It's a stupid argument if you're trying to convince Fundamentalists that they are hypocrites for hating gay people while eating shellfish. For one thing, fundamentalists (or their equivalents in any creed) are fundamentally (no pun intended) incapable of using self-reflection to identify hypocrisy instead of to rationalize it away.
More importantly, though, is the fact that the New Testament explicitly overturns kosher dietary prohibitions (at least for Gentile Christians if not for Jewish Christians too). See Acts 10:9-15 and see Matthew 15:1-20 (verse 11 in particular).
There are plenty of other things that people regularly break in Leviticus that a campaign could've been based on, but the whole "God hates shrimp" campaign just earns the scorn of fundies over their gross ignorance of the Bible.
Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible. So yes, even humans can be killed.
While there's no question that God asked the Israelites to kill in His name repeatedly in the Old Testament and to punish certain crimes with death, it's an open question whether or not Jesus tightened the prohibition against killing with his commandments to "turn the other cheek" when one is wronged and to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when it comes to punishment of crimes.
It is quite reasonably arguable that even killing in self-defense is no longer allowed given the New Testaments focus on forgiveness and self-sacrifice, though few religious scholars would go that far. Gandhi, who was not a Christian, was one of the very few who did argue this -- even going so far as to say that England should not try to defend itself against the Nazis.
It's doubtful, though, that Christianity could've survived to be what it has become today if Constantine hadn't co-opted it into a warrior's creed.
I know that generally one shouldn't respond to hate speech, but I find myself unable to control my curiosity at your reaction. Why is what he said so objectionable to you?
Another important question is, "When is this expected to happen?" In our lifetime? In the lifetime of our species? In the lifetime of our sun? Before the expected "heat death" of the universe?
Sounds like the UK needs a modern day Guy Fawkes. Only the modern one needs to succeed in blowing up Parliament.
Fantasies of "V for Vendetta" aside, you do realize that the bombing of Parliament would be the quickest and surest way to encourage the formation of a dictatorship in the UK? If you fear that people in charge want to take away the people's freedoms, the last thing you want to do is to give them some reason to fear that they are under attack, as Goebbels would suggest. Look at what 9-11 did to the US and the Reichstag fire did to Germany.
(On the other hand, maybe they'd get lucky and get that Spain got after the Madrid bombings. I wouldn't put too much stock into that, though.)
Are you confusing police states with dictatorships?
OP's paranoia about Brown not holding elections this year aside, the UK is still a democracy. However, it's still a police state -- a democratic police state in which the will/fears of the majority run roughshod over civil rights of those on the outskirts of society.
The UK is in many ways what I fear the US becoming -- a country governed by fear of insecurity and a more orderly form of mob rule. It's far more likely than us directly becoming a dictatorship since we very much demand an orderly change of power on a regular schedule.
Actually, that's fair enough. For example, allowing blanket freedom of speech without any responsibility for the consequences is naive. I would agree in principle, but I am strongly in favor of the idea that exceptions to freedom of speech should clearly delineated and strongly limited. It would be okay if it excluded slander, causing a riot, etc. and even maybe things like pornography, but this statue's exceptions are waaaay too broad.
I mean just the portion stating "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals" could cover literally ANYTHING. Anything at all!
Speaking out against a politician or policy might be covered under "national security" or "prevention of disorder or crime" or even "the protection of health and morals." This clause basically eviscerates any pretension of free speech rights. If the government does like it, it can accuse you of disturbing public order, threatening national security or territorial integrity, or even advocating an immoral position. I can only imagine what would've happened to the American Civil Rights movement had our government had this huge of a loophole to go right through!
Smart people would've adjusted the vents throughout the house to control the air-flow better. (My room was closest to the AC unit, so I'm familiar with the problem.)
Forget waterboarding and all those other physically traumatic methods of torture. They ought to be all over this stuff looking for ways to convince their secret prisoners that their god is speaking to them directly, ordering them to give up their secrets to the interrogators. How would you make the victim believe that God is on the side of the people telling them from the outside to give in vs. his own internal struggle to preserve his integrity? I'm pretty sure that you can't and that you'd just strengthen their own internal monologue against your wishes. All this would do is fire up their willingness to sacrifice themselves for God since they know that God is with them. Experience of the divine is far too personal, internal, and reflective of a feeling for it to be abused easily by people from the outside (unless you have the victim's trust which interrogators would never have).
No, if you were truly wanting to abuse this for evil, you'd look for the opposite sensation -- the feeling that God has abandoned you -- and you'd artificially stimulate THAT. Use the technology to *prevent* any feelings of connection with God. That would make a deeply religious man crack much more effectively since you don't have to bother with getting them to think that what you want is the same as what God wants.
(Geez, I feel like the lowest form of human scum for even *thinking* of this.)
Or, more generally, the successful creation of an effect neither proves nor disproves the existance of other possible causes for the effect.
No, but it does prove that the effect can happen in absence of the most commonly believe cause.
Thus, it provides people who believe in the religious axiom that God does not exist to explain away one of the remaining pieces of personal evidence in one's belief in God and provides another avenue of attack for undermining the beliefs of people who claim to have experienced God. You'll see a lot of people in this discussion openly admitting that it's more proof of what they "already knew" because that's what it represents to them.
Most religious people instead will just shrug and say that now we know how God reaches us. Each side is perfectly capable of spinning the finding to fit their assumptions, and only a few people will be swayed either way by it. Matters of faith always turn out this way.
Wow. You and Ron Paul are a perfect match. The way you selectively read his letter and picked out the two parts most favorable while ignoring the rest shows that you've got the perfect conspiracy mindset.
- What about his claim of "elites" trying to put together a North American Union like the EU that will dissolve US sovereignty? - What about his claims of "forced mental screening" for school children?
The whole "American way of life is under attack" saw can be used for ANY change in America. It was used against desegregation, it was used during the Red Scare, it is used in anti-immigration rallies, and it is used now on both sides of the War on Terror debate. It doesn't mean anything except, "Please be very afraid of the other side because they don't respect our values."
You choose to use the NSA wiretapping scheme as an example of our values under attack, but don't forget that Ron Paul caucuses with the very party that brought us this attack to our values, as well as the Patriot Act and the national ID card.
Furthermore, he takes the crank approach of viewing UN treaties as "UN control" of the issues they are over. The UN doesn't pass laws -- it provides a staging ground for countries to come up with treaties that they choose to sign onto or not -- like Kyoto. People who think that the UN is some Illuminati-like institution out to take away your rights and dissolve your government are lunatics.
Let's not forget that his entire letter starts off with an accusation that the "elites and political power-brokers" would do "anything" to prevent him from winning. That's classic conspiracy theory paranoia right there, and it's an appeal to those who think the world is run by shady power-brokers who are unanswerable to the people. Ron Paul's letter is an appeal to people who don't think the system works at all to make a futile gesture against "the Man."
If you still like him after reading that letter, then that's fine with me, but don't go around thinking that your conspiracy goggles are showing you the "truth" that everyone else is "just too blind to see."
As for my original comments, you can twist my obvious meanings to your heart's content, and convince yourself that you are correct, but you are wasting your time trying to convince me.
Correct. It is a waste of time trying to convince you. You've drank the Kool-Aid, and you don't have the capacity for self-reflection to go back and reread your words as they were written. This post is more for the sane people who might be reading this discussion.
See ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3(a)(2). Rule 3.3(a)(3) prohibits offering "false evidence." Not quite on point, because legal authority is not "evidence". Excellent. This is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks.
I spent about an hour searching for rules on this in various places, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and I couldn't find anything about this.
Obviously, it's grounds for an appeal (the change in law if not the concealment), but are there any grounds to sanction based on them not having done this?
Ya have to remember that many of the goodies to copyright holders were handed out by the previous Democrat administration. In better times, Republicans would take a more libertarian stance. Unfortunately, current Republicans have become reflexively "pro-business" instead of favoring free markets. However, if you expect any change when Hollywood's preferred party comes to power.... forget it. A) It's "Democratic," not "Democrat" when used as an adjective.
B) There hasn't been a Republican politician of significant note that favored the free market over big business when the two were put into conflict since Teddy Roosevelt. Don't buy the rhetoric, look at the results. If you don't feel that that's true, feel free to provide a counter-example.
Hollywood, the recording industry, and the IT industry have been very savvy to lines the pockets of politicians of both parties, though, so you are right one your main point. That is, much of the current madness of copyright has been the fault of Democratic politicians. Even so, do not expect the Republicans to ever come to our aid on an issue of consumers vs. one of America's best export industries.
We have no allies in Washington over this issue. None.
If you had been logged in, I would have marked you as a friend immediately upon seeing this post. People really have no idea what the consequences of a debt this size really are for the average American.
Since my comments were specifically aimed at people who were NOT familiar with Ron Paul, your comment was out of context. Not really. Your statement, as read: 1) Instructs people to make themselves familiar with Ron Paul. 2) Instructs people who do not think honesty is important to vote for anyone else.
You should probably reread your comments. They make no distinction that they only apply to people who aren't familiar with Ron Paul, and any such distinction is negated by the fact that you are instructing any and all people who "don't believe in honesty" to vote for "any other candidate" after they make themselves familiar with Ron Paul.
Personally, I suggest reading one of his fundraising letters yourself before making that sort of instruction. Honesty is extremely important, but I think sanity is even more so. Ron Paul's got crazy conspiracy theorist written all over him.
Hell, Al Sharpton & Dennis Kucinich are pretty honest about their position on most matters, and I don't see you advocating for them.
Well it must not do that because long story short, a similar thing happened to me and I had to take pills full of "hibernating" bacteria to replace them because they weren't coming back.
Were you by any chance on any form of powerful antibiotics? The use of probiotics in medicine is usually for people who have been on antibiotics powerful enough to kill everything in the body like vancomycin or ciprofloxacin, including the bacteria that are supposed to help you out.
I remember learning in school that it used to be used to handle indigestible things like tree bark and whatever else dumb cavemen ate lol.
Actually, the most commonly disseminated use of the appendix is in other animals that eat a lot of cellulose like rabbits to serve a reservoir for cellulose-digesting bacteria. There has never been a belief that it has ever served this purpose for hominids, though this article suggests that it acts as bacterial reservoir for other purposes.
That's what they said about cold-rolled steel two hundred years ago. Everyone had to settle for wood and stone. Really? They made computer cases out of wood and stone 200 years ago?
Honestly. I've seen this at least three times in my life -- once at college and once each at two different places that I've worked, both places filled with engineers and programmers (often the source of the idiotic "stop replying" messages).
It always starts with some idiot replying to everyone to ask not to be "unsubscribed," and then it goes berserk from there in *exactly* the pattern that the parent post describes.
What makes DHS so special that it wouldn't have managers, accountants, and other non-technical paper pushers to get the whole thing going? *pfft* "Jack Bauer," indeed.
Generally speaking, state & local trial court verdicts are not considered binding in any jurisdiction -- only appeals court verdicts. Most states don't even publish lower court opinions -- NY, OH, & CT are the exceptions AFAIK, and they only publish a handful of lower court opinions issued each year.
Precedent will not be set until this goes to an appeals court. They may well try it, but the evidence doesn't look so good. Their only solid grounds for appeal in my opinion is over whether or not the replacement of the hard drive counts as an attempt to misplace evidence.
No, the case looks solid based on the (admittedly one-sided) write up, and it looks like the defendant doesn't have enough money to appeal.
1. Juries generally take the damages amount suggested by the plaintiff in a civil trial. Most people have no idea how much a random tort is really worth and just take their word for it.
2. Juries in America are specifically picked to exclude anyone in the slightest bit knowledgeable about the activity in question (to avoid both bias and to avoid questioning the testimony of expert witnesses due to -- right or wrong -- assumption about the dispute in question), and they are picked to avoid people who have done similar crimes in the past (again for bias reasons).
Pretty much the only people in America who haven't downloaded a song illegally are people who thing it's inherently immoral or unethical. These people would not be sympathetic to the defendant.
Anyone who uses TOR for file sharing is either maliciously or negligently engaged in the destruction of the network. TOR cannot handle file-sharing loads. The most that TOR can handle is control communications (like tracker communications in BitTorrent). If you actually start passing data transmissions through it, you'll kill its usability.
You're better off using a P2P program that's designed to hide your activity than slapping TOR over one that isn't designed for it.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a stupid argument if you're trying to convince Fundamentalists that they are hypocrites for hating gay people while eating shellfish. For one thing, fundamentalists (or their equivalents in any creed) are fundamentally (no pun intended) incapable of using self-reflection to identify hypocrisy instead of to rationalize it away.
More importantly, though, is the fact that the New Testament explicitly overturns kosher dietary prohibitions (at least for Gentile Christians if not for Jewish Christians too). See Acts 10:9-15 and see Matthew 15:1-20 (verse 11 in particular).
There are plenty of other things that people regularly break in Leviticus that a campaign could've been based on, but the whole "God hates shrimp" campaign just earns the scorn of fundies over their gross ignorance of the Bible.
Modern Christians say its actually thou shalt not murder with legally sanction killing being permissible. So yes, even humans can be killed.
While there's no question that God asked the Israelites to kill in His name repeatedly in the Old Testament and to punish certain crimes with death, it's an open question whether or not Jesus tightened the prohibition against killing with his commandments to "turn the other cheek" when one is wronged and to "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" when it comes to punishment of crimes.
It is quite reasonably arguable that even killing in self-defense is no longer allowed given the New Testaments focus on forgiveness and self-sacrifice, though few religious scholars would go that far. Gandhi, who was not a Christian, was one of the very few who did argue this -- even going so far as to say that England should not try to defend itself against the Nazis.
It's doubtful, though, that Christianity could've survived to be what it has become today if Constantine hadn't co-opted it into a warrior's creed.
I know that generally one shouldn't respond to hate speech, but I find myself unable to control my curiosity at your reaction. Why is what he said so objectionable to you?
Another important question is, "When is this expected to happen?"
In our lifetime?
In the lifetime of our species?
In the lifetime of our sun?
Before the expected "heat death" of the universe?
Sounds like the UK needs a modern day Guy Fawkes. Only the modern one needs to succeed in blowing up Parliament.
Fantasies of "V for Vendetta" aside, you do realize that the bombing of Parliament would be the quickest and surest way to encourage the formation of a dictatorship in the UK? If you fear that people in charge want to take away the people's freedoms, the last thing you want to do is to give them some reason to fear that they are under attack, as Goebbels would suggest. Look at what 9-11 did to the US and the Reichstag fire did to Germany.
(On the other hand, maybe they'd get lucky and get that Spain got after the Madrid bombings. I wouldn't put too much stock into that, though.)
Are you confusing police states with dictatorships?
OP's paranoia about Brown not holding elections this year aside, the UK is still a democracy. However, it's still a police state -- a democratic police state in which the will/fears of the majority run roughshod over civil rights of those on the outskirts of society.
The UK is in many ways what I fear the US becoming -- a country governed by fear of insecurity and a more orderly form of mob rule. It's far more likely than us directly becoming a dictatorship since we very much demand an orderly change of power on a regular schedule.
I mean just the portion stating "in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals" could cover literally ANYTHING. Anything at all!
Speaking out against a politician or policy might be covered under "national security" or "prevention of disorder or crime" or even "the protection of health and morals." This clause basically eviscerates any pretension of free speech rights. If the government does like it, it can accuse you of disturbing public order, threatening national security or territorial integrity, or even advocating an immoral position. I can only imagine what would've happened to the American Civil Rights movement had our government had this huge of a loophole to go right through!
Smart people would've adjusted the vents throughout the house to control the air-flow better. (My room was closest to the AC unit, so I'm familiar with the problem.)
No, if you were truly wanting to abuse this for evil, you'd look for the opposite sensation -- the feeling that God has abandoned you -- and you'd artificially stimulate THAT. Use the technology to *prevent* any feelings of connection with God. That would make a deeply religious man crack much more effectively since you don't have to bother with getting them to think that what you want is the same as what God wants.
(Geez, I feel like the lowest form of human scum for even *thinking* of this.)
Or, more generally, the successful creation of an effect neither proves nor disproves the existance of other possible causes for the effect.
No, but it does prove that the effect can happen in absence of the most commonly believe cause.
Thus, it provides people who believe in the religious axiom that God does not exist to explain away one of the remaining pieces of personal evidence in one's belief in God and provides another avenue of attack for undermining the beliefs of people who claim to have experienced God. You'll see a lot of people in this discussion openly admitting that it's more proof of what they "already knew" because that's what it represents to them.
Most religious people instead will just shrug and say that now we know how God reaches us. Each side is perfectly capable of spinning the finding to fit their assumptions, and only a few people will be swayed either way by it. Matters of faith always turn out this way.
Wow. You and Ron Paul are a perfect match. The way you selectively read his letter and picked out the two parts most favorable while ignoring the rest shows that you've got the perfect conspiracy mindset.
- What about his claim of "elites" trying to put together a North American Union like the EU that will dissolve US sovereignty?
- What about his claims of "forced mental screening" for school children?
The whole "American way of life is under attack" saw can be used for ANY change in America. It was used against desegregation, it was used during the Red Scare, it is used in anti-immigration rallies, and it is used now on both sides of the War on Terror debate. It doesn't mean anything except, "Please be very afraid of the other side because they don't respect our values."
You choose to use the NSA wiretapping scheme as an example of our values under attack, but don't forget that Ron Paul caucuses with the very party that brought us this attack to our values, as well as the Patriot Act and the national ID card.
Furthermore, he takes the crank approach of viewing UN treaties as "UN control" of the issues they are over. The UN doesn't pass laws -- it provides a staging ground for countries to come up with treaties that they choose to sign onto or not -- like Kyoto. People who think that the UN is some Illuminati-like institution out to take away your rights and dissolve your government are lunatics.
Let's not forget that his entire letter starts off with an accusation that the "elites and political power-brokers" would do "anything" to prevent him from winning. That's classic conspiracy theory paranoia right there, and it's an appeal to those who think the world is run by shady power-brokers who are unanswerable to the people. Ron Paul's letter is an appeal to people who don't think the system works at all to make a futile gesture against "the Man."
If you still like him after reading that letter, then that's fine with me, but don't go around thinking that your conspiracy goggles are showing you the "truth" that everyone else is "just too blind to see."
As for my original comments, you can twist my obvious meanings to your heart's content, and convince yourself that you are correct, but you are wasting your time trying to convince me.
Correct. It is a waste of time trying to convince you. You've drank the Kool-Aid, and you don't have the capacity for self-reflection to go back and reread your words as they were written. This post is more for the sane people who might be reading this discussion.
Wait. What's your problem with MP4? Isn't it pretty much universally supported at this point?
Rule 3.3(a)(3) prohibits offering "false evidence." Not quite on point, because legal authority is not "evidence". Excellent. This is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Thanks.
I spent about an hour searching for rules on this in various places, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and I couldn't find anything about this.
Obviously, it's grounds for an appeal (the change in law if not the concealment), but are there any grounds to sanction based on them not having done this?
B) There hasn't been a Republican politician of significant note that favored the free market over big business when the two were put into conflict since Teddy Roosevelt. Don't buy the rhetoric, look at the results. If you don't feel that that's true, feel free to provide a counter-example.
Hollywood, the recording industry, and the IT industry have been very savvy to lines the pockets of politicians of both parties, though, so you are right one your main point. That is, much of the current madness of copyright has been the fault of Democratic politicians. Even so, do not expect the Republicans to ever come to our aid on an issue of consumers vs. one of America's best export industries.
We have no allies in Washington over this issue. None.
If you had been logged in, I would have marked you as a friend immediately upon seeing this post. People really have no idea what the consequences of a debt this size really are for the average American.
1) Instructs people to make themselves familiar with Ron Paul.
2) Instructs people who do not think honesty is important to vote for anyone else.
You should probably reread your comments. They make no distinction that they only apply to people who aren't familiar with Ron Paul, and any such distinction is negated by the fact that you are instructing any and all people who "don't believe in honesty" to vote for "any other candidate" after they make themselves familiar with Ron Paul.
Personally, I suggest reading one of his fundraising letters yourself before making that sort of instruction. Honesty is extremely important, but I think sanity is even more so. Ron Paul's got crazy conspiracy theorist written all over him.
Hell, Al Sharpton & Dennis Kucinich are pretty honest about their position on most matters, and I don't see you advocating for them.
Well it must not do that because long story short, a similar thing happened to me and I had to take pills full of "hibernating" bacteria to replace them because they weren't coming back.
Were you by any chance on any form of powerful antibiotics? The use of probiotics in medicine is usually for people who have been on antibiotics powerful enough to kill everything in the body like vancomycin or ciprofloxacin, including the bacteria that are supposed to help you out.
I remember learning in school that it used to be used to handle indigestible things like tree bark and whatever else dumb cavemen ate lol.
Actually, the most commonly disseminated use of the appendix is in other animals that eat a lot of cellulose like rabbits to serve a reservoir for cellulose-digesting bacteria. There has never been a belief that it has ever served this purpose for hominids, though this article suggests that it acts as bacterial reservoir for other purposes.
Stop!
Grammar time.
Honestly. I've seen this at least three times in my life -- once at college and once each at two different places that I've worked, both places filled with engineers and programmers (often the source of the idiotic "stop replying" messages).
It always starts with some idiot replying to everyone to ask not to be "unsubscribed," and then it goes berserk from there in *exactly* the pattern that the parent post describes.
What makes DHS so special that it wouldn't have managers, accountants, and other non-technical paper pushers to get the whole thing going? *pfft* "Jack Bauer," indeed.
Generally speaking, state & local trial court verdicts are not considered binding in any jurisdiction -- only appeals court verdicts. Most states don't even publish lower court opinions -- NY, OH, & CT are the exceptions AFAIK, and they only publish a handful of lower court opinions issued each year.
Precedent will not be set until this goes to an appeals court. They may well try it, but the evidence doesn't look so good. Their only solid grounds for appeal in my opinion is over whether or not the replacement of the hard drive counts as an attempt to misplace evidence.
No, the case looks solid based on the (admittedly one-sided) write up, and it looks like the defendant doesn't have enough money to appeal.
I challenge Slashdot to boycott the US recording and movie industry... either that or stop whining...
Okay, done -- for years now.
(Just don't ask me to boycott the Japanese branches of those conglomerates...)
1. Juries generally take the damages amount suggested by the plaintiff in a civil trial. Most people have no idea how much a random tort is really worth and just take their word for it.
2. Juries in America are specifically picked to exclude anyone in the slightest bit knowledgeable about the activity in question (to avoid both bias and to avoid questioning the testimony of expert witnesses due to -- right or wrong -- assumption about the dispute in question), and they are picked to avoid people who have done similar crimes in the past (again for bias reasons).
Pretty much the only people in America who haven't downloaded a song illegally are people who thing it's inherently immoral or unethical. These people would not be sympathetic to the defendant.
Now we get to see where this goes on appeal.
Anyone who uses TOR for file sharing is either maliciously or negligently engaged in the destruction of the network. TOR cannot handle file-sharing loads. The most that TOR can handle is control communications (like tracker communications in BitTorrent). If you actually start passing data transmissions through it, you'll kill its usability.
You're better off using a P2P program that's designed to hide your activity than slapping TOR over one that isn't designed for it.