"and that it would be no big deal (also accurate)."
Actually that isn't accurate. Overhyped, sure. The damage is much slower but rates of Africanization grow and beekeepers are regularly having hives go African and also are regularly having issue with wild swarms which they could normally safely vacuum up and gain a free new colony being aggressive africanized bees. It may well be that africanized bees are slowly but surely replacing honeybees.
Sure but there isn't much point to any of it if they don't intend to release them sooner or later. Then again, might be worth the risk. They should try Texas.
"Trump ordering up a space fantasy doesn't lend credence to the idea of secret technology"
Well I guess it depends. It certainly doesn't push it so far as credible or probable but as President he does have access to classified information we don't. As I said, there is almost certainly secret technology. The military performs research and more importantly the military funds a massive swath of research. The government pushes most of their science funding via the military and it a huge chunk of the defense budget. It isn't particularly credible to suggest the military wouldn't keep something under wraps of strategic value.
"I could easily believe that he has demanded a space force because some general told him that the only way they'd continue to get big military funding was to expand into space, and made up some guff about room temp superconductors and antigravity, though."
Now the probability this particular set of technologies is real, that is a different matter altogether. But there is a middle path here. A handful of those crazy conspiracies they love to cover on the history channel and nat geo do have roots in declassified material revealing the military researched crazy technology but didn't declassify results.
The whole space force thing might be about getting money to start exploring the crazy technology with the idea that eventually what is too radical for others to accept will one day be the real thing and making sure the military has it bottled up and owns it first. It doesn't make it real but they may well want to pursue it and it's worth remembering the generals (admirals in this case) making those recommendations aren't scientists or engineers either.
"It's easy to see why Trump's base supports him so faithfully, when he's the only one breaking ranks to call certain things what they are, repercussions be damned. It makes it easier for them to pretend he's telling them the truth on all of the other occasions."
Or they just don't care so much about the other occasions. You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. People want the change Obama hinted at and nobody from the major parties was going to give it to them. They are prepared for some collateral damage in the process. I think you'll find Trump wasn't the first choice of most to be the agent but in at least 30 years you've only had two viable options and both came up in the same election. The D's conspired to cheat Bernie of the nomination, that left Trump. What is sad is that there are already noises trying to do the same again with 2020, hitting hard calling the arrested fighting for civil rights senator an "old white man." As if that isn't just things we aren't supposed to judge someone on strung together. His age is a great reason to pay attention to the VP choice, nothing more.
Oh I'm sure it is all working out for them globally. It's just a terrible waste of money when they could make the content in English with foreign subs and dubs instead of the other way around.
The President did just give orders to form a space force under the Navy.... It isn't crazy to think the military has technology under wraps, that is certain, what is crazy is assuming you know what. Maybe this is it or part of it. On the other hand, it could be a crank.
Very informative. Personally, I don't see a need to change the standard but think Virgin should shoot for 150km. For the price of the ticket you not only go to space and gain astronaut status but you'd have an orbit of the Earth to go with it.
"even by the standard "doing something that was not intended to be allowed by design" then yes a 51% is indeed a hack"
Not really, it was a known and accepted design trade-off. At least for Bitcoin and since it was known from essentially the beginning with regard to Bitcoin presumably anyone copying pieces of its tech understand that as well. The best defense against the 51% attack is a large and diverse mining base. Bitcoin has it... these others... not as much.
Easy enough, FB is doing it for you. So many people want to bail on FB right now and more censorship is only going to help push them there. Build it and they will come.
I live in the USA and am well aware of the origin. This is a court of public opinion and not the law, ultimately the Supreme Court will in time be bound to us not the other way around.
"So no, it is not an abused example! It is a reference to the Supreme Court Decision that to this day is used as precedent for determining the legal bounds of free speech in the USA."
One does not preclude the other. That supreme court example is cherrypicked and is a poor example of "speech" except in the most literal sense. The example is raising a literal false alarm to incite panic. There is no element of expression in that example or opportunity for reasoning people to consider an idea. That can be argued to show how that supreme court example does not apply to an instance of speech which does convey ideas and expression. It really is no different than pulling the handle to trigger a fire alarm or telling Alexa to trigger the alarm and that could potentially be argued in court to show the precedent does not apply.
People who toss it out every time someone defends free speech are indeed abusing it via false analogy. If the speech in question contains expression that others have a reasonable opportunity to reject or accept yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not analogous.
"And that is why children need to be properly educated, thank you for putting the idea in perspective.
The ideas are poisonous and toxic."
It sounds like your idea of education is to tell them what to think. That is brainwashing. Education is exposing them to many ideas and teaching them to think more critically and effectively via abstract concepts divorced from the actual ideas.
"You have been severely misinformed, the biggest problem is in drugs, mostly outside prison, though not entirely."
And most of that is perpetuated by ex-cons, their problem having been in prison where they are forced into racially segregated gangs for protection from other racially segregated gangs. I didn't say the actions actually occurred in prison. A nazi biker/prison gang vs a hispanic biker gang shooting isn't what people are thinking of when they they talk about hate crimes, that is nothing but gang violence and race nothing but an excuse around the organization. These are violent criminal gangs and they would be killing each other and involved in police shootings regardless of what the basis for their organization is.
"The difference between free speech and hate speech is a fine line"
Not at all, neither category excludes the other.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
"you mean, given we know there are dumbasses and mentally unstable people out there that we can go chat about how much the theater should be fire bombed?"
Of course we can go chat with anyone who will listen about anything. Personally, I'd wouldn't be chatting about how much the theater should be fire bombed but then I might flippantly say something like that. My statement wouldn't be the reason your instability leads you to fire bomb the theater, you were just a ticking time bomb and that happened to be what you keyed on. Sounds like a good reason to take measures with regard to "dumbasses" and mentally unstable people like educating and treating them.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause
"Stop equating âoefree speechâ of philosophical musings and learning to the act of âoepubliclyâ using megaphones and preaching to idiots."
That is a strawman. What you call idiots are potentially ignorant people. Ignorance can be cured, one way is with a metaphorical megaphone such as the one I'm using now. It sounds as though you are closed to dissenting ideas, your mind is made up. Perhaps I'm at the same point. But each of us may have convinced others or at least convinced them to educate themselves further. This entire discussion would be banned on Facebook under the policy we are talking about.
"There in lies the problem, you believe nobody should be held accountable and anyone who had studied mobs, whether linching or soccer hooligans does not matter, they are controlled and influenced by a few people who are thinking. So who should be held to be responsible?"
Those who support the sort of widescale subversion of a group and ignorance that makes them sink into group think in the first place. Your answer is vulnerable to the next sort of megaphone and idealogy, my answer is to increase the number of thinking people. You'll never get there espousing accepted concepts in an echochamber and just assuming an enemy. You get there by espousing concepts among those who don't accept them.
"Or is it the megaphone of the day, FB"
FB isn't really a megaphone at all. The only people you reach are your own friends.
"When DID you spend "a lot of time researching these subjects"?"
Mostly grade school and high school with a bit in college. We are talking about WW2 here, it isn't exactly changing or an area of special interest to me. If anything we spend far too much time on it in IMHO. We didn't have Facebook when I was a kid. If you limit yourself to what they teach in college and sources that would be college approved and accepted you are only exposed to one extreme bias. You might as well study WW2 via a holocaust museum, not that I skipped that experience. I've met a couple survivors as well. As a child in a small rural town I was exposed to neo-nazi propaganda as well as Klan materials and people who believed in those ideologies. That is just a different extreme bias. You rarely grow sitting in the choir listening to the preacher.
Both presented a compelling strawman of the other sides arguments and a thorough argument which tears that down, begged the question, and then proceeded from there as if they'd won the debate. It's a formula I've seen throughout academia and life. Few seem interested in actually being correct, they start from an answer or strong inclination toward an answer and seem interested in being viewed as correct aka winning the debate rather than reaching the actual result of gleaning the truth in the arguments of each opposing side. The problem is that a strong argument does not necessarily mean you are correct and a poor argument loaded with fallacies is not necessarily wrong.
Of course I also had a dear friend who couldn't give a fig about any of the racism or ideology of the Germans vs allies vs Jewish people. He was just interested in the battle history, obsessed might be a better word. I learned a different angle from him as well.
"Are you really asking me why you should't do historical research on the mid-20th century on Facebook?"
Certainly. It wouldn't be my first choice but you could reach out to Neo-nazi, history buff, or holocaust survivor on FB. It is a communications platform. I already gave other possibilities. Not everything in the course of research is a reference and nobody should be afraid to apply critical assessment to less reputable sources and glean information from them.
"Shaitan is a nutter, MRA and likely incel based on his post history."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
"He fancies himself a smart guy, but has innumerable logical fallacies in his broken down train of thought."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
"Look at Roger Stone and the sudden "backlash" from certain groups about how the cops arrest people. Trump doesn't seem to be saying Stone should have gotten his head slammed against the car door as he got put in after all."
"you belong to a Group that as a whole gets a disproportionately large chunk of every pie"
Which objectively defined group is that? Explain to me how lumping people you categorize into it together instead of treating them as individuals isn't racism?
"If you think that speech and action are that disconnected, why would you care about free speech in the first place?"
If Edison had given up on the light bulb and published his work someone else could have picked up where he left off or seen flaws in his reasoning. It's possible two people who are disconnected could fill these roles with one being critical an another taking the initiative to move forward. The free sharing of information, ideas, and philosophy expands the source material one has to reach decisions. This is knowledge, knowledge is power, and free speech empowers all mankind.
All that might be true but I fail to see what it has to do my general assertion that those who exhibit merit are more deserving (or as I later qualified at least a safer investment) without any special qualification.
"That is a quite similar outcome, a cause and effect "repeat" to a degree"
Certainly, but it doesn't always work that way. See X number of ways not to make a lightbulb. Something that hasn't yet worked will always have a history of failure or negative outcome until other circumstances are such that it works.
It really is less about history per say than life and the world are very complex things and people making these sort of predictions based on history are almost always dramatically oversimplifying something that can't be safely simplified. It sounds convincing but generally lacks logical merit and major historical events never have a controlled environment or statistically significant sample size, they are all shared anecdotes.
My point stands, outside narrow exceptions, history is a purely academic subject and those who do are correctly defined as academics whatever their age or formal credentials.
"Absolutely. "Free Speech". Should apply equally to calls for Jihad, calls for [marginalized/minority group] to be killed, and pumpkin pie recipes."
Yes, it should.
"it's not like any of those things often lead to talk world actions"
Leading to talk isn't a problem. Leading to action also isn't a problem. If you mean violent action the fault lies with the mental instability (potentially with a cause) in the one who commits it not the speaker. Outlawing the speech is akin to outlawing violent video games or movies. I'll invoke Hitler to signal the end of this thread. Hitler wasn't the problem in Nazi germany. The problem in Nazi Germany is that the large class of abused and impoverished citizens who were as a consequence of extreme desperation mentally unstable enough to be receptive to what Hitler had to say. Don't focus on the speaker to solve these issues beyond using your own right to speech to introduce reason and calm. Focus on what makes people listen.
In the case of current events, stop supporting measures that put the poor white majority in the countryside at extreme disadvantage, that cause them further taxation while marginalizing their representation and that racially discriminate against them. There needs to be room for them to disagree with such measures and not automatically be seen as monsters. Without that basic philosophical charity they are left only with bitterness, hate, and disenfranchisement and very little reason not to become what you are calling them anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Corn doesn't contain any notable nutrients so how exactly is it supposed to end a famine?
"and that it would be no big deal (also accurate)."
Actually that isn't accurate. Overhyped, sure. The damage is much slower but rates of Africanization grow and beekeepers are regularly having hives go African and also are regularly having issue with wild swarms which they could normally safely vacuum up and gain a free new colony being aggressive africanized bees. It may well be that africanized bees are slowly but surely replacing honeybees.
Sure but there isn't much point to any of it if they don't intend to release them sooner or later. Then again, might be worth the risk. They should try Texas.
"Trump ordering up a space fantasy doesn't lend credence to the idea of secret technology"
Well I guess it depends. It certainly doesn't push it so far as credible or probable but as President he does have access to classified information we don't. As I said, there is almost certainly secret technology. The military performs research and more importantly the military funds a massive swath of research. The government pushes most of their science funding via the military and it a huge chunk of the defense budget. It isn't particularly credible to suggest the military wouldn't keep something under wraps of strategic value.
"I could easily believe that he has demanded a space force because some general told him that the only way they'd continue to get big military funding was to expand into space, and made up some guff about room temp superconductors and antigravity, though."
Now the probability this particular set of technologies is real, that is a different matter altogether. But there is a middle path here. A handful of those crazy conspiracies they love to cover on the history channel and nat geo do have roots in declassified material revealing the military researched crazy technology but didn't declassify results.
The whole space force thing might be about getting money to start exploring the crazy technology with the idea that eventually what is too radical for others to accept will one day be the real thing and making sure the military has it bottled up and owns it first. It doesn't make it real but they may well want to pursue it and it's worth remembering the generals (admirals in this case) making those recommendations aren't scientists or engineers either.
"It's easy to see why Trump's base supports him so faithfully, when he's the only one breaking ranks to call certain things what they are, repercussions be damned. It makes it easier for them to pretend he's telling them the truth on all of the other occasions."
Or they just don't care so much about the other occasions. You can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs. People want the change Obama hinted at and nobody from the major parties was going to give it to them. They are prepared for some collateral damage in the process. I think you'll find Trump wasn't the first choice of most to be the agent but in at least 30 years you've only had two viable options and both came up in the same election. The D's conspired to cheat Bernie of the nomination, that left Trump. What is sad is that there are already noises trying to do the same again with 2020, hitting hard calling the arrested fighting for civil rights senator an "old white man." As if that isn't just things we aren't supposed to judge someone on strung together. His age is a great reason to pay attention to the VP choice, nothing more.
Already have one it's made of something called "transparent." These too exist.
Oh I'm sure it is all working out for them globally. It's just a terrible waste of money when they could make the content in English with foreign subs and dubs instead of the other way around.
The President did just give orders to form a space force under the Navy.... It isn't crazy to think the military has technology under wraps, that is certain, what is crazy is assuming you know what. Maybe this is it or part of it. On the other hand, it could be a crank.
Very informative. Personally, I don't see a need to change the standard but think Virgin should shoot for 150km. For the price of the ticket you not only go to space and gain astronaut status but you'd have an orbit of the Earth to go with it.
"and that's what people want"
It isn't, Netflix is just shoving this crap down our throats.
"even by the standard "doing something that was not intended to be allowed by design" then yes a 51% is indeed a hack"
Not really, it was a known and accepted design trade-off. At least for Bitcoin and since it was known from essentially the beginning with regard to Bitcoin presumably anyone copying pieces of its tech understand that as well. The best defense against the 51% attack is a large and diverse mining base. Bitcoin has it... these others... not as much.
Easy enough, FB is doing it for you. So many people want to bail on FB right now and more censorship is only going to help push them there. Build it and they will come.
I live in the USA and am well aware of the origin. This is a court of public opinion and not the law, ultimately the Supreme Court will in time be bound to us not the other way around.
"So no, it is not an abused example! It is a reference to the Supreme Court Decision that to this day is used as precedent for determining the legal bounds of free speech in the USA."
One does not preclude the other. That supreme court example is cherrypicked and is a poor example of "speech" except in the most literal sense. The example is raising a literal false alarm to incite panic. There is no element of expression in that example or opportunity for reasoning people to consider an idea. That can be argued to show how that supreme court example does not apply to an instance of speech which does convey ideas and expression. It really is no different than pulling the handle to trigger a fire alarm or telling Alexa to trigger the alarm and that could potentially be argued in court to show the precedent does not apply.
People who toss it out every time someone defends free speech are indeed abusing it via false analogy. If the speech in question contains expression that others have a reasonable opportunity to reject or accept yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is not analogous.
"And that is why children need to be properly educated, thank you for putting the idea in perspective.
The ideas are poisonous and toxic."
It sounds like your idea of education is to tell them what to think. That is brainwashing. Education is exposing them to many ideas and teaching them to think more critically and effectively via abstract concepts divorced from the actual ideas.
"You have been severely misinformed, the biggest problem is in drugs, mostly outside prison, though not entirely."
And most of that is perpetuated by ex-cons, their problem having been in prison where they are forced into racially segregated gangs for protection from other racially segregated gangs. I didn't say the actions actually occurred in prison. A nazi biker/prison gang vs a hispanic biker gang shooting isn't what people are thinking of when they they talk about hate crimes, that is nothing but gang violence and race nothing but an excuse around the organization. These are violent criminal gangs and they would be killing each other and involved in police shootings regardless of what the basis for their organization is.
"The difference between free speech and hate speech is a fine line"
Not at all, neither category excludes the other.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
"you mean, given we know there are dumbasses and mentally unstable people out there that we can go chat about how much the theater should be fire bombed?"
Of course we can go chat with anyone who will listen about anything. Personally, I'd wouldn't be chatting about how much the theater should be fire bombed but then I might flippantly say something like that. My statement wouldn't be the reason your instability leads you to fire bomb the theater, you were just a ticking time bomb and that happened to be what you keyed on. Sounds like a good reason to take measures with regard to "dumbasses" and mentally unstable people like educating and treating them.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/false-cause
"Stop equating âoefree speechâ of philosophical musings and learning to the act of âoepubliclyâ using megaphones and preaching to idiots."
That is a strawman. What you call idiots are potentially ignorant people. Ignorance can be cured, one way is with a metaphorical megaphone such as the one I'm using now. It sounds as though you are closed to dissenting ideas, your mind is made up. Perhaps I'm at the same point. But each of us may have convinced others or at least convinced them to educate themselves further. This entire discussion would be banned on Facebook under the policy we are talking about.
"There in lies the problem, you believe nobody should be held accountable and anyone who had studied mobs, whether linching or soccer hooligans does not matter, they are controlled and influenced by a few people who are thinking. So who should be held to be responsible?"
Those who support the sort of widescale subversion of a group and ignorance that makes them sink into group think in the first place. Your answer is vulnerable to the next sort of megaphone and idealogy, my answer is to increase the number of thinking people. You'll never get there espousing accepted concepts in an echochamber and just assuming an enemy. You get there by espousing concepts among those who don't accept them.
"Or is it the megaphone of the day, FB"
FB isn't really a megaphone at all. The only people you reach are your own friends.
"When DID you spend "a lot of time researching these subjects"?"
Mostly grade school and high school with a bit in college. We are talking about WW2 here, it isn't exactly changing or an area of special interest to me. If anything we spend far too much time on it in IMHO. We didn't have Facebook when I was a kid. If you limit yourself to what they teach in college and sources that would be college approved and accepted you are only exposed to one extreme bias. You might as well study WW2 via a holocaust museum, not that I skipped that experience. I've met a couple survivors as well. As a child in a small rural town I was exposed to neo-nazi propaganda as well as Klan materials and people who believed in those ideologies. That is just a different extreme bias. You rarely grow sitting in the choir listening to the preacher.
Both presented a compelling strawman of the other sides arguments and a thorough argument which tears that down, begged the question, and then proceeded from there as if they'd won the debate. It's a formula I've seen throughout academia and life. Few seem interested in actually being correct, they start from an answer or strong inclination toward an answer and seem interested in being viewed as correct aka winning the debate rather than reaching the actual result of gleaning the truth in the arguments of each opposing side. The problem is that a strong argument does not necessarily mean you are correct and a poor argument loaded with fallacies is not necessarily wrong.
Of course I also had a dear friend who couldn't give a fig about any of the racism or ideology of the Germans vs allies vs Jewish people. He was just interested in the battle history, obsessed might be a better word. I learned a different angle from him as well.
"Are you really asking me why you should't do historical research on the mid-20th century on Facebook?"
Certainly. It wouldn't be my first choice but you could reach out to Neo-nazi, history buff, or holocaust survivor on FB. It is a communications platform. I already gave other possibilities. Not everything in the course of research is a reference and nobody should be afraid to apply critical assessment to less reputable sources and glean information from them.
Sure. I might be willing to fight for their right to speech but I'm not going to defend them from crappy ads.
Very well. Can we move on from this pedantic debate on semantics now?
I literally pointed to the definition in the Oxford dictionary.
"Shaitan is a nutter, MRA and likely incel based on his post history."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
"He fancies himself a smart guy, but has innumerable logical fallacies in his broken down train of thought."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
"Look at Roger Stone and the sudden "backlash" from certain groups about how the cops arrest people. Trump doesn't seem to be saying Stone should have gotten his head slammed against the car door as he got put in after all."
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Bingo
"you belong to a Group that as a whole gets a disproportionately large chunk of every pie"
Which objectively defined group is that? Explain to me how lumping people you categorize into it together instead of treating them as individuals isn't racism?
"If you think that speech and action are that disconnected, why would you care about free speech in the first place?"
If Edison had given up on the light bulb and published his work someone else could have picked up where he left off or seen flaws in his reasoning. It's possible two people who are disconnected could fill these roles with one being critical an another taking the initiative to move forward. The free sharing of information, ideas, and philosophy expands the source material one has to reach decisions. This is knowledge, knowledge is power, and free speech empowers all mankind.
All that might be true but I fail to see what it has to do my general assertion that those who exhibit merit are more deserving (or as I later qualified at least a safer investment) without any special qualification.
"That is a quite similar outcome, a cause and effect "repeat" to a degree"
Certainly, but it doesn't always work that way. See X number of ways not to make a lightbulb. Something that hasn't yet worked will always have a history of failure or negative outcome until other circumstances are such that it works.
It really is less about history per say than life and the world are very complex things and people making these sort of predictions based on history are almost always dramatically oversimplifying something that can't be safely simplified. It sounds convincing but generally lacks logical merit and major historical events never have a controlled environment or statistically significant sample size, they are all shared anecdotes.
My point stands, outside narrow exceptions, history is a purely academic subject and those who do are correctly defined as academics whatever their age or formal credentials.
"Absolutely. "Free Speech". Should apply equally to calls for Jihad, calls for [marginalized/minority group] to be killed, and pumpkin pie recipes."
Yes, it should.
"it's not like any of those things often lead to talk world actions"
Leading to talk isn't a problem. Leading to action also isn't a problem. If you mean violent action the fault lies with the mental instability (potentially with a cause) in the one who commits it not the speaker. Outlawing the speech is akin to outlawing violent video games or movies. I'll invoke Hitler to signal the end of this thread. Hitler wasn't the problem in Nazi germany. The problem in Nazi Germany is that the large class of abused and impoverished citizens who were as a consequence of extreme desperation mentally unstable enough to be receptive to what Hitler had to say. Don't focus on the speaker to solve these issues beyond using your own right to speech to introduce reason and calm. Focus on what makes people listen.
In the case of current events, stop supporting measures that put the poor white majority in the countryside at extreme disadvantage, that cause them further taxation while marginalizing their representation and that racially discriminate against them. There needs to be room for them to disagree with such measures and not automatically be seen as monsters. Without that basic philosophical charity they are left only with bitterness, hate, and disenfranchisement and very little reason not to become what you are calling them anyway.