A good day for law-abiding Canadians who don't want to let the terrorists win by tricking them out of their civil liberties. And good news for terrorists who want to operate more effectively in Canada. Both groups win by their own measures of success.
Once your knee has finished jerking around, perhaps you should read a bit about what really happened.
There are plenty of laws on the books to combat crime. I don't believe for a moment that the police need to detain people for any significant length of time without charging them. If someone has committed (or is planning to commit) a crime, let the state press the appropriate charges and make the case for a conviction in a court of law.
Honestly, if the war on terror needs gulags and kangaroo courts, we deserve to lose because our values of peace, order and good government are less than worthless platitudes.
Thing is the ass-hat (Celine) that led the party that voted against this law was the same ass-hat that was a member of the party who created that law.
Although I am blinded by your obvious eloquence, I am not quite certain what point it is that you are trying to make.
Did anyone in parliament vote against the bill when it was first passed?
I am mindful that the law was passed in part to demonstrate to the Americans that we too were willing to violate civil liberties in the name of fighting terra.
There is a rare moment of sanity in the house of commons and you protest? Who is playing politics now?
AND keep in mind that this same ass-hat (again, Celine) who is saying the govt is not doing anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is the same ass hat who sat as environment minister in the previous government and was also part of that same government for a number of years.
Unlike say, the current PM who just a few short years ago publicly dismissed global warming as a socialist plot to transfer wealth from industrialized nations to the third world? The one who now claims that the environment is one of his governments top priorities?
"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in it. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination." - Douglas Adams
What the founders did when the signed the Declaration was Sedition and Treason. Sedition against tyrants is a responsibility
Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. At the time of the War of Independence, George Washington could legitimately be viewed as either a terrorist or a freedom fighter, depending on your perspective.
Besides, sedition and treason are still federal crimes today. Regardless of circumstance. I stand by my original assertion that there are limits on political expression.
You can, and have the right to say anything you want. However you are responsible for the results of that speech as well. This is where many fail to realize that speech has consequences, and worse, don't want to take responsibility for those consequences.
Fair enough. But can it said that you have the right to free speech if you can be thrown in jail for exercising it? Personally, I would have thought that it is not much of a right, if you can be punished for doing it.
Now, as for your "fire" example, it is a strawman attack. Yelling fire in a theater is NOT political speech,
It's not a strawman attack, and I address that issue in the next few sentences of that post. Sedition is a crime, and that certainly falls under the category of political speech.
What is worse about this law, is that it isn't what is being said but WHO is saying it. The result is even more chilling when you realize that only approved groups can say what they want, and unapproved groups cannot say anything
Dude, did you even bother to RTFA?
I don't understand why some people were so upset. Paid lobbyists who run an astroturfing campaign would have been required to publicly acknowledge that it was a work for hire and not a genuine grass-roots effort.
Either you have free speech or you don't. The US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, so this law was blatantly unconstitutional.
I'm going to out on a limb here, and speculate that you haven't RTFA, or the text of the proposed law. No worries, this is/. after all, where it is more fashionable to vent your spleen than have a rational discussion...
You have every right to do so, but you can then hardly complain when you're locked up as a result.
You appear to be suggesting that although there is a constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of speech, it is perfectly acceptable to be thrown in jail for exercising that right
Yet you also stated that either you have free speech or you don't. Personally, I don't think free speech is a binary operator, but you seem to be viewing it that way. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is: given that some forms of speech can result in incarceration, do you have freedom of speech or not?
If you knew anything about the subject, you'd be aware that the 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' nonsense was government restriction of free speech by anti-war activists.
Well, since I obviously know nothing about the subject, it's a good thing that you are here to educate me. I look forward to your lesson on contradiction next.
As a LIBERTARIAN, I find the whole Censorship by the left wing wackos and the right wing nut jobs completely distasteful. Lets just label everything "hate speech" and "lies" and create laws to protect the sensibilities of the over sensitive people
I fail to see what being a libertarian has to do with it. Free speech is not an absolute right. I'm sure you are aware that free speech cannot be used to justify screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. Nor does free speech include inciting other people to criminal acts.
There are already limits to free speech. Some might argue that my examples do not have anything to do with political free speech, and that is what the core of this particular argument is about. To that, I can only point out that sedition is a crime, so there appear to be pre-existing limits on political free speech too.
It's not a left-right issue, and there really isn't anything to be gained from trying to make it appear that way, unless you have some other axe to grind. The end result is that wealthy special interests have won out against the public good yet again. I fail to see how that benefits anyone, on the left or the right.
The reason for this incongruity is that teen pregnancy happens far more often than teen murder. In other words: Parents remember how they spent their youth and don't want their kids making stupid mistakes. They think that by being bombarded with porn they'll run out and try to 'score', ignoring the risk of tying up the next 18 years of their lives.
I wonder how the teen pregnancy rate in the US compares to that in Europe where there are more prohibitions against violence than sexuality...
the most important aspect of a science education is teaching the method through which one should derive his or her information and opinions. Because while our understanding of the world may change, the logic by which we draw those conclusions--by and large--won't. And, once you've trained yourself to rationally analyze things, you can apply that skill to any intellectual pursuit.
While that statement has an element of truthiness to it, I have to disagree.
One of the most important things I learned from the professor who taught proper research methods was the requirement that you should not stray beyond your area(s) of competence.
An incomplete or shoddy analysis of a complex problem is an incomplete or shoddy analysis of a complex problem regardless of one's level of education.
So, if given the choice, I'd be much more open to listen to what an engineer has to say about global warming than Leonardo DiCaprio.
Yet as non-experts, there is no reason to favour one over the other. Maybe Leo can act and maybe the engineer can design a safe bridge, but both are equally out of their depth when it comes to complex issues like climate change.
For their part, Leo and the engineer are certainly entitled to their own opinions on the matter, and they should feel free to express them. Hopefully they (and their listeners) are sufficiently wise to realize that opinion != knowledge.
Of course you were. You made an outrageous claim, you were asked to provide even one reputable citation to support what you said, and you did not. The onus is on the one making the claim to provide the evidence. All you did was offer a few more unsubstantiated claims and moved on.
Consider your claim refuted.
Yet again you lie, just like you lied when you claimed that personal attacks are my primary method of argumentation
I think it strange that you appear to believe that ignorance is a valid point of view. Otherwise you would do a bit of research and be able to back up what you say without resorting to personal attacks and insults.
It was fun doing a bit of troll-baiting, but I'm starting to lose interest here. You can have the last word if you want, but please - if you want to flame me again, make it an original one.
I think you could accuse me of one instance of affirming the antecedant, but I didn't continue to press issue after it was pointed out. I suspect that you will accuse me of making ad-hominem attacks against you, but I don't think that charge would hold up to any amount of scrutiny.
2) Logical fallacies are almost unavoidable
That simply isn't true. Valid arguments are easy to construct and easy to defend. The trick is to challenge the premises or the conclusions that are drawn from the premises as opposed to the person making the argument.
so I really don't see why they're such a huge fucking deal to you.
Typically they aren't, but I am willing to make an exception in your case: you have an extremely strong opinion about something you apparently do not understand, and cannot be bothered to learn more about. You defend your opinions with abusive ad-hominem attacks rather than rationally discuss the issue in greater detail. And, when all is said and done, you choose to present yourself as the oppressed victim of personal attacks when other people tire of your antics.
Yes, clearly anyone who expresses opinions that aren't mainstream is a troll. Makes perfect sense.
There you go again, putting words in my mouth again. You not a troll because of your opinions - you are a troll because personal attacks are your primary method of argumentation.
It certainly isn't, because reciting logical fallacies does not constitute "debating."
Would it be too obvious to suggest that if you did not commit multiple, repeated logical fallacies, nobody could point them out to you?
You have nothing to say about the subject itself, it seems as if you're only here to troll.
Oh the irony...
I don't exist on the Internet to amuse you, so I don't have to bother if I don't want to.
I have no idea what your ultimate purpose in the universe is, but you are doing an excellent job of amusing me so far! Who knew that feeding the trolls could be so much fun?
On the opposite end we find people like you, people who are so impressed with their own perceived intelligence and sophistication that they end up being little more than obnoxious and pretentious idiots with severe delusions of grandeur.
Let's see: one of us resorts to childish flames and insults, and one of us doesn't. I will let anyone else reading this thread decide for themselves which one of us is the obnoxious and pretentious idiot with severe delusions of grandeur.
This may come as a shock to you, but you aren't supposed to triumphantly shout "argumentum ad verecundiam!" in the middle of a debate. You're just supposed to know what logical fallacies are and how to deal with them.
Oh I see the problem now. This really isn't a debate. You offer vague unsubstantiated claims wrapped in emotional rhetoric, and when someone disagrees with you, you resort to insults and personal attacks.
That's not a debate - it does not even qualify as casual conversation.
You lame attempts to flame me do not cause any offense either. To be perfectly honest, it reflects poorly on you, rather than me. I hope that some day, you will be able to respect other's opinions, even if you do not agree with them.
This is assuming, of course, that you aren't simply trying to "impress" everyone with your encyclopedic list of logical fallacies. It's also possible that you can't really come up with any real counter-arguments or you don't actually have an opinion on the subject, so all you can do is nitpick.
Actually, it has more to do with the lack of content in your posts more than anything else.
Your arguments are internally contradictory (you completely trust the media reports you read, yet you write off the mass media as part of some vast global left-wing conspiracy) and you admit your own ignorance when you acknowledge that you never follow up on any of the sensational headlines to find out what really happened. As such, it is really difficult to take any of your opinions seriously.
When called out on any of these items, you respond with ad-homenim attacks and personal insults. You denied this charge, and I fed your own words back to you.
True to form, you respond back with more insults. Although in your defense, it would be difficult to deny the charges of empty rhetoric when the evidence is right there in black and white.
I don't think I want to lower myself to your level, although at a glance it appears that you made more than several, which is hardly suprising considering that you probably don't even possess in-depth knowledge of logical fallacies, you just consulted a list.
You could refute me, but can't be bothered?
I suppose it's easier to hurl a few more insults than engage in any kind of constructive dialogue. I can't help but think that you are in so far over your head at this point that all you have left are flames...
Does Joss Wheadon owe us anything because Firefly was canceled?
I liked the SiN franchise, and I am really sorry to see this happen. I enjoyed SiN Ep1. (even if it was a bit on the short side) and looked forward to what would be coming next. I don't want a refund, I got my $20's worth. I do think they should remove the dependency on Steam though.
Apparently you have a very short memory. Let me refresh it for you:
Seriously, why do you have a world view that can only survive through lies and delusions? Why do you need to alter reality to conform to your ideology, instead of the other way around?
This is an interesting statement: you combine an ad-hominem with poisoning the well. It is also interesting because your later posts suggest you are guilty of the same charge of viewing the world through a pre-conceived filter.
The threat of terrorism is omnipresent.
A nice example of an Argument from Adverse Consequences. Baseline statistics indicate that accidental death resulting from a terrorist attack is exceedingly improbable. One is _far_ more likely to be hit by lightening.
I'm sure it's convinient to believe in a global conspiracy controlled by the US government, that way you can instantly discredit all information that contradicts your view of the world.
Fox News is like the anti-Christ of leftists everywhere. Supposedly they fabricate news stories from thin air. Or maybe this is just another aspect of the global conspiracy of the US government
Ad hominem, plus a straw-man attack. None of the comments you replied to ever made claims that you are responding to.
But, I guess it doesn't matter since these activities favor the leftists (a world view that apparently needs to be propped up with lies and fantasies, or it falls apart).
Another ad-hominem attack, combined with poisoning the well and an appeal to emotion.
Clearly Christian acts of terrorism easily outweigh Islamic terrorism, at least in some bizarre alternate leftist universe where Christianity is a vile cult of death that's only barely restrained by secularism, and constantly on the verge of committing genocide againts unbelievers and infidels (completely unlike Islam which is a Religion of Peace).
The entire argument is of course a strawman, because the PP made no such claims. However, you choose to include a number of ad-homenim attacks within the rant along with bogus appeals to emotion.
France is probably suffering the most from Islamic terrorism right now (in the West). They're in a de facto state of civil war.
Although this statement has been thoroughly refuted it bears repeating again, as a fine example of an intentional error of fact.
Leftists and multiculturalists are fundamentally incapable of rational thinking, and when their dogmas run out of steam or someone says something that contradicts their politically correct view of the world, they go berserk.
This is perhaps your finest ad-homenim attack yet. A terrific flame!
The whole thing was meant to trigger a response from the airline, and hopefully paralyze them with fear the next time they see Muslims acting suspiciously.
And you would know this how? A false appeal to your own authority.
So tell me, where do you multicultists and leftists get your news from?
The usual ad-homenim attack, but it's turning into argument by repetition. I hope you come up with some new insults soon.
They're not predetermined. In fact, it's your beliefs that are predetermined
Translation: Nyah! Nyah! I know you are, but what am I? A very childish argument...
why would I provide a citation when any citation of any type is always, without failure, dismissed as extremist right wing propaganda
Umm, because if you could provide any proof for your claims, people would either have to accept them, or try to refute them? Major claims require major proof, and you haven't provided any proof at all.
So saying something that contradicts your opinions or world view makes me childish? You must not have many adult friends.
Whatever opinion you have of me is really no concern of mine.
By all means feel free to disagree, I have no problem with that either. I do object to the childish rants that you try to pass off as valid argumentation.
You are the one who has responded poorly when someone contradicts your stated opinions, and it reflects poorly on you - hence the troll label.
If you cannot handle disagreement without resorting to name-calling or insults, I have to wonder why you object to being called out as a troll.
It comes as no suprise that you respond with a kneejerk ad hominem, and call me a troll. It always happens sooner or later.
If you want to be treated like an adult, you actually have to behave like an adult.
But while I am waiting for that to happen, I don't mind feeding the trolls.
Leftists and multiculturalists are fundamentally incapable of rational thinking, and when their dogmas run out of steam or someone says something that contradicts their politically correct view of the world, they go berserk.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
How ironic that you that write something like that in the same post you deny being a troll. LOL!
I never see if there are followups to the stories, so I don't know. However, they're always along the lines of "Muslim man caught with C-4 in his home and a map of the subway system."
Well, I respect that you are honest about your ignorance. As far as I know, the only people who have been convicted of terror-related activities in the US in the past decade were the white Christians who destroyed that government building in Oklahoma.
Despite what GWB wants, the justice system functions on the principles of due process and presumed innocence. As there haven't been any convictions for terror-related activities, maybe the rational thing to conclude is that terrorism isn't that much of a threat?
Yeah, because Fox is part of the global US government conspiracy that controls all the media in the universe. Common knowledge.
Fox is tabloid journalism and should be treated as such. They are fine if you see them for what they are, or if you are only interested in truthiness - but if you want news, look somewhere else.
The threat of terrorism is omnipresent. Potential terrorist plots are reported constantly, in the US and elsewhere. Some of them may be false alarms, while other are slightly more suspicious.
Potential plots are just that, potential plots. Tell me, how many people have been charged with crimes based on these potential plots? How many people have been convicted? Any?
You reference to Fox makes me suspect that I have been trolled, but I know there are lots of people out there who share that world view. More is the pity...
And when plain old boring police work fails, you're up in arms over incompetence.
What guarantee do I have that I won't be run over by a bus tonight on the way home from work tonight, regardless of the precautions I take? Even if I refuse to step outside, a bus could veer out of control into the lobby where I was standing.
There are no guarantees for anything. I would argue that plain old boring police work has a better probability of success at preventing future terrorist attacks than arbitrary rules based on Hollywood B-movie plots.
Of course, if we override human nature and look at baseline statistics, we find that way more people are killed every year by drunk drivers than terrorists. From this I can extrapolate that the economic and human toll of drunk driving is greater than that of terrorism.
I would wager that although we spend exponentially more on the spectacle that is the war on terror than we do on reducing impaired driving, we get more bang for the buck from impaired driver programs.
You are also assuming that they weren't on the verge of attacking. They were.
Bullshit. None of the people arrested had purchased plane tickets. Most of them did not even have passports. I am sure you would agree that these are minimum requirements for air travel these days.
Furthermore, anyone with any sort of background in chemistry has debunked the fact that it would be possible to bring the chemicals on-board and brew up the explosive we are told these guys wanted to create.
I bet you believe we were under imminent threat of attack from Iraq too...
This was a non-story and I am amazed that the sham has held so long. I'd make a point of arguing the banality of it when passing through an airport, but it's just not worth the cavity search. I guess I should just be a nice, compliant citizen and be afraid and keep my mouth shut.
I agree with everything you said, but there is something I would like to add: what the authorities did wasn't even sound police work. It was a lame attempt for some good PR to justify the cost and inconvenience of all these policies designed to make us feel safe, even if they don't actually work.
Let us assume for the moment that there really was a plot. Instead of a photo-op and a few headlines, the smart thing to do would have been to continue efforts to infiltrate the group, gather more evidence and when there is a case, quietly arrest the suspects and let the justice system do it's job. Of course, I am making the huge assumption that the people in charge of the investigation were not subject to political interference at home, or abroad.
Unfortunately, the people who make homeland security policies seem to make decisions based on theater rather than plain-old boring police work. One gets you headlines, and the other gets you results. What a shame that massaging their own egos is priority #1.
And yet.... over the long term, corporations have had to pay people more and more and more money. What does that say about your race to the bottom? Pretty much refuted by the facts.
In the long run, we are all dead, there are no guarantees beyond that.
I don't believe that you have refuted anything, but let us assume for the moment that you have: I want to help people who are oppressed and exploited now, and the best you can offer is to tell them that in two or three hundred years, things will probably be better, ceteris paribus?
That's pretty callous.
You don't help the poor by looking at their list of options and eliminating the one they actually chose.
Like it is a freely made choice! Starvation versus exploitation is no choice at all...
Slashdot Mirror
Once your knee has finished jerking around, perhaps you should read a bit about what really happened.
There are plenty of laws on the books to combat crime. I don't believe for a moment that the police need to detain people for any significant length of time without charging them. If someone has committed (or is planning to commit) a crime, let the state press the appropriate charges and make the case for a conviction in a court of law.
Honestly, if the war on terror needs gulags and kangaroo courts, we deserve to lose because our values of peace, order and good government are less than worthless platitudes.
Although I am blinded by your obvious eloquence, I am not quite certain what point it is that you are trying to make.
Did anyone in parliament vote against the bill when it was first passed?
I am mindful that the law was passed in part to demonstrate to the Americans that we too were willing to violate civil liberties in the name of fighting terra.
There is a rare moment of sanity in the house of commons and you protest? Who is playing politics now?
Unlike say, the current PM who just a few short years ago publicly dismissed global warming as a socialist plot to transfer wealth from industrialized nations to the third world? The one who now claims that the environment is one of his governments top priorities?
Pot, kettle, black.
"It is known that there are an infinite number of worlds, simply because there is an infinite amount of space for them to be in it. However, not every one of them is inhabited. Therefore, there must be a finite number of inhabited worlds. Any finite number divided by infinity is as near to nothing as makes no odds, so the average population of all the planets in the Universe can be said to be zero. From this it follows that the population of the whole Universe is also zero, and that any people you may meet from time to time are merely the products of a deranged imagination." - Douglas Adams
Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view. At the time of the War of Independence, George Washington could legitimately be viewed as either a terrorist or a freedom fighter, depending on your perspective.
Besides, sedition and treason are still federal crimes today. Regardless of circumstance. I stand by my original assertion that there are limits on political expression.
Fair enough. But can it said that you have the right to free speech if you can be thrown in jail for exercising it? Personally, I would have thought that it is not much of a right, if you can be punished for doing it.
It's not a strawman attack, and I address that issue in the next few sentences of that post. Sedition is a crime, and that certainly falls under the category of political speech.
Dude, did you even bother to RTFA?
I don't understand why some people were so upset. Paid lobbyists who run an astroturfing campaign would have been required to publicly acknowledge that it was a work for hire and not a genuine grass-roots effort.
Honestly, what's the big deal?
I'm going to out on a limb here, and speculate that you haven't RTFA, or the text of the proposed law. No worries, this is /. after all, where it is more fashionable to vent your spleen than have a rational discussion...
You appear to be suggesting that although there is a constitutionally enshrined right to freedom of speech, it is perfectly acceptable to be thrown in jail for exercising that right
Yet you also stated that either you have free speech or you don't. Personally, I don't think free speech is a binary operator, but you seem to be viewing it that way. Assuming for the sake of argument that it is: given that some forms of speech can result in incarceration, do you have freedom of speech or not?
Well, since I obviously know nothing about the subject, it's a good thing that you are here to educate me. I look forward to your lesson on contradiction next.
I fail to see what being a libertarian has to do with it. Free speech is not an absolute right. I'm sure you are aware that free speech cannot be used to justify screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire. Nor does free speech include inciting other people to criminal acts.
There are already limits to free speech. Some might argue that my examples do not have anything to do with political free speech, and that is what the core of this particular argument is about. To that, I can only point out that sedition is a crime, so there appear to be pre-existing limits on political free speech too.
It's not a left-right issue, and there really isn't anything to be gained from trying to make it appear that way, unless you have some other axe to grind. The end result is that wealthy special interests have won out against the public good yet again. I fail to see how that benefits anyone, on the left or the right.
I wonder how the teen pregnancy rate in the US compares to that in Europe where there are more prohibitions against violence than sexuality...
While that statement has an element of truthiness to it, I have to disagree.
One of the most important things I learned from the professor who taught proper research methods was the requirement that you should not stray beyond your area(s) of competence.
An incomplete or shoddy analysis of a complex problem is an incomplete or shoddy analysis of a complex problem regardless of one's level of education.
Yet as non-experts, there is no reason to favour one over the other. Maybe Leo can act and maybe the engineer can design a safe bridge, but both are equally out of their depth when it comes to complex issues like climate change.
For their part, Leo and the engineer are certainly entitled to their own opinions on the matter, and they should feel free to express them. Hopefully they (and their listeners) are sufficiently wise to realize that opinion != knowledge.
Of course you were. You made an outrageous claim, you were asked to provide even one reputable citation to support what you said, and you did not. The onus is on the one making the claim to provide the evidence. All you did was offer a few more unsubstantiated claims and moved on.
Consider your claim refuted.
Consider your claim refuted again.
I think it strange that you appear to believe that ignorance is a valid point of view. Otherwise you would do a bit of research and be able to back up what you say without resorting to personal attacks and insults.
It was fun doing a bit of troll-baiting, but I'm starting to lose interest here. You can have the last word if you want, but please - if you want to flame me again, make it an original one.
Yet you freely admitted that you never follow up on the more sensational stories to find out what really happened...
It certainly is. You committed that one when you claimed that there was a de-facto civil war going on in France, and were thoroughly refuted.
I think you could accuse me of one instance of affirming the antecedant, but I didn't continue to press issue after it was pointed out. I suspect that you will accuse me of making ad-hominem attacks against you, but I don't think that charge would hold up to any amount of scrutiny.
That simply isn't true. Valid arguments are easy to construct and easy to defend. The trick is to challenge the premises or the conclusions that are drawn from the premises as opposed to the person making the argument.
Typically they aren't, but I am willing to make an exception in your case: you have an extremely strong opinion about something you apparently do not understand, and cannot be bothered to learn more about. You defend your opinions with abusive ad-hominem attacks rather than rationally discuss the issue in greater detail. And, when all is said and done, you choose to present yourself as the oppressed victim of personal attacks when other people tire of your antics.
There you go again, putting words in my mouth again. You not a troll because of your opinions - you are a troll because personal attacks are your primary method of argumentation.
Would it be too obvious to suggest that if you did not commit multiple, repeated logical fallacies, nobody could point them out to you?
Oh the irony...
I have no idea what your ultimate purpose in the universe is, but you are doing an excellent job of amusing me so far! Who knew that feeding the trolls could be so much fun?
Let's see: one of us resorts to childish flames and insults, and one of us doesn't. I will let anyone else reading this thread decide for themselves which one of us is the obnoxious and pretentious idiot with severe delusions of grandeur.
Oh I see the problem now. This really isn't a debate. You offer vague unsubstantiated claims wrapped in emotional rhetoric, and when someone disagrees with you, you resort to insults and personal attacks.
That's not a debate - it does not even qualify as casual conversation.
You lame attempts to flame me do not cause any offense either. To be perfectly honest, it reflects poorly on you, rather than me. I hope that some day, you will be able to respect other's opinions, even if you do not agree with them.
Actually, it has more to do with the lack of content in your posts more than anything else.
Your arguments are internally contradictory (you completely trust the media reports you read, yet you write off the mass media as part of some vast global left-wing conspiracy) and you admit your own ignorance when you acknowledge that you never follow up on any of the sensational headlines to find out what really happened. As such, it is really difficult to take any of your opinions seriously.
When called out on any of these items, you respond with ad-homenim attacks and personal insults. You denied this charge, and I fed your own words back to you.
True to form, you respond back with more insults. Although in your defense, it would be difficult to deny the charges of empty rhetoric when the evidence is right there in black and white.
You could refute me, but can't be bothered?
I suppose it's easier to hurl a few more insults than engage in any kind of constructive dialogue. I can't help but think that you are in so far over your head at this point that all you have left are flames...
Why do you think you are owed a refund?
Does Joss Wheadon owe us anything because Firefly was canceled?
I liked the SiN franchise, and I am really sorry to see this happen. I enjoyed SiN Ep1. (even if it was a bit on the short side) and looked forward to what would be coming next. I don't want a refund, I got my $20's worth. I do think they should remove the dependency on Steam though.
Apparently you have a very short memory. Let me refresh it for you:
This is an interesting statement: you combine an ad-hominem with poisoning the well. It is also interesting because your later posts suggest you are guilty of the same charge of viewing the world through a pre-conceived filter.
A nice example of an Argument from Adverse Consequences. Baseline statistics indicate that accidental death resulting from a terrorist attack is exceedingly improbable. One is _far_ more likely to be hit by lightening.
Ad hominem, plus a straw-man attack. None of the comments you replied to ever made claims that you are responding to.
Another ad-hominem attack, combined with poisoning the well and an appeal to emotion.
The entire argument is of course a strawman, because the PP made no such claims. However, you choose to include a number of ad-homenim attacks within the rant along with bogus appeals to emotion.
Although this statement has been thoroughly refuted it bears repeating again, as a fine example of an intentional error of fact.
This is perhaps your finest ad-homenim attack yet. A terrific flame!
And you would know this how? A false appeal to your own authority.
The usual ad-homenim attack, but it's turning into argument by repetition. I hope you come up with some new insults soon.
Translation: Nyah! Nyah! I know you are, but what am I? A very childish argument...
Umm, because if you could provide any proof for your claims, people would either have to accept them, or try to refute them? Major claims require major proof, and you haven't provided any proof at all.
Pot. Kettle. Black
Whatever opinion you have of me is really no concern of mine.
By all means feel free to disagree, I have no problem with that either. I do object to the childish rants that you try to pass off as valid argumentation.
You are the one who has responded poorly when someone contradicts your stated opinions, and it reflects poorly on you - hence the troll label.
If you cannot handle disagreement without resorting to name-calling or insults, I have to wonder why you object to being called out as a troll.
If you want to be treated like an adult, you actually have to behave like an adult.
But while I am waiting for that to happen, I don't mind feeding the trolls.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
How ironic that you that write something like that in the same post you deny being a troll. LOL!
With your apparent world view, I can imagine how the principle of presumed innocence would be a weakness and not a strength.
Oh - you really ARE a troll. I suspected as much. Go away little boy and play with your toys. Leave the serious issues for the adults to discuss.
Well, I respect that you are honest about your ignorance. As far as I know, the only people who have been convicted of terror-related activities in the US in the past decade were the white Christians who destroyed that government building in Oklahoma.
Despite what GWB wants, the justice system functions on the principles of due process and presumed innocence. As there haven't been any convictions for terror-related activities, maybe the rational thing to conclude is that terrorism isn't that much of a threat?
Fox is tabloid journalism and should be treated as such. They are fine if you see them for what they are, or if you are only interested in truthiness - but if you want news, look somewhere else.
Potential plots are just that, potential plots. Tell me, how many people have been charged with crimes based on these potential plots? How many people have been convicted? Any?
You reference to Fox makes me suspect that I have been trolled, but I know there are lots of people out there who share that world view. More is the pity...
What guarantee do I have that I won't be run over by a bus tonight on the way home from work tonight, regardless of the precautions I take? Even if I refuse to step outside, a bus could veer out of control into the lobby where I was standing.
There are no guarantees for anything. I would argue that plain old boring police work has a better probability of success at preventing future terrorist attacks than arbitrary rules based on Hollywood B-movie plots.
Of course, if we override human nature and look at baseline statistics, we find that way more people are killed every year by drunk drivers than terrorists. From this I can extrapolate that the economic and human toll of drunk driving is greater than that of terrorism.
I would wager that although we spend exponentially more on the spectacle that is the war on terror than we do on reducing impaired driving, we get more bang for the buck from impaired driver programs.
Bullshit. None of the people arrested had purchased plane tickets. Most of them did not even have passports. I am sure you would agree that these are minimum requirements for air travel these days.
Furthermore, anyone with any sort of background in chemistry has debunked the fact that it would be possible to bring the chemicals on-board and brew up the explosive we are told these guys wanted to create.
I bet you believe we were under imminent threat of attack from Iraq too...
I agree with everything you said, but there is something I would like to add: what the authorities did wasn't even sound police work. It was a lame attempt for some good PR to justify the cost and inconvenience of all these policies designed to make us feel safe, even if they don't actually work.
Let us assume for the moment that there really was a plot. Instead of a photo-op and a few headlines, the smart thing to do would have been to continue efforts to infiltrate the group, gather more evidence and when there is a case, quietly arrest the suspects and let the justice system do it's job. Of course, I am making the huge assumption that the people in charge of the investigation were not subject to political interference at home, or abroad.
Unfortunately, the people who make homeland security policies seem to make decisions based on theater rather than plain-old boring police work. One gets you headlines, and the other gets you results. What a shame that massaging their own egos is priority #1.
In the long run, we are all dead, there are no guarantees beyond that.
I don't believe that you have refuted anything, but let us assume for the moment that you have: I want to help people who are oppressed and exploited now, and the best you can offer is to tell them that in two or three hundred years, things will probably be better, ceteris paribus?
That's pretty callous.
Like it is a freely made choice! Starvation versus exploitation is no choice at all...
Did you ever hear of something called empathy?