Whoa. Is Clear Channel still in operation? Wow, I haven't heard a Clear Channel radio station for, sheesh, it must be eight or nine years now. I totally agree: it sucks badly; people should turn it off like so many of us already have.
Fair enough. I'm sure you and I would agree on almost everything regarding what actions our soldiers should be taking, or not taking, in the name of war.
My point is that the Lamo guy was not participating in a murder conspiracy. He may have been assisting a prosecution along with people who work for an organization of which part conspired to cover up a murder (which I think is a more subtle and accurate way of saying what you said), but the prosecution-conspiracy that he engaged in was not murderous but rather one to convict a criminal. --And it's furthermore reasonable for you to say that this particular criminal act (release of hidden war crimes evidence, as you put it) was righteous and good in every way, because it outs the people who you think committed murder; but Lamo didn't help the murders, and didn't help the people who may have covered up the murders, but rather other people working for the same organization. So, it's a pretty big jump to accuse Lamo of conspiracy for murder.
I think it's appropriate to distill exactly what you think was wrong with the whole situation and stick to it. If you think the killings were murder, that's reasonable; if you think leaking the video was righteous, that's reasonable; if you think it's wrong to prosecute (or even investigate) the leaker due to the righteousness, that's reasonable; if you think outing the leaker was immoral because you think the leaker was righteous, that's reasonable; but in my opinion it is not reasonable to link all those together and accuse the outer of conspiracy for murder.
I'm fine with turning the conversation away from the main topic and instead discussing the definition of "combat".
I find your post confusing: what part of the definition you provided makes it "sound like both sides have to be armed"? The definition doesn't mention arms at all, let alone stipulate that both sides need them. More to the point, if the definition DID say that (which, again, to be clear, it does not), then that definition would be incongruous with my personal understanding of the word "combat", as a native English speaker. And finally, the most important point of all, my general understanding of all the wars the USA is currently involved in is that our army is armed and so are the people we are fighting, whether or not the narrow events of the video show armed opponents.
So, again, I'm confused why you would try to make the point you did.
(If you want to stop discussing the definition of "combat", and return to the question of the actions shown in the video, that is also fine with me. I haven't paid much attention to the issue and so am open minded to the charge that the soldiers acted irresponsibly or illegally.)
I haven't seen anywhere that Lamo "admits he is cooperating with a conspiracy to commit murder". Can you substantiate that claim? In the article I read, he was cooperating with a conspiracy to prosecute the criminally treasonous release of sensitive data during a war.
If you don't like living in a country with a transparent government... uh, well no country in the world has a transparent government so I guess there's nothing to do.
That's hilarious. Come on, mods; sure, that's offtopic, but give it a +1 Funny. I wish we had a +1 Epic Crackpotery moderation option. I'm reasonably certain it was intended as a joke, and even if not it's still funny as hell.
My absolute favorite part is "introduced into our body fluids without the knowledge of the individual", and yet here is this guy talking about it, obviously having individual knowledge. That's classic!
I also love how he tries to scare by saying there are studies underway to fluoridate salt! Oh no! Studies! Actually, dude, large parts of the world have been fluoridating salt for a couple generations with positive public health effects. The studies were done before you were born.
Fluoridation of water happened in the light of public and it has largely succeeded in its goals; it is added to some water and removed from some other water in an attempt to mimic the amount in naturally-occuring water which we consider "ideal", in whatever way we determine that. Although municipal water supplies are important, it's nonsense to say people have no choice; there's plenty of unfluoridated water around.
Wait, I'm confused, are we talking about murder or violation of the rules of engagement? I thought we were talking about the latter, but you seem to be talking about the former.
It doesn't need to 'make it okay', it needs to refute the accusation that these were cowboy soldiers willy-nilly shooting innocent civilians. Once we discard that notion, we can get down to the real business of discussing the actions in the context of combat.
You did an excellent job of perfectly paralleling the situation in your hypothetical. No person could ever find any fault in your comparison. It is unassailable.
That would be a very very good point if the constitution didn't apply to normal laws. For instance, apparently the campaign finance laws we've had for eight decades were unconstitutional all along, according to the Supreme Court recently. So, what are we supposed to do, amend the Constitution with a little asterisk saying that the first amendment doesn't apply to multi-national corporations making political donations? And next week when there is another ruling we're supposed to do the same thing? And the week after?
That's just not a tenable system. I am sympathetic to the arguments that we should adhere more closely to the text of the constitution, but in the end I don't think that those arguments carry.
Let me attack the argument: libertarian idealism is impossibly naive and unworkable, as shown by the nearly universal hypocrisy of its proponents.
To be honest, arguing with ideologues isn't something I'm interested in doing for very long, so I will let you have the last word if you like it. If you are one of the incredibly rare non-hypocritical libertarians, then I congratulate you for walking the thin line.
Hmmm. Well I'd say that the opposite of internal consistency is hypocrisy.
I think my point is that libertarians are exactly the kind of ideologues who would reject "a compromise policy that does work". That kind of sentence would appeal to moderates and pragmatists. It sounds like you and I are both that kind of person, so we have nothing to argue about.
Moderates also have internal consistency, by the way; but our foundational principles are about compromise, pursuit of the possible, open mindedness, and that sort of thing.
Are you sure that those are the rules in Vegas? Why do you think so? Do you have special knowledge, like you live there or gamble there a lot or work in the gambling industry?
(This is not facetious. I have no idea, I would just imaging that Vegas would be equally corrupt as other places.)
Yeah, of course, any right-thinking person would agree with you; I sure as hell do. I'm sure 98% of citizens would agree with you. But what the heck are 98% of citizens supposed to do to affect the gambling laws? Alas, there is nothing we can do.
To me, the details of the glitch are irrelevant. If the machine says you win X, then you should get X. If it's a machine error, then the casino has been wronged *by the machine manufacturer*, and the casino should sue that manufacturer, because they are the people who caused the problem. If the consumer follows all the rules, then the gambling overlords should protect their winnings.
Yeah, I can see both arguments, but in the end I think if a machine displays a payout amount, the casino should be obligated to pay that amount. If it is a machine error, then the casino has a valid tort against the distributor of the faulty machine, or the testing company, or somebody; but the consumer shouldn't be on the hook.
I'm curious about the "ridiculously subtle glitch". I bet I'm not the only person on Slashdot who would be interested in any details you can remember.
Let me be the first of many to recommend AdBlock Plus.
The other day somebody mentioned in conversation how Facebook is an ad-supported site. Although that fact is obvious, it took me a moment of thinking about it to realize why the heck I personally had never seen an ad on Facebook.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never heard the Dr Demento show. Did it have advertisements? or was it listener supported?
Whoa. Is Clear Channel still in operation? Wow, I haven't heard a Clear Channel radio station for, sheesh, it must be eight or nine years now. I totally agree: it sucks badly; people should turn it off like so many of us already have.
Try a little harder, it isn't very difficult.
Fair enough. I'm sure you and I would agree on almost everything regarding what actions our soldiers should be taking, or not taking, in the name of war.
My point is that the Lamo guy was not participating in a murder conspiracy. He may have been assisting a prosecution along with people who work for an organization of which part conspired to cover up a murder (which I think is a more subtle and accurate way of saying what you said), but the prosecution-conspiracy that he engaged in was not murderous but rather one to convict a criminal. --And it's furthermore reasonable for you to say that this particular criminal act (release of hidden war crimes evidence, as you put it) was righteous and good in every way, because it outs the people who you think committed murder; but Lamo didn't help the murders, and didn't help the people who may have covered up the murders, but rather other people working for the same organization. So, it's a pretty big jump to accuse Lamo of conspiracy for murder.
I think it's appropriate to distill exactly what you think was wrong with the whole situation and stick to it. If you think the killings were murder, that's reasonable; if you think leaking the video was righteous, that's reasonable; if you think it's wrong to prosecute (or even investigate) the leaker due to the righteousness, that's reasonable; if you think outing the leaker was immoral because you think the leaker was righteous, that's reasonable; but in my opinion it is not reasonable to link all those together and accuse the outer of conspiracy for murder.
Ah, I get double demerits because I've seen that movie -- but it was fifteen years ago.
You can get full credit for a movie reference by making it explicit. A link to the original quote will inform the clueless like myself.
Thanks for the education.
Oh, shit. I don't watch many movies; which one?
I'm fine with turning the conversation away from the main topic and instead discussing the definition of "combat".
I find your post confusing: what part of the definition you provided makes it "sound like both sides have to be armed"? The definition doesn't mention arms at all, let alone stipulate that both sides need them. More to the point, if the definition DID say that (which, again, to be clear, it does not), then that definition would be incongruous with my personal understanding of the word "combat", as a native English speaker. And finally, the most important point of all, my general understanding of all the wars the USA is currently involved in is that our army is armed and so are the people we are fighting, whether or not the narrow events of the video show armed opponents.
So, again, I'm confused why you would try to make the point you did.
(If you want to stop discussing the definition of "combat", and return to the question of the actions shown in the video, that is also fine with me. I haven't paid much attention to the issue and so am open minded to the charge that the soldiers acted irresponsibly or illegally.)
I haven't seen anywhere that Lamo "admits he is cooperating with a conspiracy to commit murder". Can you substantiate that claim? In the article I read, he was cooperating with a conspiracy to prosecute the criminally treasonous release of sensitive data during a war.
If you don't like living in a country with a transparent government... uh, well no country in the world has a transparent government so I guess there's nothing to do.
Yeah. More than "construed", it is positively purposely putting lives of many soldiers in danger.
That's hilarious. Come on, mods; sure, that's offtopic, but give it a +1 Funny. I wish we had a +1 Epic Crackpotery moderation option. I'm reasonably certain it was intended as a joke, and even if not it's still funny as hell.
My absolute favorite part is "introduced into our body fluids without the knowledge of the individual", and yet here is this guy talking about it, obviously having individual knowledge. That's classic!
I also love how he tries to scare by saying there are studies underway to fluoridate salt! Oh no! Studies! Actually, dude, large parts of the world have been fluoridating salt for a couple generations with positive public health effects. The studies were done before you were born.
Fluoridation of water happened in the light of public and it has largely succeeded in its goals; it is added to some water and removed from some other water in an attempt to mimic the amount in naturally-occuring water which we consider "ideal", in whatever way we determine that. Although municipal water supplies are important, it's nonsense to say people have no choice; there's plenty of unfluoridated water around.
Wait, I'm confused, are we talking about murder or violation of the rules of engagement? I thought we were talking about the latter, but you seem to be talking about the former.
No, you're supposed to believe that they held onto the video for a good reason to which you are not privy.
It doesn't need to 'make it okay', it needs to refute the accusation that these were cowboy soldiers willy-nilly shooting innocent civilians. Once we discard that notion, we can get down to the real business of discussing the actions in the context of combat.
You did an excellent job of perfectly paralleling the situation in your hypothetical. No person could ever find any fault in your comparison. It is unassailable.
That would be a very very good point if the constitution didn't apply to normal laws. For instance, apparently the campaign finance laws we've had for eight decades were unconstitutional all along, according to the Supreme Court recently. So, what are we supposed to do, amend the Constitution with a little asterisk saying that the first amendment doesn't apply to multi-national corporations making political donations? And next week when there is another ruling we're supposed to do the same thing? And the week after?
That's just not a tenable system. I am sympathetic to the arguments that we should adhere more closely to the text of the constitution, but in the end I don't think that those arguments carry.
Are we talking past eachother?
Getting the same amount of a thing for less money and getting more of a thing for the same amount of money are equivalent.
If I want to drive more, and if I can drive more without paying more, then that sounds pretty good to me.
Good point, it is a sort of ad-hominem attack.
Let me attack the argument: libertarian idealism is impossibly naive and unworkable, as shown by the nearly universal hypocrisy of its proponents.
To be honest, arguing with ideologues isn't something I'm interested in doing for very long, so I will let you have the last word if you like it. If you are one of the incredibly rare non-hypocritical libertarians, then I congratulate you for walking the thin line.
Hmmm. Well I'd say that the opposite of internal consistency is hypocrisy.
I think my point is that libertarians are exactly the kind of ideologues who would reject "a compromise policy that does work". That kind of sentence would appeal to moderates and pragmatists. It sounds like you and I are both that kind of person, so we have nothing to argue about.
Moderates also have internal consistency, by the way; but our foundational principles are about compromise, pursuit of the possible, open mindedness, and that sort of thing.
Are you sure that those are the rules in Vegas? Why do you think so? Do you have special knowledge, like you live there or gamble there a lot or work in the gambling industry?
(This is not facetious. I have no idea, I would just imaging that Vegas would be equally corrupt as other places.)
Yeah, of course, any right-thinking person would agree with you; I sure as hell do. I'm sure 98% of citizens would agree with you. But what the heck are 98% of citizens supposed to do to affect the gambling laws? Alas, there is nothing we can do.
To me, the details of the glitch are irrelevant. If the machine says you win X, then you should get X. If it's a machine error, then the casino has been wronged *by the machine manufacturer*, and the casino should sue that manufacturer, because they are the people who caused the problem. If the consumer follows all the rules, then the gambling overlords should protect their winnings.
As long as we're talking about composition mistakes, you also have an errant apostrophe in the original post.
I'm a grammar nitpicker, so please excuse the intrusion. Be well.
Yeah, I can see both arguments, but in the end I think if a machine displays a payout amount, the casino should be obligated to pay that amount. If it is a machine error, then the casino has a valid tort against the distributor of the faulty machine, or the testing company, or somebody; but the consumer shouldn't be on the hook.
I'm curious about the "ridiculously subtle glitch". I bet I'm not the only person on Slashdot who would be interested in any details you can remember.
Let me be the first of many to recommend AdBlock Plus.
The other day somebody mentioned in conversation how Facebook is an ad-supported site. Although that fact is obvious, it took me a moment of thinking about it to realize why the heck I personally had never seen an ad on Facebook.