You think you're good at deflection, but you're actually terrible at it.
The presumption of innocence applies to a trial, not public discussions
Which is probably why I said
requires there to be actual evidence of what you claim before you're allowed to nail someone's ass to a tree.
Natch.
But Snowden isn't innocent anyway - he has admitted to taking the documents and fleeing with them.
Hey, weren't those goalposts over here a minute ago? As I recall, we are discussing the accusation that he turned documents over to the Chinese and/or Russian governments, not whether he took them in the first place.
Please try and keep up.
Maybe he is telling the truth, maybe not. If he is, it would be the first time in a long time after lying about so many things to get access to the documents, and then having so many lies about his flight to Russia. And the FSB has apparently been involved with him since at least Hong Kong, if not before. At least one former Soviet bloc intelligence general believe that Snowden is a Russian agent.
... and my point is, without actual evidence proving any of these claims, then he should be assumed to be innocent.
Really, it's not like this is some new and novel concept I'm positing; it's hard to believe that you honestly just don't get the concept of 'presumption of innocence' - rather, the more likely circumstance is that you're being intentionally obtuse in a pathetic attempt to avoid admission that you're being a completely unreasonable person in this regard. Of course, I wouldn't throw around such an accusation if not for the evidence of your post history.
You're free to believe what you want. I'll probably believe something different based on the evidence.
Considering that you are the one who's making baseless claims on a distinct lack of evidence, that statement is hilariously ironic.
Quite the contrary. The Russians and Chinese have access to US & UK top secret documents the same as anyone else that goes to various web sites.
One thing you are discounting is the chain of lies and around Snowden's activities. One very interesting example of which is the birthday party at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong when the Russians later claimed that they had no idea he was coming to Moscow.
The fact that there are no angels in Hell doesn't change the other fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that Snowden directly handed files over to anyone other than Glen Greenwald. "Oh, they can read it in the paper like everyone else!" Big fucking deal - we're not talking about that, we're talking about the claims that he directly and intentionally gave top secret documents to the Chinese and Russian governments; a claim Snowden has denied, and to date not a single fucking soul has managed to prove.
I know this is a bit lofty of an ideal for statists like yourself to understand, but there's this concept called "presumption of innocence" that requires there to be actual evidence of what you claim before you're allowed to nail someone's ass to a tree.
Remember Bushtorrent? Never had trouble finding what I wanted there, and (at least at first) it wasn't covered with porn ads like rhinestones on a teenager girl's mobile.
Especially if you consider that [monthly cable bill / ({# of channels * 24} / amount of hours show X is on per month)] is a helluva lot less than $0.99.
Assuming a $60/mo cable bill with 80 channels, the value to the subscriber for an hour-long show that runs once a week would be about 12.5 cents... presuming I didn't bork the math, which is quite probable.
Anecdotal evidence: After having installed a radiant floor heating system, I made the following observation. If your feet are cold, you perceive the environment as being cold. And you turn up the heat. If your feet are warm, you can tolerate lower air temperatures.
Wrists, ankles, and neck.
These are the main points by which your body measures ambient temperature, and makes adjustments accordingly. Theoretically, if you were to wrap your wrists, ankles, and neck in some sort of warm material, you could very well walk out into near-zero temperatures otherwise naked, and not really feel the cold. Anecdotally, I tried this myself last winter (albeit with the addition of skivvies to avoid an indecent exposure charge), and I do recall noting that I didn't feel as cold as I should have.
Of course, it has to be said that 'feeling warm' will do absolutely nothing to prevent hypothermia and exposure.
The intersection between people who want to drive pickup trucks and people want to who drive electric cars is close to zero.
This is true - the weight of the battery packs would severely diminish the tow/hauling capacity of the vehicle, and thus would pretty much defeat the purpose of owning a truck to begin with.
News is news, not every single website is expected to have unique content.
My point exactly; people like OP who say, 'oh, it's not believable because it was reported by News Agency X' are merely expressing their personal biases, as opposed to actually saying anything worth paying attention to.
(P.S. I'm not really educated in any of this kind of stuff and don't really know what I'm talking about - so don't bother correcting me)
Actually, your assessment is pretty much spot on - "drugs" describes an uncountable number of substances, many of which are legal and some which are not.
Even if we assumed the writer was specifically referring to illicit/illegal drugs, there's still a few thousand different kinds, each with its own properties and addiction rates.
Stupid hardly even begins to describe what's going on here, both with the "researcher's" study and the "journalists" reporting it.
You're still operating under the assumption that a 12 year old girl is as mentally and emotionally mature as a 30 year old man - yea, I know how to deal with stupid assholes at this point in my life, thanks Captain Obvious. Thing is, this isn't about me, nor is it about you - it's about mentally and emotionally undeveloped children.
Not sure what I could say to get that through your head, that I haven't said already.
I don't know who Charles Manson is
And, obviously, can't be bothered to learn. If you could, you'd realize that enticing others into violent acts very much is illegal in the USA.
I suggest you spend less time focusing on your undeserved sense of moral and mental superiority, and a little more learning just what it means to be human; specifically, the difference between a fully developed adult male, and a developing adolescent female child.
Oh, and maybe take the 10 fucking seconds required to Google "Charles Manson." I mean, if you won't even take it upon yourself to become educated about a very, very, exceedingly well-known part of recent American history, I have absolutely no reason to assume any of the statements you have made or continue to make are based on anything so much as reflecting reality.
I think that monitoring what your child does online qualifies as helicopter parenting
I think there's a middle ground; going all NSA on them and logging every single thing they do? Yea, helicopter parent to a T.
Sitting with them as they go through the comments on their facebook page? Hell, that's just being attentive, and if there ends up being something there your kid doesn't want you to see, then it was worth the effort.
I can understand some type of filter system (proxy or software, like what schools have) that will block out porn and extremist hate sites, but on social sites like Facebook or G+ it's difficult to meddle without being overbearing.
Funny, I have pretty much the opposite philosophy (except when it comes to porn); the 'extremist hate sites' are something a kid would be willing to talk to a parent about, and gives parents good opportunities to bond with their children while educating them on some of the stupid this world has to offer; A child is less likely to take Al Queda's website seriously than they are the things their classmates say to them online. By blocking some sites and refusing to monitor their social media, you're doing more harm than good, IMO.
Especially for preteens
Which brings me to my next point: you're their parent, not their buddy. Sometimes you have to be the 'bad guy' for their own protection, because being kids they lack the cognitive abilities to protect themselves. They might say they hate you for it now, but in 20 years they'll be thanking you for taking an interest in their future.
But I don't even know how one goes about that on smartphones. I'm sure there's probably something.
You mean, outside not buying them one in the first place? Yea, probably.
In fairness, I grew up prior to the internet age; we didn't have facebook or cell phones, so most-if-not-all communication was face-to-face. In my experience, most people (short of outright sociopaths) tend to self-filter the things they say to a person's face, moreso than they do when sitting behind a screen stroking their e-cocks. I remember some nasty name calling, but nothing to the extent of what these kids say online today ("Drink bleach and kill yourself?" Really? Where the fuck does a 12 year old get such notions, anyway? Let alone the poor moral fiber needed to say such a thing to another person).
So no, there was no in-depth monitoring of social media, because social media didn't exist back then. Then again, neither did the high teen suicide rate we see these days... correlation, perhaps?
OK, so you don't understand psychological abuse. That's fair, you probably haven't been subjected to much of it in your life.
Those of us that have understand what sort of impact being told that you're shit and should end your own life, by pretty much everyone you meet, day in and day out, especially at such an influential age, can have on a person. Some of us were lucky - we survived our attempts on our own lives and were then able to see the damage and thus, do what we could to mitigate and repair it. Some people, like the girl who jumped from the tower, weren't so lucky.
Seriously, man, if you can't see the sociopathy in the one girl telling the entire fucking world "I'm glad I contributed to her suicide..." I just don't know, perhaps you would benefit from some counseling yourself.
P.S. in case you didn't know, enticement to commit a violent act, even against oneself, is illegal in most places in the US; you can't stand at the bottom of the tower yelling "Jump! Jump!" any more than you can yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Ever wonder why Charles Manson is in prison? He never killed anyone with his own hands. Neither did Hitler.
Do you seriously think Charles Manson and Hitler are/were innocent men? Because that's basically what you're saying here.
We're going to stop short of threats of physical violence, since those are in-themselves illegal for other reasons.
Why? The offenders in this case told the victim to "Go drink bleach and kill yourself." Sounds pretty damn threatening to me.
nd so I ask again: what would cause you to intentionally choose to kill yourself? What could anyone say to you, no matter how many times, from whatever proximity?
You're assuming that a 12-year-old girl has the same intellectual and emotional maturity as a 30-year-old man, which they patently do not.
We've come a long way from sticks and stones; I wonder in which direction. Since when is it illegal to tell someone that you hate them, repeatedly even?
Since doing so meant following them around either on or offline, incitement of violence, threats, etc.
Obviously you did not RTFA, else you would be aware that there's more to this situation than a couple girls telling another one they hate her.
They should have had a warrant issued for her personal internet devices as well; the call logs and internet history would likely have provided all the evidence they need.
I believe in freedom of speech and obviously you don't.
Sounds more like freedom of hyperbole to me.
Does SWATting, the practice of calling in false reports to encourage SWAT teams to kick in random people's doors qualify as freedom of speech in your dictionary? What about libelous speech and slander? Incitement of violence against others?
Is freedom of speech a black/white issue to you? Or can you bring yourself to acknowledge that there might be a few shades of grey in there?
Slashdot Mirror
You think you're good at deflection, but you're actually terrible at it.
The presumption of innocence applies to a trial, not public discussions
Which is probably why I said
requires there to be actual evidence of what you claim before you're allowed to nail someone's ass to a tree.
Natch.
But Snowden isn't innocent anyway - he has admitted to taking the documents and fleeing with them.
Hey, weren't those goalposts over here a minute ago? As I recall, we are discussing the accusation that he turned documents over to the Chinese and/or Russian governments, not whether he took them in the first place.
Please try and keep up.
Maybe he is telling the truth, maybe not. If he is, it would be the first time in a long time after lying about so many things to get access to the documents, and then having so many lies about his flight to Russia. And the FSB has apparently been involved with him since at least Hong Kong, if not before. At least one former Soviet bloc intelligence general believe that Snowden is a Russian agent.
... and my point is, without actual evidence proving any of these claims, then he should be assumed to be innocent.
Really, it's not like this is some new and novel concept I'm positing; it's hard to believe that you honestly just don't get the concept of 'presumption of innocence' - rather, the more likely circumstance is that you're being intentionally obtuse in a pathetic attempt to avoid admission that you're being a completely unreasonable person in this regard. Of course, I wouldn't throw around such an accusation if not for the evidence of your post history.
You're free to believe what you want. I'll probably believe something different based on the evidence.
Considering that you are the one who's making baseless claims on a distinct lack of evidence, that statement is hilariously ironic.
Quite the contrary. The Russians and Chinese have access to US & UK top secret documents the same as anyone else that goes to various web sites.
One thing you are discounting is the chain of lies and around Snowden's activities. One very interesting example of which is the birthday party at the Russian embassy in Hong Kong when the Russians later claimed that they had no idea he was coming to Moscow.
The fact that there are no angels in Hell doesn't change the other fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that Snowden directly handed files over to anyone other than Glen Greenwald. "Oh, they can read it in the paper like everyone else!" Big fucking deal - we're not talking about that, we're talking about the claims that he directly and intentionally gave top secret documents to the Chinese and Russian governments; a claim Snowden has denied, and to date not a single fucking soul has managed to prove.
I know this is a bit lofty of an ideal for statists like yourself to understand, but there's this concept called "presumption of innocence" that requires there to be actual evidence of what you claim before you're allowed to nail someone's ass to a tree.
Crazy idea, I know.
Remember Bushtorrent? Never had trouble finding what I wanted there, and (at least at first) it wasn't covered with porn ads like rhinestones on a teenager girl's mobile.
99 cents per episode for a tv series is outrages.
Especially if you consider that [monthly cable bill / ({# of channels * 24} / amount of hours show X is on per month)] is a helluva lot less than $0.99.
Assuming a $60/mo cable bill with 80 channels, the value to the subscriber for an hour-long show that runs once a week would be about 12.5 cents... presuming I didn't bork the math, which is quite probable.
Anecdotal evidence: After having installed a radiant floor heating system, I made the following observation. If your feet are cold, you perceive the environment as being cold. And you turn up the heat. If your feet are warm, you can tolerate lower air temperatures.
Wrists, ankles, and neck.
These are the main points by which your body measures ambient temperature, and makes adjustments accordingly. Theoretically, if you were to wrap your wrists, ankles, and neck in some sort of warm material, you could very well walk out into near-zero temperatures otherwise naked, and not really feel the cold. Anecdotally, I tried this myself last winter (albeit with the addition of skivvies to avoid an indecent exposure charge), and I do recall noting that I didn't feel as cold as I should have.
Of course, it has to be said that 'feeling warm' will do absolutely nothing to prevent hypothermia and exposure.
The intersection between people who want to drive pickup trucks and people want to who drive electric cars is close to zero.
This is true - the weight of the battery packs would severely diminish the tow/hauling capacity of the vehicle, and thus would pretty much defeat the purpose of owning a truck to begin with.
Ricer Randy whips out his dad's power drill to mount a whale tail on the fender.
Also a very likely circumstance.
News is news, not every single website is expected to have unique content.
My point exactly; people like OP who say, 'oh, it's not believable because it was reported by News Agency X' are merely expressing their personal biases, as opposed to actually saying anything worth paying attention to.
What, and expect the kind of people who surrender their lives to MMORPGs like WoW to think while playing?
FTFY, yo.
(P.S. I'm not really educated in any of this kind of stuff and don't really know what I'm talking about - so don't bother correcting me)
Actually, your assessment is pretty much spot on - "drugs" describes an uncountable number of substances, many of which are legal and some which are not.
Even if we assumed the writer was specifically referring to illicit/illegal drugs, there's still a few thousand different kinds, each with its own properties and addiction rates.
Stupid hardly even begins to describe what's going on here, both with the "researcher's" study and the "journalists" reporting it.
Here:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/53293963/ns/local_news-indianapolis_in/
Exact same fucking story.
Now, can we please start acting like grown ups, and stop pretending that there's any notable difference between the Corporate Media Networks?
Which is why smart addicts choose to freebase 'em.
You're still operating under the assumption that a 12 year old girl is as mentally and emotionally mature as a 30 year old man - yea, I know how to deal with stupid assholes at this point in my life, thanks Captain Obvious. Thing is, this isn't about me, nor is it about you - it's about mentally and emotionally undeveloped children.
Not sure what I could say to get that through your head, that I haven't said already.
I don't know who Charles Manson is
And, obviously, can't be bothered to learn. If you could, you'd realize that enticing others into violent acts very much is illegal in the USA.
I suggest you spend less time focusing on your undeserved sense of moral and mental superiority, and a little more learning just what it means to be human; specifically, the difference between a fully developed adult male, and a developing adolescent female child.
Oh, and maybe take the 10 fucking seconds required to Google "Charles Manson." I mean, if you won't even take it upon yourself to become educated about a very, very, exceedingly well-known part of recent American history, I have absolutely no reason to assume any of the statements you have made or continue to make are based on anything so much as reflecting reality.
Well played, sir.
OK. I meant the one that you called OP way upthread.
Oh, yea, sure, now it's my fault neither of us is paying attention!
This is getting complicated.
The best kind of -licated!
You would think at least one of us would have the good sense to knock it off by this point... However, my parents didn't raise a sociopathic quitter.
Uh, how does pointing out the difference between genocide and eugenics equate to support of either philosophy? To normally-brained people, anyway.
Teehee. Forgot you weren't OP.
Well, considering that OP suggested all children are sociopaths... sterilizing them would solve the overpopulation issue in a hurry...
I think that monitoring what your child does online qualifies as helicopter parenting
I think there's a middle ground; going all NSA on them and logging every single thing they do? Yea, helicopter parent to a T.
Sitting with them as they go through the comments on their facebook page? Hell, that's just being attentive, and if there ends up being something there your kid doesn't want you to see, then it was worth the effort.
I can understand some type of filter system (proxy or software, like what schools have) that will block out porn and extremist hate sites, but on social sites like Facebook or G+ it's difficult to meddle without being overbearing.
Funny, I have pretty much the opposite philosophy (except when it comes to porn); the 'extremist hate sites' are something a kid would be willing to talk to a parent about, and gives parents good opportunities to bond with their children while educating them on some of the stupid this world has to offer; A child is less likely to take Al Queda's website seriously than they are the things their classmates say to them online. By blocking some sites and refusing to monitor their social media, you're doing more harm than good, IMO.
Especially for preteens
Which brings me to my next point: you're their parent, not their buddy. Sometimes you have to be the 'bad guy' for their own protection, because being kids they lack the cognitive abilities to protect themselves. They might say they hate you for it now, but in 20 years they'll be thanking you for taking an interest in their future.
But I don't even know how one goes about that on smartphones. I'm sure there's probably something.
You mean, outside not buying them one in the first place? Yea, probably.
Genocide doesn't mean race. That's just one thing it could mean.
Well, fair enough; per the US Holocaust Memorial Museum:
It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against groups with the intent to destroy the existence of the group.
Although, in fairness, geno comes from the Greek for "race" or "tribe."
You want to go back to sterilizing sociopaths and add to that forcing abortions?
Uh, how does pointing out the difference between genocide and eugenics equate to support of either philosophy? To normally-brained people, anyway.
In fairness, I grew up prior to the internet age; we didn't have facebook or cell phones, so most-if-not-all communication was face-to-face. In my experience, most people (short of outright sociopaths) tend to self-filter the things they say to a person's face, moreso than they do when sitting behind a screen stroking their e-cocks. I remember some nasty name calling, but nothing to the extent of what these kids say online today ("Drink bleach and kill yourself?" Really? Where the fuck does a 12 year old get such notions, anyway? Let alone the poor moral fiber needed to say such a thing to another person).
So no, there was no in-depth monitoring of social media, because social media didn't exist back then. Then again, neither did the high teen suicide rate we see these days... correlation, perhaps?
OK, so you don't understand psychological abuse. That's fair, you probably haven't been subjected to much of it in your life.
Those of us that have understand what sort of impact being told that you're shit and should end your own life, by pretty much everyone you meet, day in and day out, especially at such an influential age, can have on a person. Some of us were lucky - we survived our attempts on our own lives and were then able to see the damage and thus, do what we could to mitigate and repair it. Some people, like the girl who jumped from the tower, weren't so lucky.
Seriously, man, if you can't see the sociopathy in the one girl telling the entire fucking world "I'm glad I contributed to her suicide..." I just don't know, perhaps you would benefit from some counseling yourself.
P.S. in case you didn't know, enticement to commit a violent act, even against oneself, is illegal in most places in the US; you can't stand at the bottom of the tower yelling "Jump! Jump!" any more than you can yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. Ever wonder why Charles Manson is in prison? He never killed anyone with his own hands. Neither did Hitler.
Do you seriously think Charles Manson and Hitler are/were innocent men? Because that's basically what you're saying here.
We're going to stop short of threats of physical violence, since those are in-themselves illegal for other reasons.
Why? The offenders in this case told the victim to "Go drink bleach and kill yourself." Sounds pretty damn threatening to me.
nd so I ask again: what would cause you to intentionally choose to kill yourself? What could anyone say to you, no matter how many times, from whatever proximity?
You're assuming that a 12-year-old girl has the same intellectual and emotional maturity as a 30-year-old man, which they patently do not.
Genocide is the complete extermination of a race.
Eugenics is selectively eliminating less-desirable traits from the gene pool.
There's a world of difference between the two goals, regardless of how many traits they share.
We've come a long way from sticks and stones; I wonder in which direction. Since when is it illegal to tell someone that you hate them, repeatedly even?
Since doing so meant following them around either on or offline, incitement of violence, threats, etc.
Obviously you did not RTFA, else you would be aware that there's more to this situation than a couple girls telling another one they hate her.
They should have had a warrant issued for her personal internet devices as well; the call logs and internet history would likely have provided all the evidence they need.
I believe in freedom of speech and obviously you don't.
Sounds more like freedom of hyperbole to me.
Does SWATting, the practice of calling in false reports to encourage SWAT teams to kick in random people's doors qualify as freedom of speech in your dictionary? What about libelous speech and slander? Incitement of violence against others?
Is freedom of speech a black/white issue to you? Or can you bring yourself to acknowledge that there might be a few shades of grey in there?