Our values haven't changed that much. We still want our freedom from religion as well as being able to practice or not without the government telling us otherwise (well, the ones that know history at least), we still want the government to keep out of our bedroom (at least those that understand the Constitution was a limitation on governmental powers, unlike Roberts and Scalia), we still want our free speech, we still want equality for all people (except for those who think how a person is born limits those rights), and so on
If you actually look at America, you'll find that most Americans fall into one of those exceptions. By and large Americans don't actually value life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. This is a country of authoritarians.
Bring back personal liability. If you drive like an ass, you cause an accident, you are liable for all damages you caused. not your insurance company, YOU.
That's a fantastic idea. Let's start by making sure everyone has the money to pay those kinds of damages out of pocket. So the first step is eliminating poverty. How do you plan to do that?
What is the point of the exercise? To teach people how to argue dishonestly? How not to make effective arguments? I fail to see any possible positive outcomes from forcing people to make bad arguments.
If the arguments you provide run against your stated goal, then your arguments are poor (ineffective) in arguing said goal and can be justly evaluating as poor.
If I'm assigned a position that isn't correct, I don't have any effective arguments to choose from. Therefore it is unjust to evaluate my argument as poor.
Taking some examples from real life; if you have to defend a case in court, then you have to make effective arguments that support your position
This is one of the reasons lawyers are so unethical. If you don't really believe a position, you shouldn't be arguing for it. Period.
If you want to make a sale or negotiate your salary - then out of all the possibly relevant facts you need to be able to note and explain those that are most supportive for your desired decision, and develop counterarguments for likely weaknesses.
This is only useful if you intend to defraud someone. If you actually deserve that sale or raise, you will get it through honest discussion as well as through deception.
In assignments, arguing the easy option - the commonly accepted, or your own belief - doesn't excercise your skills as well. For practice, it's much better to write arguments for disagreeable positions, as it requires more effort and serious analysis.
It takes effort and serious analysis to come to correct positions, which is what one should always aspire to. Don't believe things because it's easy. That's stupid. Believe things because you've done the ground work, found all the arguments, and determined where the balance actually lies.
Writing arguments for incorrect positions is the same process, but you omit the arguments that refute the position you're supposed to argue for. It's actually less effort and less serious analysis.
I said that those kind of "argue this side of argument X" papers are useful because they serve as an exercise in understanding opposing views and their bases, which is part of the foundational on which the ability to critically evaluate positions is built.
Part of understanding opposing views is understanding the flaws in those views. If you fail to make a full accounting of the flaws in those views you haven't done a very good job analyzing the problem.
But if you can't shed your own biases enough to do the foundational exercise, you'll also never be any good at critical analysis.
Refraining from making valid arguments against a point is not "shedding bias". It's just being a lazy debater. To be good at critical analysis you have to accept valid arguments no matter which side they support. That's what we should be teaching people.
Unless someone else brings up one of these experiments (which they wouldn't in an essay because there is no response)
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Why wouldn't you bring up the experiments that prove the point? What else is there to talk about? If you have a paper or debate on the ether and the audience doesn't go away completely convinced of its falsity because of empirical evidence you simply haven't done your job. What is the point of such an exercise?
It's the exact technique used by the best intelligent design advocates or global warming deniers: say things that are entirely plausible as long as you ignore some subset of experimental evidence. Having school children become familiar with this technique is an immensely valuable life skill if it makes them recognise it when pundits are using it.
I recognize this tactic, and I have never employed it myself. I would feel guilty if I did, and you should be ashamed of yourself if you use it. You can teach people about intellectual dishonesty without encouraging them to be intellectually dishonest.
I was on my school's debate team, and I'd usually pick the side that I disagreed with to argue. It's much easier when you already know the points that the other side will make, because they're the points that you agree with.
I don't see how that's possible. If they're the points you agree with, you can't possibly have any arguments to counter them, otherwise you wouldn't agree with those points. Unless you're intellectually dishonest.
Now I'll just answer it this way: regardless of reality, the appearance of credibility is important to your ultimate placement. Fraud isn't a problem itself, getting caught is.
No it isn't. Everyone knows that Wall Street is full of criminals. Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dion, John Corzine. All have been caught red handed committing huge amounts of fraud. And they are completely untouched by the law.
If you have enough money, you can get caught doing anything and get away with it.
You only think you're successful. Why aren't you making CEO money? Because you're honest and do good work that is worth something. If you had learned to exploit your fellow man instead, you'd be making a lot more.
This is not my definition of success, but our society's. That's the problem.
The real question is how you guarantee data integrity. If there's no selective pressure maintaining the data, mutations, insertions, deletions, etc, *will* occur. How do you checksum DNA?
He can't flee while he's in the Ecuadorean embassy. He can answer questions though.
the Swedish justice system has nothing to gain by meeting him on his terms.
Nothing to gain, except answers to the questions they claim they want answered.
So only if the US pledges to try him in the regular court system and not use "enhanced interrogation techniques" on him and if the court also pledges not to sentence him to death might he be extradited to the United States.
Exactly, so all the US has to do to get Assange once he's in Swedish custody is lie.
It might interest you to know that as a foreigner, on foreign soil, he is not rightfully bound by US law.
Incidentally, why is Mr. Assange so fearful that Sweden will turn him over to the American authorities? The UK has a much closer relationship to the US
Sweden has a 'temporary surrender' clause in their extradition treaty with the US that the UK lacks.
There is value to being able to find, evaluate, and present the best arguments for a particular position whether or not it is your own.
Yes, there is. But part of evaluating those arguments is finding the flaws in them and pointing them out. If you fail to do that, you're not really critically thinking.
So, I can both see why the value in being assigned to right an argumentative essay for an assigned point-of-view, and see it as perfectly reasonable that failing to do so effectively when it conflicts with your personal POV results in a lower grade.
If the position is wrong, it is impossible to argue for it effectively. Therefore it is unjust to dock points for failing to argue for an incorrect position effectively.
None of this conflicts with students being encouraged to have their own opinions or views, its about students being able to understand others opinions and views, and is part of the foundation on which the ability to critically evaluate others' viewpoints, and their own, is built.
The problem is that it encourages people not to think critically. It teaches people that it's OK for them to say things that aren't true if it gets them the grade(or other favor) they want.
Someone who is actually teaching critical thinking would want all the flaws in all the arguments to be exposed. Asking someone to refrain from making valid arguments doesn't further the cause of critical thinking in any way whatsoever.
There is no practical reason to ever question a suspect on the suspects conditions.
If it costs more to extradite someone than it does to fly over and ask some questions, then yes there is a practical reason.
To my knowledge there exists no requirement that an interrogation be held in Sweden.
Exactly. So we know this is not about securing an interrogation, but about taking Assange into Swedish custody.
But hearing a suspect on the suspects terms would probably be seen as unduly obstructing the work of the police or prosecutor and as such should not be done.
The only thing unduly obstructing the work of the police or prosecutor is their own insistance that Assange be in Swedish custody when they question him.
I'll rephrase, why should anyone give a shit? Who can look at the world and then tell their students that honesty is the best policy? Arent you doing them a disservice?
If you're an educator, you have to choose between teaching your students that cheating is bad, and teaching them what they need to know to be successful in life. What is an ethical educator supposed to do?
Sounds like you're the one who needs to let go of your emotions. A man, presumed innocent before the law, who wants to exhaust all legal options availble to him cannot objectively be portrayed as having said "screw you".
That man says screw you, instead you have to figure out the logistics and spend a lot of taxpayer money
It would take less tax payer money to send a couple of prosecutors over to London for a couple days than it has cost to secure his extradition.
This will invoke a whole host of legal, territorial, and logistical questions, based on who has sovereignty at what point, as well as cost a lot of money.
Such as? I'm having trouble imagining any legitimate issues. There will of course be FUD, but you can blame the Swedish authorities for that.
If you let go of your emotions for a moment, there are plenty of valid reasons for Sweden to want him to return to Sweden to be interviewed about a crime he's alleged to have committed in Sweden against Swedish women.
OK, name one. All I'm seeing in your posts are appeals to emotion. What practical reason is there that Assange has to be in Sweden to answer questions? Name one, I dare you.
How did we get to a place where states like Russia, Venezuela, and Ecuador are â" explicitly or implicitly â" thought to be more "free" by ANY measure than the US, UK, and Sweden?
Are you really that confused that local optima might be different than global optima in a complex system? The US might be more free than Ecuador overall while Ecuador is more free for Julian Assange right now.
That's the kind of bizarre thinking my post is highlighting
It's not bizarre at all. It's completely obvious to anyone with a nuanced view of the world. The argument you're making here is identical in form to the argument that denies global warming because it's cold here today.
This is why we think you're being disingenuous. You're smart enough to know the difference between local and global optima. You're choosing not to recognize the difference in order to manipulate people. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
Our values haven't changed that much. We still want our freedom from religion as well as being able to practice or not without the government telling us otherwise (well, the ones that know history at least), we still want the government to keep out of our bedroom (at least those that understand the Constitution was a limitation on governmental powers, unlike Roberts and Scalia), we still want our free speech, we still want equality for all people (except for those who think how a person is born limits those rights), and so on
If you actually look at America, you'll find that most Americans fall into one of those exceptions. By and large Americans don't actually value life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. This is a country of authoritarians.
I prefer the Model M with buckling spring pedals.
Bring back personal liability. If you drive like an ass, you cause an accident, you are liable for all damages you caused. not your insurance company, YOU.
That's a fantastic idea. Let's start by making sure everyone has the money to pay those kinds of damages out of pocket. So the first step is eliminating poverty. How do you plan to do that?
Don't lie to insurance companies
Lying is their job.
When you lie to an insurance company, that's fraud. When an insurance company lies to you, that's business.
What is the point of the exercise? To teach people how to argue dishonestly? How not to make effective arguments? I fail to see any possible positive outcomes from forcing people to make bad arguments.
These days we call it syndication, and it's used to quash dissent, not encourage it.
All lawyers are lousy. No good and rotten too.
If the arguments you provide run against your stated goal, then your arguments are poor (ineffective) in arguing said goal and can be justly evaluating as poor.
If I'm assigned a position that isn't correct, I don't have any effective arguments to choose from. Therefore it is unjust to evaluate my argument as poor.
Taking some examples from real life; if you have to defend a case in court, then you have to make effective arguments that support your position
This is one of the reasons lawyers are so unethical. If you don't really believe a position, you shouldn't be arguing for it. Period.
If you want to make a sale or negotiate your salary - then out of all the possibly relevant facts you need to be able to note and explain those that are most supportive for your desired decision, and develop counterarguments for likely weaknesses.
This is only useful if you intend to defraud someone. If you actually deserve that sale or raise, you will get it through honest discussion as well as through deception.
In assignments, arguing the easy option - the commonly accepted, or your own belief - doesn't excercise your skills as well. For practice, it's much better to write arguments for disagreeable positions, as it requires more effort and serious analysis.
It takes effort and serious analysis to come to correct positions, which is what one should always aspire to. Don't believe things because it's easy. That's stupid. Believe things because you've done the ground work, found all the arguments, and determined where the balance actually lies.
Writing arguments for incorrect positions is the same process, but you omit the arguments that refute the position you're supposed to argue for. It's actually less effort and less serious analysis.
I said that those kind of "argue this side of argument X" papers are useful because they serve as an exercise in understanding opposing views and their bases, which is part of the foundational on which the ability to critically evaluate positions is built.
Part of understanding opposing views is understanding the flaws in those views. If you fail to make a full accounting of the flaws in those views you haven't done a very good job analyzing the problem.
But if you can't shed your own biases enough to do the foundational exercise, you'll also never be any good at critical analysis.
Refraining from making valid arguments against a point is not "shedding bias". It's just being a lazy debater. To be good at critical analysis you have to accept valid arguments no matter which side they support. That's what we should be teaching people.
Unless someone else brings up one of these experiments (which they wouldn't in an essay because there is no response)
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Why wouldn't you bring up the experiments that prove the point? What else is there to talk about? If you have a paper or debate on the ether and the audience doesn't go away completely convinced of its falsity because of empirical evidence you simply haven't done your job. What is the point of such an exercise?
It's the exact technique used by the best intelligent design advocates or global warming deniers: say things that are entirely plausible as long as you ignore some subset of experimental evidence. Having school children become familiar with this technique is an immensely valuable life skill if it makes them recognise it when pundits are using it.
I recognize this tactic, and I have never employed it myself. I would feel guilty if I did, and you should be ashamed of yourself if you use it. You can teach people about intellectual dishonesty without encouraging them to be intellectually dishonest.
I was on my school's debate team, and I'd usually pick the side that I disagreed with to argue. It's much easier when you already know the points that the other side will make, because they're the points that you agree with.
I don't see how that's possible. If they're the points you agree with, you can't possibly have any arguments to counter them, otherwise you wouldn't agree with those points. Unless you're intellectually dishonest.
Now I'll just answer it this way: regardless of reality, the appearance of credibility is important to your ultimate placement. Fraud isn't a problem itself, getting caught is.
No it isn't. Everyone knows that Wall Street is full of criminals. Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dion, John Corzine. All have been caught red handed committing huge amounts of fraud. And they are completely untouched by the law.
If you have enough money, you can get caught doing anything and get away with it.
You only think you're successful. Why aren't you making CEO money? Because you're honest and do good work that is worth something. If you had learned to exploit your fellow man instead, you'd be making a lot more.
This is not my definition of success, but our society's. That's the problem.
The real question is how you guarantee data integrity. If there's no selective pressure maintaining the data, mutations, insertions, deletions, etc, *will* occur. How do you checksum DNA?
Assange is a proven flight risk
He can't flee while he's in the Ecuadorean embassy. He can answer questions though.
the Swedish justice system has nothing to gain by meeting him on his terms.
Nothing to gain, except answers to the questions they claim they want answered.
So only if the US pledges to try him in the regular court system and not use "enhanced interrogation techniques" on him and if the court also pledges not to sentence him to death might he be extradited to the United States.
Exactly, so all the US has to do to get Assange once he's in Swedish custody is lie.
A judge isn't supposed to be hassling and berating the lawyers on both sides like this.
When both sides deserve it, a fair judge should hassle and berate both sides. Justice isn't well served by tolerating games.
They never gave a toss before, and Linux still ran on MBPs.
What sort of textbook can you write with nothing but G, A, T, and C?
It might interest you to know that as a foreigner, on foreign soil, he is not rightfully bound by US law.
Incidentally, why is Mr. Assange so fearful that Sweden will turn him over to the American authorities? The UK has a much closer relationship to the US
Sweden has a 'temporary surrender' clause in their extradition treaty with the US that the UK lacks.
Yes, there is. But part of evaluating those arguments is finding the flaws in them and pointing them out. If you fail to do that, you're not really critically thinking.
If the position is wrong, it is impossible to argue for it effectively. Therefore it is unjust to dock points for failing to argue for an incorrect position effectively.
The problem is that it encourages people not to think critically. It teaches people that it's OK for them to say things that aren't true if it gets them the grade(or other favor) they want.
Someone who is actually teaching critical thinking would want all the flaws in all the arguments to be exposed. Asking someone to refrain from making valid arguments doesn't further the cause of critical thinking in any way whatsoever.
The real question is, how did Apple fuck up the MBP so badly that Linux won't even run on it?
There is no practical reason to ever question a suspect on the suspects conditions.
If it costs more to extradite someone than it does to fly over and ask some questions, then yes there is a practical reason.
To my knowledge there exists no requirement that an interrogation be held in Sweden.
Exactly. So we know this is not about securing an interrogation, but about taking Assange into Swedish custody.
But hearing a suspect on the suspects terms would probably be seen as unduly obstructing the work of the police or prosecutor and as such should not be done.
The only thing unduly obstructing the work of the police or prosecutor is their own insistance that Assange be in Swedish custody when they question him.
Sweden's embassy is Swedish soil. Sending Assange to the Swedish embassy is extraditing him, which is exactly what he's trying to avoid.
I'll rephrase, why should anyone give a shit? Who can look at the world and then tell their students that honesty is the best policy? Arent you doing them a disservice?
If you're an educator, you have to choose between teaching your students that cheating is bad, and teaching them what they need to know to be successful in life. What is an ethical educator supposed to do?
Sounds like you're the one who needs to let go of your emotions. A man, presumed innocent before the law, who wants to exhaust all legal options availble to him cannot objectively be portrayed as having said "screw you".
That man says screw you, instead you have to figure out the logistics and spend a lot of taxpayer money
It would take less tax payer money to send a couple of prosecutors over to London for a couple days than it has cost to secure his extradition.
This will invoke a whole host of legal, territorial, and logistical questions, based on who has sovereignty at what point, as well as cost a lot of money.
Such as? I'm having trouble imagining any legitimate issues. There will of course be FUD, but you can blame the Swedish authorities for that.
If you let go of your emotions for a moment, there are plenty of valid reasons for Sweden to want him to return to Sweden to be interviewed about a crime he's alleged to have committed in Sweden against Swedish women.
OK, name one. All I'm seeing in your posts are appeals to emotion. What practical reason is there that Assange has to be in Sweden to answer questions? Name one, I dare you.
How did we get to a place where states like Russia, Venezuela, and Ecuador are â" explicitly or implicitly â" thought to be more "free" by ANY measure than the US, UK, and Sweden?
Are you really that confused that local optima might be different than global optima in a complex system? The US might be more free than Ecuador overall while Ecuador is more free for Julian Assange right now.
That's the kind of bizarre thinking my post is highlighting
It's not bizarre at all. It's completely obvious to anyone with a nuanced view of the world. The argument you're making here is identical in form to the argument that denies global warming because it's cold here today.
This is why we think you're being disingenuous. You're smart enough to know the difference between local and global optima. You're choosing not to recognize the difference in order to manipulate people. You should be ashamed of yourself.