clearly these artificial limbs store kinetic energy in a radically different way. the biomechanics are obviously different. he's using different muscle groups. watch a video of him, and he clearly starts off slower than everyone else, and then speeds up a lot faster than everyone else: he's running on springs
god bless the guy, he's a phenomenal athlete. but he shouldn't be allowed to compete with runners with real feet. he's playing checkers when everyone else is playing blackjack. what he is doing is just not the same sport as what the other guys on the track are doing. and so he shouldn't compete with them. not because he doesn't deserve to just because he doesn't have feet, but simply because he's playing a different biomechanical game
these are the desperate maneuvers of a fading corporate enterprise. not the burgeoning reality of a corporate fascism
it is pretty easy to defeat anyone who depends upon the spectre of the slippery slope in the realm of logic and reason. by its very nature, the idea of the slippery slope depends upon fear and hysteria to support its notions. that we are going to slide to some vast new legal or social reality, completely without any recourse or resistance, simply because of some little tweak here or there. its complete bullshit. its demagoguery, propaganda
logic and reason are always the enemy of the concept of the slippery slope, and anyone who depends upon the notion of the slippery slope in their arguments is someone you thereby automatically identify as someone who is afraid and hysterical and is not thinking clearly
"Do you get it yet? I don't live in daily fear, I just see where this is likely to lead and I don't like it. I'm hardly paralyzed and not at all hysterical."
your words on the topic of the implications of this myspace case are very much the definition of fear-based thinking. your thinking is paralyzed and you are in fact hysterical about the implications of the case
the slippery slope doesn't exist. in any argument. on any topic. its propaganda
there are also a lot of fear addled paranoid schizophrenics posting on slashdot who believe their society is dangling by a thread from falling into corporate fascism
it is very much in the interest of justice to find this person's real identity. but if due to fear and hysteria you believe this means we will now all live under big brother, then go hide in your basement and don't talk to anyone. or, accept the notion that the law and your society is not dangling by a thread to fall into corporate fascism, or whatever your parnaoid schizophrenic fantasies are about the implications of this case. there are people out there with level heads who understand the obvious limits here. really. you're not one of those people
you put your faith in the law like it were dead computer code, rather than a living embodiment of a humane understanding of justice
"But stretching a loosely-related law with an unheard-of interpretation so that you can punish the woman for X when really you want to get her for Y, and then denying that logically you would have to punish otehrs who did X (but who didn't do Y), is advocating tyrany."
its advocating justice. you know, that silly concept that motivates the construction of a set of laws in the first place?
pffffffffffft
you don't get it. where it=understanding the nature of your society or the human beings around it. in fact, you simply don't care. you don't want to think about the idea of justice here, you don't care about who is hurt, or what is right or wrong. you want the law to execute like a cold program, damned if it is unideal, damned if it needs adjusting
luckily for you, you simply don't understand how things really work
the law is a living breathing entity. new law is constantly being written like this, constantly being pruned for misinterpretation, and constantly shifting and mutating as society's values shift and change
this being the truth about the law you live under, and assuming you can concieve of this truth about the law of the land you live in, one wonders why you aren't cowering under a table in fear right now. what a fruitcake. you call the fact that the law is a living changing thing a form of tyranny! amazing...
someone who thinks that society and the law functions the way you believe it does must lead a very fearful existence
you believe in the fallacy of the slippery slope
here, this is an example of the slippery slope at work... maybe if i invoke the idea of the slippery slope in another context, and you see how it is wrong, you will get some insight into your own fear-addled psyche:
me: "gay men should be allowed to marry" you: "if change the law like that, then you are also legalizing polygamy, necrophilia, pedophilia, bestialty!" me: "wtf?" (scratches head)
the idea that gay marriage means necorphilia will inevitably become legal due to a legal slippery slope is of course bullshit. but i hope you can see that there are people who actually believe that this bullshit slippery slope exists, and why they are so nutty
the reaons these slippery slopes don't exist is of course because people are levelheaded and recognize limits. yet for some bizarre reason you don't seem to be able to see that people would recognize obvious, simple straightforward limits. instead, you propose to me that prosecuting this rare case with a novel interpretation of the law- which happens all the time, will suddenly lead us to corporate fascism
dude, you're a fear-addled kook. god knows how you function in daily life with this level of emotional, irrational fear clouding how you see your society and your legal system functioning
there are level heads out there in the courtroom. really. furthermore, you are not currently someone with a level head. you are someone suffering from paranoia and hysteria on this issue. really. you're quite the hysterical fear-addled fruitcake, if i ever met one
putting carbon in the air that you took out of the air is better than putting carbon in the air that was buried in the ground
indeed, it's not ideal. but the best course is to gradually do better, not assume we can immediately jump to utopian society
furthermore, hydrogen power is very much of a "i'm a hipster in horned rimmed glasses who doesn't understand thermodynamics" kind of thing
when you convert from one energy form to another, you waste energy. its impossible not to. such that converting to difficult to store, dangerous, and difficult to transport hydrogen, and converting that to motion, with all of the wasted heat involved, is not ideal thermodynamically
batteries are better. again, still not ideal, as heavy and low density (energy wise) as they are, but they are still better than hydrogen
its just kind of funny your post, because to me hydrogen is very much and always has been the poster child cause of airheaded hipsters who know nothing about chemistry and physics
law is not dead computer code, it is a living thing
its called novel theory. its used all the time in criminal and civil law
a prosecutor can prosecute her criminally in a new and different way. if he wins and the decision gets challenged, and a judge or jury underlines the original verdict, then new law is written, a new interpretation
furthermore: "they are selectively prosecuting on the grounds that people like you will take an alarmist view of what happened and convict on emotion rather than facts"
the only alarmism and fear here is coming from you. you honestly believe that if someone is convicted for a specific and extenuating circumstance like this, that all of a sudden they will throw people in jail for breaking a tos? alarmism, fear: yours, not anyone elses
it is not possible to write a law in totality. there is always a paragraph or passage or statement that is susceptible to being overly broad or miscontrued
the best you can do is be as specific as possible. mention what makes this case special, in the exact wording of the law: 1. adult versus minor, 2. specific, planned, long term emotional cruelty and deception, 3. foreknowledge of emotional fragility or suicidal tendencies
what happens is that this law, and every law ever written, get challenged in specific extenuating circumstances, and they get amended, the decisions of judges and juries color what the limits of a law should be
this is the way it has always been. you are assuming some sort of protection that never existed: that a law can cover everything that will ever happen, and always be enforced in the exact way its writers intended, without any room for misinterpretation. impossible
furthermore, a few incredibly rare cases are so bizarre as to require the creation of a completely new law, like this case. via the legislature, or via criminal prosecution with novel theory. novel theory gets challenged, judges underline the new iontepretation, life goes on. its always been that way
fact is, law is a living breathing thing, not dead computer code. it requires constant growth of new limbs to cover new situations like this, constant pruning when the limb gets overused and too broadly enforced, and the law must also mutate and change over time as a society's values change over time
there is no protection from what you want protection from. law can be abused and misinterpretted and too broadly interpretted. so the law mus tbe worded as specific as possible, and must be challenged all the time. justice is imperfect, it is a human thing, not a computer system
but because justice is imperfect is not a valid argument to stop trying to pursue justice
its called novel theory. the novel theory usually gets challenged if it leads to a conviction, and if it survives the challenge, it creates new law
you are phrasing it however that just breaking a website's tos leads to criminal conviction. this is some sor tof irrational fea ron your part. just like you say to me that there is noone here who doesn't think that what the woman did was a complete asshole thing to do, and was morally wrong, i am also going to say to you that noone in the legal system thinks that just breaking a tos is grounds for criminal prosecution
the point being, this is a special case. any landmark ruling on the case will only apply to special extenuating circumstances
so if someone murders someone, and the family of the victim forgives the murderer, society shouldn't punish the murderer? of course not. the murderer needs to be punished no matter what the victims think
the issue is society's standards of justice, not an individual's standards of justice, not even the victim's standards of justice. if i murder someone, and the victim's family forgives me, that's it? no: i've proven to society that i murder people. therefore, society has every moral and logical right to prevent future murders by locking me up
#2:
that this woman involved even more minors in this disgusting escapade is FURTHER reason to punish her, not extenuating circumstances that relieve her of culpability
if i have a son who buys a gun to kill someone, and threatens to shoot a bunch of kids at school, and then i find about this, and gleefully pick up the gun, help my son with the list of kids to murder, and shoot some of the kids myself, am i somehow less guilty than if i had arranged the school shooting all by myself without my son's involvement?
no, i'm actually even more repugnant, because rather than dissuade my son from doing something wrong, i taught him how to do more wrong
so this woman discovers this escapade of picking on an emotionally fragile suicidal girl. what does she do? she gleefully gets involved! so she's guilty of all the crimes as if she had done the manipulation herself, and now she has the further evil of teaching minors how to be cruel and manipulate an isolated child known to be suicidal
what is she teaching her children about the feelings of others, especially about the feelings of a lonely, emotionally fragile, suicidal girl? that we should decieve, manipulate, and be cruel to over a period of time?
the involvement of other minors in the crime doesn't relieve this woman of guilt, it makes the woman MORE evil and punishable
trolling is like taking a paper bag of crap and throwing it into a crowd and revelling in the screams if disgust
1. its anonymous, not personal 2. its temporary and short 3. its done amongst a group of equally aged and emotionally mature people 4. the target is a crowd of people, a community, not a single person
what this evil woman did is more like stalking: purposefully targetting and manipulating one person over an extended period of time
furthermore, most disgusting, this was the actions of an adult against a child. there is no understanding of trolling that assumes that an adult is picking on children
and to go even further into disgust, the adult KNEW the child had emotional and suicidal issues when she set about this plan of decpetion and emotional manipulation
so this case cannot set a precedent against trolling
it can only set a precedent for:
1. prolonged one-on-one stalking 2. manipulating the emotions of a minor 3. manipulating the emotions of someone you know to be suicidal or otherwise emotionally fragile
all of which, in fact, deserve to made criminal
this is not just trolling, what this evil woman did
the true test of a fair and just society is one which tempers ALL ideological concepts with exceptions. ALL ideological concepts must be limited: not just religion in government, not just police powers
but also things like privacy, property rights, freedom of the press: all these concepts have their limits. ALL ideological concepts have their limits and exceptions
fundamentalism is not solely the sin of social conservatives and the right. fundamentalism is also a sin of the left
for example, if you are fundamentalist on the issue of abortion, even you understand that if the life of the mother is threatened an abortion is ok
if you are a property rights fundamentalist, even you understand eminent domain for say, a highway society needs is ok
and finally, if you are a free speech fundamentalist, even you understand that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not ok
but some free speech fundamentalists are not thinking about this case. they are just applying a litmus test: "what someone else said does not make them responsible for someone else killing themselves" and closing their minds on the issue
you fail, fundamentalists. this case:
1. involves an adult preying on a child 2. involves an adult preying on a child she KNEW was suicidal 3. involves an adult purposefully and maliciously and over an extended period of time lying and manipulating the feelings of that child 4. and then suggesting she kill herself
this is culpability, this is intent to do harm, this is and should be punishable in a fair and just society
don't be a fundamentalist. examine the issue, think about it
sun tzu would have appreciated the wisdom of not engaging in tactics which win you the battle but lose you the war
the battle of course, is abstract. it is the battle for the hearts and minds of the people in your country and other countries. so if you invalidate the cause you fight for, what have you won?
it is not good enough to merely dominate in all matter of physical warfare. you must also dominate in ideological warfare. and ideological warfare is not about media manipulation or propaganda. it is about simply picking a cause to stand for and adhering to it
if the people don't believe in what you are fighting for, then your physical military efforts are pointless. likewise, if the people do believe in what you are fighting for, then your enemy can achieve stunning battlefield dominance, and yet it all of their gains will fade over time. you have to ask yourself what the point of war is. is war merely a shoving match over physical turf? on one level it is, but it involves the values of the societies fighting over that turf as well. the groups that achieve physical military dominance and solidify their gains over time, are the ones that fight for values that actually have greater staying power than their enemy's. so the only lasting victories are the ones that actually stand for something
i am not in any way failing to understand traditional military wisdom. but i will suggest to you that my pov might have a better understanding of traditional military wisdom
you don't defeat your enemies by engaging in their tactics. that just makes you the moral equivalent of your enemy, thereby nullifying any moral high ground you claim to have, thereby nullifying any reason any citizen of your country or ally of your country would side with you
the nyt has the real story: studios are required by law to show movies to exhibitors before they buy films (which is how the party pooper reviewer shogunmaster got to see it), which in today's internet age means that studios (especially control-freak spielberg on this specific issue) are losing the ability to control pre-release media buzz
because my post wasn't outwardly antiwestern, but instead criticized china and the islamic world, it got modded down
even though i specifically mentioned the usa and the uk as falling for blind pride, and even though what i say is equally applicable to anything the west has done or is doing
the take home lesson is that some people think that only statements that criticize the west are deserving of being modded up
Neil Turok is deeply involved as well; he was recently named to head the Perimeter Institute in Canada, whose server we brought to its knees this morning.
go in search of africa's einsteins, find africa's botlords?
national sovereignty and religious superiority is an illusion. there is nothing unique about being russian, or chinese, or muslim, or christian, or american, or any nationality or religious identity. of course, blind nationalist pride and religious bigotry are founded on the bedrock concept of exclusivity, superiority
and what they reap form that falsehood is violence, hated, and war
this world is a long way from peace. to get there, billions more must die in the name of moronic tribal pride before people learn the price they pay simply for believing they are superior because of their nationality or religion
so go china go: you are inculcating your rise on the world stage in the same way germany and japan did, the same way the usa and the uk did. your neighbors should pay attention, and batten the hatches. when, not if, china experiences an economic downturn, i fully expect a demagogue to rise to power and reap the "benefits" of the rabid nationalism china breeds on purpose to deflect criticism away from china
mark these words: the sense of religious suepriority they breed in riyadh and the sense of nationalist superiority they breed in beijing does not fade away, and it demands a pound of flesh
the psychosis of pride. it is blind, and leads to violence. and it is inevitable
only bloodshed will come of chinese nationalism and arab religious bigotry
i am 100% certainty on that. it does not fade away on its own. it is venom that once made, must claim lives
until the nationalists and religious bigots lose their influence. and that only comes when the common chinese and the common arab see the price they pay for their blind pride in the damage they do to themselves and their neighbors for thinking themselves so superior
Slashdot Mirror
then i want to compete on the running track with a bicycle
or, i want to compete right after i blood dope
and if you say i shouldn't with either of those, well then you just don't embrace the concept of friendly competition
i'll tell you what: you deliver that little cotton candy missive of yours above to any runner competing in the olympics and see how far you get, okay?
meanwhile, here's a small pin to pop your airheaded opinion: you can't have friendly competition without fair competition
work it out and get back to us
clearly these artificial limbs store kinetic energy in a radically different way. the biomechanics are obviously different. he's using different muscle groups. watch a video of him, and he clearly starts off slower than everyone else, and then speeds up a lot faster than everyone else: he's running on springs
god bless the guy, he's a phenomenal athlete. but he shouldn't be allowed to compete with runners with real feet. he's playing checkers when everyone else is playing blackjack. what he is doing is just not the same sport as what the other guys on the track are doing. and so he shouldn't compete with them. not because he doesn't deserve to just because he doesn't have feet, but simply because he's playing a different biomechanical game
that's exactly what justice is
and?
the only thing that needs explaining is what you think that aspect of justice has to do with a slippery slope
one can assume you're at a loss for words because you don't know what the hell you are talking about
i identified the concept of the slippery slope as a false construct, one based on fear
you reply that therefore, justice doesn't exist
(scratches head)
these are the desperate maneuvers of a fading corporate enterprise. not the burgeoning reality of a corporate fascism
it is pretty easy to defeat anyone who depends upon the spectre of the slippery slope in the realm of logic and reason. by its very nature, the idea of the slippery slope depends upon fear and hysteria to support its notions. that we are going to slide to some vast new legal or social reality, completely without any recourse or resistance, simply because of some little tweak here or there. its complete bullshit. its demagoguery, propaganda
logic and reason are always the enemy of the concept of the slippery slope, and anyone who depends upon the notion of the slippery slope in their arguments is someone you thereby automatically identify as someone who is afraid and hysterical and is not thinking clearly
"Do you get it yet? I don't live in daily fear, I just see where this is likely to lead and I don't like it. I'm hardly paralyzed and not at all hysterical."
your words on the topic of the implications of this myspace case are very much the definition of fear-based thinking. your thinking is paralyzed and you are in fact hysterical about the implications of the case
the slippery slope doesn't exist. in any argument. on any topic. its propaganda
there are also a lot of fear addled paranoid schizophrenics posting on slashdot who believe their society is dangling by a thread from falling into corporate fascism
it is very much in the interest of justice to find this person's real identity. but if due to fear and hysteria you believe this means we will now all live under big brother, then go hide in your basement and don't talk to anyone. or, accept the notion that the law and your society is not dangling by a thread to fall into corporate fascism, or whatever your parnaoid schizophrenic fantasies are about the implications of this case. there are people out there with level heads who understand the obvious limits here. really. you're not one of those people
i am a level 25 Demagog Troll, HP 59. use your +5 vorpal sword of anonymous douchebaggery to slay me and save slashdot
you put your faith in the law like it were dead computer code, rather than a living embodiment of a humane understanding of justice
"But stretching a loosely-related law with an unheard-of interpretation so that you can punish the woman for X when really you want to get her for Y, and then denying that logically you would have to punish otehrs who did X (but who didn't do Y), is advocating tyrany."
its advocating justice. you know, that silly concept that motivates the construction of a set of laws in the first place?
pffffffffffft
you don't get it. where it=understanding the nature of your society or the human beings around it. in fact, you simply don't care. you don't want to think about the idea of justice here, you don't care about who is hurt, or what is right or wrong. you want the law to execute like a cold program, damned if it is unideal, damned if it needs adjusting
luckily for you, you simply don't understand how things really work
the law is a living breathing entity. new law is constantly being written like this, constantly being pruned for misinterpretation, and constantly shifting and mutating as society's values shift and change
this being the truth about the law you live under, and assuming you can concieve of this truth about the law of the land you live in, one wonders why you aren't cowering under a table in fear right now. what a fruitcake. you call the fact that the law is a living changing thing a form of tyranny! amazing...
someone who thinks that society and the law functions the way you believe it does must lead a very fearful existence
you believe in the fallacy of the slippery slope
here, this is an example of the slippery slope at work... maybe if i invoke the idea of the slippery slope in another context, and you see how it is wrong, you will get some insight into your own fear-addled psyche:
me: "gay men should be allowed to marry"
you: "if change the law like that, then you are also legalizing polygamy, necrophilia, pedophilia, bestialty!"
me: "wtf?" (scratches head)
the idea that gay marriage means necorphilia will inevitably become legal due to a legal slippery slope is of course bullshit. but i hope you can see that there are people who actually believe that this bullshit slippery slope exists, and why they are so nutty
the reaons these slippery slopes don't exist is of course because people are levelheaded and recognize limits. yet for some bizarre reason you don't seem to be able to see that people would recognize obvious, simple straightforward limits. instead, you propose to me that prosecuting this rare case with a novel interpretation of the law- which happens all the time, will suddenly lead us to corporate fascism
dude, you're a fear-addled kook. god knows how you function in daily life with this level of emotional, irrational fear clouding how you see your society and your legal system functioning
there are level heads out there in the courtroom. really. furthermore, you are not currently someone with a level head. you are someone suffering from paranoia and hysteria on this issue. really. you're quite the hysterical fear-addled fruitcake, if i ever met one
putting carbon in the air that you took out of the air is better than putting carbon in the air that was buried in the ground
indeed, it's not ideal. but the best course is to gradually do better, not assume we can immediately jump to utopian society
furthermore, hydrogen power is very much of a "i'm a hipster in horned rimmed glasses who doesn't understand thermodynamics" kind of thing
when you convert from one energy form to another, you waste energy. its impossible not to. such that converting to difficult to store, dangerous, and difficult to transport hydrogen, and converting that to motion, with all of the wasted heat involved, is not ideal thermodynamically
batteries are better. again, still not ideal, as heavy and low density (energy wise) as they are, but they are still better than hydrogen
its just kind of funny your post, because to me hydrogen is very much and always has been the poster child cause of airheaded hipsters who know nothing about chemistry and physics
law is not dead computer code, it is a living thing
its called novel theory. its used all the time in criminal and civil law
a prosecutor can prosecute her criminally in a new and different way. if he wins and the decision gets challenged, and a judge or jury underlines the original verdict, then new law is written, a new interpretation
furthermore: "they are selectively prosecuting on the grounds that people like you will take an alarmist view of what happened and convict on emotion rather than facts"
the only alarmism and fear here is coming from you. you honestly believe that if someone is convicted for a specific and extenuating circumstance like this, that all of a sudden they will throw people in jail for breaking a tos? alarmism, fear: yours, not anyone elses
it is not possible to write a law in totality. there is always a paragraph or passage or statement that is susceptible to being overly broad or miscontrued
the best you can do is be as specific as possible. mention what makes this case special, in the exact wording of the law: 1. adult versus minor, 2. specific, planned, long term emotional cruelty and deception, 3. foreknowledge of emotional fragility or suicidal tendencies
what happens is that this law, and every law ever written, get challenged in specific extenuating circumstances, and they get amended, the decisions of judges and juries color what the limits of a law should be
this is the way it has always been. you are assuming some sort of protection that never existed: that a law can cover everything that will ever happen, and always be enforced in the exact way its writers intended, without any room for misinterpretation. impossible
furthermore, a few incredibly rare cases are so bizarre as to require the creation of a completely new law, like this case. via the legislature, or via criminal prosecution with novel theory. novel theory gets challenged, judges underline the new iontepretation, life goes on. its always been that way
fact is, law is a living breathing thing, not dead computer code. it requires constant growth of new limbs to cover new situations like this, constant pruning when the limb gets overused and too broadly enforced, and the law must also mutate and change over time as a society's values change over time
there is no protection from what you want protection from. law can be abused and misinterpretted and too broadly interpretted. so the law mus tbe worded as specific as possible, and must be challenged all the time. justice is imperfect, it is a human thing, not a computer system
but because justice is imperfect is not a valid argument to stop trying to pursue justice
its called novel theory. the novel theory usually gets challenged if it leads to a conviction, and if it survives the challenge, it creates new law
you are phrasing it however that just breaking a website's tos leads to criminal conviction. this is some sor tof irrational fea ron your part. just like you say to me that there is noone here who doesn't think that what the woman did was a complete asshole thing to do, and was morally wrong, i am also going to say to you that noone in the legal system thinks that just breaking a tos is grounds for criminal prosecution
the point being, this is a special case. any landmark ruling on the case will only apply to special extenuating circumstances
uh, so you try to prove that adults preying on minors is ok because... drum roll please... more than one adult was involved?
wtf?
logic much?
furthermore, missouri's law is stupid. more stupidity somewhere else does not make the original stupidity in question ok
your logic is like this:
1. someone said cannibalism is wrong
2. but there are still people in papua new guinea who think cannibalism is ok
3. therefore, cannibalism is ok
huh?
howabout instead we condemn what this woman did as evil AND missouri's stupid law as evil?
i made the case that what the woman did wasn't trolling
you then bring up some completely unrelated scenarios
no one with the slightest bit of common sense and the lowest of iqs would confuse telling a child santa doesn't exist with what this woman did
why do you confuse the two scenarios?
why do you think anyone else would?
so if someone murders someone, and the family of the victim forgives the murderer, society shouldn't punish the murderer? of course not. the murderer needs to be punished no matter what the victims think
the issue is society's standards of justice, not an individual's standards of justice, not even the victim's standards of justice. if i murder someone, and the victim's family forgives me, that's it? no: i've proven to society that i murder people. therefore, society has every moral and logical right to prevent future murders by locking me up
#2:
that this woman involved even more minors in this disgusting escapade is FURTHER reason to punish her, not extenuating circumstances that relieve her of culpability
if i have a son who buys a gun to kill someone, and threatens to shoot a bunch of kids at school, and then i find about this, and gleefully pick up the gun, help my son with the list of kids to murder, and shoot some of the kids myself, am i somehow less guilty than if i had arranged the school shooting all by myself without my son's involvement?
no, i'm actually even more repugnant, because rather than dissuade my son from doing something wrong, i taught him how to do more wrong
so this woman discovers this escapade of picking on an emotionally fragile suicidal girl. what does she do? she gleefully gets involved! so she's guilty of all the crimes as if she had done the manipulation herself, and now she has the further evil of teaching minors how to be cruel and manipulate an isolated child known to be suicidal
what is she teaching her children about the feelings of others, especially about the feelings of a lonely, emotionally fragile, suicidal girl? that we should decieve, manipulate, and be cruel to over a period of time?
the involvement of other minors in the crime doesn't relieve this woman of guilt, it makes the woman MORE evil and punishable
trolling is like taking a paper bag of crap and throwing it into a crowd and revelling in the screams if disgust
1. its anonymous, not personal
2. its temporary and short
3. its done amongst a group of equally aged and emotionally mature people
4. the target is a crowd of people, a community, not a single person
what this evil woman did is more like stalking: purposefully targetting and manipulating one person over an extended period of time
furthermore, most disgusting, this was the actions of an adult against a child. there is no understanding of trolling that assumes that an adult is picking on children
and to go even further into disgust, the adult KNEW the child had emotional and suicidal issues when she set about this plan of decpetion and emotional manipulation
so this case cannot set a precedent against trolling
it can only set a precedent for:
1. prolonged one-on-one stalking
2. manipulating the emotions of a minor
3. manipulating the emotions of someone you know to be suicidal or otherwise emotionally fragile
all of which, in fact, deserve to made criminal
this is not just trolling, what this evil woman did
this includes free speech fundamentalism
the true test of a fair and just society is one which tempers ALL ideological concepts with exceptions. ALL ideological concepts must be limited: not just religion in government, not just police powers
but also things like privacy, property rights, freedom of the press: all these concepts have their limits. ALL ideological concepts have their limits and exceptions
fundamentalism is not solely the sin of social conservatives and the right. fundamentalism is also a sin of the left
for example, if you are fundamentalist on the issue of abortion, even you understand that if the life of the mother is threatened an abortion is ok
if you are a property rights fundamentalist, even you understand eminent domain for say, a highway society needs is ok
and finally, if you are a free speech fundamentalist, even you understand that yelling fire in a crowded theatre is not ok
but some free speech fundamentalists are not thinking about this case. they are just applying a litmus test: "what someone else said does not make them responsible for someone else killing themselves" and closing their minds on the issue
you fail, fundamentalists. this case:
1. involves an adult preying on a child
2. involves an adult preying on a child she KNEW was suicidal
3. involves an adult purposefully and maliciously and over an extended period of time lying and manipulating the feelings of that child
4. and then suggesting she kill herself
this is culpability, this is intent to do harm, this is and should be punishable in a fair and just society
don't be a fundamentalist. examine the issue, think about it
sun tzu would have appreciated the wisdom of not engaging in tactics which win you the battle but lose you the war
the battle of course, is abstract. it is the battle for the hearts and minds of the people in your country and other countries. so if you invalidate the cause you fight for, what have you won?
it is not good enough to merely dominate in all matter of physical warfare. you must also dominate in ideological warfare. and ideological warfare is not about media manipulation or propaganda. it is about simply picking a cause to stand for and adhering to it
if the people don't believe in what you are fighting for, then your physical military efforts are pointless. likewise, if the people do believe in what you are fighting for, then your enemy can achieve stunning battlefield dominance, and yet it all of their gains will fade over time. you have to ask yourself what the point of war is. is war merely a shoving match over physical turf? on one level it is, but it involves the values of the societies fighting over that turf as well. the groups that achieve physical military dominance and solidify their gains over time, are the ones that fight for values that actually have greater staying power than their enemy's. so the only lasting victories are the ones that actually stand for something
i am not in any way failing to understand traditional military wisdom. but i will suggest to you that my pov might have a better understanding of traditional military wisdom
you don't defeat your enemies by engaging in their tactics. that just makes you the moral equivalent of your enemy, thereby nullifying any moral high ground you claim to have, thereby nullifying any reason any citizen of your country or ally of your country would side with you
media hype:
OMFG there's a negative review of indy 4!
reality:
negative
neutral
neutral
positive
the nyt has the real story: studios are required by law to show movies to exhibitors before they buy films (which is how the party pooper reviewer shogunmaster got to see it), which in today's internet age means that studios (especially control-freak spielberg on this specific issue) are losing the ability to control pre-release media buzz
because my post wasn't outwardly antiwestern, but instead criticized china and the islamic world, it got modded down
even though i specifically mentioned the usa and the uk as falling for blind pride, and even though what i say is equally applicable to anything the west has done or is doing
the take home lesson is that some people think that only statements that criticize the west are deserving of being modded up
go in search of africa's einsteins, find africa's botlords?
national sovereignty and religious superiority is an illusion. there is nothing unique about being russian, or chinese, or muslim, or christian, or american, or any nationality or religious identity. of course, blind nationalist pride and religious bigotry are founded on the bedrock concept of exclusivity, superiority
and what they reap form that falsehood is violence, hated, and war
this world is a long way from peace. to get there, billions more must die in the name of moronic tribal pride before people learn the price they pay simply for believing they are superior because of their nationality or religion
so go china go: you are inculcating your rise on the world stage in the same way germany and japan did, the same way the usa and the uk did. your neighbors should pay attention, and batten the hatches. when, not if, china experiences an economic downturn, i fully expect a demagogue to rise to power and reap the "benefits" of the rabid nationalism china breeds on purpose to deflect criticism away from china
mark these words: the sense of religious suepriority they breed in riyadh and the sense of nationalist superiority they breed in beijing does not fade away, and it demands a pound of flesh
the psychosis of pride. it is blind, and leads to violence. and it is inevitable
only bloodshed will come of chinese nationalism and arab religious bigotry
i am 100% certainty on that. it does not fade away on its own. it is venom that once made, must claim lives
until the nationalists and religious bigots lose their influence. and that only comes when the common chinese and the common arab see the price they pay for their blind pride in the damage they do to themselves and their neighbors for thinking themselves so superior