They aren't abstaining because they don't like the options. They're abstaining because they are reducing two sides to views which do not correlate to the actual options presented, and then stating that not choosing those options is better than picking one.
Look at it like person A says "I want to do good, but options 1 and 2 do no good, therefore I must choose niether because doing nothing is better than do evil" However that isn't the case. It is more like "the level of good I see isn't as high as I want so I choose to do nothing" However,.1 (lets say facism) is better than nothing (not voting). So the choice to vote based on these premises is not a valid argument.
I wasn't saying their choice of what they like or don't like is incorrect, I was simply stating that their logic was flawed and were utilizing an invalid arguement.
More over, any argument does not fly when appealing to moral duty. Moral relativism has repeatedly proven false. There are such things as morals. So you can't just say "oh its my opinion that this is a moral so it is as correct as your opinion."--And no that isn't my opinion it is a generally accepted fact in the field of ethics.
I am not going to lie. I didn't vote in 2004. Reason? Kerry wasn't going to do shit to change America. It was better if Bush won and continued his reign of terrible. However, this contest is markedly different
Firstly lets get this in the open, yes Obama has voted for this which I would personally never allow (telecoms,allowing the Patriot act, our general loss of certain freedoms we are granted by the constitution). But if you chose to use this as why you are not voting for him, or admiting to voting to vote for someone else in protest, sir or mam your logic is terrible and your argument is not valid.
This seems to be you arguement 1.My vote should be cast for the canidate who will affect the changes I want to see. 2. I will choose a canidate iff they propose to accomplish what I want 3.If I invest value in my vote, I care about where it goes towards. 4. Canidate A and Canidate B do not do everything I want. Conlusion I must not vote for either canidate.
This is not a valid argument. You would have to insist on premise 2 that the canidate must do everything I want. This is an unrealistic expectation to make of anything in reality. It is impossible to control the contents of the universe and expect that they work for you, in the way you want. We just can't know everything.
Furthermore if you value you vote, throwing it away does not follow premise 3. By willingly investing it nothing, you are like the rich man who buries his gold in the yard.
Our economy is terrible, our place in the world is diminishing. Education is harder to come by. People die unecessarily when we have the technology and resources to provide health care. If you turn away from these things, fine. But don't act like you you really care about what happens and you are not voting on moral grounds. Turning away from helping others isn't moral at all.
That is terrible logic. Basically you are saying "I am willing to allow evil to continue because I cannot see good". That is lazy and irresponsible.
That mentality is like letting someone get attacked on the streets because there is no police around. You should always do the most you can, even when you know its not enough.
I think we should start putting everyone on the watch list. Then we don't have to worry about exceptions, and all of our wait times become the same.
If employees of the TSA can't sort out when someone, like a 6 year old boy, is not the right person named on the terror list, then WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH A REAL TERRORIST?
This competition seems like that on one hand however, it opens up a whole new world for hobbyists.
When small users start taking things into their own hands, and then it becomes publicized, this is when companies often join up if they were hesitant earlier. This is especially true of the automotive industry. Think of hot rods, chopped cars, and custom bikes. Even ricers began as small custom tuners and now the industry really takes these niches seriously.
Racing is often a great proving ground for technology. Have you driven a paddle shifter recently? Much, much better than the old "semi-automatics".
That's because we're running out of good lumber (the last construction company I worked for used imported studs,) and skilled labor. Laminates and truss systems are even easier to put together.
Ask an average framer how big a birds mouth on a (insert example of pitched roof here with dimensions) should be, compared to how to assemble a truss package. Easy, instructions and even supervisors come with truss packages.
I think Cds have remained so popular because they're cheap to make, small enough to be convient, and simple to lock down.
Why shouldn't we switch over to flashdrives? They're even better than CDs(smaller,more space, very cheap and getting cheaper,can't scratch)But they're easier to modify. It's hard for the average user to jailbreak/mod a CD. Not so much for new forms of media.
Although the hyper vigilance of Blu-Ray firmware updates may seem to contradict me...
You actually don't build a house out of 2x4s anymore. It's a lot more of 2x6s for exterior walls and 2x8-2x10+12s for beams and the like. 2x4's are merely for interior walls, at least according to most building codes.
I wasn't think for false starts, more for actual time spent completing the race. This of course wouldn't be in any record books, but would be very helpful for useless commentary.
Specifically concerning the race which Phelps one by.01 seconds, even with all the photo documentation and the under water video, it was difficult to determine who did what first.
While I agree with you that timing isn't important during a contest that is head to head with a peer, this electronic timing/reporting is very helpful in events such as fencing, and swimming as the Phelps case proves.
Now if we could trust the IOC to not allow corruption, I'ld like to see more electronical surveillance in other events, such as tennis (perhaps on the rackets) and also track (maybe on the blocks to see who actually is leaving first).
As opposed to many "victimless crimes" [abuse of govt resources IMHO but its own citizens(come one we should get entitled to more of our own tax money)], I think this incident requires some looking into.
Firstly the person(s) did call many countries on our "watch-list", what ever that may be worth. More importantly who knows that many people that they can rack up 12,000 dollars worth of calls? I mean who are they calling? That my friends is where the real story is.
Explain to me how broadcasting light onto a building "defaces it" Or maybe you are talking about the sticky lights WHICH COME OFF. Seriously this isn't your gang tagger here.
And in this instance, as in many instances of public space reclamation, the people have in fact lost their right to public space. Perhaps you should read up about the loss of common land . Or about the hundreds of thousands of people who were displaced to build the Olympic grounds.
BTW, I'm pretty sure I understand the meaning definition of coward. However, I don't think I ever explicitly said anything about my character, e.g. I didn't mention my concepts of my own self-worth. Whatever you may have garned you must have infered. And since we already have an example of your stellar deduction skills , I'm sure we can make an educated guess about how good you are at inference.
M$ didn't leave it broken so users had to deal with it, they left it broken so developers continued to support IE. If we have to code differently for IE, because it doesn't follow standards and many users use IE, it makes us constantly concerned with what M$ does.
It's like the ex who keeps you as a friend on facebook and makes sure you see all those new pictures with her new bf. Except with IE you just can't defriend it.
Obviously comparing what he is doing to Rosa Parks is a horrible analogy that would give you low scores on the SAT verbal.
However he is doing exactly what all people of privilege should do: use their 'gifted' place in society to help others. While most of us take our white male privilege for granted, he is openly willing to place his life on the line to share it with other people. Because he has the resources he is helping others accomplish their goals. And you mock him for this? You should have posted as a coward because that's is clearly what you are
Whether or not he is correct concerning the stance and situation of Tibet with China, his goal is to allow freedom of expression through the reclamation of public spaces.
How can you sit there and lambaste him when he is actually taking chances to do something he believes in- in a non-violent fashion?
Besides this I won't comment on your terribly stated and obvious flamebait responses to his political ideals. I know this is/. and you obviously didn't RTFA but he isn't saying ANYTHING about the USA while he is in China.
We need a mod tool to amend sigs to have "community sponsored 'special person' tag".
Slashdot Mirror
You don't argue with people, you argue for or against other arguements. That's how logic works.
Well as a seasoned armchair economist I suggest they make better products.
They aren't abstaining because they don't like the options. They're abstaining because they are reducing two sides to views which do not correlate to the actual options presented, and then stating that not choosing those options is better than picking one.
.1 (lets say facism) is better than nothing (not voting). So the choice to vote based on these premises is not a valid argument.
Look at it like person A says "I want to do good, but options 1 and 2 do no good, therefore I must choose niether because doing nothing is better than do evil" However that isn't the case. It is more like "the level of good I see isn't as high as I want so I choose to do nothing" However,
I wasn't saying their choice of what they like or don't like is incorrect, I was simply stating that their logic was flawed and were utilizing an invalid arguement.
More over, any argument does not fly when appealing to moral duty. Moral relativism has repeatedly proven false. There are such things as morals. So you can't just say "oh its my opinion that this is a moral so it is as correct as your opinion."--And no that isn't my opinion it is a generally accepted fact in the field of ethics.
I am not going to lie. I didn't vote in 2004. Reason? Kerry wasn't going to do shit to change America. It was better if Bush won and continued his reign of terrible. However, this contest is markedly different
.
.
Firstly lets get this in the open, yes Obama has voted for this which I would personally never allow (telecoms,allowing the Patriot act, our general loss of certain freedoms we are granted by the constitution). But if you chose to use this as why you are not voting for him, or admiting to voting to vote for someone else in protest, sir or mam your logic is terrible and your argument is not valid.
This seems to be you arguement
1.My vote should be cast for the canidate who will affect the changes I want to see.
2. I will choose a canidate iff they propose to accomplish what I want
3.If I invest value in my vote, I care about where it goes towards.
4. Canidate A and Canidate B do not do everything I want.
Conlusion I must not vote for either canidate.
This is not a valid argument. You would have to insist on premise 2 that the canidate must do everything I want. This is an unrealistic expectation to make of anything in reality. It is impossible to control the contents of the universe and expect that they work for you, in the way you want. We just can't know everything
Furthermore if you value you vote, throwing it away does not follow premise 3. By willingly investing it nothing, you are like the rich man who buries his gold in the yard
Our economy is terrible, our place in the world is diminishing. Education is harder to come by. People die unecessarily when we have the technology and resources to provide health care. If you turn away from these things, fine. But don't act like you you really care about what happens and you are not voting on moral grounds. Turning away from helping others isn't moral at all.
That is terrible logic. Basically you are saying "I am willing to allow evil to continue because I cannot see good". That is lazy and irresponsible.
That mentality is like letting someone get attacked on the streets because there is no police around. You should always do the most you can, even when you know its not enough.
I think we should start putting everyone on the watch list. Then we don't have to worry about exceptions, and all of our wait times become the same.
If employees of the TSA can't sort out when someone, like a 6 year old boy, is not the right person named on the terror list, then WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY GOING TO DO WITH A REAL TERRORIST?
This competition seems like that on one hand however, it opens up a whole new world for hobbyists.
When small users start taking things into their own hands, and then it becomes publicized, this is when companies often join up if they were hesitant earlier. This is especially true of the automotive industry. Think of hot rods, chopped cars, and custom bikes. Even ricers began as small custom tuners and now the industry really takes these niches seriously.
Racing is often a great proving ground for technology. Have you driven a paddle shifter recently? Much, much better than the old "semi-automatics".
That's because we're running out of good lumber (the last construction company I worked for used imported studs ,) and skilled labor. Laminates and truss systems are even easier to put together.
Ask an average framer how big a birds mouth on a (insert example of pitched roof here with dimensions) should be, compared to how to assemble a truss package. Easy, instructions and even supervisors come with truss packages.
I think Cds have remained so popular because they're cheap to make, small enough to be convient, and simple to lock down.
Why shouldn't we switch over to flashdrives? They're even better than CDs(smaller,more space, very cheap and getting cheaper,can't scratch)But they're easier to modify. It's hard for the average user to jailbreak/mod a CD. Not so much for new forms of media.
Although the hyper vigilance of Blu-Ray firmware updates may seem to contradict me...
You actually don't build a house out of 2x4s anymore. It's a lot more of 2x6s for exterior walls and 2x8-2x10+12s for beams and the like. 2x4's are merely for interior walls, at least according to most building codes.
I wasn't think for false starts, more for actual time spent completing the race. This of course wouldn't be in any record books, but would be very helpful for useless commentary.
Specifically concerning the race which Phelps one by .01 seconds, even with all the photo documentation and the under water video, it was difficult to determine who did what first.
While I agree with you that timing isn't important during a contest that is head to head with a peer, this electronic timing/reporting is very helpful in events such as fencing, and swimming as the Phelps case proves.
Now if we could trust the IOC to not allow corruption, I'ld like to see more electronical surveillance in other events, such as tennis (perhaps on the rackets) and also track (maybe on the blocks to see who actually is leaving first).
Firstly the person(s) did call many countries on our "watch-list", what ever that may be worth. More importantly who knows that many people that they can rack up 12,000 dollars worth of calls? I mean who are they calling? That my friends is where the real story is.
Explain to me how broadcasting light onto a building "defaces it" Or maybe you are talking about the sticky lights WHICH COME OFF. Seriously this isn't your gang tagger here.
And in this instance, as in many instances of public space reclamation, the people have in fact lost their right to public space. Perhaps you should read up about the loss of common land . Or about the hundreds of thousands of people who were displaced to build the Olympic grounds.
BTW, I'm pretty sure I understand the meaning definition of coward. However, I don't think I ever explicitly said anything about my character, e.g. I didn't mention my concepts of my own self-worth. Whatever you may have garned you must have infered. And since we already have an example of your stellar deduction skills , I'm sure we can make an educated guess about how good you are at inference.
M$ didn't leave it broken so users had to deal with it, they left it broken so developers continued to support IE. If we have to code differently for IE, because it doesn't follow standards and many users use IE, it makes us constantly concerned with what M$ does.
It's like the ex who keeps you as a friend on facebook and makes sure you see all those new pictures with her new bf. Except with IE you just can't defriend it.
Obviously comparing what he is doing to Rosa Parks is a horrible analogy that would give you low scores on the SAT verbal. However he is doing exactly what all people of privilege should do: use their 'gifted' place in society to help others. While most of us take our white male privilege for granted, he is openly willing to place his life on the line to share it with other people. Because he has the resources he is helping others accomplish their goals. And you mock him for this? You should have posted as a coward because that's is clearly what you are Whether or not he is correct concerning the stance and situation of Tibet with China, his goal is to allow freedom of expression through the reclamation of public spaces. How can you sit there and lambaste him when he is actually taking chances to do something he believes in- in a non-violent fashion? Besides this I won't comment on your terribly stated and obvious flamebait responses to his political ideals. I know this is /. and you obviously didn't RTFA but he isn't saying ANYTHING about the USA while he is in China.
We need a mod tool to amend sigs to have "community sponsored 'special person' tag".
Dead gymnasts are still hot. And easier to catch.