I am reminded of a friend who, in the mid 60s, happened to be a white student from the north, visiting a southern town. And in particular, visiting the black part of that town, and walking home.
And so he gets pulled over by a cop, who asks him what he's doing in that part of town, who he was visiting-- and then takes him to the local station. As this goes on, the friend tries to protest; and the cop says, look son, around here, we white folks don't associate with niggers.
My friend blurts out, about the friend he was visiting "he's not a nigger." And the cop reponds, with some violence attached, "he's a nigger."
You can say you love the Iranian people all you want. When you defend illegal and disproportional treatment of someone based on prejudice, you're saying "she's a nigger." At which point I don't care to argue with you. The reason we have laws, is not to reason with you; it's to use the means of violence, to control your behavior.
I don't think you understand what an ad hominem fallacy is. Try wikipedia. An ad hominem fallacy is, for instance, arguing that George has always been a jerk in the past, therefore, without looking at his behavior, we know George is a jerk in this incidence. That's a fallacy.
An ad hominem argument, however, is a basic part of rhetoric; we trust Caesar, ad hominem, because he is Caesar and he is trustworthy (or we don't, etc).
My argument is based on identity, which in the case of persons, is ad hominem, 'of humans.' My assertion is that the behavior demonstrated by many commenters, who don't read the evidence and come to rash conclusions, is inherently racist etc. And my conclusion is that the only useful thing to do with such people, especially the one whose 'nick & sig are the name of a neo-Nazi group, is to treat them with the same lack of reason.
For the rationale-- you might start with reading Hannah Arendt, "On Violence."
Well, on this one (with you), I'll probably agree to disagree given your courtesy of thinking it through:)
We seem to agree that there could and probably should be a reference to higher authority than a 19-year-old here.
We seem to disagree on the racism point. I feel (strongly) that if 19-year-olds are left to make complex judgement calls, they'll insert their own prejudices (=racism, or whatever you want to call it) unfairly, violating equal protection. I think there's ample evidence here, that an Iranian-American received disproportional and grossly unfair treatment; and that's what we call racism (or nationalism; or unfair prejudice and violation of equal protection under the law. In this case I don't care; I'm not sure the incident itself was based on race, so much as some of the reactions I've seen on/. are racist).
Since you don't seem to primarily disagree, and see some shades of grey here where others don't seem to, and appear to have considered both sides instead of rashly dismissing everyone else's point of view, well, I don't know that we're arguing about much, then.
What he could have done was pick up the phone and call Apple corporate to clarify in such a situation. That's also what he *should* have done. Instead, he relied on his personal judgment of what is in the end a fairly complex legal matter (Apple's policy statement mumbo-jumbo notwithstanding, I don't see much clear in it for a situation such as this). The latter is wrong, and almost guaranteed to insert prejudice.
This is not about a country. This is not about export rules. It's about an uneducated 19-year-old making a judgement call that wasn't his to make, and denying an individual their right to purchase. That's all.
Believe whatever BS you want to believe. Racists have always justified their racism with legal justification etc. None of what you spout above is true; you don't know a damn thing about what happened, or what is or isn't legal (despite the fact that plenty of evidence is on the table, that it was legal to purchase).
I don't care I don't need to argue with idiots; you're a racist, you can't be argued with, you'll believe what you want to justify your prejudice. and the only way do deal with people like you is violence. Fuck you. Die. Got it?
I'm a member of a bar association; I'm guessing you're not.
The interpretation of the law is a complex thing. Without reference to precedent and practice, it's not simple; you can't "just read it" and think you know what's going on.
Which is why I'll repeat: by your chain of logic, I should report you to the nearest US Court for practicing law without a license. It's illegal, after all.
As an actual member of a bar association, I've yet to see anyone with a clue as to the law, comment. You're obviously not an expert. Neither is the drone. It's not clear what Apple's policy is or isn't, but it's clear what a low-level corporate representative said ("you can buy it," and not under any PR pressure).
What you're all doing is blowing smoke to justify a policy that violates equal protection under the law. That's racism, pure and simple.
the law you cite applies to sales to "Iran or the government of Iran" (ie, the nation or state, evidently); for incorporation into other technologies.
This is why those without legal training should not try to practice law. And by the same logic being used here... I should have you arrested, for practicing law without a license!
Yep, deputy. Radar system, iPad, myPad, biped aaaaaaaaaaaaand bipods. All the same to me, if they're being purchase by a ***gger, throw the book at 'em.
>No they wouldn't be liable, and the proof of that is that consumer services told her she could indeed buy and apologized to her in the end.
You have just submitted a relevant fact in evidence.
However, this is the Court of Slashdot. Your point is irrelevant as judged by 68.9% of the audience. (See 90% of the jerks I just replied to, for further explanation.)
xkcd reference: "Someone is wrong on the internet."
She was not buying something for export; no export license or paperwork was required. She was purchasing a retail product for personal use.
At that point, the moron employee should either a) do his job, ie, sell the product, or call someone with enough authority to make the call, ie, Apple Corporate. An $11.80/hr drone does not have the knowledge, judgment or authority to deny a sale. Which is why Apple Corp. is now apologizing for this unfortnate incident.
Can a pastry shop owner deny a sale of a cream danish to someone who, speaking another language, says they're going to violate the pastry non-proliferation act of White County, Georgia?
You're hiding your racism in your ignorance of the law (and didn't read the article, btw, or you might of noticed Apple Corp's apology, which is no down due to them wanting to avoid suit).
You are a racist pig who doesn't understand a damn thing about the law, but likes using it to justify racism. Please go get fucked up the ass by an Iranian woman with a stap-on, and die from peritonitis.
>This has to do with the US embargo on Iran, which includes selling goods to anyone in the US that could take them back to Iran. This is law
You are an ignorant, racist pig. This is not the law; fuck you, you racist pig. Fuck you again. Fuck you in the ass until you bleed and die, slowly, you racist pig. Got it? Then resurrect your pathetic ignorant ass, and slowly die bleeding on a bed of nails while being repeatedly waterboarded. Die. Slowly. Die.
Shit sherriff, I didn't tell them to leave the lunch counter because they was black, even though that's illegal.
I told them them to leave because they'd scare the white folks off, and because I'd have to clean the seat and table. Bad for business. And our folks and their folks, have bad relations, you know?
> they're usually if not always forbidden to sell to an adult if they have reason to believe that the adult is going to supply it to a minor
Please cite statute. No? Can't do that? That's what I thought. (I've seen clerks pull this shit all the time-- they need actually reasonable belief, like seeing a minor hand the adult cash. Just "believing it" is not reasonable.)
Sounds like you'e a racist bigot. Live in Georgia?
>Believe it or not, not everyone in Georgia is stupid, including employees at Apple stores.
I'll buy the former, not the latter. But the difference is minimal, no?
What you miss is that what she did is legal. It's none of the employee's business; she wasn't buying a gun or explosives. Hope she sues the guy for... everything his $11.80/hr can buy!
>Yes, I hate to say it, but from the facts given, the Apple employee was obeying the law.
G-d, another fucking idiot on/. What a surprise.
>It was illegal for her to buy it in order to send it to Iran. .
No, it wasn't. It may be illegal to send such a product to Iran directly from the US. It is not illegal to purchase. There is no such law. The Apple employee was a dolt and Apple Corporate has already said so. Try again.
It's clear that your grey matter has not made a differentiation between retail and wholesale sales. Apple corporate told her to just buy it online. By now, they're probably sent her a free one in hopes of just making this die down. There are no rules here, and any rule regulating the personal use of an iPad bought at retail would be just plain stupid, as in a stupid law, as in bad, stupid laws hurt respect for the law.
Mod racist parent down; see comment history and what "third position" is (racist neo-nazi nativists).
Look asshole:
A doctor has quite more education, authority and discretion than an $11.80/hr Apple store dolt. A doctor has the responsibility to dispense drugs responsibly. The dolt shouldn't be making decisions. A gun (with bullets) is quite different than an iPad, which is not a weapon, and which, actually, according to US law, when sold at retail is not subject to import restrictions.
Finally, you are neo-Nazi slime. Wanna play baseball?
>If I was selling tire irons and some guy said "I'm going to use this to beat my neighbor to death", I wouldn't sell him the tire iron.
And then the buyer could sue you for violating public accomodation law. It's not a gun and bullets. Welcome to a free country which is not Iran. Try again.
> This is not a surprising story: as someone who has worked in technology sales before, I know there are very serious regulations (with very severe penalties if not followed) involving sales of technology (even personal computers) to countries on these trade restriction lists. >The store employee had no choice: he was obeying the law.
No doubt someone else has pointed this out, but you are an idiot. So was the store employee. I personally would have put the employee under citizen's arrest, given that I know Georgia law a bit, but that's me. Again, you are an idiot. Please go shoot yourself for the sake of country and nation.
Slashdot Mirror
I am reminded of a friend who, in the mid 60s, happened to be a white student from the north, visiting a southern town. And in particular, visiting the black part of that town, and walking home.
And so he gets pulled over by a cop, who asks him what he's doing in that part of town, who he was visiting-- and then takes him to the local station. As this goes on, the friend tries to protest; and the cop says, look son, around here, we white folks don't associate with niggers.
My friend blurts out, about the friend he was visiting "he's not a nigger." And the cop reponds, with some violence attached, "he's a nigger."
You can say you love the Iranian people all you want. When you defend illegal and disproportional treatment of someone based on prejudice, you're saying "she's a nigger." At which point I don't care to argue with you. The reason we have laws, is not to reason with you; it's to use the means of violence, to control your behavior.
>Ad hominem fallacy is his main tool of argument.
I don't think you understand what an ad hominem fallacy is. Try wikipedia. An ad hominem fallacy is, for instance, arguing that George has always been a jerk in the past, therefore, without looking at his behavior, we know George is a jerk in this incidence. That's a fallacy.
An ad hominem argument, however, is a basic part of rhetoric; we trust Caesar, ad hominem, because he is Caesar and he is trustworthy (or we don't, etc).
My argument is based on identity, which in the case of persons, is ad hominem, 'of humans.' My assertion is that the behavior demonstrated by many commenters, who don't read the evidence and come to rash conclusions, is inherently racist etc. And my conclusion is that the only useful thing to do with such people, especially the one whose 'nick & sig are the name of a neo-Nazi group, is to treat them with the same lack of reason.
For the rationale-- you might start with reading Hannah Arendt, "On Violence."
Well, on this one (with you), I'll probably agree to disagree given your courtesy of thinking it through :)
We seem to agree that there could and probably should be a reference to higher authority than a 19-year-old here.
We seem to disagree on the racism point. I feel (strongly) that if 19-year-olds are left to make complex judgement calls, they'll insert their own prejudices (=racism, or whatever you want to call it) unfairly, violating equal protection. I think there's ample evidence here, that an Iranian-American received disproportional and grossly unfair treatment; and that's what we call racism (or nationalism; or unfair prejudice and violation of equal protection under the law. In this case I don't care; I'm not sure the incident itself was based on race, so much as some of the reactions I've seen on /. are racist).
Since you don't seem to primarily disagree, and see some shades of grey here where others don't seem to, and appear to have considered both sides instead of rashly dismissing everyone else's point of view, well, I don't know that we're arguing about much, then.
What he could have done was pick up the phone and call Apple corporate to clarify in such a situation. That's also what he *should* have done. Instead, he relied on his personal judgment of what is in the end a fairly complex legal matter (Apple's policy statement mumbo-jumbo notwithstanding, I don't see much clear in it for a situation such as this). The latter is wrong, and almost guaranteed to insert prejudice.
This is not about a country. This is not about export rules. It's about an uneducated 19-year-old making a judgement call that wasn't his to make, and denying an individual their right to purchase. That's all.
Believe whatever BS you want to believe. Racists have always justified their racism with legal justification etc. None of what you spout above is true; you don't know a damn thing about what happened, or what is or isn't legal (despite the fact that plenty of evidence is on the table, that it was legal to purchase).
I don't care I don't need to argue with idiots; you're a racist, you can't be argued with, you'll believe what you want to justify your prejudice. and the only way do deal with people like you is violence. Fuck you. Die. Got it?
I'm a member of a bar association; I'm guessing you're not.
The interpretation of the law is a complex thing. Without reference to precedent and practice, it's not simple; you can't "just read it" and think you know what's going on.
Which is why I'll repeat: by your chain of logic, I should report you to the nearest US Court for practicing law without a license. It's illegal, after all.
As an actual member of a bar association, I've yet to see anyone with a clue as to the law, comment. You're obviously not an expert. Neither is the drone. It's not clear what Apple's policy is or isn't, but it's clear what a low-level corporate representative said ("you can buy it," and not under any PR pressure).
What you're all doing is blowing smoke to justify a policy that violates equal protection under the law. That's racism, pure and simple.
That's a nice argument, but once again, it's wrong (rationalization). Please read the thread of posts to see why.
What you're doing is using rationalization to justify actions that violate equal protection under the law, ie, racism.
In case you didn't catch it:
the law you cite applies to sales to "Iran or the government of Iran" (ie, the nation or state, evidently); for incorporation into other technologies.
This is why those without legal training should not try to practice law. And by the same logic being used here... I should have you arrested, for practicing law without a license!
Yep, deputy. Radar system, iPad, myPad, biped aaaaaaaaaaaaand bipods. All the same to me, if they're being purchase by a ***gger, throw the book at 'em.
>No they wouldn't be liable, and the proof of that is that consumer services told her she could indeed buy and apologized to her in the end.
You have just submitted a relevant fact in evidence.
However, this is the Court of Slashdot. Your point is irrelevant as judged by 68.9% of the audience. (See 90% of the jerks I just replied to, for further explanation.)
xkcd reference: "Someone is wrong on the internet."
This is why we have public accomdation laws.
She was not buying something for export; no export license or paperwork was required. She was purchasing a retail product for personal use.
At that point, the moron employee should either a) do his job, ie, sell the product, or call someone with enough authority to make the call, ie, Apple Corporate. An $11.80/hr drone does not have the knowledge, judgment or authority to deny a sale. Which is why Apple Corp. is now apologizing for this unfortnate incident.
Can a pastry shop owner deny a sale of a cream danish to someone who, speaking another language, says they're going to violate the pastry non-proliferation act of White County, Georgia?
You're hiding your racism in your ignorance of the law (and didn't read the article, btw, or you might of noticed Apple Corp's apology, which is no down due to them wanting to avoid suit).
Live in the South?
You are a racist pig who doesn't understand a damn thing about the law, but likes using it to justify racism. Please go get fucked up the ass by an Iranian woman with a stap-on, and die from peritonitis.
>This has to do with the US embargo on Iran, which includes selling goods to anyone in the US that could take them back to Iran. This is law
You are an ignorant, racist pig. This is not the law; fuck you, you racist pig. Fuck you again. Fuck you in the ass until you bleed and die, slowly, you racist pig. Got it? Then resurrect your pathetic ignorant ass, and slowly die bleeding on a bed of nails while being repeatedly waterboarded. Die. Slowly. Die.
Shit sherriff, I didn't tell them to leave the lunch counter because they was black, even though that's illegal.
I told them them to leave because they'd scare the white folks off, and because I'd have to clean the seat and table. Bad for business. And our folks and their folks, have bad relations, you know?
> they're usually if not always forbidden to sell to an adult if they have reason to believe that the adult is going to supply it to a minor
Please cite statute. No? Can't do that? That's what I thought. (I've seen clerks pull this shit all the time-- they need actually reasonable belief, like seeing a minor hand the adult cash. Just "believing it" is not reasonable.)
Sounds like you'e a racist bigot. Live in Georgia?
>Believe it or not, not everyone in Georgia is stupid, including employees at Apple stores.
I'll buy the former, not the latter. But the difference is minimal, no?
What you miss is that what she did is legal. It's none of the employee's business; she wasn't buying a gun or explosives. Hope she sues the guy for ... everything his $11.80/hr can buy!
1) Wrong.
2) Apple corporate said that she could buy it, try again.
3) Wrong. Wrong. Just wrong. Why don't you and the store employee go form a dolt's club?
>Yes, I hate to say it, but from the facts given, the Apple employee was obeying the law.
G-d, another fucking idiot on /. What a surprise.
>It was illegal for her to buy it in order to send it to Iran. .
No, it wasn't. It may be illegal to send such a product to Iran directly from the US. It is not illegal to purchase. There is no such law. The Apple employee was a dolt and Apple Corporate has already said so. Try again.
It's clear that your grey matter has not made a differentiation between retail and wholesale sales. Apple corporate told her to just buy it online. By now, they're probably sent her a free one in hopes of just making this die down. There are no rules here, and any rule regulating the personal use of an iPad bought at retail would be just plain stupid, as in a stupid law, as in bad, stupid laws hurt respect for the law.
Mod racist parent down; see comment history and what "third position" is (racist neo-nazi nativists).
Look asshole:
A doctor has quite more education, authority and discretion than an $11.80/hr Apple store dolt. A doctor has the responsibility to dispense drugs responsibly. The dolt shouldn't be making decisions.
A gun (with bullets) is quite different than an iPad, which is not a weapon, and which, actually, according to US law, when sold at retail is not subject to import restrictions.
Finally, you are neo-Nazi slime. Wanna play baseball?
>If I was selling tire irons and some guy said "I'm going to use this to beat my neighbor to death", I wouldn't sell him the tire iron.
And then the buyer could sue you for violating public accomodation law. It's not a gun and bullets. Welcome to a free country which is not Iran. Try again.
> This is not a surprising story: as someone who has worked in technology sales before, I know there are very serious regulations (with very severe penalties if not followed) involving sales of technology (even personal computers) to countries on these trade restriction lists.
>The store employee had no choice: he was obeying the law.
No doubt someone else has pointed this out, but you are an idiot. So was the store employee. I personally would have put the employee under citizen's arrest, given that I know Georgia law a bit, but that's me. Again, you are an idiot. Please go shoot yourself for the sake of country and nation.
and third, and fourth, and...
--Zsa Zsa & Liz