Another facet this is that I don't think a person should be held responsible for the death threats that others make, regardless of the ability of law enforcement to actually catch those making the death threats.
If I call Donald Trump an asshole, and someone who hears me decides to send Donald Trump a death threat because of what I said, I shouldn't be held liable for that.
CNN is a joke. But I wouldn't say that Islamophobia is part of their propaganda machine. It's just something they do out of desperation for ratings. With Fox News, spreading fear in general and of Islam in particular is like part of their implicit mission statement.
And don't get me wrong. I am under no illusions that Islam is a misunderstood religion of peace. I think all religions suck. I just don't feel like singling out Islam and peaceful muslims as *the* boogyman is intellectually honest or helpful.
The reason that is necessary? It only takes one person with the ability to get shit somewhere to kill a person. Yes, most of the threats probably will be 'random idiots,' but the main way to tell 'random idiot' from 'murderous crazy' is somebody gets seriously hurt. This is precisely why the behavior you're talking about is against the law [criminalde...lawyer.com]--the 'intent to cause fear and terror' requirement is almost certain to be met here.
That's the "better safe than sorry", Pascal's wager type mentality that I don't agree with. You will *never* be sure that someone isn't out to get you. The standard should not be "the probability that a murderous crazy person might try to kill you is greater than 0" because that is always true for everyone. I think it makes much more sense to just analyze the risk and determine a reasonable response.
I think a reasonable response would be to hire a security guard for a few weeks until this all blows over.
Certainly the people calling in death threats should be prosecuted harshly if they can be caught.
I just don't think we should be able to sum up all this stuff into a $1 million award to the plumber and a $1 million fine to the car dealer for a relatively small fuckup that got blown out of proportion by some pretty unlikely circumstances.
Yes I limited myself to the dumb viewers of the cable news outlet that specializes in Islamophobia. I totally agree that people who watch other news outlets are dumb as well, but Fox News is the gold standard of stupidity. If stupid news viewers were baseball teams, Fox News viewers would be the Yankees.
I think you missed the part where this texan plumber's truck was featured in the Colbert Report [cc.com], a segment which was rebroadcast primetime during the emmys, therefore making the subset of people who watched the video and and connected the truck to the business into the millions.
I think you missed the the part where I specifically refer to the subset of people who are aware of this connection of the plumber to the Isis video and *don't* realize the plumber is not intentionally supporting Isis.
The article also mentions that Homeland Security and the FBI met with him and advised him to carry a gun due to the hundreds of daily calls and threats he was receiving. There is cause for him to be concerned with his safety here.
I agree there is a cause for concern for his safety. What I don't agree with is the rationale "There was cause for concern for your safety, therefore you get $1M".
How do you know the car dealer is rich and the plumber is poor? Also, try to find where I said the car dealer should get a free pass. I think the dealer should be penalized. I just don't think $1M is a reasonable penalty for a simple fuckup that lead to a ridiculous not possible to anticipate scenario.
I'll never figure out how you liberals think
Get your generalizations straight. It's the conservatives who are always whining about tort reform. Well here's your chance.
I think most people can appreciate that not all things with the same name are related. I remember the band Anthrax considered changing their name after 9/11 when all the anthrax letters were being sent to congress and news stations. They ultimately decided to keep their name, and that decision was regarded as a stand against terrorism (although it later turned out to be just a guy that worked for the US government, and unrelated to the 9/11 attacks).
Issis is still a nice name, I think she should keep it so the terrorists don't win.
There definitely was a way for atheists to get married in NZ before this. And now there is one more way they can be married, which is to be married by a person whose only qualification is a fake title from a fake religious organization.
IT was a always a bit silly that the only people who could solemnize marriages were sea captains, the county clerk, and self proclaimed leaders of "real" religions. Now it has been correctly highlighted that there are no "real" religions.
I wouldn't say that this is FSM's top priority, but I don't expect NZ pastafarians to move to Pakistan where they are really needed (and would probably be murdered)
It is also a Toyota truck. I surely will not be buying any more cars from an evil terrorist auto manufacturer that produces trucks to be used to kill American soldiers. Or maybe most people realize that Isis just ends up with a bunch of shit in a way the previous owners may not have intended.
The car salesman didn't necessarily lie (i.e. intend to deceive the plumber). It could just be that they intended to remove the decals and neglected to actually do it. But all that is irrelevant. What is for certain is that the car salesman did not intend for the plumber's company's name to show up in an Isis video, nor is that an eventuality that one could reasonably expect.
f your going to assume responsibility for doing something, then you should whine about being held responsible for it.
What if some idiot does kill this plumber and his whole family in a mass shooting. Should the car salesman be tried for murder, since his actions lead to the death of a whole family of people? No, because not pealing the logos off a truck after you promised to do it (while bad) is not something that would normally lead to a mass shooting.
Changing identities? I really don't think that's necessary. There are always going to be some dumb people who do dumb things. But honestly this is such a small blip on the radar of even crazy people. They will call and make death threats, and in a couple days they will move on to the new thing. There is no reason to enter the witness protection program and say good bye to your extended family because a few idiots sent you some death threats.
That's not to say that I think no death threats are credible. There is a difference between being targeted by religious extremists or a state intelligence agency or a criminal syndicate, and some random idiots who are only targeting you because they are belligerent and stupid.
The difference is you didn't tell that person you would move your car, and then not follow through.
That is not really a relevant difference. There is an implicit promise of members of society not to park in front of people's driveways, and the fine is the punishment for breaking this promise.
For example, say the owner of the driveway came out and said, hey my wife is expecting, we need you to move your car please in case her water breaks and we need to leave at a moments notice. You then say OK sure, but NEVER move your car. A day goes by, and you get a ticket. Another day goes by and you get another ticket. On the third day with your car there, her water breaks and because of your car in the driveway they have to drive around it and destroy their lawn. YOU would be liable for the damages that were caused to their lawn, and they have every right to sue you for those damages.
I will pretend for the sake of argument that tow trucks don't exist, because I don't think it's that important. I will even assume for the sake of argument that you are liable for damage to the lawn. What if it takes 20 minutes to maneuver over their lawn around my car and the woman dies during childbirth? Am I guilty of manslaughter? premeditated murder? How far can you take this line of reasoning?
What's with the language fixation? If you think you can't get a native speaker to understand you then it's not their problem is it?
Why would that be true? Are we really to suppose that all native English speakers are good at comprehending English? Why would we bother having reading comprehension as a thing we learn in school? We could just prove we are native speakers.
Now you've seen the pretty picture, that's a start, the red bit is Wayland
Obviously. Do you really not understand the concept of composition? (e.g. the wayland model is composed of wayland the compositor as well as the relevant interactions with other components)
I didn't say you were a child. As one can plainly see, even adults can have trouble understanding English.
The main point of my thread was to respond to clockonthis who said "If I were AMD, I'd devote effort and resources to GCC development", and say that I think devoting effort and resources to clang/llvm would be an even better idea.
So yes, why did you take this conversation down this tedious thread?
The FSM however offers an alternative to Christianity, which is providing many of the legal benefits, but without the normal condemnation of stupid bronze age sins. If you still require a legacy religion like Christianity, all you need is one Christian priest willing to bless your gay Christian wedding, and you're good.
THAT is not "marriage" in any normal sense, but it probably is the view of marriage that some secular humanists have
Historically marriage has been about forging alliances and transferring wealth and property. Is that normal? Historically marriages have been polygamous. Is that normal?
And no that is not the view of marriage that secular humanists have. It is the view of secular humanists that marriage be treated as a contract by the government. This is specifically to avoid preferential treatment to some groups (i.e. people of certain religions or sexual preferences) by the government which is supposed to provide equal protection under the law.
If humans are just evolved animals though,
Humans are not *just* evolved animals. We are evolved animals. Just like how evolution is not *just* a theory. Evolution by natural selection is a theory.
then there's really no more reason to have the institution of marriage than there is for any other evolved creatures.
It is not the fact that humans have evolved (at all) that makes us worthy of institutions. It is the fact that we have evolved to the point (unlike any other organism currently on earth) to actually have abstract concepts like institutions.
Whales do a perfectly good job of rearing offspring and hanging out in groups without any form of marriage.
And if whales ever evolved to the point where their culture became advanced enough to create institutions like marriage, then the whales might very well benefit from those institutions.
Traditionally "marriage" presumes that humans are more than just animals, more than mere flash&blood, and in most cultures that there is a God or Gods involved in human existence (depending on the religion). As such, marriage is a binding agreement to stay together through thick and thin, in situations where normal contract law would happily support dissolution, with a reliance on, and an additional commitment to, some God/Gods. The fact that so many have in recent years succeeded in making modern marriage so cheap and easily undone that it now differs little from a secular legal commercial contract is very sad, and says more about those who have done this than about the institution itself. Now people walk out of marriages more easily than out of any other legal contract. Things like "no-fault divorce" were promoted as wonderful new "reforms" that would make people happier, but when I look around today I see very few people who are happily married after many decades where that was once the norm.
It's paragraphs like this that philosophy students use as homework problems to find logical fallacies.
I still find it quite humorous. Also the ultimate goal was never humor. Humor was merely a tool to highlight the absurdity of the pedestal religion is placed on. I think the goal of raising peoples' consciousness is quite a noble one, even if I no longer found the church of the FSM hillarious.
You're pitting the wrong parties against each other. Yes, the families of fallen servicemen get screwed. No, a million dollars is not crazy for this suit.
I don't think a million dollars is crazy in the sense that I think it is pretty likely he will get it. We live in a very litigious society.
And I do think it's important to have the tort system act as a deterrent to bad behavior. That said, I don't think $1M is a reasonable punishment for failing to scrape a logo off a truck. Having that truck end up in an Isis video is not really an outcome that a person could reasonably be expected to anticipate.
The other day I accidentally blocked someone's driveway. I inconvenienced that person. I had to pay a $60 fine. I'm ok with that. If my blocking this person's driveway caused their name to end up in an Isis video by some crazy set of circumstances, I don't think I should be fined $1M. I think a $60 fine is perfectly effective at preventing intentional driveway blockage.
There is a $400K life insurance policy that goes with that $100K.
There's plenty of precedent for paying more than $1M in cases similar this.
I'm not saying there isn't. We have a society very heavily steeped in litigation. I am speaking about what I think someone like this deserves compared to what his "damages" are and relative to the what other people are compensated for their "damages", and I subjectively feel like $1M is an utterly ridiculous amount of money.
I think people would be signing up to get death threats if they could get $1M. Which to me is an economic indication that such an award is too high.
And I am not even opposed to high amounts being awarded in lawsuits, especially when victims have large expenses like medical bills, and actual suffering they must endure.
I don't think I'd want to trade places with lots of people who win multimillion lawsuits for things like having the wrong leg amputated or something. I am not sure I'd want to trade places with this guy either, but I think a lot of people would, and I would definitely take him over lots of other people.
A. I am not convinced his life is definitely in danger. It could be, but there are people who lives are actually definitely in danger on a daily basis.
B. The families of soldiers actually killed in combat only get about half a million dollars.
I understand that soldiers volunteer to have their lives be put in harms way, but I find it very hard to believe that $1M is a fair amount of money for what I consider to be a relatively small injury compared to the sacrifice of others have had to make for much less compensation.
His business reputation (even if he wins) is now in ruins. He will have to rename the company and start build clients again from scratch, PERHAPS a few of his steady clients will understand and move to the new business, but a lot will simply pick another plumber
Or everybody will simply forget this ever happened once the next round of stories hits cable news.
I am not saying I don;t think he is harmed at all. I am saying I don;t think this is going to cost him $1M in business nor mental anguish. $1M is what it takes an average American half their working life to earn.
If given the choice, between "working for 20 years" and "get a few death threats from dumb people too lazy to do any research" to earn the same amount of money, I think a lot of people would justifiably choose the 2nd. I would also like to point out that most people who get death threats are not killed or even almost killed. It's not like the kind of danger you might be in if you were actually captured by Isis.
It's not nothing, which is why I think he deserves to be compensated. I just can't convince my conscience that he deserves twice what a war widow gets.
Slashdot Mirror
Given that those people aren't actually harmed...
Obviously...
Quit trolling?
It's not trolling. It's sarcasm. Or if you want a more formal definition, it's a "reductio ad absurdum".
Another facet this is that I don't think a person should be held responsible for the death threats that others make, regardless of the ability of law enforcement to actually catch those making the death threats.
If I call Donald Trump an asshole, and someone who hears me decides to send Donald Trump a death threat because of what I said, I shouldn't be held liable for that.
CNN is a joke. But I wouldn't say that Islamophobia is part of their propaganda machine. It's just something they do out of desperation for ratings. With Fox News, spreading fear in general and of Islam in particular is like part of their implicit mission statement.
And don't get me wrong. I am under no illusions that Islam is a misunderstood religion of peace. I think all religions suck. I just don't feel like singling out Islam and peaceful muslims as *the* boogyman is intellectually honest or helpful.
The reason that is necessary? It only takes one person with the ability to get shit somewhere to kill a person. Yes, most of the threats probably will be 'random idiots,' but the main way to tell 'random idiot' from 'murderous crazy' is somebody gets seriously hurt. This is precisely why the behavior you're talking about is against the law [criminalde...lawyer.com]--the 'intent to cause fear and terror' requirement is almost certain to be met here.
That's the "better safe than sorry", Pascal's wager type mentality that I don't agree with. You will *never* be sure that someone isn't out to get you. The standard should not be "the probability that a murderous crazy person might try to kill you is greater than 0" because that is always true for everyone. I think it makes much more sense to just analyze the risk and determine a reasonable response.
I think a reasonable response would be to hire a security guard for a few weeks until this all blows over.
Certainly the people calling in death threats should be prosecuted harshly if they can be caught.
I just don't think we should be able to sum up all this stuff into a $1 million award to the plumber and a $1 million fine to the car dealer for a relatively small fuckup that got blown out of proportion by some pretty unlikely circumstances.
Yes I limited myself to the dumb viewers of the cable news outlet that specializes in Islamophobia. I totally agree that people who watch other news outlets are dumb as well, but Fox News is the gold standard of stupidity. If stupid news viewers were baseball teams, Fox News viewers would be the Yankees.
I think you missed the part where this texan plumber's truck was featured in the Colbert Report [cc.com], a segment which was rebroadcast primetime during the emmys, therefore making the subset of people who watched the video and and connected the truck to the business into the millions.
I think you missed the the part where I specifically refer to the subset of people who are aware of this connection of the plumber to the Isis video and *don't* realize the plumber is not intentionally supporting Isis.
The article also mentions that Homeland Security and the FBI met with him and advised him to carry a gun due to the hundreds of daily calls and threats he was receiving. There is cause for him to be concerned with his safety here.
I agree there is a cause for concern for his safety. What I don't agree with is the rationale "There was cause for concern for your safety, therefore you get $1M".
How do you know the car dealer is rich and the plumber is poor? Also, try to find where I said the car dealer should get a free pass. I think the dealer should be penalized. I just don't think $1M is a reasonable penalty for a simple fuckup that lead to a ridiculous not possible to anticipate scenario.
I'll never figure out how you liberals think
Get your generalizations straight. It's the conservatives who are always whining about tort reform. Well here's your chance.
I think most people can appreciate that not all things with the same name are related. I remember the band Anthrax considered changing their name after 9/11 when all the anthrax letters were being sent to congress and news stations. They ultimately decided to keep their name, and that decision was regarded as a stand against terrorism (although it later turned out to be just a guy that worked for the US government, and unrelated to the 9/11 attacks).
Issis is still a nice name, I think she should keep it so the terrorists don't win.
There definitely was a way for atheists to get married in NZ before this. And now there is one more way they can be married, which is to be married by a person whose only qualification is a fake title from a fake religious organization.
IT was a always a bit silly that the only people who could solemnize marriages were sea captains, the county clerk, and self proclaimed leaders of "real" religions. Now it has been correctly highlighted that there are no "real" religions.
I wouldn't say that this is FSM's top priority, but I don't expect NZ pastafarians to move to Pakistan where they are really needed (and would probably be murdered)
It is also a Toyota truck. I surely will not be buying any more cars from an evil terrorist auto manufacturer that produces trucks to be used to kill American soldiers. Or maybe most people realize that Isis just ends up with a bunch of shit in a way the previous owners may not have intended.
I agree that is the best solution.
The car salesman didn't necessarily lie (i.e. intend to deceive the plumber). It could just be that they intended to remove the decals and neglected to actually do it. But all that is irrelevant. What is for certain is that the car salesman did not intend for the plumber's company's name to show up in an Isis video, nor is that an eventuality that one could reasonably expect.
f your going to assume responsibility for doing something, then you should whine about being held responsible for it.
What if some idiot does kill this plumber and his whole family in a mass shooting. Should the car salesman be tried for murder, since his actions lead to the death of a whole family of people? No, because not pealing the logos off a truck after you promised to do it (while bad) is not something that would normally lead to a mass shooting.
Changing identities? I really don't think that's necessary. There are always going to be some dumb people who do dumb things. But honestly this is such a small blip on the radar of even crazy people. They will call and make death threats, and in a couple days they will move on to the new thing. There is no reason to enter the witness protection program and say good bye to your extended family because a few idiots sent you some death threats.
That's not to say that I think no death threats are credible. There is a difference between being targeted by religious extremists or a state intelligence agency or a criminal syndicate, and some random idiots who are only targeting you because they are belligerent and stupid.
The same thing is true about assuming you will get to work without being in a fatal car accident. Life is full of risk.
The difference is you didn't tell that person you would move your car, and then not follow through.
That is not really a relevant difference. There is an implicit promise of members of society not to park in front of people's driveways, and the fine is the punishment for breaking this promise.
For example, say the owner of the driveway came out and said, hey my wife is expecting, we need you to move your car please in case her water breaks and we need to leave at a moments notice. You then say OK sure, but NEVER move your car. A day goes by, and you get a ticket. Another day goes by and you get another ticket. On the third day with your car there, her water breaks and because of your car in the driveway they have to drive around it and destroy their lawn. YOU would be liable for the damages that were caused to their lawn, and they have every right to sue you for those damages.
I will pretend for the sake of argument that tow trucks don't exist, because I don't think it's that important. I will even assume for the sake of argument that you are liable for damage to the lawn. What if it takes 20 minutes to maneuver over their lawn around my car and the woman dies during childbirth? Am I guilty of manslaughter? premeditated murder? How far can you take this line of reasoning?
What's with the language fixation? If you think you can't get a native speaker to understand you then it's not their problem is it?
Why would that be true? Are we really to suppose that all native English speakers are good at comprehending English? Why would we bother having reading comprehension as a thing we learn in school? We could just prove we are native speakers.
Now you've seen the pretty picture, that's a start, the red bit is Wayland
Obviously. Do you really not understand the concept of composition? (e.g. the wayland model is composed of wayland the compositor as well as the relevant interactions with other components)
I didn't say you were a child. As one can plainly see, even adults can have trouble understanding English.
The main point of my thread was to respond to clockonthis who said "If I were AMD, I'd devote effort and resources to GCC development", and say that I think devoting effort and resources to clang/llvm would be an even better idea.
So yes, why did you take this conversation down this tedious thread?
The FSM however offers an alternative to Christianity, which is providing many of the legal benefits, but without the normal condemnation of stupid bronze age sins. If you still require a legacy religion like Christianity, all you need is one Christian priest willing to bless your gay Christian wedding, and you're good.
It does indeed. Maybe the church of the FSM is not needed in Pennsylvania (at least when it comes to marriage solemnization).
THAT is not "marriage" in any normal sense, but it probably is the view of marriage that some secular humanists have
Historically marriage has been about forging alliances and transferring wealth and property. Is that normal? Historically marriages have been polygamous. Is that normal?
And no that is not the view of marriage that secular humanists have. It is the view of secular humanists that marriage be treated as a contract by the government. This is specifically to avoid preferential treatment to some groups (i.e. people of certain religions or sexual preferences) by the government which is supposed to provide equal protection under the law.
If humans are just evolved animals though,
Humans are not *just* evolved animals. We are evolved animals. Just like how evolution is not *just* a theory. Evolution by natural selection is a theory.
then there's really no more reason to have the institution of marriage than there is for any other evolved creatures.
It is not the fact that humans have evolved (at all) that makes us worthy of institutions. It is the fact that we have evolved to the point (unlike any other organism currently on earth) to actually have abstract concepts like institutions.
Whales do a perfectly good job of rearing offspring and hanging out in groups without any form of marriage.
And if whales ever evolved to the point where their culture became advanced enough to create institutions like marriage, then the whales might very well benefit from those institutions.
Traditionally "marriage" presumes that humans are more than just animals, more than mere flash&blood, and in most cultures that there is a God or Gods involved in human existence (depending on the religion). As such, marriage is a binding agreement to stay together through thick and thin, in situations where normal contract law would happily support dissolution, with a reliance on, and an additional commitment to, some God/Gods. The fact that so many have in recent years succeeded in making modern marriage so cheap and easily undone that it now differs little from a secular legal commercial contract is very sad, and says more about those who have done this than about the institution itself. Now people walk out of marriages more easily than out of any other legal contract. Things like "no-fault divorce" were promoted as wonderful new "reforms" that would make people happier, but when I look around today I see very few people who are happily married after many decades where that was once the norm.
It's paragraphs like this that philosophy students use as homework problems to find logical fallacies.
I still find it quite humorous. Also the ultimate goal was never humor. Humor was merely a tool to highlight the absurdity of the pedestal religion is placed on. I think the goal of raising peoples' consciousness is quite a noble one, even if I no longer found the church of the FSM hillarious.
Actually the idea was to show that religions are ridiculous *by* joining the ranks of the bullshit peddlers.
You're pitting the wrong parties against each other. Yes, the families of fallen servicemen get screwed. No, a million dollars is not crazy for this suit.
I don't think a million dollars is crazy in the sense that I think it is pretty likely he will get it. We live in a very litigious society.
And I do think it's important to have the tort system act as a deterrent to bad behavior. That said, I don't think $1M is a reasonable punishment for failing to scrape a logo off a truck. Having that truck end up in an Isis video is not really an outcome that a person could reasonably be expected to anticipate.
The other day I accidentally blocked someone's driveway. I inconvenienced that person. I had to pay a $60 fine. I'm ok with that. If my blocking this person's driveway caused their name to end up in an Isis video by some crazy set of circumstances, I don't think I should be fined $1M. I think a $60 fine is perfectly effective at preventing intentional driveway blockage.
There is a $400K life insurance policy that goes with that $100K.
There's plenty of precedent for paying more than $1M in cases similar this.
I'm not saying there isn't. We have a society very heavily steeped in litigation. I am speaking about what I think someone like this deserves compared to what his "damages" are and relative to the what other people are compensated for their "damages", and I subjectively feel like $1M is an utterly ridiculous amount of money.
I think people would be signing up to get death threats if they could get $1M. Which to me is an economic indication that such an award is too high.
And I am not even opposed to high amounts being awarded in lawsuits, especially when victims have large expenses like medical bills, and actual suffering they must endure.
I don't think I'd want to trade places with lots of people who win multimillion lawsuits for things like having the wrong leg amputated or something. I am not sure I'd want to trade places with this guy either, but I think a lot of people would, and I would definitely take him over lots of other people.
A. I am not convinced his life is definitely in danger. It could be, but there are people who lives are actually definitely in danger on a daily basis.
B. The families of soldiers actually killed in combat only get about half a million dollars.
I understand that soldiers volunteer to have their lives be put in harms way, but I find it very hard to believe that $1M is a fair amount of money for what I consider to be a relatively small injury compared to the sacrifice of others have had to make for much less compensation.
His business reputation (even if he wins) is now in ruins. He will have to rename the company and start build clients again from scratch, PERHAPS a few of his steady clients will understand and move to the new business, but a lot will simply pick another plumber
Or everybody will simply forget this ever happened once the next round of stories hits cable news.
I am not saying I don;t think he is harmed at all. I am saying I don;t think this is going to cost him $1M in business nor mental anguish. $1M is what it takes an average American half their working life to earn.
If given the choice, between "working for 20 years" and "get a few death threats from dumb people too lazy to do any research" to earn the same amount of money, I think a lot of people would justifiably choose the 2nd. I would also like to point out that most people who get death threats are not killed or even almost killed. It's not like the kind of danger you might be in if you were actually captured by Isis.
It's not nothing, which is why I think he deserves to be compensated. I just can't convince my conscience that he deserves twice what a war widow gets.