Bombay is a legitimate destination that is probably uttered many times a day in airports around the world. Any disorder would be caused solely by the guard who misheard the word. I don't believe that one should be made to suffer for other people's mistaken perceptions.
This was a misunderstanding, pure and simple. There are times when there is a disagreement and both parties take a reasonable position from their own perspectives, and in which both are wrong when all of the details come out. In such situations, the most appropriate resolution is for both parties to simply shuffle their feet, avoid each other's eyes, and mumble "my bad".
She meant no harm, and deserves no punishment. Being a bit scatterbrained and not thinking through every aspect of a situation - particularly when you're used to another setting where something like a blinky-shirt could go without comment - is not a crime.
It's like saying "Bombay" in an airport. A security guard could mishear and get the wrong idea - but you still didn't do anything wrong.
After reading TFA, it doesn't seem like she was trying to be cute and cause a scene. It sounds like she was just really stupid here. I'd drop most the charges and maybe give her a disorderly conduct ticket and be done with it.
Fuck right the hell off. She was wearing a perfectly legal shirt in public.
Re:I'll bookmark this review
on
BioShock Review
·
· Score: 1
I too, will bookmark this review, until I purchase the game or am otherwise exposed to it. In the meantime, I will program in my spare time, and do odd fix-up jobs around the house.
Hey - anyone else want to share why they're not playing this game, and what they're doing in the meantime?
Then stop thinking about it in terms of Dems vs Republicans. Look at the individuals who voted No, and get them out and bring in people who will vote for the American people. Individuals can feel the voters' heat far stronger than parties can.
Wow - a troll rating for a mea culpa - now I've seen everything.
Anyway - it's true that liberals pursue conservative faults far more than liberal ones. And vice versa. And same for blacks and whites, religious and secular, peasants and monarchy. The sad truth is that as humans we're always going to be giving the benefit of the doubt to our "side".
But my claim that liberals favor investigations of allegations was in response to a claim that they wanted to punish before investigation. And it remains true - regardless of who the allegations are against, I favour investigations before punishment. Bringing partisan politics into this is a non sequiter.
That has nothing to do with my comment and you know it. I was referring to the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine.
ACORN, too, is innocent until proven guilty. And if you - or anyone else - has a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, then you should demand an investigation.
BTW - I see no problem with an organization doing voter registration drives and turning in registration forms, which is all you've accused ACORN of at this point.
people are perfectly fine with assigning guilt and punishment first, and finding out what really happened second.
I don't think that's so. Liberals traditionally support doing an investigation if there is suspicion of something, finding out who is guilty, and then punishing. Pissed-off rants aside, I tend to see this exact same logic applied to the administration. The problem is that there has been a whole lot of suspicious activity with very little investigation.
Yeah - I just had this debate a few evolution-threads back. Basically, I think it requires faith - but there is little similarity between the kind of faith that is required for every day life, and the kind of faith required by major religions.
Right, but what is your evidence that the "fake" past isn't also a key to the future?
None - there's no evidence either way. But instead of saying "We don't know" - we pick one alternative and live by it.
But the fact that empiricism can only be justified, logically, by circular reasoning isn't a flaw in empiricism; it's a flaw in logic. That's the point I keep making that you continue to ignore.
Meh - it's not a flaw in logic - that's just what logic is. Logic starts from axioms, and gives you an absolutely true result - assuming those axioms are true. It's the translation between "reality" and those axioms where the uncertainty lies.
Anyway, as we've both said, this is all a matter of definition (most arguments are). It's obvious that you're either ascribing more to faith than just "belief in something despite lack of evidence", or you're using "evidence" to mean "empirical evidence".
I don't think it's worth arguing over. Whatever faith we may have - by any definition - is certainly of a different quality than those saying "science requires faith" hold in their god.
If I do this, say, 100 times Once again - how do you know you've done it 100 times? How do you know you didn't pop into existence a nanosecond ago? You keep defining evidence as something that you've seen in the past, as if that is any guide to the future. "The past has always been a guide to the future in the past, therefore, it will continue to be a guide to the future in the future". You accept this, and you offer no evidence that it is true except that it has always been true in the past. We can't even be sure there is a past.
You have all of these hidden assumptions in every single one of your examples, but you never address them.
You claim I'm ignoring your points, but every single time you bring up your "evidence", you ignore my point that there is no evidence that points to predictability that is not circular, relying on the axiom of predictability itself.
If you're making an argument that people without faith have faith in faithlessness,
I'm not. I'm making the argument that you have basic assumptions about how the universe works, without any a priori justification for them.
You stated that the difference was that faith needed no evidence. I countered with the fact that we have no evidence for some of our beliefs, yet believe them anyway - we need no evidence for our belief in a predictable universe.
By all means, walk on down to your local church and try to present evidence that contradicts your belief.
I have no evidence to contradict their beliefs. Their beliefs are so ironclad and circular that there is very little that they would consider evidence. They have faith in their God as you have faith in the predictability of the universe. The difference is that your faith does little more than allow you to function as a normal human being. Their faith compels them to act in ways that you or I would find irrational.
To tell them to live as if there were no God would be the same as telling you to live as if the universe is unpredictable. It would seem completely irrational. But there is no solid evidence at the base of either set of beliefs.
If faith is simply belief in the absence of evidence, then you have faith - unless you can show me solid evidence that the universe is predictable (your responses so far all rely on other assumptions - equally baseless). If there is an aspect of your definition of faith that I'm missing, then sure - you don't have faith.
Finally, don't assume that faith is a bad thing. The way I'm using the word, it would be impossible to function without a least a little bit of it. rFaithers give faith a bad name.
But we do have the appearance of past physics, clearly put there for a purpose, and presumably, that purpose is to indicate to us the rules of physics that are going to be true in the future.
But once again - what evidence is there that there is a purpose to that knowledge?
Jesus craps all over the guy who needed evidence to believe
But that's what I'm saying. We don't need evidence to believe in the basic workings of the universe, because we don't *have* any evidence for it (I know we disagree - please just assume this for the sake of argument). Then there is no justification for treating the universe as we understand it versus any other method of living. We live our lives in faith that the universe meets our basic understanding.
If the basic difference between religious-faith and..umm... "universe-faith" is that uFaith admits that it's just a tentative belief until something better comes along, I can go with that. But I think it may just be a matter of degrees.
Certainly if God Himself came down and told his followers that eating pork was fine, I expect a lot of non-pork-eaters would drop that belief. This is "tentatively believing something until contradictory evidence comes along". The difference is that their basic assumptions (their "faith") only allows a very narrow scope of evidence to be accepted. uFaith is different by what can be considered evidence, but it still follows pretty much the same rules.
It doesn't matter - neither case represents a lesser likelihood of the laws of physics remaining the same in the future.
If we all came into being a blink-of-an-eye ago, then we have no past physics to base our expectations on. Maybe we're created with the expectation of seeing certain behaviour, but it turns out that gravity works in reverse - surprise! [earth explodes]
accepting a contention on a provisional basis until you see contradictory evidence is not something that anybody would recognize as "faith"
Ultimately, I think this is the point of contention. I think it can be a form of faith, given my prior belief that there is no evidence that the universe will continue to work as expected (certainly debatable, but go with me here).
Given: - There are many possibilities of the nature of the universe - We have no subjective observations of the universe, since we've been residing within the universe for all of the observations that we have made.
Then it is a statement of faith to select any one to believe - or even a subset in which the assumptions of science are true.
Slashdot Mirror
There are more than a few scary comparisons to pre-WWII Germany.
What's even more scary is that no one's even yelling "Godwin" anymore. More and more people are treating this as a valid comparison.
For the record, he did not commit perjury. But replace that with "adulterer", and you're probably right on the money.
Meh - I agree with GPP. It's a small annoyance, but an annoyance nonetheless.
Bombay is a legitimate destination that is probably uttered many times a day in airports around the world. Any disorder would be caused solely by the guard who misheard the word. I don't believe that one should be made to suffer for other people's mistaken perceptions.
This was a misunderstanding, pure and simple. There are times when there is a disagreement and both parties take a reasonable position from their own perspectives, and in which both are wrong when all of the details come out. In such situations, the most appropriate resolution is for both parties to simply shuffle their feet, avoid each other's eyes, and mumble "my bad".
You're a goshdarn bum, you fudging poopsicle.
She meant no harm, and deserves no punishment. Being a bit scatterbrained and not thinking through every aspect of a situation - particularly when you're used to another setting where something like a blinky-shirt could go without comment - is not a crime.
It's like saying "Bombay" in an airport. A security guard could mishear and get the wrong idea - but you still didn't do anything wrong.
After reading TFA, it doesn't seem like she was trying to be cute and cause a scene. It sounds like she was just really stupid here. I'd drop most the charges and maybe give her a disorderly conduct ticket and be done with it.
Fuck right the hell off. She was wearing a perfectly legal shirt in public.
I too, will bookmark this review, until I purchase the game or am otherwise exposed to it. In the meantime, I will program in my spare time, and do odd fix-up jobs around the house.
Hey - anyone else want to share why they're not playing this game, and what they're doing in the meantime?
*bing* (lightbulb flash).
:)
Well trolled. You had me up until you countered a clear example with "petty partisan politics".
With all the trolls running around out there, I'm beginning to wonder if there's a single serious person actually supporting Bush anymore
True - one of the earliest attempts can be seen in uncompressed images stored on cave walls - walls made entirely of atoms!
Then stop thinking about it in terms of Dems vs Republicans. Look at the individuals who voted No, and get them out and bring in people who will vote for the American people. Individuals can feel the voters' heat far stronger than parties can.
Wait - you don't believe that humans are subject to the forces of evolution?
Would you like some Creationism with that?
Wow - a troll rating for a mea culpa - now I've seen everything.
Anyway - it's true that liberals pursue conservative faults far more than liberal ones. And vice versa. And same for blacks and whites, religious and secular, peasants and monarchy. The sad truth is that as humans we're always going to be giving the benefit of the doubt to our "side".
But my claim that liberals favor investigations of allegations was in response to a claim that they wanted to punish before investigation. And it remains true - regardless of who the allegations are against, I favour investigations before punishment. Bringing partisan politics into this is a non sequiter.
For example?
That has nothing to do with my comment and you know it. I was referring to the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine.
ACORN, too, is innocent until proven guilty. And if you - or anyone else - has a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, then you should demand an investigation.
BTW - I see no problem with an organization doing voter registration drives and turning in registration forms, which is all you've accused ACORN of at this point.
I haven't seen anyone calling for punishment before investigation.
people are perfectly fine with assigning guilt and punishment first, and finding out what really happened second.
I don't think that's so. Liberals traditionally support doing an investigation if there is suspicion of something, finding out who is guilty, and then punishing. Pissed-off rants aside, I tend to see this exact same logic applied to the administration. The problem is that there has been a whole lot of suspicious activity with very little investigation.
True, but that day is probably way off in the future.
Alright - I've been reading your sig for years now, and wondering about the origin. Where'd it come from?
Yeah - I just had this debate a few evolution-threads back. Basically, I think it requires faith - but there is little similarity between the kind of faith that is required for every day life, and the kind of faith required by major religions.
Right, but what is your evidence that the "fake" past isn't also a key to the future?
None - there's no evidence either way. But instead of saying "We don't know" - we pick one alternative and live by it.
But the fact that empiricism can only be justified, logically, by circular reasoning isn't a flaw in empiricism; it's a flaw in logic. That's the point I keep making that you continue to ignore.
Meh - it's not a flaw in logic - that's just what logic is. Logic starts from axioms, and gives you an absolutely true result - assuming those axioms are true. It's the translation between "reality" and those axioms where the uncertainty lies.
Anyway, as we've both said, this is all a matter of definition (most arguments are). It's obvious that you're either ascribing more to faith than just "belief in something despite lack of evidence", or you're using "evidence" to mean "empirical evidence".
I don't think it's worth arguing over. Whatever faith we may have - by any definition - is certainly of a different quality than those saying "science requires faith" hold in their god.
If I do this, say, 100 times
Once again - how do you know you've done it 100 times? How do you know you didn't pop into existence a nanosecond ago? You keep defining evidence as something that you've seen in the past, as if that is any guide to the future. "The past has always been a guide to the future in the past, therefore, it will continue to be a guide to the future in the future". You accept this, and you offer no evidence that it is true except that it has always been true in the past. We can't even be sure there is a past.
You have all of these hidden assumptions in every single one of your examples, but you never address them.
You claim I'm ignoring your points, but every single time you bring up your "evidence", you ignore my point that there is no evidence that points to predictability that is not circular, relying on the axiom of predictability itself.
If you're making an argument that people without faith have faith in faithlessness,
I'm not. I'm making the argument that you have basic assumptions about how the universe works, without any a priori justification for them.
You stated that the difference was that faith needed no evidence. I countered with the fact that we have no evidence for some of our beliefs, yet believe them anyway - we need no evidence for our belief in a predictable universe.
By all means, walk on down to your local church and try to present evidence that contradicts your belief.
I have no evidence to contradict their beliefs. Their beliefs are so ironclad and circular that there is very little that they would consider evidence. They have faith in their God as you have faith in the predictability of the universe. The difference is that your faith does little more than allow you to function as a normal human being. Their faith compels them to act in ways that you or I would find irrational.
To tell them to live as if there were no God would be the same as telling you to live as if the universe is unpredictable. It would seem completely irrational. But there is no solid evidence at the base of either set of beliefs.
If faith is simply belief in the absence of evidence, then you have faith - unless you can show me solid evidence that the universe is predictable (your responses so far all rely on other assumptions - equally baseless). If there is an aspect of your definition of faith that I'm missing, then sure - you don't have faith.
Finally, don't assume that faith is a bad thing. The way I'm using the word, it would be impossible to function without a least a little bit of it. rFaithers give faith a bad name.
But we do have the appearance of past physics, clearly put there for a purpose, and presumably, that purpose is to indicate to us the rules of physics that are going to be true in the future.
..umm... "universe-faith" is that uFaith admits that it's just a tentative belief until something better comes along, I can go with that. But I think it may just be a matter of degrees.
But once again - what evidence is there that there is a purpose to that knowledge?
Jesus craps all over the guy who needed evidence to believe
But that's what I'm saying. We don't need evidence to believe in the basic workings of the universe, because we don't *have* any evidence for it (I know we disagree - please just assume this for the sake of argument). Then there is no justification for treating the universe as we understand it versus any other method of living. We live our lives in faith that the universe meets our basic understanding.
If the basic difference between religious-faith and
Certainly if God Himself came down and told his followers that eating pork was fine, I expect a lot of non-pork-eaters would drop that belief. This is "tentatively believing something until contradictory evidence comes along". The difference is that their basic assumptions (their "faith") only allows a very narrow scope of evidence to be accepted. uFaith is different by what can be considered evidence, but it still follows pretty much the same rules.
It doesn't matter - neither case represents a lesser likelihood of the laws of physics remaining the same in the future.
If we all came into being a blink-of-an-eye ago, then we have no past physics to base our expectations on. Maybe we're created with the expectation of seeing certain behaviour, but it turns out that gravity works in reverse - surprise! [earth explodes]
accepting a contention on a provisional basis until you see contradictory evidence is not something that anybody would recognize as "faith"
Ultimately, I think this is the point of contention. I think it can be a form of faith, given my prior belief that there is no evidence that the universe will continue to work as expected (certainly debatable, but go with me here).
Given:
- There are many possibilities of the nature of the universe
- We have no subjective observations of the universe, since we've been residing within the universe for all of the observations that we have made.
Then it is a statement of faith to select any one to believe - or even a subset in which the assumptions of science are true.