm) is no different here than in a case where someone hates a person because of their group status.
In both scenarios (stolen GF/group status) the intent was the same, but the motivation was different. When the law starts to look at the motivation, we are treading on very dangerous ground.
The Federal Government has only been around for just over 200 years, you can't expect it to get things right in the first two centuries of its existence. And the Federal Reserve Notes have only existed for just under 100 years... they're still trying to figure out what to do with the unfettered power to print money out of thin air. Have some patience.
Exactly...
It's already illegal to beat someone up. But then we had to go and make special laws that make it "extra bad" if the victim was part of some special minority group (race, sexual orientation, religion, etc...)? If the assault was already a crime, then what we are criminalizing is the person's thoughts. That sounds like dangerous ground to me.
Don't get me wrong, I am opposed to people beating up others because they belong to some minority group, but I'm opposed to anyone beating anyone up for any reason. Unless it's a fair fight and no one is forced into it (i.e. duels). But that's another subject.
That attributes a lot of naivete to elected officials. I think they knew exactly what they were doing and exactly what the peoples' reactions would be. They knew they'd get booted out of office and they... just... didn't... care.
Americans need to wake up to the facade of the two-party system. It is a one party system, with two fronts, so we are given the illusion of choice in elections... but neither side ever truly opposes the other side, they just give a good show for the "masses" to make it look like they're opponents.
Explain, then, how it was that 60% (more in some polls) of the American people opposed Obamacare, yet it got passed anyway? Why would politicians choose to vote for it, knowing that doing so would cost them their jobs? Worse, why would Democrat leadership push so hard for it, knowing that doing so would hurt their party severely, potentially costing them both the House and Senate? (They lucked out and only lost the House, but still lost major ground in the Senate).
One answer: They threw themselves on their swords for the greater good of the party... the single party. They knew they'd get booted, but didn't care because Repubs and Dems are the same thing, just a thin veneer differentiates the two.
That's not necessarily true... Right now, if you've got ten cashiers lanes, that means you have ten sets of magazine/candy/soda racks. Take those out and you'll free up quite a bit of space.
Also, there are a number of stores that do the single queue setup (others have mentioned banks and USPS, but they do it at my local Best Buy and during busy times my local Costco has a guy feeding each line in a quasi-single line method.)
As someone else mentioned, this is not just some arm-chair calculation... there is a whole science to how queues work and the single-queue has been proven time and time again to be the fastest method.
The real blockade is that no one wants to stand in a long line, no matter how fast that line is going. They would rather wait a long time in a short line than wait a short time in a long line.
Once again: PEBKAC... Problem Exists Between Kart And Cashier. (I know, I know... it's "Cart"... but I had to make it work with the old acronym.)
Or the word you were actually thinking of "spurred"... comes from riding spurs, which you would use to encourage a horse to go (or go faster).