The fine is outsized to the "crime" since it's hard to catch them in the act or determine guilt after the fact. But if you're caught doing it. Boom.
I'll have to disagree with that, then. Just because they have trouble catching people who commit certain crimes doesn't mean that they need to punish the ones they do catch in a way that can be seen as cruel and unusual. I'm not sure if you agree with the fine or not, but I'm just saying that I don't think them having trouble catching people justifies fining the people they do catch more than usual.
It's hard for me to believe it if they don't have any evidence. Not only that, but I don't think they should be punishing one guy because other people downloaded the file (even if he helped them do it). And it's only a potential loss of potential profit.
He knew what he was doing was illegal.
Right. I'm sure that argument will be so convincing to people who think that this punishment is cruel and unusual.
Well, unless they can show exactly how many times it was downloaded, I wouldn't believe anything they say. Not only that, but I don't think they should be going after one person just because other people downloaded the files.
Plenty of people deal with programming type things.
No. They just have the potential to perhaps benefit from it if they use it. How many people truly need it for their jobs (note the word "need")? As I said, for the average person not interested in programming to begin with, I do not think the effect would even be noticeable (and do not care).
A lot of folk use rote memory for the really simple math;
Nonetheless, I can't think of a single person who doesn't use basic math.
For Jenny's job, programming concepts might seem out of place until she starts looking at the checkout lines and tries to imagine it being more efficient.
The same is true for programming. Everyone has tasks that could be automated
Unless their profession requires them to have knowledge of programming, I do not think making the class mandatory (assuming this even happens) just because some people could automate some tasks is a wise move. It's not worth it, in my opinion.
How the hell do people even know what will be useful to them in the future?
They'll just have to go with what they think will be useful. I don't support making classes mandatory simply because people don't know.
we already have enough troubles with kids getting a rounded education as it is.
I wonder if that is not only because of their teaching methods, but the fact that they overload them with 'useless' classes.
If all we do is teach our kids to push a button, what the hell are they going to do if there are no jobs pushing buttons?
I never suggested that schools shouldn't offer other classes.
in middle school
High school. And not only does forcing unnecessary classes upon them likely increase the rate of failures and take time away from doing work for other, more important classes, but since they aren't interested/don't need the classes in the first place, they will probably forget the knowledge, anyway (which means that even if they did change their minds about their desired profession later, they would likely have to relearn the material).
And you have little probability of dealing with MS Office Macros?
I don't know. Do you?
You have bigger probability of needing programming-related skills than the mentioned Bohr model of the atom.
Perhaps bigger, but still not significant enough for me.
Programming is just as useful in today's world as mathematics
If you're talking about basic mathematics, then I'm going to disagree. In my opinion, not enough people will use the programming skills to justify making the class mandatory (which would take time away from other classes that they probably do need and likely increase the number of failures). Those not interested will likely forget it all, anyway.
they should understand boolean logic.
I don't think making a class mandatory just so they can learn one piece of information from it is worth it.
How much of high school is useful everyday to anyone?
Good question. If the class teaches something that is used frequently (basic math, English, etc) by the average person, then I think it should be mandatory. Basically, things that you have a high probability of using later.
You're forgetting that it somehow drastically improves the critical thinking skills of people who don't even care about the class (likely the ones who will forget it entirely anyway)! Really, even if the entire class is nearly worthless to someone, we should make it mandatory if there's a chance that it may improve their skills slightly in another area. That won't give them less time to do work in other classes that teach things that are used on a daily basis at all.
Why force 99% of kids to read classic works of literature? Why force 99% of kids to participate in physical education?
I actually agree with this. If they want to see if they like something, they can do it on their own time. I won't support making every subject in existence mandatory simply because a few people don't know what they like.
I don't think someone that is uninterested in this will even remember anything or care about doing any of that. It just seems like another way to waste time that they could be using to complete work from classes that teach things that they actually use everyday to me.
Well, I was just telling you how I define closed-mindedness.
if you are closed-minded, you are very likely to immediately project everything other people say into black&white statements that either match or disagree with your worldview
I don't know. I don't think someone is truly closed-minded as long as they admit that there is at least a possibility that they are wrong.
I'm not sure how you expect anyone reading your reply to make that up from what you wrote.
What I will say is that I think I should have clarified what I meant. It happened sometimes.
1) you draw a completely nonsense conclusions from what the OP wrote based on one comment of his (turning teaching children about ethics into brainwashing them into copies of yourself).
I already said that that wasn't the case.
2) he says that interpretation is nonsense and that you are closed minded if you interpret what he said as suggesting that children should be brainwashed
Well, even if I did interpret his post that way, I don't see how interpreting text differently from someone else makes someone closed-minded. I think someone is closed-minded when they believe that they are 100% correct and cannot be wrong (when they do not doubt themselves) and not when they merely disagree with someone else.
No, but it's hard to discuss with someone who needs a very extensive explanation for every point you try to make.
So my alleged hypocrisy had nothing to do with it, then? Would you rather I assume I know what you're thinking and then create an argument based on that assumption?
In fact, it sort of corroborates the argument that you are in fact fairly closed minded
The statement "Make sure to include the fact that your morals are absolute universal fact" certainly suggests it.
It does? I thought it was just me implying that I disagree with toting the existence of absolute morals as a fact.
Possibly, but at least a bunch of them that most of humanity agrees about have been bundled in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Alright.
First you go on the offensive
Despite being sarcastic, I was not trying to be offensive. Really, the way he worded that just made me think of brainwashing for some reason. That probably wasn't his intention, but I just thought it was amusing how some people probably really would do that and decided to voice my disagreement with that behavior.
you suddenly start playing the victim
I asked him to clarify things. I don't understand what he is thinking. I merely wanted to know how he reached the conclusion that I was closed-minded. The fact that I started off on the "offensive" has little to do with that, I think.
Maybe you should look up the definition of hypocrisy
Why? How is that hypocrisy? Do you think that calling someone a hypocrite is an argument in and of itself?
That is why we try to pound them into kids at an early age
Well, children are easy to brainwash. So I guess that is a good time to do it. Make sure to include the fact that your morals are absolute universal fact.
You acted as if stating something as an opinion (or saying that you believe in something) was the same as stating something as an absolute universal fact.
Why should anyone care what your opinions are?
Was that my question? Did I say that they should?
The only opinions that matter to other people are informed ones with reasons to back them up.
The value of an opinion is likely subjective. And I think just about everyone thinks that their opinion is "informed." I'm sure most people believe that they are 100% correct without even doubting themselves.
In other words, if it's just your opinion he shouldn't go to jail, why should anyone else care?
I'm not going to restate everything I've already said, but I gave my reasons. You just didn't agree with them. That's too bad, but that's sort of how opinions work.
I see no more reason why I should care about that opinion
I didn't say that you should. That said, the same applies to you. I do not care about your opinion (nor do I agree with it).
it's that a moral relativist's comments on questions of right or wrong are worth nothing by his own admission.
And? Should everyone just accept that morals are objective fact because it would make someone feel better? People who believe morals are objective can only offer words. "This is right." "This is wrong." That's it. They likely can't prove anything. I don't see their claims as being worth anything more or being any more convincing.
A moral relativist arguing that other should follow his moral code is inconsistent
No, it isn't. It may not be successful, but there's nothing inconsistent about it as long as they accept that their views on morality aren't absolute fact.
only pleading, threats, or bribes.
None of which are inconsistent.
Believing that something is wrong is morally objective, by definition.
What are you talking about? Do you believe in opinions at all? "I believe that football is boring."
Slashdot Mirror
The fine is outsized to the "crime" since it's hard to catch them in the act or determine guilt after the fact. But if you're caught doing it. Boom.
I'll have to disagree with that, then. Just because they have trouble catching people who commit certain crimes doesn't mean that they need to punish the ones they do catch in a way that can be seen as cruel and unusual. I'm not sure if you agree with the fine or not, but I'm just saying that I don't think them having trouble catching people justifies fining the people they do catch more than usual.
Is that figure so hard to believe?
It's hard for me to believe it if they don't have any evidence. Not only that, but I don't think they should be punishing one guy because other people downloaded the file (even if he helped them do it). And it's only a potential loss of potential profit.
He knew what he was doing was illegal.
Right. I'm sure that argument will be so convincing to people who think that this punishment is cruel and unusual.
In this case it might be better to appeal to an authority higher than the constitution - we the people.
Good luck trying to get them to do anything, though. I guess you could still try.
Well, unless they can show exactly how many times it was downloaded, I wouldn't believe anything they say. Not only that, but I don't think they should be going after one person just because other people downloaded the files.
The state investigated his work habits by tracking his vehicle.
I don't care what reasons they had if they didn't tell him they were going to track him.
Plenty of people deal with programming type things.
No. They just have the potential to perhaps benefit from it if they use it. How many people truly need it for their jobs (note the word "need")? As I said, for the average person not interested in programming to begin with, I do not think the effect would even be noticeable (and do not care).
A lot of folk use rote memory for the really simple math;
Nonetheless, I can't think of a single person who doesn't use basic math.
For Jenny's job, programming concepts might seem out of place until she starts looking at the checkout lines and tries to imagine it being more efficient.
I'd say that's a stretch for the average person.
I'm not sure I agree with that definition, then. As long as someone acknowledges that they could be wrong, I don't think they're closed-minded.
Yes. All of my arguments are completely incorrect because of my signature.
The most important things a person learns are never listed as requirements on a job application.
If they're not absolutely essential, then I do not support making these classes mandatory.
If you give these people even one experience modeling things and thinking logically it can transform the way they see the world.
I doubt it has that profound of an effect on the average person who isn't interested in it to begin with.
The same is true for programming. Everyone has tasks that could be automated
Unless their profession requires them to have knowledge of programming, I do not think making the class mandatory (assuming this even happens) just because some people could automate some tasks is a wise move. It's not worth it, in my opinion.
How the hell do people even know what will be useful to them in the future?
They'll just have to go with what they think will be useful. I don't support making classes mandatory simply because people don't know.
we already have enough troubles with kids getting a rounded education as it is.
I wonder if that is not only because of their teaching methods, but the fact that they overload them with 'useless' classes.
If all we do is teach our kids to push a button, what the hell are they going to do if there are no jobs pushing buttons?
I never suggested that schools shouldn't offer other classes.
in middle school
High school. And not only does forcing unnecessary classes upon them likely increase the rate of failures and take time away from doing work for other, more important classes, but since they aren't interested/don't need the classes in the first place, they will probably forget the knowledge, anyway (which means that even if they did change their minds about their desired profession later, they would likely have to relearn the material).
And you have little probability of dealing with MS Office Macros?
I don't know. Do you?
You have bigger probability of needing programming-related skills than the mentioned Bohr model of the atom.
Perhaps bigger, but still not significant enough for me.
Programming is just as useful in today's world as mathematics
If you're talking about basic mathematics, then I'm going to disagree. In my opinion, not enough people will use the programming skills to justify making the class mandatory (which would take time away from other classes that they probably do need and likely increase the number of failures). Those not interested will likely forget it all, anyway.
they should understand boolean logic.
I don't think making a class mandatory just so they can learn one piece of information from it is worth it.
How much of high school is useful everyday to anyone?
Good question. If the class teaches something that is used frequently (basic math, English, etc) by the average person, then I think it should be mandatory. Basically, things that you have a high probability of using later.
You're forgetting that it somehow drastically improves the critical thinking skills of people who don't even care about the class (likely the ones who will forget it entirely anyway)! Really, even if the entire class is nearly worthless to someone, we should make it mandatory if there's a chance that it may improve their skills slightly in another area. That won't give them less time to do work in other classes that teach things that are used on a daily basis at all.
Why force 99% of kids to read classic works of literature? Why force 99% of kids to participate in physical education?
I actually agree with this. If they want to see if they like something, they can do it on their own time. I won't support making every subject in existence mandatory simply because a few people don't know what they like.
I don't think someone that is uninterested in this will even remember anything or care about doing any of that. It just seems like another way to waste time that they could be using to complete work from classes that teach things that they actually use everyday to me.
Force every class in existence on them because it might teach them other skills.
Yes, you already said that.
Just re-clarifying it.
The problem was not you disagreeing with him
Well, I was just telling you how I define closed-mindedness.
if you are closed-minded, you are very likely to immediately project everything other people say into black&white statements that either match or disagree with your worldview
I don't know. I don't think someone is truly closed-minded as long as they admit that there is at least a possibility that they are wrong.
I'm not sure how you expect anyone reading your reply to make that up from what you wrote.
What I will say is that I think I should have clarified what I meant. It happened sometimes.
1) you draw a completely nonsense conclusions from what the OP wrote based on one comment of his (turning teaching children about ethics into brainwashing them into copies of yourself).
I already said that that wasn't the case.
2) he says that interpretation is nonsense and that you are closed minded if you interpret what he said as suggesting that children should be brainwashed
Well, even if I did interpret his post that way, I don't see how interpreting text differently from someone else makes someone closed-minded. I think someone is closed-minded when they believe that they are 100% correct and cannot be wrong (when they do not doubt themselves) and not when they merely disagree with someone else.
No, but it's hard to discuss with someone who needs a very extensive explanation for every point you try to make.
So my alleged hypocrisy had nothing to do with it, then? Would you rather I assume I know what you're thinking and then create an argument based on that assumption?
In fact, it sort of corroborates the argument that you are in fact fairly closed minded
What is your definition of "closed-minded"?
The statement "Make sure to include the fact that your morals are absolute universal fact" certainly suggests it.
It does? I thought it was just me implying that I disagree with toting the existence of absolute morals as a fact.
Possibly, but at least a bunch of them that most of humanity agrees about have been bundled in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Alright.
First you go on the offensive
Despite being sarcastic, I was not trying to be offensive. Really, the way he worded that just made me think of brainwashing for some reason. That probably wasn't his intention, but I just thought it was amusing how some people probably really would do that and decided to voice my disagreement with that behavior.
you suddenly start playing the victim
I asked him to clarify things. I don't understand what he is thinking. I merely wanted to know how he reached the conclusion that I was closed-minded. The fact that I started off on the "offensive" has little to do with that, I think.
Maybe you should look up the definition of hypocrisy
Why? How is that hypocrisy? Do you think that calling someone a hypocrite is an argument in and of itself?
I take it that you don't have kids of your own.
Did you reach that conclusion just from reading that one comment?
I don't think that is necessarily required to pass on ethics and moral values.
I didn't say that it was.
better philosophies
Depending on who you ask, isn't that subjective?
It sounds like you are a bit closed minded on this point
How did you reach that conclusion? How much do you know about me?
That is why we try to pound them into kids at an early age
Well, children are easy to brainwash. So I guess that is a good time to do it. Make sure to include the fact that your morals are absolute universal fact.
Then I shall not trouble you any more with reason or logic. Clearly you have no need for either.
I actually enjoy both. I don't see where I've failed.
That's a strange question.
You acted as if stating something as an opinion (or saying that you believe in something) was the same as stating something as an absolute universal fact.
Why should anyone care what your opinions are?
Was that my question? Did I say that they should?
The only opinions that matter to other people are informed ones with reasons to back them up.
The value of an opinion is likely subjective. And I think just about everyone thinks that their opinion is "informed." I'm sure most people believe that they are 100% correct without even doubting themselves.
In other words, if it's just your opinion he shouldn't go to jail, why should anyone else care?
I'm not going to restate everything I've already said, but I gave my reasons. You just didn't agree with them. That's too bad, but that's sort of how opinions work.
I see no more reason why I should care about that opinion
I didn't say that you should. That said, the same applies to you. I do not care about your opinion (nor do I agree with it).
it's that a moral relativist's comments on questions of right or wrong are worth nothing by his own admission.
And? Should everyone just accept that morals are objective fact because it would make someone feel better? People who believe morals are objective can only offer words. "This is right." "This is wrong." That's it. They likely can't prove anything. I don't see their claims as being worth anything more or being any more convincing.
A moral relativist arguing that other should follow his moral code is inconsistent
No, it isn't. It may not be successful, but there's nothing inconsistent about it as long as they accept that their views on morality aren't absolute fact.
only pleading, threats, or bribes.
None of which are inconsistent.
Believing that something is wrong is morally objective, by definition.
What are you talking about? Do you believe in opinions at all? "I believe that football is boring."