I question that but ignoring the overarching ethical issue. Even if that's true, I don't think either of these cases qualify.
The first is downright commendable and the second their options were
A) Deny the Chinese people any Google at all and leave them to the local search providers who are equally censored
B) Censor and maybe try to wiggle a bit to provide a bit of extra infomration
Thank you, that was brilliantly said and far more elegant and detailed than what I was trying to get across. I feel it would have been better responded to my opponent instead of the person already on your side but I am glad to hear from someone who actually went all the way in the field and I really hope the other side reads this.
Philosophy, Psychology or prelaw are generally the accepted courses. And since the supreme court is actually SETTING the precendents of it then I'd like them to have a solid grounding in legal theory/philosophy. If you have a psyche/philosophy major that wants to be on the court they can take the 3 years of schooling required to become a lawyer.
Your problem seems to be that you assume law school somehow brainwashes these people. That the reason they make decisions you don't like/understand/agree with is that the system has corrupted them without considering that maybe they know something that you don't. That maybe when they side with the corporation they have a perfectly legitimate reason to. It's the effect where anything you lack knowledge or skill of looks easy. Most decently well read people think they could write a novel if they tried specifically because they've never tried. They don't understand what makes the job so hard, what reason there is for 7 years of schooling and a year of paralegal to "just argue about the rules". Take a few courses on basic legal theory and you start to realize the pool is much deeper than it looks.
the "necessary basics" of the profession require 4 years of schooling to get the degree required to START LEARNING THE BASICS OF LAW. There's a reason it takes 7+ years of schooling to be allowed to take the bar. There's a lot to cover. Apply your logic to any other vocation. A skilled trade, computer science, medicine, research (insert scientific field here)ist, engineering, architecture... etc.
Your are suggesting nearly half of the most important court in your country not actually have the background knowledge required to have the LOWEST position in the court system.
If you have the legal knowledge to equal 4 years of prelaw, 3 years of law and a year of paralegal then I am totally OK with that.
But to address your example. You can know photoshop here to mars and back, it doesn't help you DESIGN anything. That requires knowledge of visual aesthetic and design theory.
I didn't take a pot shot against liberal art students. I said they didn't have IT knowledge and therefore shouldn't be doing IT work. Did you assume my comment on space was a pot shot against engineers?
And that liberal art student will have no idea of how to deal with Habeus Corpus, Men Rea, what does and does not constitute intent (remember it's not just "knowingly or willingly" "recklessly" and "without negligence" are in there too).
They won't have any history of how law forms and what the effects are on the other courts. They don't know the logical theory behind law. The causes of sentencing... etc.
Law is not just "making decisions about stuff" and more than programming is just "writing a set of instructions".
and while we're at it, why not get some lib art students in on the IT department to give that emotional edge. Or some engineers in on the graphic design department to better utilize space. I mean, who wants people who have dedicated their lives studying a topic to be the ones making important decisions regarding it? Not me that's for sure...
Or wait, is it only lawyers who don't count? Because it's socially acceptable to make fun of that profession because they have to do a job that requires objectively looking at things instead of going with feelgood emotional BS that the media crams down our throats? No, we should not have non lawyers in charge of making laws for the same reason we shouldn't have non plumbers making decisions about my sewage backup problem.
There is literally no way that pun wasn't intended. The entire purpose of the post was to make that pun. You put the part you were making a pun out of in quotes for god sake!
Also, homosexuals actually share physical characteristics. I forget where I read the study but it showed that you can actually predict sexual orientation by finger length, the way the hair grows and a few other physical indicators (note: I said PREDICT, not definitively show).
Another factor is that the sons of women who experience high stress during pregnancy are more likely to be gay.
Both of these indicate it's a result of chemicals/brain physiology as opposed to upbringing.
I'm confronted with people who try and force their beliefs down my throat all the time. Vegetarians, vegans, gays, straights, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and many others are far more guilty of it than Christians.
I was going to ask what gay people were trying to force down your throat. But I can't think of a way to word it that doesn't sound dirty.
Slippery slope is, by its very nature a hyperbole of the original argument. You can use it to invalidate anything.
if you say we need to make any law tougher I can call slippery slope that it will lead to fascism.if you say we should make any law more lenient I can call slippery slope that it will lead to anarchy. Allow a law that makes us more liberal we're charging towards communism, more republican? We're making a real life Rapture. If the gays marry then we'll be allowed to marry 8 underage dead cats and have sex with all of them. If the government puts in regulations to prevent big business from fucking consumers we'll have to let the government control all aspects of every business.
If Y is really so bad then it doesn't matter what happens regarding X: we won't allow Y.
You can't show evidence that action X is, in and of itself bad but action Y which is a more severe version of action X IS clearly wrong so you say "We can't do action X because it will lead to action Y." This way you're no longer arguing against action X (which is entirely reasonable) you're now arguing against your made up hyperbole of it (action Y) which you claim is a direct unavoidable result while either not providing any evidence that X leads to Y besides the fact that both are similar in nature but Y is worse or ignoring that we can use common sense to stop at X without going as far as Y.
That's why it is a fallacy. It assumes a relation between X and Y which does not necessarily exist.
Slashdot Mirror
I question that but ignoring the overarching ethical issue. Even if that's true, I don't think either of these cases qualify.
The first is downright commendable and the second their options were
A) Deny the Chinese people any Google at all and leave them to the local search providers who are equally censored
B) Censor and maybe try to wiggle a bit to provide a bit of extra infomration
They are, at worst, neutral in China.
you gave them a minus for "assisted the police in a child porn case"?
Or for obeying to China's censorship law when operating in China?
I consider those less "evil" and more "obeying the law as every company should".
not if instead of murder we send the excess to space!
really? You're saying "the rest of the world is wrong and we're smarter than all of you." is "insightful and accurate".
Because that sounds like ignorant jingoism to me.
Yeah, I get hit with the "-1 I Have a Different Ideological Outlook Than You" from time to time. I keep forgetting that that's one of the mod options!
The problem is that one of the problems is this
Thank you, that was brilliantly said and far more elegant and detailed than what I was trying to get across. I feel it would have been better responded to my opponent instead of the person already on your side but I am glad to hear from someone who actually went all the way in the field and I really hope the other side reads this.
It's an absurdly complex world.
The supreme court are the people writing the programming language.
Philosophy, Psychology or prelaw are generally the accepted courses. And since the supreme court is actually SETTING the precendents of it then I'd like them to have a solid grounding in legal theory/philosophy. If you have a psyche/philosophy major that wants to be on the court they can take the 3 years of schooling required to become a lawyer.
Your problem seems to be that you assume law school somehow brainwashes these people. That the reason they make decisions you don't like/understand/agree with is that the system has corrupted them without considering that maybe they know something that you don't. That maybe when they side with the corporation they have a perfectly legitimate reason to. It's the effect where anything you lack knowledge or skill of looks easy. Most decently well read people think they could write a novel if they tried specifically because they've never tried. They don't understand what makes the job so hard, what reason there is for 7 years of schooling and a year of paralegal to "just argue about the rules". Take a few courses on basic legal theory and you start to realize the pool is much deeper than it looks.
the "necessary basics" of the profession require 4 years of schooling to get the degree required to START LEARNING THE BASICS OF LAW. There's a reason it takes 7+ years of schooling to be allowed to take the bar. There's a lot to cover. Apply your logic to any other vocation. A skilled trade, computer science, medicine, research (insert scientific field here)ist, engineering, architecture... etc.
Your are suggesting nearly half of the most important court in your country not actually have the background knowledge required to have the LOWEST position in the court system.
If you have the legal knowledge to equal 4 years of prelaw, 3 years of law and a year of paralegal then I am totally OK with that.
But to address your example. You can know photoshop here to mars and back, it doesn't help you DESIGN anything. That requires knowledge of visual aesthetic and design theory.
I didn't take a pot shot against liberal art students. I said they didn't have IT knowledge and therefore shouldn't be doing IT work. Did you assume my comment on space was a pot shot against engineers?
And that liberal art student will have no idea of how to deal with Habeus Corpus, Men Rea, what does and does not constitute intent (remember it's not just "knowingly or willingly" "recklessly" and "without negligence" are in there too).
They won't have any history of how law forms and what the effects are on the other courts. They don't know the logical theory behind law. The causes of sentencing... etc.
Law is not just "making decisions about stuff" and more than programming is just "writing a set of instructions".
and while we're at it, why not get some lib art students in on the IT department to give that emotional edge. Or some engineers in on the graphic design department to better utilize space. I mean, who wants people who have dedicated their lives studying a topic to be the ones making important decisions regarding it? Not me that's for sure...
Or wait, is it only lawyers who don't count? Because it's socially acceptable to make fun of that profession because they have to do a job that requires objectively looking at things instead of going with feelgood emotional BS that the media crams down our throats? No, we should not have non lawyers in charge of making laws for the same reason we shouldn't have non plumbers making decisions about my sewage backup problem.
There is literally no way that pun wasn't intended. The entire purpose of the post was to make that pun. You put the part you were making a pun out of in quotes for god sake!
You seem to be confusing "often" with "more often than not". They aren't the same thing.
Also, homosexuals actually share physical characteristics. I forget where I read the study but it showed that you can actually predict sexual orientation by finger length, the way the hair grows and a few other physical indicators (note: I said PREDICT, not definitively show).
Another factor is that the sons of women who experience high stress during pregnancy are more likely to be gay.
Both of these indicate it's a result of chemicals/brain physiology as opposed to upbringing.
I... uh... I was more making a cock joke... than looking for an actual answer. But thank you for that.
I'm confronted with people who try and force their beliefs down my throat all the time. Vegetarians, vegans, gays, straights, liberals, libertarians, conservatives, and many others are far more guilty of it than Christians.
I was going to ask what gay people were trying to force down your throat. But I can't think of a way to word it that doesn't sound dirty.
He was just covering for The Doctor when the Tardis went into space to destroy the Dalek ship.
Slippery slope is, by its very nature a hyperbole of the original argument. You can use it to invalidate anything.
if you say we need to make any law tougher I can call slippery slope that it will lead to fascism.if you say we should make any law more lenient I can call slippery slope that it will lead to anarchy. Allow a law that makes us more liberal we're charging towards communism, more republican? We're making a real life Rapture. If the gays marry then we'll be allowed to marry 8 underage dead cats and have sex with all of them. If the government puts in regulations to prevent big business from fucking consumers we'll have to let the government control all aspects of every business.
If Y is really so bad then it doesn't matter what happens regarding X: we won't allow Y.
Slippery Slope is a subtle form of strawman.
You can't show evidence that action X is, in and of itself bad but action Y which is a more severe version of action X IS clearly wrong so you say "We can't do action X because it will lead to action Y." This way you're no longer arguing against action X (which is entirely reasonable) you're now arguing against your made up hyperbole of it (action Y) which you claim is a direct unavoidable result while either not providing any evidence that X leads to Y besides the fact that both are similar in nature but Y is worse or ignoring that we can use common sense to stop at X without going as far as Y.
That's why it is a fallacy. It assumes a relation between X and Y which does not necessarily exist.
It's called the slippery slope fallacy
FTFY
2/3rds of people who have and use an internet connection. Children don't count, people without their own internet access don't count.