no true scotsman more along the lines of redefining the group to exclude those specific examples you take issue with.
christians doesn't commit murder. what about ireland? no true christian commits murder.
more important than what your definition and bounds of christianity, or group is. is what their definition and bounds of a group are. They self-identify as christian, they self-identify as muslim. they self-identify as jewish, they are christian, muslim, jewish. You know how fractured christianity is?
As I understand it, unless you're a catholic, christianity involves an incredibly personal and unique interpretation of the holy scriptures. Each person is to understand their relationship with God on their own terms and in their own way.
In that case, the only way to count christians is literally to see if they themselves would call themselves christian.
i think it can't constitute a threat, unless there are actual black people who can be hanged in the immediate vicinity that could possibly be hanged, or in previous speech I have actually described a specific individual or specific individuals that the listener could track down and hang.
everything else is simply opinion.
It'd be a stretch to interpret any of it as actual intent, and a judge would laugh the prosecution out of court.
and if this were 50 years ago, and this were the nascent civil rights movement being exposed?
would your opinion still be the same? flip the viewpoints, if your opinion remains the same then i've got nothing to say. If it changes, you should ask yourself why it changed?
your take on the matter should be exactly the same regardless of the view of those being exposed; otherwise you're not really considering the heart of the issue.
free speech is more important than the potential safety of potential victims. either you're telling your people to go kill those black people over there. or you're free to say whatever you want.
Saying "i hate black people and think they should all get hanged" isn't actually enough to warrant restricting their first amendment rights.
I find it troubling that a non-governmental entity is trying to do something that we won't allow our government to do to us.
and, it's troubling that it makes use of the "200 years" line.
Unless you've got some highlanders under them there hoods, we generally, in the civilized world, don't hold people responsible for the sins of their fathers. Probably a vanishingly small fraction of the membership has ever taken part in a lynching. And there are laws to go after those people... you know the ones against murder.
This is a troubling thing, going after americans for their associations.
as hitchens pointed out, Justice Holmes was saying that it was not ok to urge people about to be drafted to resist the draft during war time.
The socialists were yelling about how the draft was a violation against the 13th amendment, the one against involuntary servitude... you know slavery. And they were yelling that Europe was on fire during the early years of world war 1.
They were passing political leaflets out during war time. This was their crime.
i would say that just because someone sucks at trying to kill you, doesn't mean it's not attempted murder. Like the underwear bomber.
just because it doesn't do a terribly good job of being a bomb scare, doesn't mean it's not in bomb-scare territory. Like if someone brought a toy gun into school and started to pretend to shoot it at people, and it had that terrible orange tag on the end still...
i imagine they would frown on that too, even though "obviously it's a toy"
Hey wait, lets say a kid 3d prints a replica handgun. spray paints it black, poorly. then brings it into school, and shows it to his shop teacher, who knows what it is and tells him he shouldn't wave it around, and then pretends to shoot it at a classmate in a class whose teacher doesn't know what it is?
i imagine most people would say, yeah, give that kid something to think about, arrest him, make him remember that those kinds of jokes are in poor taste. And a certain subset read gun, and just thought, lynch the fucker.:)
:) did not pass my litmus test. Four lions review, kermode called it when he said it was elegiac and filled with pathos. a sense of poignancy. Some people only see comedy in that movie, I also saw a great deal of sadness,:) if a review site doesn't see sadness in four lions, it's not for me:)
no, because you're at fault if you tread on someone's feelings even unintentionally.
the left is eating it's own, and has been for a while. Even prominent lefties are walking around on tiptoes watching what they're saying, because they'll get crucified if they accidentally offend someone's sensibilities, and aren't penitent enough.
Microagressions... yeah that's a thing apparently.
... granularity in this context is ridiculous, it's like saying, we're going to make sure each tooth on our chainsaw is sharp as a surgeon's scalpel.
hey, what's the difference between a 75 point movie, and a 76 point movie? a movie you rate at 76 today you'll never rate at 77 or 75 on another day?
you're talking about the extremely subjective and saying it's not accurate enough.:) some critics grow to love movies they had panned in the past, as they get more miles under their belt. How do you judge a movie that you both love and hate, sometimes co-currently?
A single number is inadequate to represent how one person feels about 1 week -12 years of another person's work, and granularity really isn't going to fix that.
I suggest that you find a critic you agree with, and just listen to his or her thoughts on the latest offerings.
my method is to find a movie critic whose opinion makes sense to you, ie) valid criticism or praise that you can recognize. And trust in them to continue to make observations that you can agree with.
Mine is Mark Kermode. He's an old lefty, and far too openly feminist at times, but very entertaining, and the very moment he described the poignancy of Four Lions was the moment I knew I could trust what he was saying.
Him and Simon Mayo do a 90 minute show on fridays on the BBC radio thing. podcasts are available maybe 8-9 hours after the live show. Perfect to commute to, to run to, to ride to...
really anything you'd welcome some excellent company to.
Slashdot Mirror
no true scotsman more along the lines of redefining the group to exclude those specific examples you take issue with.
christians doesn't commit murder.
what about ireland?
no true christian commits murder.
more important than what your definition and bounds of christianity, or group is. is what their definition and bounds of a group are. They self-identify as christian, they self-identify as muslim. they self-identify as jewish, they are christian, muslim, jewish. You know how fractured christianity is?
As I understand it, unless you're a catholic, christianity involves an incredibly personal and unique interpretation of the holy scriptures. Each person is to understand their relationship with God on their own terms and in their own way.
In that case, the only way to count christians is literally to see if they themselves would call themselves christian.
no true scotsman eh?
you can't pick and choose membership
i think it can't constitute a threat, unless there are actual black people who can be hanged in the immediate vicinity that could possibly be hanged, or in previous speech I have actually described a specific individual or specific individuals that the listener could track down and hang.
everything else is simply opinion.
It'd be a stretch to interpret any of it as actual intent, and a judge would laugh the prosecution out of court.
don't agree with amijojo much, but this will do.
and if this were 50 years ago, and this were the nascent civil rights movement being exposed?
would your opinion still be the same? flip the viewpoints, if your opinion remains the same then i've got nothing to say. If it changes, you should ask yourself why it changed?
your take on the matter should be exactly the same regardless of the view of those being exposed; otherwise you're not really considering the heart of the issue.
the KKK is at liberty to hold parades, rallies, as is any group of americans with any common opinion or belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
free speech is more important than the potential safety of potential victims. either you're telling your people to go kill those black people over there. or you're free to say whatever you want.
Saying "i hate black people and think they should all get hanged" isn't actually enough to warrant restricting their first amendment rights.
I find it troubling that a non-governmental entity is trying to do something that we won't allow our government to do to us.
and, it's troubling that it makes use of the "200 years" line.
Unless you've got some highlanders under them there hoods, we generally, in the civilized world, don't hold people responsible for the sins of their fathers. Probably a vanishingly small fraction of the membership has ever taken part in a lynching. And there are laws to go after those people... you know the ones against murder.
This is a troubling thing, going after americans for their associations.
WRONG,
you were perfectly justified in shooting him, then beating and raping her, and now living in both houses :)
win win. + new wife.
smallpox baby, it's good that it's pretty "not running wild" anymore.
as hitchens pointed out, Justice Holmes was saying that it was not ok to urge people about to be drafted to resist the draft during war time.
The socialists were yelling about how the draft was a violation against the 13th amendment, the one against involuntary servitude... you know slavery. And they were yelling that Europe was on fire during the early years of world war 1.
They were passing political leaflets out during war time. This was their crime.
i would say that just because someone sucks at trying to kill you, doesn't mean it's not attempted murder. Like the underwear bomber.
just because it doesn't do a terribly good job of being a bomb scare, doesn't mean it's not in bomb-scare territory. Like if someone brought a toy gun into school and started to pretend to shoot it at people, and it had that terrible orange tag on the end still...
i imagine they would frown on that too, even though "obviously it's a toy"
Hey wait, lets say a kid 3d prints a replica handgun. spray paints it black, poorly. then brings it into school, and shows it to his shop teacher, who knows what it is and tells him he shouldn't wave it around, and then pretends to shoot it at a classmate in a class whose teacher doesn't know what it is?
i imagine most people would say, yeah, give that kid something to think about, arrest him, make him remember that those kinds of jokes are in poor taste. And a certain subset read gun, and just thought, lynch the fucker. :)
i woulda locked him up for trying to incite a damn bomb scare.
at what point do we say, hey, that's looks enough like a bomb to make it a problem for someone, of any color, to bring in?
maybe if he had used some play-doh to hold all the components together?
ugh, an hour and a half on bike vs a day on foot.
dear lord, i can't even imagine.
nah, if it's his property, or public property, he can take as many pictures of your business as he wants.
you only have an expectation of privacy on your own property.
they already.
with all those test, would a "normal" person reasonably feel threatened in this situation?
:) did not pass my litmus test. Four lions review, kermode called it when he said it was elegiac and filled with pathos. a sense of poignancy. Some people only see comedy in that movie, I also saw a great deal of sadness, :) if a review site doesn't see sadness in four lions, it's not for me :)
:) they've got a good love-hate relationship going on, and the easy familiarity of 2 decades.
I believe Mark recalled, apocryphal or not, that his first words back on air to simon, after a 5 year hiatus, were "and another thing."
:) welcome to the church sister.
Please proselytize. Spread the good word :)
personally, i just download them to my phone and listen to a couple during bike rides.
just watch out, there have been wittertainment related accidents... and miracles. you don't know which one will strike though.
mark kermode and simon mayo
yeah, but you get to know their tastes and where you fall in line with those tastes.
Bonus points if they're hilarious.
Kermode and Mayo, look it up, it's very very good.
no, because you're at fault if you tread on someone's feelings even unintentionally.
the left is eating it's own, and has been for a while. Even prominent lefties are walking around on tiptoes watching what they're saying, because they'll get crucified if they accidentally offend someone's sensibilities, and aren't penitent enough.
Microagressions... yeah that's a thing apparently.
I was on the left, until he left left me.
... granularity in this context is ridiculous, it's like saying, we're going to make sure each tooth on our chainsaw is sharp as a surgeon's scalpel.
hey, what's the difference between a 75 point movie, and a 76 point movie?
a movie you rate at 76 today you'll never rate at 77 or 75 on another day?
you're talking about the extremely subjective and saying it's not accurate enough. :) some critics grow to love movies they had panned in the past, as they get more miles under their belt. How do you judge a movie that you both love and hate, sometimes co-currently?
A single number is inadequate to represent how one person feels about 1 week -12 years of another person's work, and granularity really isn't going to fix that.
I suggest that you find a critic you agree with, and just listen to his or her thoughts on the latest offerings.
my two, probably devil, and constantine. not terrible, but i always feel guilty about liking something that
m. night and shia lebouf touched respectively.
i don't trust a man who will work for just any beer.
my method is to find a movie critic whose opinion makes sense to you, ie) valid criticism or praise that you can recognize. And trust in them to continue to make observations that you can agree with.
Mine is Mark Kermode. He's an old lefty, and far too openly feminist at times, but very entertaining, and the very moment he described the poignancy of Four Lions was the moment I knew I could trust what he was saying.
Him and Simon Mayo do a 90 minute show on fridays on the BBC radio thing. podcasts are available maybe 8-9 hours after the live show. Perfect to commute to, to run to, to ride to...
really anything you'd welcome some excellent company to.
3 wittertainment
and
Hello to Jason Isaacs.