Seems reasonable to me to provide extra scrutiny and skepticism to things that would alter someone's way of life. It's like running up to someone who's child was bitten by a drunk homeless person and telling them that they need to kill their child otherwise they'll turn into a zombie. They're not going to believe they should kill something dear to them because some random person said so.
I call that misinterpretation of events. They probably didn't pick the other jurors because they were stupid. They picked them over you, because they weren't as opinionated as you were. They're trying to select jurors that would not be biased. They don't want someone who thinks they're an expert on the law. It just so happens that stupid people aren't necessarily as opinionated on a given subject.
Gambling on the safe bet is one thing. Calling the people that gambled on a less safe bet stupid, is another thing. Poor example, but gambling on Columbus' interpretation of the distance between Western Europe and East India was the unsafe bet, but it was the right thing to gamble on, even though he was still wrong.
faith - 1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
God some people have such an aversion to the word "faith" it's silly...oops shouldn't have mentioned "God"...
Seriously though, if makes you feel less queasy; let's put it this way. You accept that many languages in Europe are descended from a "proto-Indo European language" because you have confidence in the institutions that have studied such material. It's not irrational to do so. But to argue for this because said institution says so, is not a valid argument. You parent tells you to not run in the middle of the highway. You trust your parent, so you don't. But it's wrong to argue that you shouldn't run in the middle of highway because your parent said so. You don't do it because you'll get run over by vehicles.
It's like you have no clue how jury selection works; and have only seen the movie Runaway Jury. Juries can vary in size, anywhere between 6-12 plus backups totaling about 15-30. Attorneys can only challenge the selection a set number of times. Most cases this is 3. So in a majority of cases at least one juror is completely untouchable by the attorneys (if you exclude the backup set).
It's not necessarily valid. An appeal to authority can be completely wrong.
That's the first line I wrote in my comment. At least read the first line before you reply... "Not necessarily valid" is approximately equal to "not necessarily fallacious."
Also "it" means this: "Pointing at people in the best position to understand something, and saying "look at how uniform that group is about saying you're wrong" is never going to convince anyone, but is still more-or-less valid."
It's not valid to point to a group of people (who are said to be knowledgeable) and say they all agree that I'm right and you're wrong. If you're not knowledgeable about something then you shouldn't be arguing for or against it, unless you intend to use actual facts instead of saying, "so and so, says this." More importantly, you should be completely honest about the fact that your decision is faith based. This person knows more than me, so I will take it on their word that they are right. It's not wrong or irrational, necessarily. But it's not a valid argument.
...it doesn't really matter how right that scientist is, his discovery that the accepted hypothesis is wrong will be forgotten. and so consensus is very important to science
It's not necessarily valid. An appeal to authority can be completely wrong. I'll just copy past wikipedia because it hits the points.
"Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[2][3][4][5] as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts."
So just because a bunch of really smart people who have spent their adult lives studying something say that something is so, doesn't make it so. People like John Oliver, trotting out a bunch of people in lab coats saying, "look how many people say your wrong" is not an argument; funny yes, but not a valid argument.
I'm not sure I would call Skyrim (land) an oppressive patriarchy. They've had and have Queens. There are plenty of leadership roles or close to it filled by women. Marriage in Skyrim while straight forward, requires consent of both the involved people. Add on these two contributing points and I don't think you could call it an "oppressive patriarchy." First, Skyrim is based off Viking/Norse society and culture. Women in said culture were probably one of the most free and equal during the middle ages (http://sciencenordic.com/don%E2%80%99t-underestimate-viking-women). And second, same gender marriage is possible in the game.
Whore is a word which has a definition that specifically applies to women. It's not sexist and it being a pejorative has nothing to do with it. I'm sorry you can't read a dictionary properly.
You're going to have to remember which side quest, because I can't think of any in that game. Even so, it's not a game feature like in other games. Or more specifically, "the same gameplay mechanics as other objects like vending machines and hotel rooms..." If it's specifically part of a side quest and you're not actually using the NPC by the PC for prostitution, I'm not really sure it counts as to your original point. And it wasn't really used for "faux-realism" either.
You know they never specified if it was female only prostitutes or not. If it's the former, well their being kind of sexist to assume that prostitutes are only women. If it's the latter, well what's the relevance? Prostitutes are real, they are male and female. So what's sexist or more specifically misogynistic about that?
Whore is not a phrase, it's word. The looseness that you are using words is very questionable here.
According to Merriam-Webster
whore - 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman
2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
So if you assume first definition, he's using the word correctly. And there's not much to say. If you assume, which is the thrust of your argument, that he meant someone who has lots of sex, then you're improperly conflating the first and third definition. As the third one makes no distinction of gender. To assume sexism on his part is telling of yourself really. And quite ironically makes you a whore (i.e. an unscrupulous person).
Suicide bombers seems pretty adult themed, imo. And the "adult" descriptor seemed redundant or meaningless. They either meant, sexually themed or for adults. The former seems redundant, as it seems fairly normal that sexually themed anything would feature prostitutes. And the latter seems so meaningless, particularly since most of the games we're talking about don't have the "Adults Only" ESRB rating. In fact, I can't think of a popular game in recent years that had the AO rating.
None the less I'll grant I misspoke for Minecraft. But that still leaves seven games, when I was only asked to name one. Anything past the first one was just gravy.
Slashdot Mirror
Does a banana give off a days worth of radiation? I though TMI gave off about the amount of a days worth of radiation.
Well... in the past decade maybe. That said, it's hydroelectric dam; people are just being lazy.
I feel like your attitude is proving my point.
Seems reasonable to me to provide extra scrutiny and skepticism to things that would alter someone's way of life. It's like running up to someone who's child was bitten by a drunk homeless person and telling them that they need to kill their child otherwise they'll turn into a zombie. They're not going to believe they should kill something dear to them because some random person said so.
I call that misinterpretation of events. They probably didn't pick the other jurors because they were stupid. They picked them over you, because they weren't as opinionated as you were. They're trying to select jurors that would not be biased. They don't want someone who thinks they're an expert on the law. It just so happens that stupid people aren't necessarily as opinionated on a given subject.
Gambling on the safe bet is one thing. Calling the people that gambled on a less safe bet stupid, is another thing. Poor example, but gambling on Columbus' interpretation of the distance between Western Europe and East India was the unsafe bet, but it was the right thing to gamble on, even though he was still wrong.
faith - 1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
God some people have such an aversion to the word "faith" it's silly...oops shouldn't have mentioned "God"...
Seriously though, if makes you feel less queasy; let's put it this way. You accept that many languages in Europe are descended from a "proto-Indo European language" because you have confidence in the institutions that have studied such material. It's not irrational to do so. But to argue for this because said institution says so, is not a valid argument. You parent tells you to not run in the middle of the highway. You trust your parent, so you don't. But it's wrong to argue that you shouldn't run in the middle of highway because your parent said so. You don't do it because you'll get run over by vehicles.
It's like you have no clue how jury selection works; and have only seen the movie Runaway Jury. Juries can vary in size, anywhere between 6-12 plus backups totaling about 15-30. Attorneys can only challenge the selection a set number of times. Most cases this is 3. So in a majority of cases at least one juror is completely untouchable by the attorneys (if you exclude the backup set).
Silk road != Tor servers
It's not necessarily valid. An appeal to authority can be completely wrong.
That's the first line I wrote in my comment. At least read the first line before you reply... "Not necessarily valid" is approximately equal to "not necessarily fallacious."
Also "it" means this: "Pointing at people in the best position to understand something, and saying "look at how uniform that group is about saying you're wrong" is never going to convince anyone, but is still more-or-less valid."
It's not valid to point to a group of people (who are said to be knowledgeable) and say they all agree that I'm right and you're wrong. If you're not knowledgeable about something then you shouldn't be arguing for or against it, unless you intend to use actual facts instead of saying, "so and so, says this." More importantly, you should be completely honest about the fact that your decision is faith based. This person knows more than me, so I will take it on their word that they are right. It's not wrong or irrational, necessarily. But it's not a valid argument.
That's the benefit of wikipedia for research. An advanced version of cliff notes.
Can't tell if trolling...
Also, an increase in climate temperate does not mean it was caused by humans.
You could, you know, look at the sources as noted in the graphic.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-...
It's not necessarily valid. An appeal to authority can be completely wrong. I'll just copy past wikipedia because it hits the points.
"Fallacious examples of using the appeal include any appeal to authority used in the context of logical reasoning, and appealing to the position of an authority or authorities to dismiss evidence,[2][3][4][5] as, while authorities can be correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons,[citation needed] they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias, dishonesty, or falling prey to groupthink. Thus, the appeal to authority is not a generally reliable argument for establishing facts."
So just because a bunch of really smart people who have spent their adult lives studying something say that something is so, doesn't make it so. People like John Oliver, trotting out a bunch of people in lab coats saying, "look how many people say your wrong" is not an argument; funny yes, but not a valid argument.
This is a better article on women's roles in Norse society. http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
I'm not sure I would call Skyrim (land) an oppressive patriarchy. They've had and have Queens. There are plenty of leadership roles or close to it filled by women. Marriage in Skyrim while straight forward, requires consent of both the involved people. Add on these two contributing points and I don't think you could call it an "oppressive patriarchy." First, Skyrim is based off Viking/Norse society and culture. Women in said culture were probably one of the most free and equal during the middle ages (http://sciencenordic.com/don%E2%80%99t-underestimate-viking-women). And second, same gender marriage is possible in the game.
Whore is a word which has a definition that specifically applies to women. It's not sexist and it being a pejorative has nothing to do with it. I'm sorry you can't read a dictionary properly.
You're going to have to remember which side quest, because I can't think of any in that game. Even so, it's not a game feature like in other games. Or more specifically, "the same gameplay mechanics as other objects like vending machines and hotel rooms..." If it's specifically part of a side quest and you're not actually using the NPC by the PC for prostitution, I'm not really sure it counts as to your original point. And it wasn't really used for "faux-realism" either.
You know they never specified if it was female only prostitutes or not. If it's the former, well their being kind of sexist to assume that prostitutes are only women. If it's the latter, well what's the relevance? Prostitutes are real, they are male and female. So what's sexist or more specifically misogynistic about that?
Do....you...know...what...the....English...language...is...
And I specifically said you're sexist because you seem to think only women can be whores.
Who's contending the derogatory part? Derogatory != sexist.
Maliki is out last I heard.
Whore is not a phrase, it's word. The looseness that you are using words is very questionable here.
According to Merriam-Webster
whore - 1 : a woman who engages in sexual acts for money : prostitute; also : a promiscuous or immoral woman
2 : a male who engages in sexual acts for money
3 : a venal or unscrupulous person
So if you assume first definition, he's using the word correctly. And there's not much to say. If you assume, which is the thrust of your argument, that he meant someone who has lots of sex, then you're improperly conflating the first and third definition. As the third one makes no distinction of gender. To assume sexism on his part is telling of yourself really. And quite ironically makes you a whore (i.e. an unscrupulous person).
Suicide bombers seems pretty adult themed, imo. And the "adult" descriptor seemed redundant or meaningless. They either meant, sexually themed or for adults. The former seems redundant, as it seems fairly normal that sexually themed anything would feature prostitutes. And the latter seems so meaningless, particularly since most of the games we're talking about don't have the "Adults Only" ESRB rating. In fact, I can't think of a popular game in recent years that had the AO rating.
None the less I'll grant I misspoke for Minecraft. But that still leaves seven games, when I was only asked to name one. Anything past the first one was just gravy.