One need not be a libertarian to understand that voting does not create agency, and that a voter is not morally responsible for the actions of elected legislators. I debated omitting my dig at voting; it introduced an independent issue that is muddying the waters. Even the most ardent democrat must admit that the elected representative is not the agent of any particular voter. He has not obligated himself to act under the direction of the voter, or to carry out any particular promises. He can take actions that run directly counter to the wishes of the voter. How can the voter be held morally responsible for those actions? Once the tax money leaves the voter's pocket, it is utterly out of his control as well as fungible, so he cannot complain that "his" money is being spent contrary to his wishes, only that he disagrees with how it is being spent, and he has as much right to disagree whether he paid any taxes or not. Nor need he feel any guilt over its bad use.
Mr. Moore falls prey to a common mistake in ethical reasoning. He says that the actions of certain states are "carried out in our name and with our tax dollars". Politicians are not anyone's agents in a legal or ethical sense, regardless of whether some of us choose to participate in the exercise in legitimacy-creation known as 'voting'. If they claim to act in "our" behalf, they are making the same mistake Moore makes, or (more likely) they are liars. Once my taxes are confiscated under threat of violence by the state, I have no ethical responsibility for how they are spent, and no standing to complain. If I am waylaid by a highwayman, and later monitor his spending habits and discover that he is using some of his funds to commit immoral acts, do I whine or hang my head over my imagined guilt? Hardly.
If you thought I was looking for some document to support the state subsidy of the theme park, you misunderstood me. In fact, I am totally opposed to it. I was responding to what someone said about the "establishment clause", which is in fact in the first Amendment to the United States Constitution.
On that principle, for example, now not only the Congress, but the states as well, cannot abridge the free exercise of religion, or the bearing of arms. But you were right to say "pretty much". There are features of the Bill of Rights that are specifically aimed at protecting the states from encroachment by the central goverment, such as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. There is no coherent "extension by the 14th to the states" that can made of them. I believe that the "Establishment Clause" is one of those.
You might pass "Constitutional Law 101", since "Constitutional Law" is a beast that has wandered far from its mother. But you would fail "Constitution 101". Grab an English dictionary, some scholarly historical works on the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then re-read the First Amendment. If you are honest, you may not like what you find, but you will see that the intent of it was to prohibit the new central government from involvement in establishment-of-religion matters. It's not that hard to parse. Take off your coloured lenses and read the actual words. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The word "respecting" means "pertaining to" (see dictionary). This prohibited the Congress from establishing a state religion. It also prohibited them from interfering with the states' choice to do so or not. We make well not like it; we may be right that as a matter of principle, a government at any level should not be favouring or funding a religion. But that this certainly NOT what the "establishment clause" says.
Take a deep breath, and go back and read the parent post. Nowhere did he even hint that all corporations are evil. He merely alleged that certain parties presume that all corporations are good. Then apologize.
Evidently one can become a recording industry executive in an English-speaking country without understanding the meaning of a simple word like "steal".
Despite the fact that the first sentence of the very short story clearly names Valdosta State University, and the fact that everyone learns as a child that significant words in headlines are capitalized, you still managed to confuse yourself into believing that the school in question is Georgia College? I don't buy it. You are feigning confusion as an excuse for posting. Behave yourself.
The story title aptly characterizes her as Terror Chief. Her role, like that of her American counterpart, is to instill terror in the populace. She is one of the most valuable, if unofficial, players on the Al Qaeda team, thanks to the interest of our ruling elites in promoting (for different reasons) terrorism.
According to the article, Facebook has publicly responded with
It’s unfortunate that after months of working with Lamebook to amicably resolve what we believe is an improper attempt to build a brand that trades off Facebook’s popularity and fame, they have turned to litigation. We are confident in our position and believe we will prevail in court.
What they would be saying under sodium pentathol:
We are miffed that after several months of bullying Lamebook with threatened litigation over their building of a business that takes natural and legal (but you'll never get us to admit it) advantage of the social phenomena created by Facebook, under a brand name that no human being would come close to confusing with ours, they feel forced to defend themselves in a court of law. We are certain that our deeper pockets will overwhelm justice in court.
One of the flaws in this 'story' is that it characterizes itself as trying to shoot down the idea that Microsoft acted on principle: Nice to see a company take a principled stand,... right? Well, maybe not. Yet it fails to offer evidence that anyone, including Microsoft, has even hinted that Microsoft was "taking a principled stand". Maybe this stems from the author's misreading of Microsoft's statement that begins "We strongly support public education, but...", as a claim that the company is opposing the bill as a way of supporting public education. He makes this misunderstanding clear in his final sentence: All of which might make a cynic question what was really important to Microsoft — public education, or a $2B state income tax-free payday for its CEO?
All the 'story' really even attempts to argue is that the self-interest of Ballmer in the defeat of the income tax brings into question whether Microsoft's leadership acted in the company's interest, or in Ballmer's. But it fails even at that. It offers evidence only that Ballmer's and Microsoft's interests were aligned.
Substantially the same story has been popping up regularly for about twenty years. It's like the flying car story. It's always just around the corner, but it never reaches the market, at least not at a competitive price.
Drivers can read / recognize mixed case from further distance than all caps.
An assertion like this should come with citation of supporting evidence and a quantitative comparison of the two varieties of sign, taking into account the relative sizes of their typefaces.
It's hard enough to translate Shakespeare into another natural language without losing a great deal (see Doug Hofstadter). Given the limited vocabulary of Klingon (see your Klingon dictionary), you will get a lengthy, tedious baby-talk retelling.
This has to set a new low for ratio of logical validity to Insightful score. By this reasoning, if research into predicting the weather by a ritual involving chicken entrails were illegal, and a team of meteorologists and computer scientists sued the feds for funding such research because they had to compete for the scarce funding, that would demonstrate that the chicken entrails are superior.
It's not a matter of love versus hate. It's much more complex. Seeing an issue or a person in such a way, and directing a glib aphorism at that caricature, is hardly insightful.
This post, surrounded by bilge like that of its parent post, is the only one that has even attempted to actually engage the article's argument rather than a straw man. We may argue over whether the scenario offered is what is really going on with the iPad, but at least it is rational and on topic.
A fine piece of rhetoric whose purpose is to argue that since we are not being physically coerced into buying an iPad, we have no right to criticize it. But it is not a valid argument. Purchasing a thing in no way constitutes a declaration that the thing is perfect and beyond criticism, nor does it somehow logically contradict pointing out profound design flaws deliberately introduced due to calculations of their expected effect on Apple's bottom line, or arguing that Apple's reasoning is faulty -- that in the long run, we all, including a manufacturer, tend to be better off if a product is just as useful for its price as it can be, and that deliberate reduction of value, whether by crippling a piece of hardware or using security as the cover for actively preventing useful software from running on a device, is unethical.
Slashdot Mirror
One need not be a libertarian to understand that voting does not create agency, and that a voter is not morally responsible for the actions of elected legislators. I debated omitting my dig at voting; it introduced an independent issue that is muddying the waters. Even the most ardent democrat must admit that the elected representative is not the agent of any particular voter. He has not obligated himself to act under the direction of the voter, or to carry out any particular promises. He can take actions that run directly counter to the wishes of the voter. How can the voter be held morally responsible for those actions? Once the tax money leaves the voter's pocket, it is utterly out of his control as well as fungible, so he cannot complain that "his" money is being spent contrary to his wishes, only that he disagrees with how it is being spent, and he has as much right to disagree whether he paid any taxes or not. Nor need he feel any guilt over its bad use.
Mr. Moore falls prey to a common mistake in ethical reasoning. He says that the actions of certain states are "carried out in our name and with our tax dollars". Politicians are not anyone's agents in a legal or ethical sense, regardless of whether some of us choose to participate in the exercise in legitimacy-creation known as 'voting'. If they claim to act in "our" behalf, they are making the same mistake Moore makes, or (more likely) they are liars. Once my taxes are confiscated under threat of violence by the state, I have no ethical responsibility for how they are spent, and no standing to complain. If I am waylaid by a highwayman, and later monitor his spending habits and discover that he is using some of his funds to commit immoral acts, do I whine or hang my head over my imagined guilt? Hardly.
If you thought I was looking for some document to support the state subsidy of the theme park, you misunderstood me. In fact, I am totally opposed to it. I was responding to what someone said about the "establishment clause", which is in fact in the first Amendment to the United States Constitution.
That the man who is arguably the greatest man in American history was self taught is astounding.
What makes you think that?
On that principle, for example, now not only the Congress, but the states as well, cannot abridge the free exercise of religion, or the bearing of arms. But you were right to say "pretty much". There are features of the Bill of Rights that are specifically aimed at protecting the states from encroachment by the central goverment, such as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. There is no coherent "extension by the 14th to the states" that can made of them. I believe that the "Establishment Clause" is one of those.
You might pass "Constitutional Law 101", since "Constitutional Law" is a beast that has wandered far from its mother. But you would fail "Constitution 101". Grab an English dictionary, some scholarly historical works on the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and then re-read the First Amendment. If you are honest, you may not like what you find, but you will see that the intent of it was to prohibit the new central government from involvement in establishment-of-religion matters. It's not that hard to parse. Take off your coloured lenses and read the actual words. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The word "respecting" means "pertaining to" (see dictionary). This prohibited the Congress from establishing a state religion. It also prohibited them from interfering with the states' choice to do so or not. We make well not like it; we may be right that as a matter of principle, a government at any level should not be favouring or funding a religion. But that this certainly NOT what the "establishment clause" says.
Take a deep breath, and go back and read the parent post. Nowhere did he even hint that all corporations are evil. He merely alleged that certain parties presume that all corporations are good. Then apologize.
"So what's the problem?"
"You know... your magazine. It's just about fishing.... we can't have that in our App Store."
Evidently one can become a recording industry executive in an English-speaking country without understanding the meaning of a simple word like "steal".
Despite the fact that the first sentence of the very short story clearly names Valdosta State University, and the fact that everyone learns as a child that significant words in headlines are capitalized, you still managed to confuse yourself into believing that the school in question is Georgia College? I don't buy it. You are feigning confusion as an excuse for posting. Behave yourself.
The story title aptly characterizes her as Terror Chief. Her role, like that of her American counterpart, is to instill terror in the populace. She is one of the most valuable, if unofficial, players on the Al Qaeda team, thanks to the interest of our ruling elites in promoting (for different reasons) terrorism.
According to the article, Facebook has publicly responded with
It’s unfortunate that after months of working with Lamebook to amicably resolve what we believe is an improper attempt to build a brand that trades off Facebook’s popularity and fame, they have turned to litigation. We are confident in our position and believe we will prevail in court.
What they would be saying under sodium pentathol:
We are miffed that after several months of bullying Lamebook with threatened litigation over their building of a business that takes natural and legal (but you'll never get us to admit it) advantage of the social phenomena created by Facebook, under a brand name that no human being would come close to confusing with ours, they feel forced to defend themselves in a court of law. We are certain that our deeper pockets will overwhelm justice in court.
One of the flaws in this 'story' is that it characterizes itself as trying to shoot down the idea that Microsoft acted on principle: Nice to see a company take a principled stand, ... right? Well, maybe not. Yet it fails to offer evidence that anyone, including Microsoft, has even hinted that Microsoft was "taking a principled stand". Maybe this stems from the author's misreading of Microsoft's statement that begins "We strongly support public education, but ...", as a claim that the company is opposing the bill as a way of supporting public education. He makes this misunderstanding clear in his final sentence: All of which might make a cynic question what was really important to Microsoft — public education, or a $2B state income tax-free payday for its CEO?
All the 'story' really even attempts to argue is that the self-interest of Ballmer in the defeat of the income tax brings into question whether Microsoft's leadership acted in the company's interest, or in Ballmer's. But it fails even at that. It offers evidence only that Ballmer's and Microsoft's interests were aligned.
Mod parent up, already! What a clueless idiot the judge is.
Substantially the same story has been popping up regularly for about twenty years. It's like the flying car story. It's always just around the corner, but it never reaches the market, at least not at a competitive price.
Drivers can read / recognize mixed case from further distance than all caps.
An assertion like this should come with citation of supporting evidence and a quantitative comparison of the two varieties of sign, taking into account the relative sizes of their typefaces.
But Shakespeare wrote in Modern English...
It's hard enough to translate Shakespeare into another natural language without losing a great deal (see Doug Hofstadter). Given the limited vocabulary of Klingon (see your Klingon dictionary), you will get a lengthy, tedious baby-talk retelling.
This has to set a new low for ratio of logical validity to Insightful score. By this reasoning, if research into predicting the weather by a ritual involving chicken entrails were illegal, and a team of meteorologists and computer scientists sued the feds for funding such research because they had to compete for the scarce funding, that would demonstrate that the chicken entrails are superior.
The fact that at the moment the parent post is modded Flamebait shows what an utter joke the moderation system is.
It's not a matter of love versus hate. It's much more complex. Seeing an issue or a person in such a way, and directing a glib aphorism at that caricature, is hardly insightful.
Clicking on a link to a video on a website and being told that the format is not supported, yes sir, that's ease of use for you.
This post, surrounded by bilge like that of its parent post, is the only one that has even attempted to actually engage the article's argument rather than a straw man. We may argue over whether the scenario offered is what is really going on with the iPad, but at least it is rational and on topic.
A fine piece of rhetoric whose purpose is to argue that since we are not being physically coerced into buying an iPad, we have no right to criticize it. But it is not a valid argument. Purchasing a thing in no way constitutes a declaration that the thing is perfect and beyond criticism, nor does it somehow logically contradict pointing out profound design flaws deliberately introduced due to calculations of their expected effect on Apple's bottom line, or arguing that Apple's reasoning is faulty -- that in the long run, we all, including a manufacturer, tend to be better off if a product is just as useful for its price as it can be, and that deliberate reduction of value, whether by crippling a piece of hardware or using security as the cover for actively preventing useful software from running on a device, is unethical.
It doesn't seem fair that leftists not allowed to make serious comments without being modded Funny.