I wasn't trying to convince him or make a point to him. Liars need to be refuted, not convinced.
But why has it become so common these days to call people with different or even incorrect information "liars"?
Because we're tired of them getting away with it. Because being nice and pretending they're mistaken just communicates uncertainty and weakness and lack of resolve. Because pretending they're mistaken is, itself, deceptive.
Personally, I get tired of listening to hate campaigns. They hate all sorts of people and want them punished -- insurance companies in this case. There's a huge long list of the people you're supposed to hate: oil companies, religious people, CEOs and other executives, bankers, the "rich", etc., etc., etc. They want you to hate along with them. What's a good tool to drum up hatred? Lies.
Why attribute deliberate deception to them without any proof?
Why not? They are using falsehoods in the service of a hate campaign against insurance companies. The hate campaign is in the service of a government takeover of health care. Governments always force people to do things against their will.
They are using falsehoods to foster hatred to justify centralizing power and forcing people into a system against their will. You think that deserves the benefit of the doubt?
All that does is foster hostility and blind them to the point you are trying to make.
They are already hostile. They want to force people into a system against their will. They want to take even more money from people against their will. If you decline to pay them, they will imprison you. If you decline to go off to their prisons peacefully, they will send gunmen to your house. If you resist effectively, you will be killed. That's what government power is.
That power is already partly in play. They want to expand the use of that power. They want to wield that power against every doctor and every researcher and every patient so there's nowhere to hide.
I wonder if the guys running the Tuskegee Experiment were "hostile" when people questioned their actions? Or what about the researchers poisoning industrial alcohol? Were they "hostile" when their work was called "extermination"? Why can't we just get along with the experimenters and the poisoners?
Get charity. Hold a fundraiser. Ask family. Ask a church. Ask friends. Appeal to the community. Ask the doctors for a discount. Or ask them to do the procedure for free. Ask the hospital for charity. Look for an alternative treatment. Or and alternative doctor. Or an alternative drug company.
Or promise to pay for it from your future earnings. Or some combination of these answers.
Maybe you think your family and your friends and everyone else who won't give you freebies is also a "private death panel"?
An insurance company can't prevent you from being treated for a condition. Insurance is simply a payment mechanism. If you want some treatment that isn't covered, pay for it yourself. Or get charity from family, friends, doctors, hospitals, churches, drug companies, or your community.
The government can (and will) simply decide that your treatment doesn't meet their guidelines. Doctors will be prohibited by force of law from treating you. Or they will be financially penalized. And if you are willing to pay the doctor with cash? That's expressly illegal under some government plans because it's an invitation for double billing or other types of fraud. The government already prevents many life-saving treatments and delays many life-saving drugs for safety and other reasons. Taking over the payment for health care just adds a new reason.
So, in short, your comments about insurance companies are lies. And you are lying about those insurance companies to help empower the same government that performed the Tuskegee Experiments and the poisoning of alcohol.
Because taxing people with cap and trade taxes doesn't make them poorer? Because artificially raising the costs of energy doesn't make people poorer?
One thing about having a conversation is that it takes two people. It's not really a conversation when one person is talking and the other one says "I don't get it" after every paragraph.
What do YOU think it means when someone is telling you your lifestyle is unsustainable? Do you think it means that you should drive a nicer car and live in a bigger house and have a larger family?
Or maybe you just don't know what anything means and you just walk around looking at things, reading things, and listening to people and wondering what they're all trying to say.
"What do stop signs really mean when they say STOP? Who are they talking to? No, really. What are the names and addresses of the people the stop sign is meant for? I don't get it."
Wikipedia is only a valid source when it confirms your biases. When it raises questions, it can be summarily dismissed without even clicking on the link or reading the article. Thus are the new rules of Internet forum debates. Alas.
For confirmation that these are the new rules, I suggest searching Wikipedia. If you think another rule might be in effect instead, I suggest searching everything except Wikipedia. Or just use your imagination and make up some data -- 86% of people believe that's just as good in some circumstances.
The specifics-- whether it will cause more hurricaines or snow, more precipitation or less, these things are being hotly contested, just like with any young scientific theory.
That's a startling new admission. You're saying warmer might be better than colder. The "specifics" of whether a warmer climate might cause harmful or beneficial weather for people -- "these things are being hotly contested". Well good. It's about time we heard a little open-mindedness about that.
This isn't "innocent until proven guilty," folks.
Maybe not. But the people who want to rule over everyone's life don't get the benefit of the doubt. The people who want to tell everyone they have to be poorer -- to lead a less fulfilling life -- those people don't get to hand-wave when someone asks them for their data. The environmental elite don't get to fly around on private jets and then stonewall and appeal to authority to justify forcing the rest of us to take the bus.
If the warmers were for freedom and technological progress and prosperity for everyone, then we might look the other way when a number or two ends up being fabricated. But then you don't need to lie in order to leave people alone to live their lives, do you?
You don't seem to understand the goals. "Equality" isn't the goal. Power and wealth are the goals for some, destruction of society is the goal for others, and still others simply seek to fulfill some personal emotional need. Equality is just the sales pitch.
They're not lost. They can gain power and wealth by dividing societal groups against each other and seeking to lead one of the sides. That's an achievable goal. Just ask Al Sharpton. They can further the destruction of a society and satisfy their emotional whims that way too.
I heard it explained perfectly one day with regard to unions. What is the one thing that's absolutely necessary for union leaders to have power? Answer: unhappy workers. Happy workers don't need to pay someone to fight for them. So it is crucial for union leaders to make sure workers stay unhappy.
The same goes for feminists. They must have unhappy women to represent. Sexism is what they trade in. Without a "raised consciousness", always looking for sexism and primed to react with anger (or some other negative emotion) feminist leaders have no power base and no financial base. And the same goes for the leaders of the race industry, swapping sexism for racism.
You need to be more realistic about what's actually going on. They won't STFU until is stops working.
Certainly, put warranty-voiding tamper stickers on the engine. But if I want to void my warranty, it should be possible to do so.
You can still sue them for "not honoring their warranty". You'll probably lose, but they have to pay attorney's fees defending themselves.
Also, what if your changes cause you to crash into someone? Then that person sues Lexus for not locking you out of making changes. The jury decides it is only the tiniest bit Lexus's fault, but the jury feels bad for the injured person and Lexus has a lot of money... so there's a sizable damages award.
You could also make changes and then complain publicly that Lexus won't honor their warranty. It's your own fault, but will everyone agree? Why does Lexus need that negative publicity?
Do modded cars that fail count against Lexus's reliability ratings? Fleet emissions ratings?
Or maybe they've worked really hard to make their cars easy to service. It was expensive. Buyers don't generally care about that stuff -- let's pretend that surveys have shown that. How do they recoup the cost of these design decisions? Service fees.
Rather than being "distressed", can I suggest a less emotional response? How about trying to understand what the real-world (as opposed to the "conspiracy theory") purposes for the decision in question?
I realize that might not scratch the self-involved emotional itch of some in the Slashdot crowd. It's always interesting how people seem to crave understanding of gadgets, but then actively avoid understanding the people who created those gadgets. I think, again, it's an aspect of self-involvement.
If you want to tinker, let me suggest a pile of junk to tinker with. Do you buy a new Lexus to mess around under the hood taking things apart? (Please don't nitpick the analogy. It could just as easily be a high-end clothes washer or a new 60 inch plasma TV. They exist to serve a specific purpose, not as a box of Lego parts for you to use to build a crappy combination Lexus/plasma TV/clothes washer. Learn a skill that will be useful in the future, not something that will come in handy in 1987.)
I can answer one thing though:
Why do you feel the need to bitch and moan about every little thing like you are somehow entitled to everything being your way?
I'm sure it worked growing up. When you don't get your way, complain to mom and she'll give you what you're asking for. After they get older (notice I didn't say "grew up") folks think the government is their new mom. I'm sure we'll see a lot of these guys complaining to the government to try to force Apple and other companies to satisfy their latest whims.
I'm not accusing. I'm insinuating. No facts required for an insinuation. (You need to learn the rules.)
Are you claiming that unions never obstruct anything? Are you claiming that local governments never obstruct things? Are you claiming that every civic decision and permit in Chicago and New York is 100% honest?
Maybe they're not willing to do it. Or maybe they can't compete with the favors their competitors are offering in exchange for slowing AT&T down. Who knows?
I wonder if AT&T is having problems in New York and Chicago and some other large cities because they don't know who to bribe or what local bosses control what happens. There are fewer people standing in the way of upgrades like this in some places than in others.
No. Maybe you're joking, but no. I'm saying they should have been better parents. Punishing them serves no purpose.
We can't punish our way to having a good society with good people. Individuals need to want to do the right things. They need to decide for themselves.
Some folks think every time something goes wrong, someone should be punished. As if punishing bystanders (or just punishing someone -- anyone) solves a problem or makes the world better in some way.
It's emotion-based -- not a well-considered, rational response to a given situation. Be wary of emotional appeals to victimize or punish people. History has shown there's almost nothing more potentially dangerous.
The California incident shows something lacking in the character of everyone involved. Punishing them won't fill in what's missing. Maybe if their parents had done a better job, they'd already have it.
Lots of companies are talking about going out of the PC games business. They figure fewer people are buying their console games because they just pirate the PC version.
I'm sure that skipping PC releases altogether is probably Ubisoft's alternate plan if this anti-piracy plan fails.
You are right. Anything done without any human involvement whatsoever should not be given the same protections as something done by people. When corporations act with no human intent or human involvement, their freedom is without conscience or merit.
When humans act, they have freedom. That freedom deserves protection. When they do it as part of a corporation, they maintain their humanity and the actions deserve to maintain their protection.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't trying to convince him or make a point to him. Liars need to be refuted, not convinced.
But why has it become so common these days to call people with different or even incorrect information "liars"?
Because we're tired of them getting away with it. Because being nice and pretending they're mistaken just communicates uncertainty and weakness and lack of resolve. Because pretending they're mistaken is, itself, deceptive.
Personally, I get tired of listening to hate campaigns. They hate all sorts of people and want them punished -- insurance companies in this case. There's a huge long list of the people you're supposed to hate: oil companies, religious people, CEOs and other executives, bankers, the "rich", etc., etc., etc. They want you to hate along with them. What's a good tool to drum up hatred? Lies.
Why attribute deliberate deception to them without any proof?
Why not? They are using falsehoods in the service of a hate campaign against insurance companies. The hate campaign is in the service of a government takeover of health care. Governments always force people to do things against their will.
They are using falsehoods to foster hatred to justify centralizing power and forcing people into a system against their will. You think that deserves the benefit of the doubt?
All that does is foster hostility and blind them to the point you are trying to make.
They are already hostile. They want to force people into a system against their will. They want to take even more money from people against their will. If you decline to pay them, they will imprison you. If you decline to go off to their prisons peacefully, they will send gunmen to your house. If you resist effectively, you will be killed. That's what government power is.
That power is already partly in play. They want to expand the use of that power. They want to wield that power against every doctor and every researcher and every patient so there's nowhere to hide.
I wonder if the guys running the Tuskegee Experiment were "hostile" when people questioned their actions? Or what about the researchers poisoning industrial alcohol? Were they "hostile" when their work was called "extermination"? Why can't we just get along with the experimenters and the poisoners?
Get charity. Hold a fundraiser. Ask family. Ask a church. Ask friends. Appeal to the community. Ask the doctors for a discount. Or ask them to do the procedure for free. Ask the hospital for charity. Look for an alternative treatment. Or and alternative doctor. Or an alternative drug company.
Or promise to pay for it from your future earnings. Or some combination of these answers.
Maybe you think your family and your friends and everyone else who won't give you freebies is also a "private death panel"?
An insurance company can't prevent you from being treated for a condition. Insurance is simply a payment mechanism. If you want some treatment that isn't covered, pay for it yourself. Or get charity from family, friends, doctors, hospitals, churches, drug companies, or your community.
The government can (and will) simply decide that your treatment doesn't meet their guidelines. Doctors will be prohibited by force of law from treating you. Or they will be financially penalized. And if you are willing to pay the doctor with cash? That's expressly illegal under some government plans because it's an invitation for double billing or other types of fraud. The government already prevents many life-saving treatments and delays many life-saving drugs for safety and other reasons. Taking over the payment for health care just adds a new reason.
So, in short, your comments about insurance companies are lies. And you are lying about those insurance companies to help empower the same government that performed the Tuskegee Experiments and the poisoning of alcohol.
The whole point of this article is that people believe information that confirms their biases and the react accordingly.
And you guys respond immediately with "See! This information confirms my biases against religion..."
Because taxing people with cap and trade taxes doesn't make them poorer? Because artificially raising the costs of energy doesn't make people poorer?
One thing about having a conversation is that it takes two people. It's not really a conversation when one person is talking and the other one says "I don't get it" after every paragraph.
What do YOU think it means when someone is telling you your lifestyle is unsustainable? Do you think it means that you should drive a nicer car and live in a bigger house and have a larger family?
Or maybe you just don't know what anything means and you just walk around looking at things, reading things, and listening to people and wondering what they're all trying to say.
"What do stop signs really mean when they say STOP? Who are they talking to? No, really. What are the names and addresses of the people the stop sign is meant for? I don't get it."
Let me Google that for you
Just listen for the word "sustainable". That's them. They're saying your freedom and your prosperous life aren't "sustainable".
But you're probably right, since clearly no one ever says anything like that...
Wikipedia is only a valid source when it confirms your biases. When it raises questions, it can be summarily dismissed without even clicking on the link or reading the article. Thus are the new rules of Internet forum debates. Alas.
For confirmation that these are the new rules, I suggest searching Wikipedia. If you think another rule might be in effect instead, I suggest searching everything except Wikipedia. Or just use your imagination and make up some data -- 86% of people believe that's just as good in some circumstances.
The specifics-- whether it will cause more hurricaines or snow, more precipitation or less, these things are being hotly contested, just like with any young scientific theory.
That's a startling new admission. You're saying warmer might be better than colder. The "specifics" of whether a warmer climate might cause harmful or beneficial weather for people -- "these things are being hotly contested". Well good. It's about time we heard a little open-mindedness about that.
This isn't "innocent until proven guilty," folks.
Maybe not. But the people who want to rule over everyone's life don't get the benefit of the doubt. The people who want to tell everyone they have to be poorer -- to lead a less fulfilling life -- those people don't get to hand-wave when someone asks them for their data. The environmental elite don't get to fly around on private jets and then stonewall and appeal to authority to justify forcing the rest of us to take the bus.
If the warmers were for freedom and technological progress and prosperity for everyone, then we might look the other way when a number or two ends up being fabricated. But then you don't need to lie in order to leave people alone to live their lives, do you?
You don't seem to understand the goals. "Equality" isn't the goal. Power and wealth are the goals for some, destruction of society is the goal for others, and still others simply seek to fulfill some personal emotional need. Equality is just the sales pitch.
They're not lost. They can gain power and wealth by dividing societal groups against each other and seeking to lead one of the sides. That's an achievable goal. Just ask Al Sharpton. They can further the destruction of a society and satisfy their emotional whims that way too.
I heard it explained perfectly one day with regard to unions. What is the one thing that's absolutely necessary for union leaders to have power? Answer: unhappy workers. Happy workers don't need to pay someone to fight for them. So it is crucial for union leaders to make sure workers stay unhappy.
The same goes for feminists. They must have unhappy women to represent. Sexism is what they trade in. Without a "raised consciousness", always looking for sexism and primed to react with anger (or some other negative emotion) feminist leaders have no power base and no financial base. And the same goes for the leaders of the race industry, swapping sexism for racism.
You need to be more realistic about what's actually going on. They won't STFU until is stops working.
Lots of people have been studying this for at least 15 years. We have billions of people talking on cell phones now.
If we're still wondering whether they're dangerous after all this time and all these users, isn't it clear that the danger, if any, is very small?
Certainly, put warranty-voiding tamper stickers on the engine. But if I want to void my warranty, it should be possible to do so.
You can still sue them for "not honoring their warranty". You'll probably lose, but they have to pay attorney's fees defending themselves.
Also, what if your changes cause you to crash into someone? Then that person sues Lexus for not locking you out of making changes. The jury decides it is only the tiniest bit Lexus's fault, but the jury feels bad for the injured person and Lexus has a lot of money ... so there's a sizable damages award.
You could also make changes and then complain publicly that Lexus won't honor their warranty. It's your own fault, but will everyone agree? Why does Lexus need that negative publicity?
Do modded cars that fail count against Lexus's reliability ratings? Fleet emissions ratings?
Or maybe they've worked really hard to make their cars easy to service. It was expensive. Buyers don't generally care about that stuff -- let's pretend that surveys have shown that. How do they recoup the cost of these design decisions? Service fees.
There are many possible answers.
Rather than being "distressed", can I suggest a less emotional response? How about trying to understand what the real-world (as opposed to the "conspiracy theory") purposes for the decision in question?
I realize that might not scratch the self-involved emotional itch of some in the Slashdot crowd. It's always interesting how people seem to crave understanding of gadgets, but then actively avoid understanding the people who created those gadgets. I think, again, it's an aspect of self-involvement.
If you want to tinker, let me suggest a pile of junk to tinker with. Do you buy a new Lexus to mess around under the hood taking things apart? (Please don't nitpick the analogy. It could just as easily be a high-end clothes washer or a new 60 inch plasma TV. They exist to serve a specific purpose, not as a box of Lego parts for you to use to build a crappy combination Lexus/plasma TV/clothes washer. Learn a skill that will be useful in the future, not something that will come in handy in 1987.)
I can answer one thing though:
Why do you feel the need to bitch and moan about every little thing like you are somehow entitled to everything being your way?
I'm sure it worked growing up. When you don't get your way, complain to mom and she'll give you what you're asking for. After they get older (notice I didn't say "grew up") folks think the government is their new mom. I'm sure we'll see a lot of these guys complaining to the government to try to force Apple and other companies to satisfy their latest whims.
Not trolling. I think it's a reasonably likely partial explanation for why coverage is some places is worse than in others.
It's hard to provide proof of something like that because you seldom see press releases about a decision to obstruct progress due to unpaid bribes.
I'm not accusing. I'm insinuating. No facts required for an insinuation. (You need to learn the rules.)
Are you claiming that unions never obstruct anything? Are you claiming that local governments never obstruct things? Are you claiming that every civic decision and permit in Chicago and New York is 100% honest?
Corruption in some large cities is well known.
Maybe they're not willing to do it. Or maybe they can't compete with the favors their competitors are offering in exchange for slowing AT&T down. Who knows?
I wonder if AT&T is having problems in New York and Chicago and some other large cities because they don't know who to bribe or what local bosses control what happens. There are fewer people standing in the way of upgrades like this in some places than in others.
No. Maybe you're joking, but no. I'm saying they should have been better parents. Punishing them serves no purpose.
We can't punish our way to having a good society with good people. Individuals need to want to do the right things. They need to decide for themselves.
Some folks think every time something goes wrong, someone should be punished. As if punishing bystanders (or just punishing someone -- anyone) solves a problem or makes the world better in some way.
It's emotion-based -- not a well-considered, rational response to a given situation. Be wary of emotional appeals to victimize or punish people. History has shown there's almost nothing more potentially dangerous.
The California incident shows something lacking in the character of everyone involved. Punishing them won't fill in what's missing. Maybe if their parents had done a better job, they'd already have it.
It's not really "society". If it were up to the public, a large majority would vote to support limiting lawsuits in a meaningful way.
Trial lawyers and other special interests are the ones who keep our "society" this way, largely against our will.
It's too bad. It was a pretty nice country we had once.
No. Go back and never restrict it to begin with! Apple is still evil until it was never evil from the beginning.
That's why game companies will eventually stop selling a PC version of games at all. Or they'll release it 9 months later.
Lots of companies are talking about going out of the PC games business. They figure fewer people are buying their console games because they just pirate the PC version.
I'm sure that skipping PC releases altogether is probably Ubisoft's alternate plan if this anti-piracy plan fails.
You are right. Anything done without any human involvement whatsoever should not be given the same protections as something done by people. When corporations act with no human intent or human involvement, their freedom is without conscience or merit.
When humans act, they have freedom. That freedom deserves protection. When they do it as part of a corporation, they maintain their humanity and the actions deserve to maintain their protection.