In my state, the right-to-work laws require unions to support non-union, non-dues paying employees - the obvious idea being that having to spend money protecting people who don't pay union dues will bankrupt the union, effectively killing it.
It's not really an argument so much as pointing out what the definition of the term "mass" is in this context. Mass firing, mass mailing, mass killing, et al.
I live in Honolulu and walk everywhere. Honolulu has terrible stats for pedestrian-car accidents, so the solution obviously seems to be to crack down on--- pedestrians.
When the pedestrians are the ones causing the terrible stats, it makes sense to crack down on them.
running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem
Both of which have been "cracked down on" in the fact that to do so is to commit a crime.
Pedestrians ought to obey the laws. They ought not to text while crossing. But ignoring a major problem on the part of motorists--- running lights and ignoring crosswalks--- isn't the way to reduce fatalities.
Pointing out that Jane needs to pay attention just as much as doesn't mean that we're ignoring Jack's mistakes, you know.
What are you trying to argue here, anyway? That states shouldn't pass laws regarding how pedestrians should conduct themselves when crossing a public street?
"Mass" in this case just means "a whole bunch at one time," for example "mass mailing" refers to sending a bunch of pamphlets to a bunch of people all at once; It doesn't imply any particular percentage.
FWIW, canning 200 people at once is a lot to do in one fell swoop, regardless of company size.
I actually was wondering "why" Tesla and co was giving any reason for letting people go.
Aren't most states "right to work" states? In those states you can quit or be terminated for no reason at all, and in most cases, no formal notice time has to be given, although 2 weeks is customary.
1. You don't have to search for porn to find it. 2. This claim is based on what empirical data? 3. You don't have to fill out any forms to view a porn site.
That article points out a lot of the problem is with lax environmental regulations in China. You don't say... Chinese factories taking a dump on mother earth to turn a greater profit? Color me shocked.
Right, but that's non-sequitur to the point - "green" isn't actually "green," it's NIMBY.
We went through the same sort of idiocy, and passed stricter laws to prevent that sort of thing in the US and in most first-world countries.
Citation? I honestly don't know what industry you're referring to.
If "green" products are actually important to us, we'll eventually demand reasonably high standards from anyone we buy from, probably enforced by trade laws.
No, it's if "green" products are more important to the majority of consumers than cost-efficiency.
Which it's not, and I wager, probably never will be. At least, not until we go full Star Trek and abolish money (so, sticking with "probably never").
Everything we do at an industrial scale will have some environmental cost. There's no getting around that. Windmills or solar collectors slaughter birds. Dams block fishing runs and disrupt natural aquatic environments. Nuclear is potentially dangerous and produces toxic by-products. But I think it's important not to let perfect be the enemy of good.
Oh, I don't disagree. My issue is with the pie-in-the-sky thinking about our current state of renewable energy sources, and the apparent stigma attached to pointing out that they aren't actually environmentally friendly, but rather shiny and new. FWIW, it takes an insane amount of petroleum oil to lubricate a single wind turbine for a year.
It's fine not to delude yourself into thinking that electric cars are some panacea, but it's foolish to argue against them when the status quo is oil-based fuels, which we can clearly see the horrible results ourselves in the smog it creates over our cities.
Better than fine, and more than foolish. Reason is best tempered with skepticism, IMO.
... Says the person who stated their belief that if a group names themselves something, they are that thing regardless of their actions.
If you are AntiPoor then you are ProRich (which you probably are)
So, then, by your own "logic," if Antifa is Anti-Fascist, then they're pro-something? Communist, maybe? National Socialist (the 1936 Germany kind)? Help me out here, O One Who Believes Themselves Wise.
You're probably also poor which would make you a typical tRumpft supporter, voting against your own interests. SAD!
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. But I guess that's par for the course at this point.
Keep on digging, I'll keep tossing you fresh shovels.
Neither, I think. I was just trying to make the AC snowflake happy.
Ah, well, good show then!
LAPD opens fire on anything that moves which might be non-white, they have a strong fear-culture.
Now, now, they're just as apt to unload on Caucasians as well - remember the Chris Dorner scandal? You know, how the LAPD "mistook" a short, scrawny, white surfer dude for a 6' 4", 260 lb black man?
In today's 'murica! you have dangerous slavery.
I think that's the saddest truth I'll read this year:(
Oh look - another person who thinks that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. Read some history. The Federalist Papers would be a good place to start.
Or, maybe try the 10th Amendment, which provides that any power not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution is a power given to the state, and if the state doesn't take it, the people.
So, if your state has a law that guarantees a "right to a safe driving experience," then it's legit. Otherwise, it's a power granted to the people, i.e. it is only a "right" when we all agree to accept it as such.
And as such, there is no right to perfectly safe anything; much to the contrary, liberty itself is quite the dangerous proposition.
It's less "I think" and more "there is sufficient empirical data to suggest that conclusion."... If advertising didn't work, it wouldn't be a multi-trillion dollar industry.
Which part of can be swayed by $50000 in false Russian advertising did you not understand?
I guess the part where you insist that more money = more effective influence.
Clinton spent $565 million.
Trump spent $322 million.
Russia spent $0.05 million
Right - Trump spent far less and still won. So larger dollar amounts obviously do not translate to better results.
Again, you've proven my point.
Liberty and democracy are often diametrically opposed concepts.
Democracy simply means that political power originates with the people (as opposed to God or kings).
democracy noun 1 a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. "capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world" synonyms: representative government, elective government; More
2 a state governed by a democracy. plural noun: democracies "a multiparty democracy"
3 control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
None of the actual definitions of the term fit the one you choose to believe in.
The conflict is between specific forms of democracy: majoritarianism, parliamentary democracy, and democratic socialism are incompatible with liberty (they are also unstable and tend to turn into totalitarianism or dictatorships sooner or later).
LOL, "the problem isn't democracy itself, it's the forms of democracy that people use."
I don't think this is a bad point to make. I've made this point a lot myself. I think to the extent that if a person is determined to kill a lot of other people, by any means necessary, laws against guns, or even the successful elimination of guns from our society is not going to stop that person.
You can extend that argument to advocate for the legalization of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
I guess one could. But you never see 2nd Amendment advocates make that argument, because contrary to popular belief, we're not a bunch of crazy rednecks that want to overthrow the government. Most of us are your friends and neighbors, responsible people who firmly believe that everyone has a right to defend themselves, with a weapon if necessary.
A determined person will be able to get a hold of weapons of mass destruction anyway, so why bother prohibiting these items? Afterall, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of an individual to bear arms (not just small arms). Any form of weapons control on individual Americans is a violation of the constitution.
Technically, yes - and technically, there is no such thing as a "banned weapon," outside of nukes (which, IMO, nobody should have) - there are a lot of NFA restricted armaments, true, but they aren't completely banned, just cost-prohibitive. But I am aware of no law that would stop you from creating a biological pathogen in your garage.
I think the same argument that one could make against allowing individual rights to WMD (e.g. something like: It's just too dangerous, and this seems like a good area to restrict freedom in the name of public safety), could also be effectively made for extreme cases of gun ownership (e.g. extremely mentally ill people being legally allowed to buy and own military assault rifles and machine guns without any background checks, waiting periods, or reporting)
Besides the fact I already pointed out how most "WMDs" aren't necessarily illegal to own, the "extreme cases of gun ownership" example you provide is a complete myth - military assault rifles and machine guns are considered NFA items, which requires a person to acquire a Class III FFL license (no easy or cheap task, I assure you), a VERY extensive FBI background check (if you think NICS takes forever...), and pay for an additional tax stamp ($200/each) for each weapon. Also, it is a major felony to transfer an NFA destructive device or firearm to someone who does not hold a Class II license.
Therein lies a major problem with trying to have a real discussion about firearms laws - it seems a lot of people have absolutely no idea what laws are already on the books (which is part of the reason I think it's completely insane to demand new laws, when you don't even know what the current laws are).
And like I said, I'm not advocating for any specific amount of gun control. What I am saying is that I don't think the argument "If a law isn't going to be 100% effective it's useless" is a good one.
Agreed; see previous statement about educating oneself on existing laws before advocating for new ones.
The argument on the other side of "If a law saves even 1 life, then it was worth it" is also bad.
... and ironic, since defensive use of firearms saves many lives every year.
What I would like to see is people on both sides trading in their ideological positions on guns for reasonable ones.
Yea, me too, but there's an issue - chemically, the human brain has the exact same reaction to defending a strongly held belief as it does to snorting a big fat line of cocaine; as a species, we get high off arguing in favor of ideology over reason.
I just doubt that it would necessarily scale effectively in a nation that takes up a much larger geographic footprint than Japan. As I pointed out, the average daily drive for a single FedEx driver is around 160 miles per diem (and can go from empty to full in minutes); this electric box truck maxes out at around 60 miles before needing to park for 8 hours.
Well, it participates in your conversation in the same way as someone trying to give you a pamphlet, while you are talking to a friend on the street, participates in your conversation. It doesn't actively do it.
So then, it's less like someone trying to put something in my hand forcibly, and more like a newspaper stand you happen to be having a conversation in front of.
Wait, isn't that essentially what I said?
Online ads aren't aware of your conversations, nor do they join in or interrupt. The bullshit claim stands.
He didn't call for anonymous political speech to be criminalized. He called for anonymous political paid advertising to be banned. There's a massive difference between the two.
How dare you inject logic into a political argument!
If you think that American voters are dumb enough that they can be swayed by $50000 in false Russian advertising...
It's less "I think" and more "there is sufficient empirical data to suggest that conclusion."
If advertising didn't work, it wouldn't be a multi-trillion dollar industry.
then you obviously don't believe in representative government or democracy;
I don't actually; see above statement about empirical data.
why even pretend to defend democracy and liberty?
I won't defend democracy, because it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, and that's an inherently fucked situation. I will always, however, defend the right of the sheep to be well armed, and contest the vote.
Liberty and democracy are often diametrically opposed concepts.
Slashdot Mirror
In my state, the right-to-work laws require unions to support non-union, non-dues paying employees - the obvious idea being that having to spend money protecting people who don't pay union dues will bankrupt the union, effectively killing it.
It's not really an argument so much as pointing out what the definition of the term "mass" is in this context. Mass firing, mass mailing, mass killing, et al.
I am soooo glad I found my soulmate and married her before the PC Police went full retard.
I live in Honolulu and walk everywhere. Honolulu has terrible stats for pedestrian-car accidents, so the solution obviously seems to be to crack down on--- pedestrians.
When the pedestrians are the ones causing the terrible stats, it makes sense to crack down on them.
running red lights and ignoring crosswalks is a huge problem
Both of which have been "cracked down on" in the fact that to do so is to commit a crime.
Pedestrians ought to obey the laws. They ought not to text while crossing. But ignoring a major problem on the part of motorists--- running lights and ignoring crosswalks--- isn't the way to reduce fatalities.
Pointing out that Jane needs to pay attention just as much as doesn't mean that we're ignoring Jack's mistakes, you know.
What are you trying to argue here, anyway? That states shouldn't pass laws regarding how pedestrians should conduct themselves when crossing a public street?
"Mass" in this case just means "a whole bunch at one time," for example "mass mailing" refers to sending a bunch of pamphlets to a bunch of people all at once; It doesn't imply any particular percentage.
FWIW, canning 200 people at once is a lot to do in one fell swoop, regardless of company size.
I actually was wondering "why" Tesla and co was giving any reason for letting people go.
Aren't most states "right to work" states? In those states you can quit or be terminated for no reason at all, and in most cases, no formal notice time has to be given, although 2 weeks is customary.
That would be "at-will employment."
"Right-to-work" is about union busting.
"Most generalizations are false, including this one." - Samuel Clemens
He's generalizing, so yes, he's wrong by default.
And racist.
If he kicks puppies, we've got a d-bag trifecta.
1. You don't have to search for porn to find it.
2. This claim is based on what empirical data?
3. You don't have to fill out any forms to view a porn site.
Have they actually done anything wrong?
They gave false names and lied about their intentions in order to gain access to otherwise restricted and secure systems.
I'd call that pretty wrong, from a moral standpoint.
From a legal standpoint - trespassing, misrepresentation, fraud, and I'm sure a handful of related charges would apply.
The face is the best part.
That article points out a lot of the problem is with lax environmental regulations in China. You don't say... Chinese factories taking a dump on mother earth to turn a greater profit? Color me shocked.
Right, but that's non-sequitur to the point - "green" isn't actually "green," it's NIMBY.
We went through the same sort of idiocy, and passed stricter laws to prevent that sort of thing in the US and in most first-world countries.
Citation? I honestly don't know what industry you're referring to.
If "green" products are actually important to us, we'll eventually demand reasonably high standards from anyone we buy from, probably enforced by trade laws.
No, it's if "green" products are more important to the majority of consumers than cost-efficiency.
Which it's not, and I wager, probably never will be. At least, not until we go full Star Trek and abolish money (so, sticking with "probably never").
Everything we do at an industrial scale will have some environmental cost. There's no getting around that. Windmills or solar collectors slaughter birds. Dams block fishing runs and disrupt natural aquatic environments. Nuclear is potentially dangerous and produces toxic by-products. But I think it's important not to let perfect be the enemy of good.
Oh, I don't disagree. My issue is with the pie-in-the-sky thinking about our current state of renewable energy sources, and the apparent stigma attached to pointing out that they aren't actually environmentally friendly, but rather shiny and new. FWIW, it takes an insane amount of petroleum oil to lubricate a single wind turbine for a year.
It's fine not to delude yourself into thinking that electric cars are some panacea, but it's foolish to argue against them when the status quo is oil-based fuels, which we can clearly see the horrible results ourselves in the smog it creates over our cities.
Better than fine, and more than foolish. Reason is best tempered with skepticism, IMO.
hmm, I guess logic isn't your strong point:
... Says the person who stated their belief that if a group names themselves something, they are that thing regardless of their actions.
If you are AntiPoor then you are ProRich (which you probably are)
So, then, by your own "logic," if Antifa is Anti-Fascist, then they're pro-something? Communist, maybe? National Socialist (the 1936 Germany kind)? Help me out here, O One Who Believes Themselves Wise.
You're probably also poor which would make you a typical tRumpft supporter, voting against your own interests. SAD!
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. But I guess that's par for the course at this point.
Keep on digging, I'll keep tossing you fresh shovels.
Neither, I think. I was just trying to make the AC snowflake happy.
Ah, well, good show then!
LAPD opens fire on anything that moves which might be non-white, they have a strong fear-culture.
Now, now, they're just as apt to unload on Caucasians as well - remember the Chris Dorner scandal? You know, how the LAPD "mistook" a short, scrawny, white surfer dude for a 6' 4", 260 lb black man?
In today's 'murica! you have dangerous slavery.
I think that's the saddest truth I'll read this year :(
Which Constitutional Amendment guarantees that?
Oh look - another person who thinks that if a right isn't enumerated in the Constitution, it doesn't exist. Read some history. The Federalist Papers would be a good place to start.
Or, maybe try the 10th Amendment, which provides that any power not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution is a power given to the state, and if the state doesn't take it, the people.
So, if your state has a law that guarantees a "right to a safe driving experience," then it's legit. Otherwise, it's a power granted to the people, i.e. it is only a "right" when we all agree to accept it as such.
And as such, there is no right to perfectly safe anything; much to the contrary, liberty itself is quite the dangerous proposition.
Which part of can be swayed by $50000 in false Russian advertising did you not understand?
I guess the part where you insist that more money = more effective influence.
Clinton spent $565 million.
Trump spent $322 million.
Russia spent $0.05 million
Right - Trump spent far less and still won. So larger dollar amounts obviously do not translate to better results.
Again, you've proven my point.
Democracy simply means that political power originates with the people (as opposed to God or kings).
democracy
noun
1 a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
"capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world"
synonyms: representative government, elective government; More
2 a state governed by a democracy.
plural noun: democracies
"a multiparty democracy"
3 control of an organization or group by the majority of its members.
None of the actual definitions of the term fit the one you choose to believe in.
The conflict is between specific forms of democracy: majoritarianism, parliamentary democracy, and democratic socialism are incompatible with liberty (they are also unstable and tend to turn into totalitarianism or dictatorships sooner or later).
LOL, "the problem isn't democracy itself, it's the forms of democracy that people use."
Um, dude...
How about IEEE?
I don't think this is a bad point to make. I've made this point a lot myself. I think to the extent that if a person is determined to kill a lot of other people, by any means necessary, laws against guns, or even the successful elimination of guns from our society is not going to stop that person.
You can extend that argument to advocate for the legalization of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.
I guess one could. But you never see 2nd Amendment advocates make that argument, because contrary to popular belief, we're not a bunch of crazy rednecks that want to overthrow the government. Most of us are your friends and neighbors, responsible people who firmly believe that everyone has a right to defend themselves, with a weapon if necessary.
A determined person will be able to get a hold of weapons of mass destruction anyway, so why bother prohibiting these items? Afterall, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of an individual to bear arms (not just small arms). Any form of weapons control on individual Americans is a violation of the constitution.
Technically, yes - and technically, there is no such thing as a "banned weapon," outside of nukes (which, IMO, nobody should have) - there are a lot of NFA restricted armaments, true, but they aren't completely banned, just cost-prohibitive. But I am aware of no law that would stop you from creating a biological pathogen in your garage.
I think the same argument that one could make against allowing individual rights to WMD (e.g. something like: It's just too dangerous, and this seems like a good area to restrict freedom in the name of public safety), could also be effectively made for extreme cases of gun ownership (e.g. extremely mentally ill people being legally allowed to buy and own military assault rifles and machine guns without any background checks, waiting periods, or reporting)
Besides the fact I already pointed out how most "WMDs" aren't necessarily illegal to own, the "extreme cases of gun ownership" example you provide is a complete myth - military assault rifles and machine guns are considered NFA items, which requires a person to acquire a Class III FFL license (no easy or cheap task, I assure you), a VERY extensive FBI background check (if you think NICS takes forever...), and pay for an additional tax stamp ($200/each) for each weapon. Also, it is a major felony to transfer an NFA destructive device or firearm to someone who does not hold a Class II license.
Therein lies a major problem with trying to have a real discussion about firearms laws - it seems a lot of people have absolutely no idea what laws are already on the books (which is part of the reason I think it's completely insane to demand new laws, when you don't even know what the current laws are).
And like I said, I'm not advocating for any specific amount of gun control. What I am saying is that I don't think the argument "If a law isn't going to be 100% effective it's useless" is a good one.
Agreed; see previous statement about educating oneself on existing laws before advocating for new ones.
The argument on the other side of "If a law saves even 1 life, then it was worth it" is also bad.
... and ironic, since defensive use of firearms saves many lives every year.
What I would like to see is people on both sides trading in their ideological positions on guns for reasonable ones.
Yea, me too, but there's an issue - chemically, the human brain has the exact same reaction to defending a strongly held belief as it does to snorting a big fat line of cocaine; as a species, we get high off arguing in favor of ideology over reason.
In a small Japanese prefecture, sure.
I just doubt that it would necessarily scale effectively in a nation that takes up a much larger geographic footprint than Japan. As I pointed out, the average daily drive for a single FedEx driver is around 160 miles per diem (and can go from empty to full in minutes); this electric box truck maxes out at around 60 miles before needing to park for 8 hours.
Ah, see, there's the breakdown - I include the environmental cost of manufacturing, not just run-time emissions.
Cheap solar panel and lithium battery production are absolute hell on Mother Earth.
If it ends up working anything like cell phone ringtones, I expect that to be the case.
The loud, obnoxious case.
Well, it participates in your conversation in the same way as someone trying to give you a pamphlet, while you are talking to a friend on the street, participates in your conversation. It doesn't actively do it.
So then, it's less like someone trying to put something in my hand forcibly, and more like a newspaper stand you happen to be having a conversation in front of.
Wait, isn't that essentially what I said?
Online ads aren't aware of your conversations, nor do they join in or interrupt. The bullshit claim stands.
Is there some reason you think Facebook should be immune from what the New York Times has to do?
Advertising on Facebook is paying to participate in private conversations of others.
Considering that not one ad I've ever seen on facebook has actively participated in any conversation I've had on the platform, I call bullshit.
He didn't call for anonymous political speech to be criminalized. He called for anonymous political paid advertising to be banned. There's a massive difference between the two.
How dare you inject logic into a political argument!
If you think that American voters are dumb enough that they can be swayed by $50000 in false Russian advertising...
It's less "I think" and more "there is sufficient empirical data to suggest that conclusion."
If advertising didn't work, it wouldn't be a multi-trillion dollar industry.
then you obviously don't believe in representative government or democracy;
I don't actually; see above statement about empirical data.
why even pretend to defend democracy and liberty?
I won't defend democracy, because it's two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, and that's an inherently fucked situation. I will always, however, defend the right of the sheep to be well armed, and contest the vote.
Liberty and democracy are often diametrically opposed concepts.
Racist: Watch as I generalize about an entire race of people based on the actions of a few.