That is at the same time true and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Pedophiles are not the same as child molesters. Pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children. It is a sexual orientation, it is not a crime. The point is that we want to exclude people with this sexual orientation from working in kindergartens. Thus we want to engage in discrimination based on sexual orientation, and yet we probably all believe that this is consistent with opposing many other forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation. So we and probably the grandparent don't really believe what the grandparent wrote.
My point was then that anyone who believes that probably does not agree with this:
if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.
Since we are talking about sexual orientation rather than gender, I do believe that by sexual discrimination he means discrimination based on sexual orientation not gender. Denying pedophiles employment in kindergartens absolutely is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I agree with what you wrote. You dodged the issue. Are you in favor of employing openly pedophile people in kindergartens, even if they have not molested any children?
The point I'm making is that I'm guessing you are not in favor of employing pedophiles in kindergartens, even if they promise not to engage in inappropriate conduct with the children. I could be wrong about that, but suppose I'm not. Then you are promoting a form of sexual discrimination that applies only in particular for pedophiles, which is inconsistent with your previously stated position.
Hint: if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.
I doubt you really believe that. How about pedophiles in a kindergarten?
After all, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal."
It's men and not people, and at the time of writing I'm guessing it really did mean actual males and not men as in mankind which includes women, since women couldn't vote then and clearly weren't equal. Even ignoring that, I've always found that sentence to be deeply suspect. When it was first written, they somehow managed to have it not include slaves.
Health consequences are not sufficient to outlaw prostitution, and I've never heard that as the main argument to do so. The main argument is that the prostitutes shouldn't be doing that because it's not a nice thing to do for them.
The point is that someone who has such issues would be more likely to post something like that than someone who does not. The point is not that my kindly grandmother couldn't have posted it, it's that she would be less likely to do so. Pointing out that there are plenty of false positives does nothing to invalidate a probability. Your line of reasoning is like saying that smoking isn't bad for you because you know plenty of smokers who have lived long lives without sickness and in great health.
If you were to say that such a small piece of evidence doesn't give a lot of confidence that someone has issues, then I'd agree. That is why evidence like that can't stand on its own if any kind of firm conclusion is to be drawn.
Earthshaking? This is obviously a plot by Dr. Earthquake. Knuth must be prevented from giving this announcement. Sounds like just the kind of thing the Department of Homeland Security would be all over.
It seems you are saying that this way of arguing is stupid because it classifies you as more likely to have issues. That's not really a good argument, even if it seems emotionally appealing to you. You might actually have issues, or you are one of the obviously prevalent false positives.
"-- Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission." "
If that, in court, is evidence of 'anger management issues' then I'm VERY glad I live on the other side of the pond. Taking remarks in a profile THAT serious is simply retarded.
Writing that in your profile certainly is indicative of a person who is aggressive and may have anger management issues. For a simple example to illustrate this, consider a situation where everybody with issues writes something like that, but only some of the people without issues do. Then having written it makes it more likely that you are in the group of people with issues, even while it doesn't prove that you have issues. Of course something like that can hardly stand on its own - it has to be presented together with a large amount of other evidence to the same effect.
If you haven't read research papers, you can't possibly know that someone hasn't already discovered the algorithm you are working on, or perhaps has made one that is even better. You need to read the papers on the subject before you can know that, so that is step one. Also, to get published you need to cite other people's work when you use their results, even if you don't know you are using their results because you came up with that part on your own. Doesn't matter - if they did something you are using before, then it's their work and you need to cite them. To do that you need to know enough about the literature of the field to be able to know what to cite. An upside to that is that once you've done all this reading, you will know what journal you can submit your own article to.
I didn't know eating dog or horse was illegal, I just though people weren't doing it because they wouldn't like to. Besides, public nudity is different from eating monkey brains in it the way that disgust is involved. Public nudity potentially imposes a disgusting experience on other people directly, while someone eating monkey brains somewhere is nothing to do with people who prefer not to do so themselves. But yeah, I'm sure lots of laws in countries everywhere are based on unjustifiable motives.
This isn't talking about overlooking things. It's talking about the human ability to make decisions without being able to know all of the necessary facts, the ability to reach a conclusion that could be incorrect... but is still probably correct. That's something that computers cannot do (at least not yet).
Computers can certainly do that, they just aren't as good at it as humans in many cases.
If she has a "right NOT to bear a child that is the result of rape," does she now have the right kill the five-year-old child if she wishes?
LOL, if this incredibly contrived scenario is the biggest weakness of my philosophy, then I am pretty comfortable:)
I'll but in and say that it is not at all the scenario itself that is a problem with your philosophy, and therefore it doesn't matter if it is contrived. The scenario is intended to show that actually you don't really believe what you are saying, since if you did believe that, then in this scenario, you would still believe it, but you don't - that is how the argument is intended to work. So it is about revealing something about what you believe. So it's not relevant whether the scenario is contrived or even physically possible.
In your reply you say that the child no longer depends on the mother in particular, and so it can be taken care of by someone else. That is not really an answer since the scenario can be updated to say that the mother is not able to have someone else take care of the child, so the only options are to let it die or take care of it. That makes it slightly more contrived, and that's OK:)
"Write a detailed walk-through of every click." When you see any spec like that, withhold your laughter, and decline whatever they are offering.
In the case of some business person with no background in UI doing something like that, definitely run. However, a spec like that could actually be absolutely wonderful, if it is the outcome of a number of prototypes, even just paper prototypes, made by someone who knows what he is doing. Then I, a programmer without a particular competence in UI design, have a design for the UI that has been shown to be workable. So I can get on with the business of implementing it instead of having to make my own user sessions with prototypes - because I most certainly hope that I'm not as good at that as someone who specializes in that. It's not a detailed UI spec that is a problem, it's a detailed UI spec that some moron pulled out of his ass that is a problem - as indeed it seems would be the case in the situation you are commenting on.
I don't think it is strange or unprecedented for people to have a pecking order for crimes/activities... rape does not get a life sentence or the death penalty, but murder does. Speeding doesn't even land you in jail. Obscenity laws are all over the place.
There is nothing strange in having a pecking order of crimes. What is more than strange is having that pecking order determined in any significant part by what crimes more easily elicit a visceral feeling of disgust. Outlawing eating monkey brains because monkeys are endangered might make sense, outlawing it because it is gross is unjustifiable. Outlawing abortion because of the feeling of disgust one might feel when thinking about it is also unjustifiable. There may be justifiable reasons for outlawing abortion, but "yuck" isn't one of them.
I don't have a terribly large amount of respect for the notion that abortion might be outlawed based solely on the "yuck factor". I do see your point, some people might in fact want to outlaw something solely because of the "yuck", kind of like someone wanting to outlaw eating frog legs because they think it's gross. If there is more of a "yuck" in being raped than in abortion, then the larger "yuck" wins. I'd hate to think that anything of consequence is actually decided in that way, but perhaps it is. That's not an explanation I could have come up with myself - thanks for offering it.
Most of the others are almost certainly of the "pregnancy as punishment" school of thought, which probably comes from an interpretation of part of the Book of Genesis combined with a puritanical view on sex, which is pretty unreasonable but fairly widespread.
Wow, that's twisted. There aren't many things I call actually evil, but advocating pregnancy as punishment is certainly one of them. I'd put such people at a slightly worse rung in hell than the rapists, if I believed in hell. Gah, I'll have to go clean my brain with soap for having just considered such a vile notion, but thanks for explaining it.
I don't speak to the time at which abortion should be allowed or whether there is any such time. What I'm astounded by is the particular idea that if the pregnancy was caused by rape, then that should make a difference in whether abortion should be allowed. I can't come up with a half-way sane position on abortion that doesn't make this idea evil of a high order. I'm prepared to be enlightened.
I'd wager that most people would lie somewhere in the middle... most people would probably not object to abortion [...] in the case of rape.
Off topic, but this just astounds me. The only weighty argument against abortion I can see is that it is killing a person, or at least equivalent to that. So if there aren't grievous medical issues, abortion is then, according to this argument, murder of people who are merely inconvenient. How rape makes any difference to that is completely beyond me - rape may make the child especially inconvenient, but that cannot possibly justify murder. The counterpoint in favor of abortion is that a fertilized egg isn't a person and so any talk of murder is non-sense. So unless there's something I'm completely missing, being against abortion in general but to favor it in the case of rape, is one of the more perverse positions to take. It requires either saying that abortion is murder, but that's OK if it's rape, or that abortion isn't murder, but never the less I want to force the burden of unwanted children on people whose contraceptives fail. It's fucking evil either way, unless I'm completely missing something, and you say this is a majority opinion?! Holy Crap! Where?!
Slashdot Mirror
That is at the same time true and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Pedophiles are not the same as child molesters. Pedophiles are people who are sexually attracted to children. It is a sexual orientation, it is not a crime. The point is that we want to exclude people with this sexual orientation from working in kindergartens. Thus we want to engage in discrimination based on sexual orientation, and yet we probably all believe that this is consistent with opposing many other forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation. So we and probably the grandparent don't really believe what the grandparent wrote.
if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.
Since we are talking about sexual orientation rather than gender, I do believe that by sexual discrimination he means discrimination based on sexual orientation not gender. Denying pedophiles employment in kindergartens absolutely is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
I agree with what you wrote. You dodged the issue. Are you in favor of employing openly pedophile people in kindergartens, even if they have not molested any children?
The point I'm making is that I'm guessing you are not in favor of employing pedophiles in kindergartens, even if they promise not to engage in inappropriate conduct with the children. I could be wrong about that, but suppose I'm not. Then you are promoting a form of sexual discrimination that applies only in particular for pedophiles, which is inconsistent with your previously stated position.
If you are pregnant you don't have periods. Now read his post again.
Hint: if you're against one form of sexual discrimination, then you MUST be against another form of sexual discrimination in order to maintain a consistent logical argument.
I doubt you really believe that. How about pedophiles in a kindergarten?
After all, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [people] are created equal."
It's men and not people, and at the time of writing I'm guessing it really did mean actual males and not men as in mankind which includes women, since women couldn't vote then and clearly weren't equal. Even ignoring that, I've always found that sentence to be deeply suspect. When it was first written, they somehow managed to have it not include slaves.
Health consequences are not sufficient to outlaw prostitution, and I've never heard that as the main argument to do so. The main argument is that the prostitutes shouldn't be doing that because it's not a nice thing to do for them.
The point is that someone who has such issues would be more likely to post something like that than someone who does not. The point is not that my kindly grandmother couldn't have posted it, it's that she would be less likely to do so. Pointing out that there are plenty of false positives does nothing to invalidate a probability. Your line of reasoning is like saying that smoking isn't bad for you because you know plenty of smokers who have lived long lives without sickness and in great health.
If you were to say that such a small piece of evidence doesn't give a lot of confidence that someone has issues, then I'd agree. That is why evidence like that can't stand on its own if any kind of firm conclusion is to be drawn.
Earthshaking? This is obviously a plot by Dr. Earthquake. Knuth must be prevented from giving this announcement. Sounds like just the kind of thing the Department of Homeland Security would be all over.
It seems you are saying that this way of arguing is stupid because it classifies you as more likely to have issues. That's not really a good argument, even if it seems emotionally appealing to you. You might actually have issues, or you are one of the obviously prevalent false positives.
"-- Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission." " If that, in court, is evidence of 'anger management issues' then I'm VERY glad I live on the other side of the pond. Taking remarks in a profile THAT serious is simply retarded.
Writing that in your profile certainly is indicative of a person who is aggressive and may have anger management issues. For a simple example to illustrate this, consider a situation where everybody with issues writes something like that, but only some of the people without issues do. Then having written it makes it more likely that you are in the group of people with issues, even while it doesn't prove that you have issues. Of course something like that can hardly stand on its own - it has to be presented together with a large amount of other evidence to the same effect.
Only in the arbitrary and to the rest of us uninteresting metric of what happens to interest you in particular - which is exactly the OP's point.
If you haven't read research papers, you can't possibly know that someone hasn't already discovered the algorithm you are working on, or perhaps has made one that is even better. You need to read the papers on the subject before you can know that, so that is step one. Also, to get published you need to cite other people's work when you use their results, even if you don't know you are using their results because you came up with that part on your own. Doesn't matter - if they did something you are using before, then it's their work and you need to cite them. To do that you need to know enough about the literature of the field to be able to know what to cite. An upside to that is that once you've done all this reading, you will know what journal you can submit your own article to.
I didn't know eating dog or horse was illegal, I just though people weren't doing it because they wouldn't like to. Besides, public nudity is different from eating monkey brains in it the way that disgust is involved. Public nudity potentially imposes a disgusting experience on other people directly, while someone eating monkey brains somewhere is nothing to do with people who prefer not to do so themselves. But yeah, I'm sure lots of laws in countries everywhere are based on unjustifiable motives.
This isn't talking about overlooking things. It's talking about the human ability to make decisions without being able to know all of the necessary facts, the ability to reach a conclusion that could be incorrect... but is still probably correct. That's something that computers cannot do (at least not yet).
Computers can certainly do that, they just aren't as good at it as humans in many cases.
If she has a "right NOT to bear a child that is the result of rape," does she now have the right kill the five-year-old child if she wishes?
LOL, if this incredibly contrived scenario is the biggest weakness of my philosophy, then I am pretty comfortable :)
I'll but in and say that it is not at all the scenario itself that is a problem with your philosophy, and therefore it doesn't matter if it is contrived. The scenario is intended to show that actually you don't really believe what you are saying, since if you did believe that, then in this scenario, you would still believe it, but you don't - that is how the argument is intended to work. So it is about revealing something about what you believe. So it's not relevant whether the scenario is contrived or even physically possible.
:)
In your reply you say that the child no longer depends on the mother in particular, and so it can be taken care of by someone else. That is not really an answer since the scenario can be updated to say that the mother is not able to have someone else take care of the child, so the only options are to let it die or take care of it. That makes it slightly more contrived, and that's OK
"Write a detailed walk-through of every click." When you see any spec like that, withhold your laughter, and decline whatever they are offering.
In the case of some business person with no background in UI doing something like that, definitely run. However, a spec like that could actually be absolutely wonderful, if it is the outcome of a number of prototypes, even just paper prototypes, made by someone who knows what he is doing. Then I, a programmer without a particular competence in UI design, have a design for the UI that has been shown to be workable. So I can get on with the business of implementing it instead of having to make my own user sessions with prototypes - because I most certainly hope that I'm not as good at that as someone who specializes in that. It's not a detailed UI spec that is a problem, it's a detailed UI spec that some moron pulled out of his ass that is a problem - as indeed it seems would be the case in the situation you are commenting on.
Thanks for the link.
I don't think it is strange or unprecedented for people to have a pecking order for crimes/activities... rape does not get a life sentence or the death penalty, but murder does. Speeding doesn't even land you in jail. Obscenity laws are all over the place.
There is nothing strange in having a pecking order of crimes. What is more than strange is having that pecking order determined in any significant part by what crimes more easily elicit a visceral feeling of disgust. Outlawing eating monkey brains because monkeys are endangered might make sense, outlawing it because it is gross is unjustifiable. Outlawing abortion because of the feeling of disgust one might feel when thinking about it is also unjustifiable. There may be justifiable reasons for outlawing abortion, but "yuck" isn't one of them.
I don't have a terribly large amount of respect for the notion that abortion might be outlawed based solely on the "yuck factor". I do see your point, some people might in fact want to outlaw something solely because of the "yuck", kind of like someone wanting to outlaw eating frog legs because they think it's gross. If there is more of a "yuck" in being raped than in abortion, then the larger "yuck" wins. I'd hate to think that anything of consequence is actually decided in that way, but perhaps it is. That's not an explanation I could have come up with myself - thanks for offering it.
Most of the others are almost certainly of the "pregnancy as punishment" school of thought, which probably comes from an interpretation of part of the Book of Genesis combined with a puritanical view on sex, which is pretty unreasonable but fairly widespread.
Wow, that's twisted. There aren't many things I call actually evil, but advocating pregnancy as punishment is certainly one of them. I'd put such people at a slightly worse rung in hell than the rapists, if I believed in hell. Gah, I'll have to go clean my brain with soap for having just considered such a vile notion, but thanks for explaining it.
I don't speak to the time at which abortion should be allowed or whether there is any such time. What I'm astounded by is the particular idea that if the pregnancy was caused by rape, then that should make a difference in whether abortion should be allowed. I can't come up with a half-way sane position on abortion that doesn't make this idea evil of a high order. I'm prepared to be enlightened.
I'd wager that most people would lie somewhere in the middle... most people would probably not object to abortion [...] in the case of rape.
Off topic, but this just astounds me. The only weighty argument against abortion I can see is that it is killing a person, or at least equivalent to that. So if there aren't grievous medical issues, abortion is then, according to this argument, murder of people who are merely inconvenient. How rape makes any difference to that is completely beyond me - rape may make the child especially inconvenient, but that cannot possibly justify murder. The counterpoint in favor of abortion is that a fertilized egg isn't a person and so any talk of murder is non-sense. So unless there's something I'm completely missing, being against abortion in general but to favor it in the case of rape, is one of the more perverse positions to take. It requires either saying that abortion is murder, but that's OK if it's rape, or that abortion isn't murder, but never the less I want to force the burden of unwanted children on people whose contraceptives fail. It's fucking evil either way, unless I'm completely missing something, and you say this is a majority opinion?! Holy Crap! Where?!