The word "biased" implies no such thing. How did you arrive at such a conclusion? Because that's not what I said at all.
I was merely replying to someone who seemed to be trying to indicate that people not the target of hate crimes must be biased and/or are wrong because they are not the target of hate crimes. Do I really need to list every single group that is/isn't biased (I'm not sure you can truly get around bias)?
So now it's just "inciting hatred" rather than "inciting violence"? You're inciting hatred against my political policy!
The "slippery slope" argument you are advancing is fallacious.
And that's just subjective. People are warning against unnecessary restrictions upon freedom of speech. Frankly, I couldn't care less about this guy's opinion. I don't see why anyone else would, either.
But if you know anybody who has ever been targeted, it's an entirely different thing.
That sounds like an assumption to me.
But of course, should it be a surprise that such people would be biased (much like people who weren't in such a situation)? Their opinion isn't any more valid just because they know someone who was targeted.
And if the comment you just made causes someone to commit suicide? Different people find different things offensive. Someone who commits suicide over a few posts on the internet is more than likely mentally unstable to begin with. I'm not sure we should be jailing people for that.
It seemed to me like he was saying, "If you're a hypocrite, your arguments are invalid!" there. Otherwise, why couldn't you tell China those things? That sentence makes no sense to me. If that's what he meant, then that is indeed the appeal to hypocrisy (tu quoque) fallacy.
And college isn't the only way to learn about logical fallacies.
Damn, so anyone who even so much as disagrees with anything you say is a corporate shill?
At all times while reading Slashdot and other tech sites, be aware that you are being manipulated by professional reputation managers.
That's what I was replying to. From the looks of things, if what that guy was saying is true, perhaps they aren't as "professional" as they think they are...
Shilling on Slashdot would accomplish precisely nothing.
Yes. It does contain some malware. So? It also contains legitimate (non-malware, I mean) content. I'm not sure I agree with the entire thing being blocked just because some of the content is malware and some people are too foolish to tell the difference.
It's expected. Many people seem to give up on other alternatives because they don't think they have a chance to win. And as long as many people have this attitude, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voting for other parties is not all that can be done, of course.
But that'll mean someone I don't like might get in! That'll mean that I might actually have to... inconvenience myself! Nope! Being the extremely intelligent person that I am, I'm just going to give up and vote on one of the major parties. Patience is for suckers.
Just because you're antisocial and do not care about being on a social network because of your tinfoil hat does not mean the rest have to follow suit.
Why exactly do you assume he's antisocial? Why do you assume he's wearing a tinfoil hat? What if someone doesn't care about social networks, like me? I just don't find them useful.
I know it can sometimes be difficult to comprehend that different people have different preferences and needs, but come on.
No one said that it exists. At least not right now. But what do you think would happen if we just give corruptible, fallible humans unlimited power? Do you really trust the government enough to do that? I'm not saying that's what we're doing, but the government does not always have the best of intentions.
1984 is a warning. People are warning you not to give the government too much power. It might not turn into a 1984-style government if you do, but I suspect you wouldn't like the results all the same.
And they don't have to be competent to be corrupt.
Slashdot Mirror
The word "biased" implies no such thing. How did you arrive at such a conclusion? Because that's not what I said at all.
I was merely replying to someone who seemed to be trying to indicate that people not the target of hate crimes must be biased and/or are wrong because they are not the target of hate crimes. Do I really need to list every single group that is/isn't biased (I'm not sure you can truly get around bias)?
Inciting hatred is not political speech.
So now it's just "inciting hatred" rather than "inciting violence"? You're inciting hatred against my political policy!
The "slippery slope" argument you are advancing is fallacious.
And that's just subjective. People are warning against unnecessary restrictions upon freedom of speech. Frankly, I couldn't care less about this guy's opinion. I don't see why anyone else would, either.
If nobody socializes with the guy, he's as good as imprisoned.
Really? Wouldn't that depend on his personality? Some people don't care too much for socialization.
Shouting fire can get people trampled and killed.
Has there ever been an example of this happening? Curious.
Also, perhaps people shouldn't trample over others and kill them and then pretend that a poltergeist possessed them and made them do it.
But if you know anybody who has ever been targeted, it's an entirely different thing.
That sounds like an assumption to me.
But of course, should it be a surprise that such people would be biased (much like people who weren't in such a situation)? Their opinion isn't any more valid just because they know someone who was targeted.
Wait... how can you be sure that it didn't happen when you don't know anything about the poster, his friend, or the friend of his friend?
And if the comment you just made causes someone to commit suicide? Different people find different things offensive. Someone who commits suicide over a few posts on the internet is more than likely mentally unstable to begin with. I'm not sure we should be jailing people for that.
It seemed to me like he was saying, "If you're a hypocrite, your arguments are invalid!" there. Otherwise, why couldn't you tell China those things? That sentence makes no sense to me. If that's what he meant, then that is indeed the appeal to hypocrisy (tu quoque) fallacy.
And college isn't the only way to learn about logical fallacies.
Damn, so anyone who even so much as disagrees with anything you say is a corporate shill?
At all times while reading Slashdot and other tech sites, be aware that you are being manipulated by professional reputation managers.
That's what I was replying to. From the looks of things, if what that guy was saying is true, perhaps they aren't as "professional" as they think they are...
Shilling on Slashdot would accomplish precisely nothing.
How can you tell China that deleting content is bad when an American company is setting this type of example?
Because saying they can't is an example of the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy.
But they still aren't very good role models...
Yes. It does contain some malware. So? It also contains legitimate (non-malware, I mean) content. I'm not sure I agree with the entire thing being blocked just because some of the content is malware and some people are too foolish to tell the difference.
It's expected. Many people seem to give up on other alternatives because they don't think they have a chance to win. And as long as many people have this attitude, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Voting for other parties is not all that can be done, of course.
Those "average-to-smart" people don't sound very smart... at least in that one aspect.
I had no idea that people were trying to brainwash me with magical brainwashing waves on Slashdot. Truly, they aren't wasting their time at all!
I guess that's why I believe everything people say...
But that'll mean someone I don't like might get in! That'll mean that I might actually have to... inconvenience myself! Nope! Being the extremely intelligent person that I am, I'm just going to give up and vote on one of the major parties. Patience is for suckers.
Only if you're a complete idiot. If you make names up at random, you should be fine.
That's if you truly desire to stay anonymous, though.
No one but losers with no life do this.
It takes but a few minutes to post a comment. I fail to see how posting a comment on a website would indicate that someone has no life.
Others realize that no one gives a shit if you're an anti-social freak, and that you don't need to post it everywhere.
No one has shown how not using Facebook makes you "anti-social."
Do they still let people get on planes? What if one of them is a terrorist!?
Why are you closing the bathroom door? What are you hiding...?
Just because you're antisocial and do not care about being on a social network because of your tinfoil hat does not mean the rest have to follow suit.
Why exactly do you assume he's antisocial? Why do you assume he's wearing a tinfoil hat? What if someone doesn't care about social networks, like me? I just don't find them useful.
I know it can sometimes be difficult to comprehend that different people have different preferences and needs, but come on.
What a useless social network this is.
No one said that it exists. At least not right now. But what do you think would happen if we just give corruptible, fallible humans unlimited power? Do you really trust the government enough to do that? I'm not saying that's what we're doing, but the government does not always have the best of intentions.
1984 is a warning. People are warning you not to give the government too much power. It might not turn into a 1984-style government if you do, but I suspect you wouldn't like the results all the same.
And they don't have to be competent to be corrupt.
The language of redundant, pointless rules that aid no one in understanding what someone else is trying to say!
You're nothin'! A mere clone...!
Oh... I see. The same person, huh? You're just trying to deny Gamemaker's greatness!