He's discovered how to use the Fallacy of the Excluded Middle to perpetuate his delusions.
Oh, look, it has discovered, how to use fancy terms to survive in an argument.
Hint... The fallacy of excluded middle (a.k.a. "False Dilemma") has nothing to do with the matter at hand or my argument.
We are on the slippery slope — the government is ever increasing its role in all aspects of life. The other metaphor is "the slowly-boiling pot"...
"The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until one day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology."
Ayn Rand
When people like me were warning, that Roosevelt's "New Deal" is the path towards government's (federal, state, and local combined) controlling about 50% of the nation's spending, people like you were ridiculing the dire predictions... A government-controlled (and mandated) healthcare remained just as much "an uncontested absurdity" back then, as the government's control of our food, shelter, and higher education seems a scare-mongering absurd to you today...
There is nothing more cowardly than people who feign offence [sic] just to stifle debate.
Yes, it really irks me too, when people feign offense (at my "racism"), when I criticize Barack Obama. This is why I've come up with the statement being discussed:-)
I support the right to bear arms, even to the point of people carrying fully automatic weapons, but I do not support homicide. By your logic I'm a weasel too.
And by your logic, there is nothing wrong with my (current) signature: "I support Barack Obama, but not his mission."
So by your own words, a straighforward reading of 'support our troops' implies supporting the mission. And you're confused why someone would want to say 'support the troops without supporting the mission'?
Yes. But the Democratic Party has come up with this wonderful backhanded way, that I'm now using to express disagreement with Obama, while avoiding (I Hope) charges of racism: "I support Barack Obama, but not his mission".
(Funny, how the Illiberal moderators slam my responses down as "off-topic", while keeping their fellow Illiberal, who lead the sub-thread off-topic by picking on my sig, at 5...)
Has that happened? I thought in order to do that, the student has to demonstrate that they took active measures to ensure they understood the material.
Yeah, a complaining student would need all that evidence in court, but not on an online forum or in front of a sympathetic interviewer. Without the attendance records, it is the professor's word against the student's.
Plus, as others pointed out, the attendance records can genuinely help the instructors...
How, precisely, do you 'support the troops'? Do you support them in that you hope they will come back alive? Do you support them in re-integrating into civilian life after discharge? Do you support them by hoping they win their battles? Do you support them in hoping they succeed in their mission?
Although different people would stress different items from your list, a straightforward person would list all of the above. An obama or a pelosi would keep trying to weasel out.
Make no mistake, 'support our troops' means everything and nothing.
You'd just blow it on hookers and credit-default swaps.
That's a good argument for 100% taxation, with everything one could need provided by the government for free... That the government's managerial overhead is staggering, is the cost we ought to be prepared to pay.
Decades after the takeover of retirement, the Universal Healthcare is, finally, taken care of — that's a giant wedge, that will soon allow the government to also take over:
food:
you can't be healthy without good nutrition, can you?
it is cheaper to feed you than to treat hunger-caused deceases, is not it?
housing — much the same reasons as above — housing projects for everyone!
College curriculum — by making the Federal government the sole source of tuition loans, it was placed into position to set rules for both would-be students ("volunteer" or else...) and the colleges (teach this and that, or else...) — the colleges will soon be as terrific as the public schools already are
Soon, the ideal of the all-knowing government staffed with benevolent well-meaning bureaucrats (as opposite to the evil private corporate CEOs) will be achieved. We will have no money (the root of all evil), nor need for any, as everything we truly need will be provided by the more equal ones in power. Slaves on plantations had a similar deal — the fools disliked it for some reason...
How is ordering RFID-backed ID card blanks putting federal cash to work on "shovel-ready" projects?
Uh-oh... Do we see a growing resentment of "stimulus"? Perhaps, allowing the government to spend billions of our dollars is not, after all, a better idea, than to simply return it to us (the taxpayers)?
If they're wrong, they'll be punished at exam time.
Or, they turn around and blame the professor (and the school) for failing to teach them. And ask for their money back. If the school can demonstrate, that they have not attended the classes, they can defend themselves.
It is entirely possible and reasonably that what Palin was doing was illegal at the time she did it, regardless of what the Alaskan legislature did or did not pass after the fact.
Oh, yes, of course. It also "entirely possible", that you are molesting a 3 year old right now...
Legal or not, I would conclude that her actions were outside the spirit of the laws concerning official government correspondence.
Alaska has since passed new legislation that specifically addresses what she was doing so that there can be no way to claim that such practices do not violate document retention policies.
Well, if they had to pass a clarifying law "since", then there must've been a way to make such a claim earlier — when Sarah Palin was making it.
Sorry. I will not believe a Russian institution on anything, that harms a Western company.
Even if we put malice aside, it is all too likely, that someone was simply stealing the beans, feeding the animals who-knows-what instead. It may be hard for Westerners to believe, but in Russia that's entirely possible.
And if I recall correctly, after three generations of hamsters being fed on that modified soy, they were 100% incapable of reproducing.
{Citation needed}
That said, I imagine, anything fed only by a single kind of plant for 3 generations would be incapable of reproducing... Even koalas eat things other than eucalyptus. Not because anything is wrong with the food, but because there should be different foods to provide different nutrients.
What, exactly, do you consider to be the mission of Barack Obama?
His self-declared aim is to "Spread the Wealth" to ensure Equality of Results for everyone. Because our Equality of Opportunity is so bourgeoisies... I find it most alarming, because that equal result will never be good. All — as in 100% — of past attempts to make everyone equally rich have failed, and made everyone equally poor instead. Life will suck, and — for me, at least — the fact, that it sucks equally for most (not for all, of course, some people will remain more equal than others) will be of little consolation.
And how can you support him if you don't support what he wants to do?
The way Illiberals were able to "Support the troops, but not their mission", darling.
Can we, please, please, please, colonize Antarctica first? Although not a planet, it is still a giant continent, that many times easier to reach, to live on, and to return from than Mars.
There are no questions of presence of water or usable air. Conditions are harsh, but nowhere near the harshness of Mars...
And then there are the vast deserts like Gobi or Sahara. Mars, while intriguing, can await further revolutions in technology. Spending an appreciable chunk of the GDP just to get there seems rather wasteful...
Okay, I get your point about quoting supports in regards to music now. But for this point to be valid, the musician in question must actually be a supporter of the politician in question.
Well, not only is that the actual case at hand: "Henley, who has long been identified with liberal and Democratic causes," — says the summary.
Further, at least two out of the three links, with which youbegan this very conversation, claim the same thing in the very titles (emphasis mine):
So, now that've agreed, that Republicans are Ok (at least morally) in mocking their opponents using the opponents' supporters art, let's move on to the more generic question of political speech vs. copyrights.
The author of the (in)famous "Hope" poster stole a photograph of a completely neutral party for his poster... But because it was for political speech, I think, he shouldn't suffer, although you would say, he should...
If free speech trumps copyright, then copyright does not exist.
Political Free Speech needn't endanger copyright. And that's what I'm talking about. We already distinguish different kinds of speech — advertisers, for example, are very limited in what they can say, compared to politicians — and, I think, political speech could include anything, be it copyrighted works or incitement to violence.
And I think political speech should not contain music.
That's a strange distinction... No music... Can the politician hum (an opponent's tune)? Reminds me of something:
DONKEY:
(singing) On the road again. Sing it
with me, Shrek. I can't wait to get
on the road again.
SHREK: What did I say about singing?
DONKEY: Can I whistle?
SHREK: No.
DONKEY: Can I hum it?
SHREK: All right, hum it.
Donkey begins to hum 'On the Road Again'.
What about other forms of art? Can graphics by an opponent's supporter be used to mock the opponent? Or does this guy owe Shepard Fairey, in your opinion?
Quote your opponnant, quote his supporters, the issue is the same.
Yes, the issue is the same, and the quoting should be allowed. This is not entirely unlike it being harder for "public figures" to sue for defamation/libel/slander — once a musician publicly supports a politician, using that musician's music to mock the politician is fair game...
In fact, you seem to surrender your point — that Republicans are thieves for using the music of their opponents' supporters — when you agree, that quoting your opponent (which surely trumps copyrights) is the same issue as quoting his supporters (such as musicians).
Political speech can not trump certain things, such as direct incitement to violence, slander or libel, or copyright
Well, that's where we disagree — I maintain, that it should trump even those things. My argument is, limiting political speech on any basis is a slippery slope, because the determination of whether a limit applies will be made by the incumbent power, thus giving them one more undue advantage against the challenger(s). What's your (counter)argument?
and of course the devil is in defining 'political speech.'
Oh, yes, of course... All erring must be on the side of the "yeah, it is political" — for the above-described reason.
The 'copyright is evil' brigade don't exist except in certain people's imaginations.
My example was about quoting your opponent's supporters...
Free speech should not trump copyright
Not normally, but in case of political speech — yes, I think, it should trump everything. This thread has some good examples already. Here are more — all of them mock Obama and the Democrats using the artwork of Shepard Fairey, himself a copyright thief in your book.
Once you put any limit (however seemingly reasonable) on political speech, you are on a very slippery slope...
(That said, I'm wondering, where the heck is the copyrights-are-evil brigade, that's so quick to denounce "MafiaAA" on this forum — for their attempts to enforce copyrights. I wonder, if the said brigade are holding their fire (rather than tearing you apart), because this is about RepubliKKKans...)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, look, it has discovered, how to use fancy terms to survive in an argument.
Hint... The fallacy of excluded middle (a.k.a. "False Dilemma") has nothing to do with the matter at hand or my argument.
We are on the slippery slope — the government is ever increasing its role in all aspects of life. The other metaphor is "the slowly-boiling pot"...
When people like me were warning, that Roosevelt's "New Deal" is the path towards government's (federal, state, and local combined) controlling about 50% of the nation's spending, people like you were ridiculing the dire predictions... A government-controlled (and mandated) healthcare remained just as much "an uncontested absurdity" back then, as the government's control of our food, shelter, and higher education seems a scare-mongering absurd to you today...
Well, you have imaginary conversations, does not mean everybody else's are...
More importantly, his was just one of the first links popping up, when searching for the phrase "support the troops but not their mission".
Or will you deny this ever being said by a (very) prominent Democrat, for example?
Yes, it really irks me too, when people feign offense (at my "racism"), when I criticize Barack Obama. This is why I've come up with the statement being discussed :-)
And by your logic, there is nothing wrong with my (current) signature: "I support Barack Obama, but not his mission."
Yes. But the Democratic Party has come up with this wonderful backhanded way, that I'm now using to express disagreement with Obama, while avoiding (I Hope) charges of racism: "I support Barack Obama, but not his mission".
(Funny, how the Illiberal moderators slam my responses down as "off-topic", while keeping their fellow Illiberal, who lead the sub-thread off-topic by picking on my sig, at 5...)
Yeah, a complaining student would need all that evidence in court, but not on an online forum or in front of a sympathetic interviewer. Without the attendance records, it is the professor's word against the student's.
Plus, as others pointed out, the attendance records can genuinely help the instructors...
Although different people would stress different items from your list, a straightforward person would list all of the above. An obama or a pelosi would keep trying to weasel out.
Weaselese...
That's a good argument for 100% taxation, with everything one could need provided by the government for free... That the government's managerial overhead is staggering, is the cost we ought to be prepared to pay.
Decades after the takeover of retirement, the Universal Healthcare is, finally, taken care of — that's a giant wedge, that will soon allow the government to also take over:
Soon, the ideal of the all-knowing government staffed with benevolent well-meaning bureaucrats (as opposite to the evil private corporate CEOs) will be achieved. We will have no money (the root of all evil), nor need for any, as everything we truly need will be provided by the more equal ones in power. Slaves on plantations had a similar deal — the fools disliked it for some reason...
And both of us have to thank the Democratic Party for this wonderfully creative and innovative weaselese, that started it all: "We support the troops, but not their mission."
Uh-oh... Do we see a growing resentment of "stimulus"? Perhaps, allowing the government to spend billions of our dollars is not, after all, a better idea, than to simply return it to us (the taxpayers)?
Or, they turn around and blame the professor (and the school) for failing to teach them. And ask for their money back. If the school can demonstrate, that they have not attended the classes, they can defend themselves.
Actually, not even that is automatically wrong.
Oh, yes, of course. It also "entirely possible", that you are molesting a 3 year old right now...
You know, she would really fade away as soon as you stop thinking about her... ;-)
Well, if they had to pass a clarifying law "since", then there must've been a way to make such a claim earlier — when Sarah Palin was making it.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Perhaps, he will be asked to create content as well?
Hopefully, that's nothing more than Plan B at NASA, though...
After 1 complete "listen" (is that noun now?), I don't need to bother your web-site for the same song ever again, thank you.
Sorry. I will not believe a Russian institution on anything, that harms a Western company.
Even if we put malice aside, it is all too likely, that someone was simply stealing the beans, feeding the animals who-knows-what instead. It may be hard for Westerners to believe, but in Russia that's entirely possible.
{Citation needed}
That said, I imagine, anything fed only by a single kind of plant for 3 generations would be incapable of reproducing... Even koalas eat things other than eucalyptus. Not because anything is wrong with the food, but because there should be different foods to provide different nutrients.
His self-declared aim is to "Spread the Wealth" to ensure Equality of Results for everyone. Because our Equality of Opportunity is so bourgeoisies... I find it most alarming, because that equal result will never be good. All — as in 100% — of past attempts to make everyone equally rich have failed, and made everyone equally poor instead. Life will suck, and — for me, at least — the fact, that it sucks equally for most (not for all, of course, some people will remain more equal than others) will be of little consolation.
The way Illiberals were able to "Support the troops, but not their mission", darling.
Can we, please, please, please, colonize Antarctica first? Although not a planet, it is still a giant continent, that many times easier to reach, to live on, and to return from than Mars.
There are no questions of presence of water or usable air. Conditions are harsh, but nowhere near the harshness of Mars...
And then there are the vast deserts like Gobi or Sahara. Mars, while intriguing, can await further revolutions in technology. Spending an appreciable chunk of the GDP just to get there seems rather wasteful...
Well, not only is that the actual case at hand: "Henley, who has long been identified with liberal and Democratic causes," — says the summary.
Further, at least two out of the three links, with which you began this very conversation, claim the same thing in the very titles (emphasis mine):
So, now that've agreed, that Republicans are Ok (at least morally) in mocking their opponents using the opponents' supporters art, let's move on to the more generic question of political speech vs. copyrights.
The author of the (in)famous "Hope" poster stole a photograph of a completely neutral party for his poster... But because it was for political speech, I think, he shouldn't suffer, although you would say, he should...
Political Free Speech needn't endanger copyright. And that's what I'm talking about. We already distinguish different kinds of speech — advertisers, for example, are very limited in what they can say, compared to politicians — and, I think, political speech could include anything, be it copyrighted works or incitement to violence.
That's a strange distinction... No music... Can the politician hum (an opponent's tune)? Reminds me of something:
What about other forms of art? Can graphics by an opponent's supporter be used to mock the opponent? Or does this guy owe Shepard Fairey, in your opinion?
Yes, the issue is the same, and the quoting should be allowed. This is not entirely unlike it being harder for "public figures" to sue for defamation/libel/slander — once a musician publicly supports a politician, using that musician's music to mock the politician is fair game...
In fact, you seem to surrender your point — that Republicans are thieves for using the music of their opponents' supporters — when you agree, that quoting your opponent (which surely trumps copyrights) is the same issue as quoting his supporters (such as musicians).
Well, that's where we disagree — I maintain, that it should trump even those things. My argument is, limiting political speech on any basis is a slippery slope, because the determination of whether a limit applies will be made by the incumbent power, thus giving them one more undue advantage against the challenger(s). What's your (counter)argument?
Oh, yes, of course... All erring must be on the side of the "yeah, it is political" — for the above-described reason.
Really?
Is it also a living and breathing issue, uhm?..
You are right. I misfired...
My example was about quoting your opponent's supporters...
Not normally, but in case of political speech — yes, I think, it should trump everything. This thread has some good examples already. Here are more — all of them mock Obama and the Democrats using the artwork of Shepard Fairey, himself a copyright thief in your book.
Once you put any limit (however seemingly reasonable) on political speech, you are on a very slippery slope...
(That said, I'm wondering, where the heck is the copyrights-are-evil brigade, that's so quick to denounce "MafiaAA" on this forum — for their attempts to enforce copyrights. I wonder, if the said brigade are holding their fire (rather than tearing you apart), because this is about RepubliKKKans...)