we can say the slippery slope doesn't work, even with subjective judgments. because we can't judge perfectly, doesn't mean we should stop judging. and because a gray area between A and B exists, doesn't mean there is clear daylight between A and C that any fool can see
and we can't legalize gay marriage because then we have to legalize pedophilia and necrophilia
and we can't legalize marijuana because then we have to legalize meth and crack
the slippery slope is a form of fear based logical fallacy
i can tell the difference between homosexuality and necrophilia. i can tell the difference between marijuana and meth. and i can tell the difference between political speech and hate speech
the slippery slope is an idea that only works in a world where nobody can think and identify different topics. therefore, the slippery slope never works as a persuasive argument
everything has its limits. if you use your speech to insult the basic human dignity of other speakers, to attack the integrity of another speaker, is this not an attack on free speech?
they use the analysis to identify a small range of who to watch to find certain confirmation they have the right guy
law enforcement tools are not limited only to 100% certain ones. the fuzzy ones are used to narrow down a list of targets, where law enforcement's limited manpower can be better spent to find certain confirmation
It will be good enough to find someone with similar writing (i.e. also a subversive) and charge them instead of the original perpetrator. And good luck proving that you didn't write that
if you live in a country with good law enforcement, this is hollywood fantasy and/ or paranoid schizophrenia, not reality. you want to actually catch the actual perp because you actually want to prevent crimes
actually hollywood promotes the fantasy mythology of dirty harry: the boy scout fantasy of the perfectly omnipotent, omnipresent good guy who saves the day with a gun
of course, in reality, if you carry a gun, you're already dead before you know it, or you are reaching for your gun while you get shot, or you have trouble picking out the shooter in the confusion, or you cant isolate the target from innocent victims when you do locate the shooter, or you shoot the wrong person, etc., etc.
source: gabby giffords was surrounded by good guys with guns. read their transcripts of the shooting. in the confusion, all of them were completely helpless to do anything
reality is not a hollywood movie. guns don't protect you from what you think they protect you from. they are merely the source of the carnage you claim to fight. the madman used a gun his mother purchased with the exact same thinking you have in mind
i don't know what the answer is, but i know how to reduce the rate of turning murderous intent into reality: make the tool that best expresses that impulse harder to get
they will all live. because the tool matters. point and click and dead versus the hard work of running up to people and slashing them, with a much less effective kill rate
so we must tightly control the tool to make a difference
the gun is a tool, a force multiplier. knives, cars, bombs, etc.: these are different tools, and different kind of force multipliers, and of various necessity in civil life
this particular force multiplier has no necessity in civil life, and makes killing just too easy. civil life has no need for that. so it is entirely possible to talk about banning the tool that makes mass murder easy
the murderous intent, that's another issue. but how does the murderous intent manifest itself? if a gun is easy to acquire when one has that feeling, doesn't that mean something? the murderous intent wouldn't be realized like it was today with a different set of tools, some harder to get, some harder to use on a kindergarten class, some requiring meticulous planning rather than simple impulse
it's just to easy to get guns. the tool's characteristics and its ease of availability matters. time to round up this unnecessary tool and control its distribution a lot tighter and crack down on the black market
murderous intent, the feelings of that, against a coworker, against a wife, against a relative, etc.: it happens. its not normal, but its also not uncommon
the difference is: is there a force multiplier easy at hand when the person has this feeling?
so the solution to the problem is cut down on this unnecessary force multiplier which has no purpose in civil life
the shooter isn't scared of anything, there's no rational decision making going on here. the existence of other people owning guns is no deterrent to someone as deranged by this. i repeat: gun ownership by responsible people does not deter
and gabby giffords was surrounded by gun owners. the attack was so sudden, the good guys with the guns had no time to react, no way to isolate the shooter
guns do NOT protect you
so you solve the problem by simply having less guns around. require stringent reasons for owning one, and crack down on the black market. the easy acquiring of an unnecessary force multiplier in civilian life is the problem
if you had to jump through more hoops to get a gun, especially including mental health checks, there definitely would be less senseless carnage
of course criminal masterminds will still get guns, but criminal masterminds aren't interested in killing kindergarteners
then there are the casual hotheads. who, when not having a gun easy to get, simply don't use a gun
source: homicide rates in the usa and homicide rates in our economic peers
the idea is not to be perfect. the idea is simply to treat the gun with the rest it deserves: it's a force multiplier that you don't need in civil life. it is way too easy to get a gun in the USA, this has to change
so not understanding your culture's particular brand of humor is now seen as a way to look down on other people's culture
here we have mostly americans snickering that the chinese don't get australian irony, and along comes a european saying the same about americans not getting british irony
what a pointless circlejerk
i await the chinese guy to show up and snicker that those silly europeans just don't get irony
in other words, this entire thread is a crapfest of snugness and superiority
an example of chinese subversive humor i just remembered off the top of my head:
what you don't get it? you barbarians and your lack of humor
seriously, this entire thread pisses me off. it's blind stupid ethnocentric condescension. you all suck, you're a bunch of useless western douchebags, seriously
dave doesn't understand he owes everything to being a part of society, despite whatever delusions make him believe he is an island
but it doesn't matter what i think of dave. i can demonstrate a society based on dave's principles would descend into misery and poverty except for a handful of ultrabillionaires, and carol's society would be a strong society of free equals, freed from the cruelties of survival that society can easily fund to dissipate, and reap great rewards for that
and then i can force dave to pay his fair share, based on this realization. just because someone is stupid and doesn't see what is necessary for civilization to exist, doesn't mean they get to freeload on the rest of us by not paying their fair share. and i'm certainly not going to let the shrill clueless idiots take over our government and destroy our great country
but why you think individuals rather than legislators voting on funding this and that will somehow protect you from nonsense is beyond me
When they vote without even reading bills, or regulate the internet without even allowing experts to testify much less understand it themselves.
and you think joe sixpack is going to be more educated?
furthermore you have the problem of motivation: abortion opponents would be highly motivated to defund abortion providers. most people support abortion, but most people aren't as highly motivated. so all of the votes would show massive interest in defunding abortion, not because this reflects what the people actually want, but that it reflects what the most highly motivated minority actually wants. same with gun ownership laws
you haven't really thought through what you are asking for. it's not a better world, it's worse
there is a level of flexibility and specialization required in government that citizens don't want, aren't prepared to think about, and are happy they don't have to worry about
what you are talking about is virtual democracy, where people directly legislate without a legislative personnel layer
the problem is people don't have the time, inclination, interest, or education to do this effectively
not that our current legislators aren't terrible, but i don't understand why that means we should embrace something even worse
we clean up our legislators by getting money out of politics. money splits their allegiances between us, their constituents, and the scumbags who pay their bills
Slashdot Mirror
we can say the slippery slope doesn't work, even with subjective judgments. because we can't judge perfectly, doesn't mean we should stop judging. and because a gray area between A and B exists, doesn't mean there is clear daylight between A and C that any fool can see
because we can't judge 100% accurately, we can never judge at all?
you are an idiot. i mean that as sincerely as possible
right
and we can't legalize gay marriage because then we have to legalize pedophilia and necrophilia
and we can't legalize marijuana because then we have to legalize meth and crack
the slippery slope is a form of fear based logical fallacy
i can tell the difference between homosexuality and necrophilia. i can tell the difference between marijuana and meth. and i can tell the difference between political speech and hate speech
the slippery slope is an idea that only works in a world where nobody can think and identify different topics. therefore, the slippery slope never works as a persuasive argument
everything has its limits. if you use your speech to insult the basic human dignity of other speakers, to attack the integrity of another speaker, is this not an attack on free speech?
agreed. and your fellow citizens will do what your government cannot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders
yes, and neither is revving your motorcycle engines and holding flags in front of such picketers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Guard_Riders
freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences. if you traffic in hate, you reap what you sow
and freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences
if you traffic in hate, you reap what you sow
they use the analysis to identify a small range of who to watch to find certain confirmation they have the right guy
law enforcement tools are not limited only to 100% certain ones. the fuzzy ones are used to narrow down a list of targets, where law enforcement's limited manpower can be better spent to find certain confirmation
if you live in a country with good law enforcement, this is hollywood fantasy and/ or paranoid schizophrenia, not reality. you want to actually catch the actual perp because you actually want to prevent crimes
actually hollywood promotes the fantasy mythology of dirty harry: the boy scout fantasy of the perfectly omnipotent, omnipresent good guy who saves the day with a gun
of course, in reality, if you carry a gun, you're already dead before you know it, or you are reaching for your gun while you get shot, or you have trouble picking out the shooter in the confusion, or you cant isolate the target from innocent victims when you do locate the shooter, or you shoot the wrong person, etc., etc.
source: gabby giffords was surrounded by good guys with guns. read their transcripts of the shooting. in the confusion, all of them were completely helpless to do anything
reality is not a hollywood movie. guns don't protect you from what you think they protect you from. they are merely the source of the carnage you claim to fight. the madman used a gun his mother purchased with the exact same thinking you have in mind
keep talking friend
because tighter gun regulations are coming
looser and looser regulations have led to an increasing tempo of insanity
it's time to join the civilized world and get rid of killing machines we don't need in civil life
marijuana doesn't kill. neither do cheeseburgers
it's not the road to totalitarianism because there is no slippery slope: i can tell the difference between a gun and a blunt and a sandwich. can you?
look at homicide rates in countries that are our economic peers and have tighter gun control
i don't know what the answer is, but i know how to reduce the rate of turning murderous intent into reality: make the tool that best expresses that impulse harder to get
there was a school stabbing in china today too, 22 victims:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html
they will all live. because the tool matters. point and click and dead versus the hard work of running up to people and slashing them, with a much less effective kill rate
so we must tightly control the tool to make a difference
the gun is a tool, a force multiplier. knives, cars, bombs, etc.: these are different tools, and different kind of force multipliers, and of various necessity in civil life
this particular force multiplier has no necessity in civil life, and makes killing just too easy. civil life has no need for that. so it is entirely possible to talk about banning the tool that makes mass murder easy
the murderous intent, that's another issue. but how does the murderous intent manifest itself? if a gun is easy to acquire when one has that feeling, doesn't that mean something? the murderous intent wouldn't be realized like it was today with a different set of tools, some harder to get, some harder to use on a kindergarten class, some requiring meticulous planning rather than simple impulse
it's just to easy to get guns. the tool's characteristics and its ease of availability matters. time to round up this unnecessary tool and control its distribution a lot tighter and crack down on the black market
murderous intent, the feelings of that, against a coworker, against a wife, against a relative, etc.: it happens. its not normal, but its also not uncommon
the difference is: is there a force multiplier easy at hand when the person has this feeling?
so the solution to the problem is cut down on this unnecessary force multiplier which has no purpose in civil life
the shooter isn't scared of anything, there's no rational decision making going on here. the existence of other people owning guns is no deterrent to someone as deranged by this. i repeat: gun ownership by responsible people does not deter
and gabby giffords was surrounded by gun owners. the attack was so sudden, the good guys with the guns had no time to react, no way to isolate the shooter
guns do NOT protect you
so you solve the problem by simply having less guns around. require stringent reasons for owning one, and crack down on the black market. the easy acquiring of an unnecessary force multiplier in civilian life is the problem
resist tyranny?
angry reactionaries in the woods hording guns are the seeds of tyranny, not protection from it
so we will restrict gun ownership even more. who needs a gun? why?
the basic problem is that guns are not necessary in civil life. they provide no protections, they are merely the seed of senseless tragedies
if you had to jump through more hoops to get a gun, especially including mental health checks, there definitely would be less senseless carnage
of course criminal masterminds will still get guns, but criminal masterminds aren't interested in killing kindergarteners
then there are the casual hotheads. who, when not having a gun easy to get, simply don't use a gun
source: homicide rates in the usa and homicide rates in our economic peers
the idea is not to be perfect. the idea is simply to treat the gun with the rest it deserves: it's a force multiplier that you don't need in civil life. it is way too easy to get a gun in the USA, this has to change
so not understanding your culture's particular brand of humor is now seen as a way to look down on other people's culture
here we have mostly americans snickering that the chinese don't get australian irony, and along comes a european saying the same about americans not getting british irony
what a pointless circlejerk
i await the chinese guy to show up and snicker that those silly europeans just don't get irony
in other words, this entire thread is a crapfest of snugness and superiority
an example of chinese subversive humor i just remembered off the top of my head:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKx1aenJK08
what you don't get it? you barbarians and your lack of humor
seriously, this entire thread pisses me off. it's blind stupid ethnocentric condescension. you all suck, you're a bunch of useless western douchebags, seriously
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidu_10_Mythical_Creatures
The Christian Theocracy of Jesusland will not be questioned by the likes of you.
dave doesn't understand he owes everything to being a part of society, despite whatever delusions make him believe he is an island
but it doesn't matter what i think of dave. i can demonstrate a society based on dave's principles would descend into misery and poverty except for a handful of ultrabillionaires, and carol's society would be a strong society of free equals, freed from the cruelties of survival that society can easily fund to dissipate, and reap great rewards for that
and then i can force dave to pay his fair share, based on this realization. just because someone is stupid and doesn't see what is necessary for civilization to exist, doesn't mean they get to freeload on the rest of us by not paying their fair share. and i'm certainly not going to let the shrill clueless idiots take over our government and destroy our great country
the TSA is a joke and marijuana should be legal
but why you think individuals rather than legislators voting on funding this and that will somehow protect you from nonsense is beyond me
and you think joe sixpack is going to be more educated?
furthermore you have the problem of motivation: abortion opponents would be highly motivated to defund abortion providers. most people support abortion, but most people aren't as highly motivated. so all of the votes would show massive interest in defunding abortion, not because this reflects what the people actually want, but that it reflects what the most highly motivated minority actually wants. same with gun ownership laws
you haven't really thought through what you are asking for. it's not a better world, it's worse
there is a level of flexibility and specialization required in government that citizens don't want, aren't prepared to think about, and are happy they don't have to worry about
what you are talking about is virtual democracy, where people directly legislate without a legislative personnel layer
the problem is people don't have the time, inclination, interest, or education to do this effectively
not that our current legislators aren't terrible, but i don't understand why that means we should embrace something even worse
we clean up our legislators by getting money out of politics. money splits their allegiances between us, their constituents, and the scumbags who pay their bills