dear lord, i fell down the rabbit hole.... wtf is a micro-aggression? have they honestly criminalized the minor friction of diversity? god, being teasingly offensive is like the spice of life.
i can honestly say, i'm a liberal, but the left has left me. dear lord.
if you've never done or said a single thing in your life that would offend a part of the population the size of "your boss doesn't feel like dealing with this shit."... then you're honestly a damn saint... and i don't think there are that many saints running around.
:) i personally love it how the same people who would argue for the rehabilitative ideal of the prison system are the same ones that are out for blood in these circumstances.
... just as me giving you money for killing someone is perfectly morally sound. The only guilty party is the person accepting the money to kill someone. It's been so obvious this entire time.
just as child soldiers are the only ones to blame for shooting civilians and not the warlords that trained them to do it... free will obviously absolves the warlords of all guilt... good to know.
and hell, you know what? if i hold a gun to a man's head to commit a mass murder, i'd only be guilty of kidnapping and not of the mass murder. because obviously, the man could have made the choice to die instead... because anything done by proxy obviously absolves the person at the end of all guilt.
yes, straw men, but the point stands. just because the violence is done by proxy, does not absolve the instigator of guilt.
This baseball pitcher is directly responsible for the damage to those two guy's lives. He obviously made the judgement call that ruining the lives of 7 others was not worth it. By his discretion we know he knew the potential consequences of his actions.
You may think that it is a justified response, and that the consequences to those particular gentlemen were commensurate with their "crime," and i won't argue with your opinion on the matter, but that's an entirely separate issue. The former pitcher is just as guilty for his retaliation as they are for actions retaliated against.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the internet is a cesspit, and when you wade through the muck you can't reasonably get angry at the filth.
And by that logic if i pay for an assassination all guilt falls on the assassin, none on me. good to know.
If i know my followers are prone to attacks, which you know, the unruly mob kind of is, and are just waiting for a target to act... and i provide them with the details of a target knowing full well that it may, and or is likely to, lead to destruction of property or personal injury... I am guilty of knowingly aiding in violence toward others. morally and legally i am not in safe waters.
yeah, but guess what? apparently that's the society we live in. That slippery slope back there we fell down involved donald sterling losing a billion dollars over a 30 second sound clip, and brendan eich losing his job over donating $1000 to a ballot measure.
Boy, i'm afraid of the law, but i'm more afraid of the fickle, unfeeling and intensely aggressive nature of this new court of public opinion. There is no proportionality.
teach people to think twice before speaking in a private context, or donating money to political campaigns with even a hint of controversy.
this is a whole new world, and the only defense you reliably have is to never do anything that could possibly catch the ire of the mob.
i don't agree with either sterling or eichs positions, but dammit, the mob lynching them for expressing themselves is just as bad as government censorship.
*sterling should have been kicked out, but not for that
the problem with your posts is that you're not addressing the issue.
your opinion on the matter can be boiled down to- this won't go anywhere because christianity is illogical and religion is stupid.
I was trying to make the point that given their own belief system, it wouldn't make sense because it assumes concession of the sovereignty of God over the human/android soul to humans.
It offends me just as much when atheists push their religious views in my face as when the religious do.
your base assumption is that the soul is tied to some corporeal thing. One could invalidate your entire line of thinking by saying that your soul does not reside in you but is you.
it's the homunculus, and your brain simply a machine to interpret its choices and feed it.
are your your arms, are you your legs, are you your heart, are you your brain? the religious man would say, none of these things, i am my soul. and the rest is just meat.
also, as soon as it's disconnected from the current cloud of atoms you'd presumably die.
"What if, in order to save your life, we would replace part of your brain with machinery? Would you lose your soul? Would it depend on whether it was 5%, 50% or 99% of the brain? If so, how much?" you could replace 100% of my brain, as long as i'm persistently me throughout the entire process.
personally, the discontinuity of perception is the dividing line between between transferring me, and making a copy of me... but you know what? a new copy wakes up every morning, and i seem to take it in stride.
I haven't feared death since i realized that i lose myself every night... meh, what a waste of time sleep is.
if you transferred my consciousness to a computer, you'd either be making a really good copy of my consciousness, or you'd be doing that and be killing me at the same time, depending on if I'm still in my meat suit at the end of it.
Cloning, is where consciousness and soul diverge, i'd say you'd be creating a new consciousness, the religious man would say you've created a soulless abomination that thought it was a man.
:) put my phone into airplane mode someone during trailer time. Never bring out the phone during the actual movie... unless i'm really starting to wonder how long the movie runs for... which says something very specific about the movie i guess.
one point, as has been said before, the US trying to tell china to lower its carbon emissions, is kinda like the alcoholic telling the casual drinker he's got a problem.
apparently we triple china's carbon emissions per capita... so yeah.
I have this new brand of cereal to sell you. And ours guarantees that it is 100 percent free of prison rape too.
You see any other brand of cereal give you that guarantee? no? well. you know, if you're willing to risk the chance of prison rape...
Call me a cynic, but this just looks like AT&T selling me something that i shouldn't expect with my product in the first place... or jacking up the price by offering a discount type things... or just making the spying all legal like...
... you mentioning wonderbread is literally the first time i've thought of wonderbread in like... 4 years. I'm sure if the price is similar now, and i see wonderbread in the store and i'm in the search for white bread, i'll get wonderbread now.
i recognize the name, and hey, apparently they do nascar.
we got a merger every other day it seems, that are getting scrutinized for anti-trust implications. i'd say that the free market let loose, ends with monopolies. and the current state of our cable and telecomm could use a good strong dose of good strong regulation reform.
:) well apparently we're at the point where we no longer need to screen the south for trying to disenfranchise black people... because you know, we got a black guy in the big seat, and the supreme court says racism is dead. I mean, MLK, that was sooooo long ago.
And obviously the states haven't done anything to make us regret us keeping an eye on them.
it speaks to his mindset if something similar were to come up again.
For example, something that i'm almost entirely sure you would have a conflict with rand paul over.
The rights of the employer to enforce drug policy of their choosing. I'm almost entirely sure that Rand paul would say that a business owner is free to hire and fire whomever he wants. you're free to find employment with someone else after all.
If his stance is so pro-business rights that he's wishy washy over enforced desegregation IN THIS DAY AND AGE, then basically he would be no obstacle to mandatory drug tests. You're free to smoke your weed, and your boss is free to fire you for it. or fire you for being catholic, or gay or black or a republican or a democrat or, or, or.
In a rand paul presidency, forget about privacy, your employer owns you. it's their money after all.
I once spoke to someone who voted for ron paul, i actually asked him about some of ron paul's most extreme libertarian ideas. His response was to shrug and say his crazier ideas would be checked by congress. I don't think i'm comfortable with my president needing to be reigned in by that madhouse.
his stance on the rights of the business owner and the rights of the public is also troubling. the whole snafu with him being a bit ambivalent on the enforcing of desegregation of public businesses during the civil rights era.
Slashdot Mirror
...
please, for the love of all that's holy... don't refer to it as the turn of the century.
if it's not a crime, it should be.
dear lord, i fell down the rabbit hole.... wtf is a micro-aggression? have they honestly criminalized the minor friction of diversity? god, being teasingly offensive is like the spice of life.
i can honestly say, i'm a liberal, but the left has left me. dear lord.
doesn't even need to go that far.
if you've never done or said a single thing in your life that would offend a part of the population the size of "your boss doesn't feel like dealing with this shit." ... then you're honestly a damn saint... and i don't think there are that many saints running around.
:) i personally love it how the same people who would argue for the rehabilitative ideal of the prison system are the same ones that are out for blood in these circumstances.
... just as me giving you money for killing someone is perfectly morally sound. The only guilty party is the person accepting the money to kill someone. It's been so obvious this entire time.
just as child soldiers are the only ones to blame for shooting civilians and not the warlords that trained them to do it... free will obviously absolves the warlords of all guilt... good to know.
and hell, you know what? if i hold a gun to a man's head to commit a mass murder, i'd only be guilty of kidnapping and not of the mass murder. because obviously, the man could have made the choice to die instead... because anything done by proxy obviously absolves the person at the end of all guilt.
yes, straw men, but the point stands. just because the violence is done by proxy, does not absolve the instigator of guilt.
This baseball pitcher is directly responsible for the damage to those two guy's lives. He obviously made the judgement call that ruining the lives of 7 others was not worth it. By his discretion we know he knew the potential consequences of his actions.
You may think that it is a justified response, and that the consequences to those particular gentlemen were commensurate with their "crime," and i won't argue with your opinion on the matter, but that's an entirely separate issue. The former pitcher is just as guilty for his retaliation as they are for actions retaliated against.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the internet is a cesspit, and when you wade through the muck you can't reasonably get angry at the filth.
incitement to violence is a crime.
And by that logic if i pay for an assassination all guilt falls on the assassin, none on me. good to know.
If i know my followers are prone to attacks, which you know, the unruly mob kind of is, and are just waiting for a target to act... and i provide them with the details of a target knowing full well that it may, and or is likely to, lead to destruction of property or personal injury... I am guilty of knowingly aiding in violence toward others. morally and legally i am not in safe waters.
:) it's not either or, the ones who commit the deeds, as well as the ones who ordered the hit are generally culpable.
and self-defense can still lead to a manslaughter charge. because proportionality is a thing.
yeah, but guess what? apparently that's the society we live in. That slippery slope back there we fell down involved donald sterling losing a billion dollars over a 30 second sound clip, and brendan eich losing his job over donating $1000 to a ballot measure.
Boy, i'm afraid of the law, but i'm more afraid of the fickle, unfeeling and intensely aggressive nature of this new court of public opinion. There is no proportionality.
teach people to think twice before speaking in a private context, or donating money to political campaigns with even a hint of controversy.
this is a whole new world, and the only defense you reliably have is to never do anything that could possibly catch the ire of the mob.
i don't agree with either sterling or eichs positions, but dammit, the mob lynching them for expressing themselves is just as bad as government censorship.
*sterling should have been kicked out, but not for that
fire moat. solved that for you,
award please.
... words fail me... i hate facebook just a little less now.
This is a good world.
the problem with your posts is that you're not addressing the issue.
your opinion on the matter can be boiled down to- this won't go anywhere because christianity is illogical and religion is stupid.
I was trying to make the point that given their own belief system, it wouldn't make sense because it assumes concession of the sovereignty of God over the human/android soul to humans.
It offends me just as much when atheists push their religious views in my face as when the religious do.
your base assumption is that the soul is tied to some corporeal thing. One could invalidate your entire line of thinking by saying that your soul does not reside in you but is you.
it's the homunculus, and your brain simply a machine to interpret its choices and feed it.
are your your arms, are you your legs, are you your heart, are you your brain? the religious man would say, none of these things, i am my soul. and the rest is just meat.
also, as soon as it's disconnected from the current cloud of atoms you'd presumably die.
"What if, in order to save your life, we would replace part of your brain with machinery? Would you lose your soul? Would it depend on whether it was 5%, 50% or 99% of the brain? If so, how much?"
you could replace 100% of my brain, as long as i'm persistently me throughout the entire process.
personally, the discontinuity of perception is the dividing line between between transferring me, and making a copy of me... but you know what? a new copy wakes up every morning, and i seem to take it in stride.
I haven't feared death since i realized that i lose myself every night... meh, what a waste of time sleep is.
if you transferred my consciousness to a computer, you'd either be making a really good copy of my consciousness, or you'd be doing that and be killing me at the same time, depending on if I'm still in my meat suit at the end of it.
Cloning, is where consciousness and soul diverge, i'd say you'd be creating a new consciousness, the religious man would say you've created a soulless abomination that thought it was a man.
no need to baptize then, they are sin free. They go to heaven presumably because it wouldn't be heaven without them?
Doesn't the entire premise assume that the religious have reduced their definition of the soul down to something a bit of code could produce?
how the hell would you save something with no persistence beyond death? it'd be like trying to baptize a dog, or a tree.
:) put my phone into airplane mode someone during trailer time. Never bring out the phone during the actual movie... unless i'm really starting to wonder how long the movie runs for... which says something very specific about the movie i guess.
one point, as has been said before, the US trying to tell china to lower its carbon emissions, is kinda like the alcoholic telling the casual drinker he's got a problem.
apparently we triple china's carbon emissions per capita... so yeah.
I have this new brand of cereal to sell you. And ours guarantees that it is 100 percent free of prison rape too.
You see any other brand of cereal give you that guarantee? no? well. you know, if you're willing to risk the chance of prison rape...
Call me a cynic, but this just looks like AT&T selling me something that i shouldn't expect with my product in the first place... or jacking up the price by offering a discount type things... or just making the spying all legal like...
all else being equal, i'll probably go with the one i've heard about before.
also, if you never encounter the product/company, everything else is moot. might be the greatest product in the world, but if nobody hears about it...
... you mentioning wonderbread is literally the first time i've thought of wonderbread in like... 4 years. I'm sure if the price is similar now, and i see wonderbread in the store and i'm in the search for white bread, i'll get wonderbread now.
i recognize the name, and hey, apparently they do nascar.
we got a merger every other day it seems, that are getting scrutinized for anti-trust implications. i'd say that the free market let loose, ends with monopolies. and the current state of our cable and telecomm could use a good strong dose of good strong regulation reform.
:) well apparently we're at the point where we no longer need to screen the south for trying to disenfranchise black people... because you know, we got a black guy in the big seat, and the supreme court says racism is dead. I mean, MLK, that was sooooo long ago.
And obviously the states haven't done anything to make us regret us keeping an eye on them.
it speaks to his mindset if something similar were to come up again.
For example, something that i'm almost entirely sure you would have a conflict with rand paul over.
The rights of the employer to enforce drug policy of their choosing. I'm almost entirely sure that Rand paul would say that a business owner is free to hire and fire whomever he wants. you're free to find employment with someone else after all.
If his stance is so pro-business rights that he's wishy washy over enforced desegregation IN THIS DAY AND AGE, then basically he would be no obstacle to mandatory drug tests. You're free to smoke your weed, and your boss is free to fire you for it. or fire you for being catholic, or gay or black or a republican or a democrat or, or, or.
In a rand paul presidency, forget about privacy, your employer owns you. it's their money after all.
I once spoke to someone who voted for ron paul, i actually asked him about some of ron paul's most extreme libertarian ideas. His response was to shrug and say his crazier ideas would be checked by congress. I don't think i'm comfortable with my president needing to be reigned in by that madhouse.
his stance on the rights of the business owner and the rights of the public is also troubling. the whole snafu with him being a bit ambivalent on the enforcing of desegregation of public businesses during the civil rights era.
i would mod this insightful. props
Seth Rogan,
truly a modern day Helen of Troy.