the problem you're addressing is the relationship between the District Attorney/Attorney General and the police/FBI. Currently they exist in the same branch of government. I would argue that they shouldn't.
Have a fourth branch of government or something. So the police stand before the DA or AG as members of a separate chain of command.
When there is a police/FBI cover up it is typically with the complicity of the DA/AG. Take them out of the loop and you make it harder for them to do that.
So you'd spend most of your resources trying to keep people young or fight aging? Because the biggest killer is old age.
100 percent morality rate I am told.
Is that correct or would you not spend nearly all resources trying to keep the old alive for just a little longer?
And if not, then why? If you say utility then you've determined that some people's lives are worth more then others.
And once you've done that we can start going into who given threats kill and their value. That then influences what you spend preventing something.
What also triggers are notions of social order. Something that kills a lot of people like cigarettes for example doesn't cause a panic or a break down in social order. Where as a terrorist going around randomly slashing people's throats has a very different impact on social order.
And that changes the value and importance of stopping things.
Core to your thinking should be this... how do you justify yourself as an organization or ruling body? What do you provide to the people? Medical research? Healthcare? Have fun sustaining that system. The bar will always be raised. You'll always be expected to provide a higher and higher quality of life which will require genetic engineering quite soon because really the human body just isn't designed to last that long.
Look at the political utility of social medicine in europe. It isn't an election winner anymore. It is assumed. It is taken for granted. You don't get votes for it. Which means if you want votes you have to do something else and something else and something else And as soon as people get used to that you'll have to find another thing.
It helps if you have an opposition trying to take things away. That stabilizes the system to some extent but only if you let them win and actually take things away on occasion. If you don't then it just slows the process down rather then stabilizing it.
And thus here we are... you being emperor and all... explain to me what you'd spend state resources upon?
What I've heard so far is a "study"... is that the best you've got? A study? That's a dodge. I could say the same thing. Of course I am going to have studies happening all the time. I need as much information as I can get. But that doesn't mean I don't have an idea of something I would do right away.
So you tell me. What would you do? No studies. Where would you put the money?
I'm not asking for academic citations, intellectual anal palyp. I'm asking for you to explain yourself clearly.
Being lazy and vague gives no one any opportunity to know what you're talking about or judge whether in fact you're making any sense.
You could be a total and complete moron or a total and complete genius... and because you were vague and lazy no one could tell the difference.
So here I come into your comment asking you nicely "hey, please be clear"... to which you respond "this isn't an academic paper with parenthetical references, so I don't even need to be coherent!"...
Which is just stupid.
Last chance... be clear or I have to make some rather obvious assumptions. Your choice.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying convict people without a trial. I'm saying have the trial, throw out no evidence on the grounds that it was collected improperly, and then try not only the accused but also the police in the event that they are apparently in violation of laws themselves.
The current status quo is that if the police break the law trying to catch you break the law then the evidence against you can't be used because the police didn't collect it properly. That is wrong. two wrongs do not make a right.
As to corporations, I said be specific and please tell me why I can judge the merits of your suggestions. Being vague here makes it impossible for me to understand precisely where you are coming from.
I am honestly trying to understand you and what you find as important as a person and another mentality. Please take this opportunity to share your thoughts with another mind. We may find common ground. We may add to each each other's uniqueness. We may contrast and compete. But simply refusing to engage robs us both of that experience to no gain at all.
You give me nothing and you get nothing because there is nothing I can say about nothing.
So far what I have from you is this... "we shouldn't be focused on this because it isn't important and should instead focus on 'stuff'"... That is literally how your argument reads to me at this point. I am not trying to strawman you. I am pointing out that this is what happens when you're intentionally vague. I can't judge if you do it.
What should we be spending our resources on? Just out of curiosity. If you were emperor or president if absolute power is a problem for you... what would you be doing right now?
You're saying this is a bad use of our time and attention. Just ignore it basically and focus on something else that matters. What is that other thing?
A problem with this statute is that it allows people we know to be guilty to get off.
The police must be punished for breaking the law. However, so to must OTHER criminals they have uncovered... even if the evidence was obtained illegally.
What this means in practice? Someone at the FBI needs to go to jail for invasion of privacy or whatever the jury convicts him of committing. Period - end of story.
And Ross needs to go to jail as well because whatever you might feel about the drug trade, the man ordered an assassination of one of his employees. That's attempted murder. Was it all a police entrapment? Possibly. And if that is what happened and he didn't do it on purpose then I'll let him off on that count.
However, if he did do it intentionally but it was all a police set up... then again, maybe someone at the FBI goes to jail for entrapment and Ross goes to jail for attempted murder.
The mark of a complex mind is the ability to process and understand many different concepts which may or may not be at odds with each other at once and judge them in parallel.
To that end, do I recognize that the conditions in these countries are a large part of the reason the virus is spreading there? Yes. Obviously.
Do you likewise grasp that the virus is extremely infectious and has a very high mortality rate?
I don't need to focus on one of those issues at a time. I can focus on both at the same time. I can do that and add to the issue many more other complex issues that all interact with that issue. And I can keep track of the whole thing without getting confused.
This isn't because I am so great... I don't think this is quite so hard. I think rather it is that people are taught to over simplify things especially when political talking points echo chamber their minions into all towing a very simple line. It makes sense. You want as many people to tow the line as possible so the line has to be simple enough for everyone to grasp. That however means the arguments come off as simplistic and childish when actually engaged. A point you'd be more aware of if you were auditing this stuff before just swallowing it whole.
What do you mean by that? Look, I understand the ruling on corporate personhood, but how would you change the law and what would that change in the law mean?
Specifically, what is happening that you dislike as a result of corporate personhood? I just want to understand where you are coming from here. Please be specific.
1. Not everyone is arguing against me. I have more people promoting me then denigrating me. So on balance YOUR faction is being sided against.
2. Even if there were more people on your side, and currently there are not, truth is not a democracy. One person can be right against a million people that are wrong.
3. As to you having your precious feeling hurt because someone pointed out your position on an issue is unworthy of respect is not my problem. That is YOUR problem. Don't like your ideas being widely considered to be idiotic? Reevaluate your thinking.
You think maybe I'm being stupid and your idea has more merit then I am recognizing? Tell me why? Present an argument. Absent that, I'm going to rest my case that that is a stupid opinion.
As to people agreeing with me if I were more polite? This is the internet. Things have never worked that way here and suggesting otherwise means you're ignorant not only about this issue but also how arguments on the internet work.
As to medieval figures understanding that you get more by being nice to people instead of dominating them... you're apparently ignorant of history as well.
And as to you conclusion that math is hard... that contextually makes no sense since you've offered no mathematical arguments.
And as to debating being hard... only if you are so stupid that it would be an insult to half wits to suggest you have even half a wit. You're more like a quarter wit... that ratio might be overly generous but it sounds good. I'll go with that.
Anonymous coward tells person they're wrong without providing any basis to make that argument...
OH NOES!
Seriously... either have a point or do us all a favor and be quiet. Your singular contribution is to waste time and remind everyone how many morons like yourself there are on the internet.
His position was not a rational one. It was an ideological talking point. This keep calm and carry on nonsense is being echo chambered by political elements that find the whole thing to be politically inconvenient. They are not taking the thing seriously. For them it is all poll numbers and policy.
And this fool gets online and just repeats the party line like it is at all meaningful.
So I slapped him down. I showed him contempt and disrespect. The disrespect was intentional and in my opinion important. He needs to understand that what he did rendered himself unworthy of respect.
We are social creatures. We like to be respected and like to enjoy a certain amount of status amongst our peers. Being disrespected is something we tend to try to avoid. By showing contempt, there is a chance that he'll moderate his thinking in the future. If not, he's really too stupid to have anything meaningful to say on the issue.
No, I did not use the word "fucktard" to make my point. I used "fucktard" as a colorful judgment of fucktards. But the basis for me calling them fucktards, which is the body of my argument, did not use the term fucktard.
And what charge wouldst thou bring against me for such a failing, sir? Do I not in reasonable council offer sage and cautious words? I hark unto thee, pray tell me what wouldst you advise in these troubled times? I measure myself to be a man of some wits but in having wits have the humility of a man that knows there is no more treacherous conviction then that which is never questioned. What say you on this matter? I wouldst have your mind on it.
Did I say cut off aid? Please point to the place where I said that or admit that I in fact said continue aid.
However, that isn't enough. Quarantine is important. And the neighboring countries are more then capable aiding in quarantining the area. The first causalities will be their families if it fails. As to airports and sea ports? All too easy.
The only way you get to that number is by going back to an outbreak from 1918 which was one of the worst viral outbreaks in modern history.
So you're right... it isn't a complete fucking disaster yet that has claimed 100 million lives.
So automatically we should just french kiss people with the disease and then cough in the face of every new person we meet. Because this isn't something that should be taken seriously.
We don't get outbreaks like that anymore BECAUSE we have quarantine procedures. Your attitude is what causes hundreds of millions of people to die. So no. I do not find the fact that this could get more out of control to be an argument in favor of not taking basic precautions to prevent its spread.
Again, you can either take this seriously or there are going to be political consequences. So even if you don't take it seriously, if you were in power, it would be in your interest to pretend that you gave a damn. Just a pointer.
half truth... we'd work on a cure to save ourselves... however, we'd probably have to deploy the national guard to the southern border because you might have millions of people trying to stream across if a pandemic broke out.
in any case, the point is that if our own safety is threatened, we'll act to protect ourselves first. That is what you do in a plague. First you keep your own house in order.
Who said anything about forcing other countries to do anything? And as to burning bridges, do you really want to get into the whole "democrat vs republican" thing in this thread?
I mean is that all you political tools are able to do at this point? Are you brains so hardwired into this pathetic US vs THEM mentality that EVERYTHING turns into a proxy fight in your pathetic struggle against your very similar rival?
This has nothing to do with the ongoing joke which is the Obama presidency or the ongoing joke which is the republican party. It has everything to do with there being a "plague".
What is being asked here is nothing extreme. Just basic quarantine procedures. You know, the things we learned to do with diseases when we stopped being ignorant savages that didn't understand microbes.
If this breaks out the aid the west Africans are currently getting will be GONE. It will all shift to internal defense faster then you can snap your fingers. Gone. So if you want to help these people as I do... first make sure we don't have cause to refocus those resources.
Yes and more people have died of heart disease then were killed in WW2. So if there is a world war... just keep that in mind... we can ignore it and just focus all efforts on heart disease.
I'm not sure if you're a chat bot pretending to a person or if you are really that stupid... either way... you're a one man example of how easy it would be to replace some people with machines. Less because the machines are so clever and more because some people are so fucking stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
the problem you're addressing is the relationship between the District Attorney/Attorney General and the police/FBI. Currently they exist in the same branch of government. I would argue that they shouldn't.
Have a fourth branch of government or something. So the police stand before the DA or AG as members of a separate chain of command.
When there is a police/FBI cover up it is typically with the complicity of the DA/AG. Take them out of the loop and you make it harder for them to do that.
Restore the prohibitions against spying and require real warrants to engage. No more dragnets.
Things are just going to keep getting worse until it happens.
So you'd spend most of your resources trying to keep people young or fight aging? Because the biggest killer is old age.
100 percent morality rate I am told.
Is that correct or would you not spend nearly all resources trying to keep the old alive for just a little longer?
And if not, then why? If you say utility then you've determined that some people's lives are worth more then others.
And once you've done that we can start going into who given threats kill and their value. That then influences what you spend preventing something.
What also triggers are notions of social order. Something that kills a lot of people like cigarettes for example doesn't cause a panic or a break down in social order. Where as a terrorist going around randomly slashing people's throats has a very different impact on social order.
And that changes the value and importance of stopping things.
Core to your thinking should be this... how do you justify yourself as an organization or ruling body? What do you provide to the people? Medical research? Healthcare? Have fun sustaining that system. The bar will always be raised. You'll always be expected to provide a higher and higher quality of life which will require genetic engineering quite soon because really the human body just isn't designed to last that long.
Look at the political utility of social medicine in europe. It isn't an election winner anymore. It is assumed. It is taken for granted. You don't get votes for it. Which means if you want votes you have to do something else and something else and something else And as soon as people get used to that you'll have to find another thing.
It helps if you have an opposition trying to take things away. That stabilizes the system to some extent but only if you let them win and actually take things away on occasion. If you don't then it just slows the process down rather then stabilizing it.
And thus here we are... you being emperor and all... explain to me what you'd spend state resources upon?
What I've heard so far is a "study"... is that the best you've got? A study? That's a dodge. I could say the same thing. Of course I am going to have studies happening all the time. I need as much information as I can get. But that doesn't mean I don't have an idea of something I would do right away.
So you tell me. What would you do? No studies. Where would you put the money?
I'm not asking for academic citations, intellectual anal palyp. I'm asking for you to explain yourself clearly.
Being lazy and vague gives no one any opportunity to know what you're talking about or judge whether in fact you're making any sense.
You could be a total and complete moron or a total and complete genius... and because you were vague and lazy no one could tell the difference.
So here I come into your comment asking you nicely "hey, please be clear"... to which you respond "this isn't an academic paper with parenthetical references, so I don't even need to be coherent!"...
Which is just stupid.
Last chance... be clear or I have to make some rather obvious assumptions. Your choice.
You can't compare the two though. That you would think you can do that merely illustrates my point.
Your programmers need to put in additional subroutines so you can handle more inter-relating variables.
It isn't that simple. Sorry... Turing test fail.
You're missing the point. I'm not saying convict people without a trial. I'm saying have the trial, throw out no evidence on the grounds that it was collected improperly, and then try not only the accused but also the police in the event that they are apparently in violation of laws themselves.
The current status quo is that if the police break the law trying to catch you break the law then the evidence against you can't be used because the police didn't collect it properly. That is wrong. two wrongs do not make a right.
Two wrongs make two wrongs.
As to corporations, I said be specific and please tell me why I can judge the merits of your suggestions. Being vague here makes it impossible for me to understand precisely where you are coming from.
I am honestly trying to understand you and what you find as important as a person and another mentality. Please take this opportunity to share your thoughts with another mind. We may find common ground. We may add to each each other's uniqueness. We may contrast and compete. But simply refusing to engage robs us both of that experience to no gain at all.
You give me nothing and you get nothing because there is nothing I can say about nothing.
So far what I have from you is this... "we shouldn't be focused on this because it isn't important and should instead focus on 'stuff'"... That is literally how your argument reads to me at this point. I am not trying to strawman you. I am pointing out that this is what happens when you're intentionally vague. I can't judge if you do it.
What should we be spending our resources on? Just out of curiosity. If you were emperor or president if absolute power is a problem for you... what would you be doing right now?
You're saying this is a bad use of our time and attention. Just ignore it basically and focus on something else that matters. What is that other thing?
A problem with this statute is that it allows people we know to be guilty to get off.
The police must be punished for breaking the law. However, so to must OTHER criminals they have uncovered... even if the evidence was obtained illegally.
What this means in practice? Someone at the FBI needs to go to jail for invasion of privacy or whatever the jury convicts him of committing. Period - end of story.
And Ross needs to go to jail as well because whatever you might feel about the drug trade, the man ordered an assassination of one of his employees. That's attempted murder. Was it all a police entrapment? Possibly. And if that is what happened and he didn't do it on purpose then I'll let him off on that count.
However, if he did do it intentionally but it was all a police set up... then again, maybe someone at the FBI goes to jail for entrapment and Ross goes to jail for attempted murder.
The mark of a complex mind is the ability to process and understand many different concepts which may or may not be at odds with each other at once and judge them in parallel.
To that end, do I recognize that the conditions in these countries are a large part of the reason the virus is spreading there? Yes. Obviously.
Do you likewise grasp that the virus is extremely infectious and has a very high mortality rate?
I don't need to focus on one of those issues at a time. I can focus on both at the same time. I can do that and add to the issue many more other complex issues that all interact with that issue. And I can keep track of the whole thing without getting confused.
This isn't because I am so great... I don't think this is quite so hard. I think rather it is that people are taught to over simplify things especially when political talking points echo chamber their minions into all towing a very simple line. It makes sense. You want as many people to tow the line as possible so the line has to be simple enough for everyone to grasp. That however means the arguments come off as simplistic and childish when actually engaged. A point you'd be more aware of if you were auditing this stuff before just swallowing it whole.
What do you mean by that? Look, I understand the ruling on corporate personhood, but how would you change the law and what would that change in the law mean?
Specifically, what is happening that you dislike as a result of corporate personhood? I just want to understand where you are coming from here. Please be specific.
Damn... posted the wrong thing at the end... stupid copy/paste:
meant to put this
http://heeereswilly.ytmnd.com/
that name was referenced by someone else in regards to plague containment. Oh well. You got the point. :D
Oh this should be good. Explain this to me. Tell me why I should be in gitmo. Tell me what you'd do to me there and why?
*gets popcorn*
1. Not everyone is arguing against me. I have more people promoting me then denigrating me. So on balance YOUR faction is being sided against.
2. Even if there were more people on your side, and currently there are not, truth is not a democracy. One person can be right against a million people that are wrong.
3. As to you having your precious feeling hurt because someone pointed out your position on an issue is unworthy of respect is not my problem. That is YOUR problem. Don't like your ideas being widely considered to be idiotic? Reevaluate your thinking.
You think maybe I'm being stupid and your idea has more merit then I am recognizing? Tell me why? Present an argument. Absent that, I'm going to rest my case that that is a stupid opinion.
As to people agreeing with me if I were more polite? This is the internet. Things have never worked that way here and suggesting otherwise means you're ignorant not only about this issue but also how arguments on the internet work.
As to medieval figures understanding that you get more by being nice to people instead of dominating them... you're apparently ignorant of history as well.
And as to you conclusion that math is hard... that contextually makes no sense since you've offered no mathematical arguments.
And as to debating being hard... only if you are so stupid that it would be an insult to half wits to suggest you have even half a wit. You're more like a quarter wit... that ratio might be overly generous but it sounds good. I'll go with that.
I'll let Wonka break it down:
Umar ibn Khattab
Anonymous coward tells person they're wrong without providing any basis to make that argument...
OH NOES!
Seriously... either have a point or do us all a favor and be quiet. Your singular contribution is to waste time and remind everyone how many morons like yourself there are on the internet.
Beyond that... nothing.
His position was not a rational one. It was an ideological talking point. This keep calm and carry on nonsense is being echo chambered by political elements that find the whole thing to be politically inconvenient. They are not taking the thing seriously. For them it is all poll numbers and policy.
And this fool gets online and just repeats the party line like it is at all meaningful.
So I slapped him down. I showed him contempt and disrespect. The disrespect was intentional and in my opinion important. He needs to understand that what he did rendered himself unworthy of respect.
We are social creatures. We like to be respected and like to enjoy a certain amount of status amongst our peers. Being disrespected is something we tend to try to avoid. By showing contempt, there is a chance that he'll moderate his thinking in the future. If not, he's really too stupid to have anything meaningful to say on the issue.
No, I did not use the word "fucktard" to make my point. I used "fucktard" as a colorful judgment of fucktards. But the basis for me calling them fucktards, which is the body of my argument, did not use the term fucktard.
Fucktard.
And what charge wouldst thou bring against me for such a failing, sir? Do I not in reasonable council offer sage and cautious words? I hark unto thee, pray tell me what wouldst you advise in these troubled times? I measure myself to be a man of some wits but in having wits have the humility of a man that knows there is no more treacherous conviction then that which is never questioned. What say you on this matter? I wouldst have your mind on it.
Did I say cut off aid? Please point to the place where I said that or admit that I in fact said continue aid.
However, that isn't enough. Quarantine is important. And the neighboring countries are more then capable aiding in quarantining the area. The first causalities will be their families if it fails. As to airports and sea ports? All too easy.
The only way you get to that number is by going back to an outbreak from 1918 which was one of the worst viral outbreaks in modern history.
So you're right... it isn't a complete fucking disaster yet that has claimed 100 million lives.
So automatically we should just french kiss people with the disease and then cough in the face of every new person we meet. Because this isn't something that should be taken seriously.
We don't get outbreaks like that anymore BECAUSE we have quarantine procedures. Your attitude is what causes hundreds of millions of people to die. So no. I do not find the fact that this could get more out of control to be an argument in favor of not taking basic precautions to prevent its spread.
Again, you can either take this seriously or there are going to be political consequences. So even if you don't take it seriously, if you were in power, it would be in your interest to pretend that you gave a damn. Just a pointer.
half truth... we'd work on a cure to save ourselves... however, we'd probably have to deploy the national guard to the southern border because you might have millions of people trying to stream across if a pandemic broke out.
in any case, the point is that if our own safety is threatened, we'll act to protect ourselves first. That is what you do in a plague. First you keep your own house in order.
Location of infection.
Lack of control of infected population.
Number of people killed.
Mortality rate of those infected.
Basically everything is different. I'm struggling to understand why you think they're the same.
Bird flue has killed fewer then 200 and is contained. Ebola has killed more then 3000 and is not.
Math is hard.
Who said anything about forcing other countries to do anything? And as to burning bridges, do you really want to get into the whole "democrat vs republican" thing in this thread?
I mean is that all you political tools are able to do at this point? Are you brains so hardwired into this pathetic US vs THEM mentality that EVERYTHING turns into a proxy fight in your pathetic struggle against your very similar rival?
This has nothing to do with the ongoing joke which is the Obama presidency or the ongoing joke which is the republican party. It has everything to do with there being a "plague".
What is being asked here is nothing extreme. Just basic quarantine procedures. You know, the things we learned to do with diseases when we stopped being ignorant savages that didn't understand microbes.
If this breaks out the aid the west Africans are currently getting will be GONE. It will all shift to internal defense faster then you can snap your fingers. Gone. So if you want to help these people as I do... first make sure we don't have cause to refocus those resources.
Yes and more people have died of heart disease then were killed in WW2. So if there is a world war... just keep that in mind... we can ignore it and just focus all efforts on heart disease.
I'm not sure if you're a chat bot pretending to a person or if you are really that stupid... either way... you're a one man example of how easy it would be to replace some people with machines. Less because the machines are so clever and more because some people are so fucking stupid.