Because there's no possible motive other than a joke. Why would I bother lying here, when there is no way I can gain anything? There are no meaningful side effects of this exercise. You seem to be the sort of suspicious little person that assumes the worst about anyone and anything.
"ou have a habit of claiming inside information about nearly everything"
Other than the case with Tice, which was clearly a joke (at least, clear to a working brain), where else have I claimed inside information?
But the end result was that he outed a lot of actual communists, and increased the disincentive of adopting such views by making it all the more worse to hold them.
Calling him a cretinous imbecile is not an ad hominem; it would only be so if I claimed his argument was wrong because he is one.
See, this is what happens when you post with hatred against someone like me who does not share your views, instead of thinking things through--the latter reduces silly errors like claiming a fallacy where there is none.
Wow, thanks for proving once again Godwin's law with your Hitler reference.
How hard is it to look up an academic and his peer reviewed publications? Or discussion about a book?
By the way, you linked not to a wikipedia article on him but to a discussion page where anything goes--and indeed it does. Take a better look at the three sources listed with opposing views there.
I'm sorry Ann Coulter is involved with this as of course there's the instinctive reaction to determine that any side which she's on is wrong. I dislike her as much as the next guy, but issues need to be looked at without bias.
Can you really fail to distinguish which post is a joke (the Tice one, though the serioius bit is that I do believe it's simply an ex-employee holding a grudge), and a serious one into which I'm putting effort--the McCarthy one?
Of course every political ideology has good and bad points, but that does not mean they are all on the same level; I'm sure you know this and I think you are trying to claim the opposite for show. The fact that he based his reputation on this shows he took great risk and sacrifice to stand up for what he believed (and later turned out mostly correct) is right.
I agree that being anti-American is not a crime, nor am I suggesting it should be. At the same time, I believe there should be social consequences for undermining the US in the way I see communist sympathizers doing (and I'm not American, by the way).
I think that, regardless of the connection between socialism and communism, you cannot put them on the same level so no, I would not call you anti-American merely for what you have written about yourself.
That post was half-serious, though for a different reason than you may think. Insults are a matter of perception. On the one hand, this means that it may be something extremely offensive to my views, to be called a Muslim, and this is the serious part. On the other hand, the power of an insult is (or at least should be) a function of the respect one holds for the one from which the insult stems, and this is why I'm not really that insulted.
"The ends don't justify the means" is a meaningless cliche, a semantic game, since you can redefine what are ends and what are means to suit your argument. For example, one view is that all means, specifically their side-effects, are part of the ends, and the correct way to weigh this is to tally up everything.
As much as a utilitarian approach to issues involving morals and other subjectivity seems insensitive, in a cost-benefit analysis McCarthy was a net benefit, as demonstrated by the references cited in the article.
LOL @ "screening". Many sociopaths are quite adept at keeping the burner low--at least until some point. A screening is not an all-revealing X-ray; it merely removes the worst outliers.
The article cites prof. Herman's research and the book "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator". The book's scholarship is impeccable.
Calling me a conservative idiot is not helping your case; anyone can throw around ad hominems and claim victory; that is not the sort of interlocution that should be on an intellectual site.
I have only started to vote Conservative in the past two years as the Liberals here in Canada have become a disgrace. But this is simply choosing the lesser evil; I hold no allegiance to a particular political ideology, and disagree with conservatives on social issues, for example. Trying to pigeonhole me is a lame tactic.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but obviously a few stepped in it. :)
There's a more technical examination of the virus at https://forums.symantec.com/t5/Malicious-Code/Downadup-Small-Improvements-Yield-Big-Returns/ba-p/381717
What history?
Because there's no possible motive other than a joke. Why would I bother lying here, when there is no way I can gain anything? There are no meaningful side effects of this exercise. You seem to be the sort of suspicious little person that assumes the worst about anyone and anything.
If you had lived under a communist regime as I have, you'd not write such nonsense.
If I were trolling as opposed to actually believing my views, I wouldn't have one of the McCarthy: American Hero t-shirts.
"ou have a habit of claiming inside information about nearly everything"
Other than the case with Tice, which was clearly a joke (at least, clear to a working brain), where else have I claimed inside information?
But the end result was that he outed a lot of actual communists, and increased the disincentive of adopting such views by making it all the more worse to hold them.
Calling him a cretinous imbecile is not an ad hominem; it would only be so if I claimed his argument was wrong because he is one.
See, this is what happens when you post with hatred against someone like me who does not share your views, instead of thinking things through--the latter reduces silly errors like claiming a fallacy where there is none.
He "drank himself to death" because he was an alcoholic.
Wow, thanks for proving once again Godwin's law with your Hitler reference.
How hard is it to look up an academic and his peer reviewed publications? Or discussion about a book?
B fails--I know because he himself told me. A fails--do you think he's held a single job in his lifetime?
By the way, you linked not to a wikipedia article on him but to a discussion page where anything goes--and indeed it does. Take a better look at the three sources listed with opposing views there.
I'm sorry Ann Coulter is involved with this as of course there's the instinctive reaction to determine that any side which she's on is wrong. I dislike her as much as the next guy, but issues need to be looked at without bias.
Can you really fail to distinguish which post is a joke (the Tice one, though the serioius bit is that I do believe it's simply an ex-employee holding a grudge), and a serious one into which I'm putting effort--the McCarthy one?
Of course every political ideology has good and bad points, but that does not mean they are all on the same level; I'm sure you know this and I think you are trying to claim the opposite for show. The fact that he based his reputation on this shows he took great risk and sacrifice to stand up for what he believed (and later turned out mostly correct) is right.
I agree that being anti-American is not a crime, nor am I suggesting it should be. At the same time, I believe there should be social consequences for undermining the US in the way I see communist sympathizers doing (and I'm not American, by the way).
I think that, regardless of the connection between socialism and communism, you cannot put them on the same level so no, I would not call you anti-American merely for what you have written about yourself.
The point being? He criticized the source, not the content (a.a.v.), and the way he criticized it makes it also a.h.
That post was half-serious, though for a different reason than you may think. Insults are a matter of perception. On the one hand, this means that it may be something extremely offensive to my views, to be called a Muslim, and this is the serious part. On the other hand, the power of an insult is (or at least should be) a function of the respect one holds for the one from which the insult stems, and this is why I'm not really that insulted.
"The ends don't justify the means" is a meaningless cliche, a semantic game, since you can redefine what are ends and what are means to suit your argument. For example, one view is that all means, specifically their side-effects, are part of the ends, and the correct way to weigh this is to tally up everything.
As much as a utilitarian approach to issues involving morals and other subjectivity seems insensitive, in a cost-benefit analysis McCarthy was a net benefit, as demonstrated by the references cited in the article.
What you say about the site may be true, but I'm more interested in the references cited in the article, especially Herman's scholarly book.
LOL @ "screening". Many sociopaths are quite adept at keeping the burner low--at least until some point. A screening is not an all-revealing X-ray; it merely removes the worst outliers.
The sheer number of disgruntled ex-employees everywhere is so large that the chance of what I said occurring is overwhelming.
What I posted does not imply I worked at the NSA. Think about it
By the way, calling me Muslim is the biggest insult I have received all my life. My views on Islam and the soft jihad they are waging on Europe and now Canada are aligned with those of the great Ezra Levant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant#Human_Rights_complaint http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=6n3SdV2cwn4&feature=channel_page
Stalker much?
The article cites prof. Herman's research and the book "Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator". The book's scholarship is impeccable.
Calling me a conservative idiot is not helping your case; anyone can throw around ad hominems and claim victory; that is not the sort of interlocution that should be on an intellectual site.
I have only started to vote Conservative in the past two years as the Liberals here in Canada have become a disgrace. But this is simply choosing the lesser evil; I hold no allegiance to a particular political ideology, and disagree with conservatives on social issues, for example. Trying to pigeonhole me is a lame tactic.