Because it's impertinent. It would be a arbitrary decision based on subjective perceptions.
Much like the ambiguity you speak of. Even though you are talking about ambiguity, you also mentioned sexism.
I did not ask you whether you thought it mattered, I asked you if you disagreed that most people in hearing the sentence "a lawyer must ensure the he maintains the highest levels of ethical probity" would visualise the lawyer, --who is in fact not a lawyer at all but any member of the set of lawyers described in imprecise language --as a man. And if they do, as I think we must admit, doesn't this idiom foster sexual (feminists would probably have me write gender) stereotypes?
I don't think envisioning a certain gender for a certain profession is sexism. Again, I don't think it's a problem at all. I'm sure lots of people do that (including with nurses), but I see no reason why that would be sexism.
Two things, first it was you, not I who introduced the somewhat hyperbolic "brainwashed" and "indoctrinated" into the conversation.
Maybe, but your implication was there. When you claim that something is so deeply embedded in a culture that the people in it can't even recognize the problem, I'm going to exaggerate and use "indoctrination" as a form of mockery.
Secondly, I now recant, it's not the wide meaning at all, but the old meaning. Taking the earliest example (1635) we find the word originally means "to imbue with learning" or (1656) "to instruct in a subject, principle, etc." Thus T Fuller (Worthies (1662) Mddx. 177) wrote "The Lord Treasurer Burleigh..was indoctrinated by a Cobler in the true Tanning of Leather." (OED)
Great.
precision of language is a requirement for clear thought.
If that is so, then I'm not sure anyone has clear thoughts, given how much of an abomination the English language is. Fortunately, humans have brains and can generally figure out what is being said, even if someone isn't trying to be precise in their use of language.
In any case, this matter is not at all subjective, it's about the inbuilt presumptions of a language that existed even prior to any individual subject acquiring that language.
Yes, it is. Here's how it all went down:
"I actually believe that this is not a problem in the least" "Again, it's possible to believe something and still be wrong." "Yes, but this is a completely subjective matter. Whether or not it is a problem is 100% subjective, so I cannot be objectively wrong for believing it's not."
Regarding whether or not something is a problem, which is what you quoted and responded to, that is 100% subjective.
Of course context matters. Absolutely! However that particular example has everything to do with the language under discussion.
So declaring victory because it's slightly more difficult to figure out what someone was saying without context seems silly. And again, this doesn't just apply to the language under discussion, but a large amount of words with multiple definitions.
After all, neither in the German, (nor indeed in a gender-neutral English) was there any ambiguity requiring more context to resolve.
Nonsense. They might be using completely different definitions of words (perhaps ones that they made up). Without context, you wouldn't see that.
So I'd ask again "Why would one not prefer a more communicatively efficient language to one beset with ambiguity?"
Generally I do. But as I said, I don't think doing as you suggest would truly improve the situation all that much. I don't mind a bit of 'inefficiency' every now and then, either.
Now I wonder if your obviously dearly treasured preference for man over person or perhaps mankind over humankind is perhaps some kind of marker of tribal membership?
I never said that I dearly treasured it, just that I don't think it's sexist or all that difficult to figure out what someone is saying.
OK, explain how. I understand what think you're doing, but look, you do you argument no service with a preposterous move like that.
Why not? I can arbitrarily decide that any word is racist, sexist, etc. based on subjective perceptions. It's quite easy, and I could even create all sorts of stories about how and why those words make me feel bad as a member of race X, since anything can be offensive to anyone.
Or do you disagree?
I don't think it even matters, since people can consciously figure out the difference even if I assume that is the case.
Again, it's possible to believe something and still be wrong.
Yes, but this is a completely subjective matter. Whether or not it is a problem is 100% subjective, so I cannot be objectively wrong for believing it's not.
Of course you've been indoctrinated (in the wide sense of that word).
So wide it's almost meaningless, since I don't think mindlessly believing things you've heard is quite the same as the usual type of indoctrination. Given enough time and education, you will start to question your culture and your beliefs. As a child, maybe "indoctrinated" would fit, but for free thinkers, it's much less of a problem. I know you later said that you didn't mean we can't transcend the "indoctrination."
As demonstrated, you have a problem absent sufficient context
Of course. I can completely confuse people by taking just about anything out of context; context matters. This has little to do with the language under discussion. But when I read that guy's comment, I fully understood what he meant. I don't think it's all that ambiguous, or at least not anymore so than normal language.
Why would one not prefer a more communicatively efficient language to one beset with ambiguity?
I wish we could, but even formal university speak is littered with ambiguity and nonsense. I doubt human language will ever be efficient or logical.
She thought we should write "he/she"
What if someone doesn't identify as either a he or a she? You need to ask about their preferred gender pronoun first. Some feminist...
Now seriously though. The very existence of these multiple meaning is what is so deeply sexist in fact it is so deeply embedded that many, yourself included, are unable even to perceive the problem.
Now seriously though. The very existence of the word "multiple" is deeply racist, and it's so deeply embedded that many, yourself included, are unable even to perceive the problem.
Has it ever occurred to you that people can have different opinions than your own without being unconsciously brainwashed? Here's a shocker: I actually believe that this is not a problem in the least, even when I imagine as you want me to. Stop trying to suggest that I've been indoctrinated somehow.
It is not ideologically innocent to posit one gender as (default) human and the other as other.
That's not what is happening. People are just using a word that has multiple meanings. There's no problem here.
Precisely! You would need to read more about that person simply to understand a simple English sentence.
Taking things out of context often makes it difficult to understand. This can happen with any word that has multiple meanings. Too bad.
Now imagine yourself a woman swimming in this sea of linguistic ambiguity, never knowing precisely (without further inquiry) whether you personally are included or excluded in a statement. Are you able to grasp the problem?
You can also ask. Many women I've talked with about this sort of thing have said they don't care. Of course, yes, some do care, and they make mostly the same arguments you do. It's not a settled matter among women.
I hope you're not going to suggest that they're just indoctrinated or something, because then there's no point in asking me to imagine anything, as you just want me to agree with you and anything short of that is 'incorrect.'
English is moving on.
Language evolves, but the old meanings stay and can still be used. Furthermore, common usage won't always go away so easily, even if universities resist hard.
But hey, maybe people will stop doing this. And... I don't really care one way or the other. I care more about the person's intent and whether their message can be understood. Which, despite what you've said, I have no problem understanding the point others are making even when they use words like "men" to refer to "people." To me, language is about communicating ideas, and that's what I care about.
It is deeply sexist. You just haven't used your brain enough to comprehend why.
Making useless statements isn't going to help you.
You see I can "argue" just like you too, relying on barefaced statements unsupported by thought, insight or argument.
You've been doing that all along. You have never once gave a rational explanation for why using a certain word that means a certain thing in the context it's used in is sexist merely because it can be used to refer exclusively to a certain gender. Again, words can have multiple meanings. Quit being a mental midget.
Anyone can give consent; responsibility says that you make an uncivil posit by asking animals/children to consent to have sex with you.
"responsibility" doesn't say anything because it isn't a living being. If an animal starts having sex with you because you got into a certain position, that qualifies as "consent" to me, or to anyone with a brain. Children, again, it depends on the individual. Your black-and-white thinking has no real place in a free, rational society, in my opinion.
None of these are arbitrary. Anyone can be seduced. As a higher species, we bear civil responsibility. Screwing animals isn't responsible.
You say it isn't arbitrary, but you've arbitrarily determined that screwing animals isn't "responsible" (utterly subjective).
Screwing children is the same answer. They have insufficient nexus and context to say "yes". They're children.
Again, depends on the individual. Even adults make mistakes they regret, and children are not incapable of making decisions. I sure as hell know that most adults are pretty short-sighted, so the difference isn't truly phenomenal.
Consent isn't legal fiction
The idea that non-human animals can't consent is legal fiction. The idea that children can never consent is a legal fiction.
I agree with requiring consent. I don't agree with your bigoted nonsense; it's no better than homophobia to me.
Nobody gets locked up for admitting they're sexually attracted to children. Society acts when they act on that attraction.
Maybe the government doesn't (usually) act, but they sure as hell might end up lynched by an angry mob, given how rational the 'for the children' crowd is.
Pedophaelia is not a preference, it is a mental illness. It's illegal because minors cannot defend themselves. Same deal with bestiality.
Being a pedophile is not in itself illegal; it's just a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Whether it's rape should be considered on a case-by-case basis in any truly free society. And as I've explained, the part about non-human animals not being able to consent is just false.
Merely being attracted to something should not be considered a mental illness; that just reveals how bigoted the soft sciences still are.
There's actually no reason for incest to be illegal other than the undesirable genetic consequences.
Even that is not a reason for it to be illegal. The child would otherwise *not exist*, so you cannot harm a child just by creating it through incest. Also, freedom is what's important, and if people want to have inbred babies, I say let them. Anything else is just authoritarian drivel.
You've revealed yourself to be a hardcore authoritarian.
I see cats having sex with each other quite often. Is every act of sex between non-human animals rape, since they can't speak human language? There are other ways to consent.
Absolute nonsense. Were that true, all sex between animals (humans are animals, too) would be rape. Animals might not all be able to consent through speech (since non-human animals can't speak human language), but their actions may imply consent. There are other kinds of consent than just speech, and that applies even to humans. Legal fiction.
Children can't give consent (and shouldn't need to be asked).
Depends on the individual. It is certainly not impossible. This is just a legal fiction, as usual.
Consensual sex is key. We go successfully from "consensual".
Now, if only people would stop creating arbitrary, nonsensical definitions of what qualifies as consent... These things should be determined on a case-by-case basis, not a black-and-white "Group X can't ever consent because we said so."
Nobody (including religious stances) condemns the mere fact of being homosexual.
Nobody? Nonsense. Plenty do. People are often bullied for being homosexuals, or even just being suspected of homosexuals.
There's really no difference, though. Even if someone acts upon their desires, two consenting people having sex shouldn't really bother you, even if they're of the same sex.
How one acts upon it, though, has significant social effects, e.g. AIDS
Nonsense. It's called protection. And regardless of whether you're sleeping with someone of the same sex, it's a bad fucking idea to be doing it without protection if you don't know them too well.
The nonexistent sexism, you mean. Using "man" to mean "people" is not sexism, and words often have multiple meanings depending on the context. There is no problem if you just use your brain.
"Man is born free, but lives everywhere in chains," does man there include women? You wouldn't know, would you?
You could read more about that person to hopefully find out. But in the end, it doesn't matter, because you're missing the greater point anyway.
If he was a paedeophile though, that definitely *would* be a reason to be "unproud".
A pedophile is just someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. As long as you don't harm anyone, I don't see any reason to be "unproud." This "Think of the children!" scare really brings out the ignorance in people.
I think people aren't in favor of it so much as they'll only object in so far as it doesn't inconvenience them
I don't think that's true. A startling number of people are actively in favor of it, because they want safety over freedom. Certainly, there are also lots of apathetic people. When these two groups are combined, they're enormous.
"If you have something to hide... "
That one is actually a statement in support of a police state, since it supposes (incorrectly, given history) that the government can do no wrong and make no mistakes. It's a statement made out of highly concentrated ignorance.
The goal of an organized debate is not to convince the other debater. It's to convince the audience. That's the whole point of it.
Which would just make it a bullshitting contest, considering the intelligence of most of the audience. The best bullshitter will "win" (what, I don't know).
An organized debate is, to me, text-based. More time to collect your thoughts, do research, and speak precisely. No yelling or interruptions, and gish gallops aren't as effective. And you can always thoroughly study what your opponent said. I think these public speech debates are worse than pointless.
And if that conversation goes anything like it does here on Slashdot - the tinfoil hat nuttery is going to cause them to tune you out pretty quickly.
The thing that'll cause them to tune you out is their lack of principles and disrespect for the constitution and fundamental liberties.
And your next two sentences just prove my point.
Lots of people seem to be in favor of unconstitutional, rights-violating mass surveillance of our communications, so that's just a bit of an exaggeration. The mass surveillance is just less visible.
No, it doesn't. It could mean that he's too lazy to act, or that his priorities need adjusting, but it does not necessarily indicate that he doesn't believe what he's saying.
Good thing I didn't say that. I can't determine whether or not you studied it, or whether or not you truly came to an understanding of it if you did study it. That makes it possible that you're just a "confident idiot." That's what makes such subjective soft science studies so fun; they can be applied to nearly everyone.
I studied philosophy formally, and in great depth, and know quite a lot about it.
I don't care what you claim to know.
Many posters on slashdot who deride philosophy have not studied it at all, and hence would be in the "confident idiot" category.
I sort of agree in the sense that people shouldn't be deriding philosophy because idiots like Ken Ham are professional bullshitters, but I'm not sure where you got this information. Have you conducted some sort of scientific study to determine that "many" posters on Slashdot who deride philosophy have not studied it at all?
In my opinion, the main problem is that so many people lack knowledge about philosophy. If they understood more about it, it is possible they'd see right through Ken Ham's nonsense, rather than be fooled by pseudo-philosophical garbage.
You don't know enough about philosophy to make any of the statements you have made. It is not just linguistic, it is not just marketspeak, and it gets traction for very good reasons. Your forgone conclusions about it are based on your ignorance, not your knowledge, on the topic.
You seem quite confident about that. Wrongfully so, perhaps. Have you read the article you linked to?
Anyway, it's not as if anything Ken Ham said had any substance in the first place. One doesn't need to know much about philosophy to debunk his garbage.
Convincing the audience is just a matter of being the best bullshitter, considering the general intellect of most audiences. While you might be able to convince some people watching the debate, I consider that a side benefit, rather than a "win."
Personally, I prefer text-based debates in the first place.
How cute. I used to be this way, believe in the system.
It's not about believing or disbelieving; it's about not giving up no matter what. Giving up will ensure with 100% probability that things stay the way they are. Even if your chances of changing anything are extremely slim, it's still better than giving up or voting for worthless scumbags.
Promised change but what we got was pretty much more of the same and then some.
Anyone who did five seconds of research on the policies/laws he supported would have seen he was full of shit. As was Romney, of course.
When ever the government does something unconstitutional against a citizen, someone should held accountable.
Getting that to happen would be difficult without enough people.
Slashdot Mirror
Because it's impertinent. It would be a arbitrary decision based on subjective perceptions.
Much like the ambiguity you speak of. Even though you are talking about ambiguity, you also mentioned sexism.
I did not ask you whether you thought it mattered, I asked you if you disagreed that most people in hearing the sentence "a lawyer must ensure the he maintains the highest levels of ethical probity" would visualise the lawyer, --who is in fact not a lawyer at all but any member of the set of lawyers described in imprecise language --as a man. And if they do, as I think we must admit, doesn't this idiom foster sexual (feminists would probably have me write gender) stereotypes?
I don't think envisioning a certain gender for a certain profession is sexism. Again, I don't think it's a problem at all. I'm sure lots of people do that (including with nurses), but I see no reason why that would be sexism.
Two things, first it was you, not I who introduced the somewhat hyperbolic "brainwashed" and "indoctrinated" into the conversation.
Maybe, but your implication was there. When you claim that something is so deeply embedded in a culture that the people in it can't even recognize the problem, I'm going to exaggerate and use "indoctrination" as a form of mockery.
Secondly, I now recant, it's not the wide meaning at all, but the old meaning. Taking the earliest example (1635) we find the word originally means "to imbue with learning" or (1656) "to instruct in a subject, principle, etc." Thus T Fuller (Worthies (1662) Mddx. 177) wrote "The Lord Treasurer Burleigh..was indoctrinated by a Cobler in the true Tanning of Leather." (OED)
Great.
precision of language is a requirement for clear thought.
If that is so, then I'm not sure anyone has clear thoughts, given how much of an abomination the English language is. Fortunately, humans have brains and can generally figure out what is being said, even if someone isn't trying to be precise in their use of language.
In any case, this matter is not at all subjective, it's about the inbuilt presumptions of a language that existed even prior to any individual subject acquiring that language.
Yes, it is. Here's how it all went down:
"I actually believe that this is not a problem in the least"
"Again, it's possible to believe something and still be wrong."
"Yes, but this is a completely subjective matter. Whether or not it is a problem is 100% subjective, so I cannot be objectively wrong for believing it's not."
Regarding whether or not something is a problem, which is what you quoted and responded to, that is 100% subjective.
Of course context matters. Absolutely! However that particular example has everything to do with the language under discussion.
So declaring victory because it's slightly more difficult to figure out what someone was saying without context seems silly. And again, this doesn't just apply to the language under discussion, but a large amount of words with multiple definitions.
After all, neither in the German, (nor indeed in a gender-neutral English) was there any ambiguity requiring more context to resolve.
Nonsense. They might be using completely different definitions of words (perhaps ones that they made up). Without context, you wouldn't see that.
So I'd ask again "Why would one not prefer a more communicatively efficient language to one beset with ambiguity?"
Generally I do. But as I said, I don't think doing as you suggest would truly improve the situation all that much. I don't mind a bit of 'inefficiency' every now and then, either.
Now I wonder if your obviously dearly treasured preference for man over person or perhaps mankind over humankind is perhaps some kind of marker of tribal membership?
I never said that I dearly treasured it, just that I don't think it's sexist or all that difficult to figure out what someone is saying.
OK, explain how. I understand what think you're doing, but look, you do you argument no service with a preposterous move like that.
Why not? I can arbitrarily decide that any word is racist, sexist, etc. based on subjective perceptions. It's quite easy, and I could even create all sorts of stories about how and why those words make me feel bad as a member of race X, since anything can be offensive to anyone.
Or do you disagree?
I don't think it even matters, since people can consciously figure out the difference even if I assume that is the case.
Again, it's possible to believe something and still be wrong.
Yes, but this is a completely subjective matter. Whether or not it is a problem is 100% subjective, so I cannot be objectively wrong for believing it's not.
Of course you've been indoctrinated (in the wide sense of that word).
So wide it's almost meaningless, since I don't think mindlessly believing things you've heard is quite the same as the usual type of indoctrination. Given enough time and education, you will start to question your culture and your beliefs. As a child, maybe "indoctrinated" would fit, but for free thinkers, it's much less of a problem. I know you later said that you didn't mean we can't transcend the "indoctrination."
As demonstrated, you have a problem absent sufficient context
Of course. I can completely confuse people by taking just about anything out of context; context matters. This has little to do with the language under discussion. But when I read that guy's comment, I fully understood what he meant. I don't think it's all that ambiguous, or at least not anymore so than normal language.
Why would one not prefer a more communicatively efficient language to one beset with ambiguity?
I wish we could, but even formal university speak is littered with ambiguity and nonsense. I doubt human language will ever be efficient or logical.
She thought we should write "he/she"
What if someone doesn't identify as either a he or a she? You need to ask about their preferred gender pronoun first. Some feminist...
Now seriously though. The very existence of these multiple meaning is what is so deeply sexist in fact it is so deeply embedded that many, yourself included, are unable even to perceive the problem.
Now seriously though. The very existence of the word "multiple" is deeply racist, and it's so deeply embedded that many, yourself included, are unable even to perceive the problem.
Has it ever occurred to you that people can have different opinions than your own without being unconsciously brainwashed? Here's a shocker: I actually believe that this is not a problem in the least, even when I imagine as you want me to. Stop trying to suggest that I've been indoctrinated somehow.
It is not ideologically innocent to posit one gender as (default) human and the other as other.
That's not what is happening. People are just using a word that has multiple meanings. There's no problem here.
Precisely! You would need to read more about that person simply to understand a simple English sentence.
Taking things out of context often makes it difficult to understand. This can happen with any word that has multiple meanings. Too bad.
Now imagine yourself a woman swimming in this sea of linguistic ambiguity, never knowing precisely (without further inquiry) whether you personally are included or excluded in a statement. Are you able to grasp the problem?
You can also ask. Many women I've talked with about this sort of thing have said they don't care. Of course, yes, some do care, and they make mostly the same arguments you do. It's not a settled matter among women.
I hope you're not going to suggest that they're just indoctrinated or something, because then there's no point in asking me to imagine anything, as you just want me to agree with you and anything short of that is 'incorrect.'
English is moving on.
Language evolves, but the old meanings stay and can still be used. Furthermore, common usage won't always go away so easily, even if universities resist hard.
But hey, maybe people will stop doing this. And... I don't really care one way or the other. I care more about the person's intent and whether their message can be understood. Which, despite what you've said, I have no problem understanding the point others are making even when they use words like "men" to refer to "people." To me, language is about communicating ideas, and that's what I care about.
(apart from the "they" situation ... yuck).
What?
It is deeply sexist. You just haven't used your brain enough to comprehend why.
Making useless statements isn't going to help you.
You see I can "argue" just like you too, relying on barefaced statements unsupported by thought, insight or argument.
You've been doing that all along. You have never once gave a rational explanation for why using a certain word that means a certain thing in the context it's used in is sexist merely because it can be used to refer exclusively to a certain gender. Again, words can have multiple meanings. Quit being a mental midget.
Anyone can give consent; responsibility says that you make an uncivil posit by asking animals/children to consent to have sex with you.
"responsibility" doesn't say anything because it isn't a living being. If an animal starts having sex with you because you got into a certain position, that qualifies as "consent" to me, or to anyone with a brain. Children, again, it depends on the individual. Your black-and-white thinking has no real place in a free, rational society, in my opinion.
None of these are arbitrary. Anyone can be seduced. As a higher species, we bear civil responsibility. Screwing animals isn't responsible.
You say it isn't arbitrary, but you've arbitrarily determined that screwing animals isn't "responsible" (utterly subjective).
Screwing children is the same answer. They have insufficient nexus and context to say "yes". They're children.
Again, depends on the individual. Even adults make mistakes they regret, and children are not incapable of making decisions. I sure as hell know that most adults are pretty short-sighted, so the difference isn't truly phenomenal.
Consent isn't legal fiction
The idea that non-human animals can't consent is legal fiction. The idea that children can never consent is a legal fiction.
I agree with requiring consent. I don't agree with your bigoted nonsense; it's no better than homophobia to me.
Nobody gets locked up for admitting they're sexually attracted to children. Society acts when they act on that attraction.
Maybe the government doesn't (usually) act, but they sure as hell might end up lynched by an angry mob, given how rational the 'for the children' crowd is.
Pedophaelia is not a preference, it is a mental illness. It's illegal because minors cannot defend themselves.
Same deal with bestiality.
Being a pedophile is not in itself illegal; it's just a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. Whether it's rape should be considered on a case-by-case basis in any truly free society. And as I've explained, the part about non-human animals not being able to consent is just false.
Merely being attracted to something should not be considered a mental illness; that just reveals how bigoted the soft sciences still are.
There's actually no reason for incest to be illegal other than the undesirable genetic consequences.
Even that is not a reason for it to be illegal. The child would otherwise *not exist*, so you cannot harm a child just by creating it through incest. Also, freedom is what's important, and if people want to have inbred babies, I say let them. Anything else is just authoritarian drivel.
You've revealed yourself to be a hardcore authoritarian.
I see cats having sex with each other quite often. Is every act of sex between non-human animals rape, since they can't speak human language? There are other ways to consent.
Animals can't give consent.
Absolute nonsense. Were that true, all sex between animals (humans are animals, too) would be rape. Animals might not all be able to consent through speech (since non-human animals can't speak human language), but their actions may imply consent. There are other kinds of consent than just speech, and that applies even to humans. Legal fiction.
Children can't give consent (and shouldn't need to be asked).
Depends on the individual. It is certainly not impossible. This is just a legal fiction, as usual.
Consensual sex is key. We go successfully from "consensual".
Now, if only people would stop creating arbitrary, nonsensical definitions of what qualifies as consent... These things should be determined on a case-by-case basis, not a black-and-white "Group X can't ever consent because we said so."
Nobody (including religious stances) condemns the mere fact of being homosexual.
Nobody? Nonsense. Plenty do. People are often bullied for being homosexuals, or even just being suspected of homosexuals.
There's really no difference, though. Even if someone acts upon their desires, two consenting people having sex shouldn't really bother you, even if they're of the same sex.
How one acts upon it, though, has significant social effects, e.g. AIDS
Nonsense. It's called protection. And regardless of whether you're sleeping with someone of the same sex, it's a bad fucking idea to be doing it without protection if you don't know them too well.
Putting aside the obvious sexism
The nonexistent sexism, you mean. Using "man" to mean "people" is not sexism, and words often have multiple meanings depending on the context. There is no problem if you just use your brain.
"Man is born free, but lives everywhere in chains," does man there include women? You wouldn't know, would you?
You could read more about that person to hopefully find out. But in the end, it doesn't matter, because you're missing the greater point anyway.
If he was a paedeophile though, that definitely *would* be a reason to be "unproud".
A pedophile is just someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. As long as you don't harm anyone, I don't see any reason to be "unproud." This "Think of the children!" scare really brings out the ignorance in people.
No one loses anything, right.
Right. Not gaining is not the same as losing.
Copied, you mean.
and feed multiple people directly off my table.
You make them eat off of a table?
I think the king is well aware that he's violating what many in the world consider fundamental rights.
I think people aren't in favor of it so much as they'll only object in so far as it doesn't inconvenience them
I don't think that's true. A startling number of people are actively in favor of it, because they want safety over freedom. Certainly, there are also lots of apathetic people. When these two groups are combined, they're enormous.
"If you have something to hide ... "
That one is actually a statement in support of a police state, since it supposes (incorrectly, given history) that the government can do no wrong and make no mistakes. It's a statement made out of highly concentrated ignorance.
The goal of an organized debate is not to convince the other debater. It's to convince the audience. That's the whole point of it.
Which would just make it a bullshitting contest, considering the intelligence of most of the audience. The best bullshitter will "win" (what, I don't know).
An organized debate is, to me, text-based. More time to collect your thoughts, do research, and speak precisely. No yelling or interruptions, and gish gallops aren't as effective. And you can always thoroughly study what your opponent said. I think these public speech debates are worse than pointless.
In other words, you're a moron.
I was talking about the NSA, you ignorant fool. Your pedantry doesn't make you look intelligent.
Also, the part about fundamental liberties applies everywhere.
And if that conversation goes anything like it does here on Slashdot - the tinfoil hat nuttery is going to cause them to tune you out pretty quickly.
The thing that'll cause them to tune you out is their lack of principles and disrespect for the constitution and fundamental liberties.
And your next two sentences just prove my point.
Lots of people seem to be in favor of unconstitutional, rights-violating mass surveillance of our communications, so that's just a bit of an exaggeration. The mass surveillance is just less visible.
No, it doesn't. It could mean that he's too lazy to act, or that his priorities need adjusting, but it does not necessarily indicate that he doesn't believe what he's saying.
Being confident isn't what makes one an idiot.
Good thing I didn't say that. I can't determine whether or not you studied it, or whether or not you truly came to an understanding of it if you did study it. That makes it possible that you're just a "confident idiot." That's what makes such subjective soft science studies so fun; they can be applied to nearly everyone.
I studied philosophy formally, and in great depth, and know quite a lot about it.
I don't care what you claim to know.
Many posters on slashdot who deride philosophy have not studied it at all, and hence would be in the "confident idiot" category.
I sort of agree in the sense that people shouldn't be deriding philosophy because idiots like Ken Ham are professional bullshitters, but I'm not sure where you got this information. Have you conducted some sort of scientific study to determine that "many" posters on Slashdot who deride philosophy have not studied it at all?
In my opinion, the main problem is that so many people lack knowledge about philosophy. If they understood more about it, it is possible they'd see right through Ken Ham's nonsense, rather than be fooled by pseudo-philosophical garbage.
You don't know enough about philosophy to make any of the statements you have made. It is not just linguistic, it is not just marketspeak, and it gets traction for very good reasons. Your forgone conclusions about it are based on your ignorance, not your knowledge, on the topic.
You seem quite confident about that. Wrongfully so, perhaps. Have you read the article you linked to?
Anyway, it's not as if anything Ken Ham said had any substance in the first place. One doesn't need to know much about philosophy to debunk his garbage.
Convincing the audience is just a matter of being the best bullshitter, considering the general intellect of most audiences. While you might be able to convince some people watching the debate, I consider that a side benefit, rather than a "win."
Personally, I prefer text-based debates in the first place.
How cute. I used to be this way, believe in the system.
It's not about believing or disbelieving; it's about not giving up no matter what. Giving up will ensure with 100% probability that things stay the way they are. Even if your chances of changing anything are extremely slim, it's still better than giving up or voting for worthless scumbags.
Promised change but what we got was pretty much more of the same and then some.
Anyone who did five seconds of research on the policies/laws he supported would have seen he was full of shit. As was Romney, of course.
When ever the government does something unconstitutional against a citizen, someone should held accountable.
Getting that to happen would be difficult without enough people.