I wasn't talking about the dictionary definition of the word, or even the educated person with-more-than-two-braincells definition of the word - i meant the Joe Sixpack (as much as I hate that term) meaning of the word.
I don't drink diet pop, not only can I not pallet the artificial sweeteners but their breakdown products are toxic IIRC - I tend to drink normal pop as sugars are easily metabolized with exercise - and even then only at meals - between meals I tend to drink water
as for "a little second hand smoke" have you not been paying attention to the toxicity of ETS? "a little second hand smoke" does a LOT of damage - the toxicity threshold of ETS is so low that any concentration can be considered toxic - a concentration strong enough to smell (not to mention even higher concentrations that you can see) is orders of magnitude above the toxicity threshold.
Furthermore - drinking pop is something you voluntarily engage in. Being exposed to ETS is something I am FORCED to engage in - walking down the street, sitting in the privacy of my own home with the windows open, driving down the road, walking through a parking lot, walking into a non-smoking establishment, and a million other daily activities.
request to kill thread denied. PK awarded to me for your attempt to manipulate the argument with false analogies
(go ahead churchies, mark me flamebait for making negative remarks about your fairytail-of-choice)
when engaging in that social activity means going down to the local establishment filled with a cloud of cancer causing toxins and engaging in an activity that kills braincells OR going to down your local brainwashing center (aka Church) and engaging in mass displays of superstitution and dogmaticism.
I'll take a pass and monkey around on the net.
However; no, I am not a web-hermit. My fiancee and I just went down to KC to see her favorite MLS team the Houstan Dynamo kick the K.C. Wizard's blue butts after we had been down there wednesday to see our local team (Des Moines Menace) play them in the open cup. We run, occasionally go camping, etc too. Definantly not a web hermit.
"socialization" in this country is generally considered poisoning yourself (either physically at the bar, or mentally at church) - that's not socializing in my book, that's insanity. I'll take a pass.
If they're aiming for the Enthusiast market they have to remember that "enthusiasts" have price constraints (usually referred to as "wife")
excuse me? WTF are you smoking. The people I think of buying the hottest newest CPUs with multicores and multiple CPUs in the enthusiast (read: gamers) market is people who buy more hardware for ePenis only.
less regulation is not neccesarily better. just like less government is not neccesarily better. neither is the more version of either of those sentances.
Telecommunications companies have government sanctioned monopolies because they taxpayers paid for the communications lines and the companies agreed to follow Common Carrier rules to be allwoed to operate those lines and install them (on behave of the people, with the people's money)
The VOLUNTARILY subjected themselves to a higher level of regulation.
Force them to honor the terms of their sanctioned monopolies and stop screwing the consumer
You assume that I need, let alone want, 30+ gigabytes of space for my MP3 collection. I don't store my mp3s in 1152kbps like one of my high school teachers did in 2001. I use 128kbit encoding - so about 1meg/minute
I have no interest in a video or audio ipod, nor do I have interest in this. Why should i? If I want an MP3 player I'll get a much cheaper generic one that is less likely to be stolen and doesn't involve brand name price inflation. If I want a portable video player I'll get a PSP and hack it.
the structure of the german language is extremely flexible, ignoring the rigid verb positioning that enables the flexibility of the subject, direct object, and indirect object
the following two sentances have the same meaning in german
Der Koenig triff den Bischof. Den Bischof triff der Koenig.
just different emphasis by position of the subject and direct object.
i was refering to germanic identify of the language in linguistic rules and pronounciations, not neccesary in plurals. One of the influences on our language is latin and I happen to like the way it does plurals. It was just an idea from my half-awake brain-fried self
If we want to do major reform of the english language to simplify it's spelling we should perhaps restrengthen the germanic identity of the langage - reform pronounciation and spelling, bring bad solid language rules with almost no exceptions - use consistent pluralization rules
-a goes to -ae: ie supernovae, larvae -is goes to -ii: virii, penii some other things that I cannot think of at this moment
so your entire argument can be boiled down the the following:
attempting to accuse me of doing that which i just pointed out you were doing (ignoring the difference between rights and license)
congratulations, you don't know how to debate in good faith or even use arguments that follow - what you claim is a red herring and what is a straw men are not, contrary to your bare assertion - and saying that someone is being intentionally obtuse and dishonest in argumentation cannot be an argumentum ad hominem when it's true.
1 sections of which have already been overturned (note: USA PATRIOT act is a functional duplicate of Article 48 of the Weimar constitution!) 2 you can still reasonably call things unconstitutional if they are clearly in conflict with the constitution even if the court hasn't yet ruled on them
Sorry, the function of government is not to protect the rights of individuals. Government exists to protect the rights of groups of individuals, which is a far different thing. In the US, the Bill of Rights is about protecting individuals from government, not from other individuals.
you are misinformed - the function of the government is to protect individuals rights from ALL TRANSGRESSORS
otherwise their wouldn't be laws against theft, murder, rape, assault, etc.
Social factors are what protect an individual from others' transgressing their rights -- sometimes these are codified into law.
social factors can also promote the violation of individuals rights - such as the inertia behind the male genital mutilation practice of the united states. Which was initially started up int he late 1800s by radical fundamentalist christians as a "cure" to masturbation - since masturbation was the root of all evil
What do you think "for your protection" means? What is being protected, other than your rights (keep in mind, that rights include the right to life, and the right to be secure in your person)?
Censorship is a violation of peoples rights - yet it's done "for their protection". If you are incapable of making the differentiation between protecting a right, and "protecting" someone from something irrelevant like swear words, twinkies, boobies or dissent then you are being intentionally obtuse.
Nanny-statism is simply a system where some of your rights are restrcited in order to protect other rights.
Correct, but you fail to recognize infringing exercises of a right at not protected exercise of a right. IE You have the right to do to your own body whatever you want, but if what you are doing affects other peolpes bodies against their will then your right does not apply since it is infringing upon anothers.
Infringing uses of a right are "license" and are not protected exercises of the right - in effect the right is void for an exercise of it that violates the rights of others.
Nanny-statism is simply a system where some of your rights are restrcited in order to protect other rights.
wrong, a properly run government doesn't engage in give-and-take it respects the true laws of rights. Some people, notably libertarians, completely ignore the fact that there is a difference between Right and License.
As you mention, there are rights, which when trasngressed, result in irreparable harm (like the right to life) and in these cases, government does take a proactive role (police forces, etc).
and fails to take protective action in other situations - such as the unethical removal of healthy tissue from the infant male penis, or the damage to the lungs of a non-smoker by a smoker.
I have to come back to this, because it is quite mistaken. What if, in order to prevent me from harming you, the government had to violate my rights, and the rights of thousands more?
you seem to have a faulty understanding of what rights are as I covered before - any exercise of "a right" that violates the rights of others is NOT protected - it is License instead of Right.
Please attempt to understand the concepts of which you speak!
Do you think people should be incarcerated for thought crimes,
of course not, and your attempt to godwin with argument through intentionally being obtuse demonstrates the underlying knowledge that your position is weak and willfully ignorant of the difference between rights and license
This is the crux of why government should not actively pursue rights protection unhindered.
indeed it is the crux of your argument, and it is a weak argument as the entire argument rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the function and limitations of rights.
no it's not part of our form 1040, instead they just hide the money they take from you by getting politicians to pass laws only for their religious agenda and getting money given to them by the Department of Faith Based Initiatives
A) Reduce coal burning - absolutely, more nuclear power please B) reduce vehicle emissions - absolutely, more clean energy please C) ETS less harmful than campfire/grill - nope, not so much - The carcinogens in ETS are far more potent carcinogens - though it shares a few with ALL combustions of organic materials. D) ETS not "as harmful as claimed" - if you're only looking at one study that overestimated it and ignore all the others that didn't. I cannot breath in any concentration of ETS, I get an instant headache as well - ETS is also a cause of asthma - not to mention cancer, etc. E) most of the funding for ETS studies comes from Big Coal? nope, not so much
PS "mildly radioactive goal" - i assume you mean Carbon-14
Carbon 14 decays into Nitrogen 14 via beta decay - only harmful in the lungs pretty much (so you got that) but
Most of man-made chemicals are made of fossil fuels, such as petroleum or coal, in which the carbon-14 has long since decayed. Presence of carbon-14 in the isotopic signature of a sample of carbonaceous material therefore indicates its possible biogenic origin and relatively recent geologic age.
a nanny state is where a state takes away rights "for your protection" - a government protected your rights is therefore NOT nanny-statism
the function of government is to protect rights. If you irreversably damage my rights then there is no redress - if the government could have prevented then the government has failed in it's function.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't talking about the dictionary definition of the word, or even the educated person with-more-than-two-braincells definition of the word - i meant the Joe Sixpack (as much as I hate that term) meaning of the word.
I don't drink diet pop, not only can I not pallet the artificial sweeteners but their breakdown products are toxic IIRC - I tend to drink normal pop as sugars are easily metabolized with exercise - and even then only at meals - between meals I tend to drink water
as for "a little second hand smoke" have you not been paying attention to the toxicity of ETS? "a little second hand smoke" does a LOT of damage - the toxicity threshold of ETS is so low that any concentration can be considered toxic - a concentration strong enough to smell (not to mention even higher concentrations that you can see) is orders of magnitude above the toxicity threshold.
Furthermore - drinking pop is something you voluntarily engage in. Being exposed to ETS is something I am FORCED to engage in - walking down the street, sitting in the privacy of my own home with the windows open, driving down the road, walking through a parking lot, walking into a non-smoking establishment, and a million other daily activities.
request to kill thread denied. PK awarded to me for your attempt to manipulate the argument with false analogies
(go ahead churchies, mark me flamebait for making negative remarks about your fairytail-of-choice)
when engaging in that social activity means going down to the local establishment filled with a cloud of cancer causing toxins and engaging in an activity that kills braincells OR going to down your local brainwashing center (aka Church) and engaging in mass displays of superstitution and dogmaticism.
I'll take a pass and monkey around on the net.
However; no, I am not a web-hermit. My fiancee and I just went down to KC to see her favorite MLS team the Houstan Dynamo kick the K.C. Wizard's blue butts after we had been down there wednesday to see our local team (Des Moines Menace) play them in the open cup. We run, occasionally go camping, etc too. Definantly not a web hermit.
"socialization" in this country is generally considered poisoning yourself (either physically at the bar, or mentally at church) - that's not socializing in my book, that's insanity. I'll take a pass.
excuse me? WTF are you smoking. The people I think of buying the hottest newest CPUs with multicores and multiple CPUs in the enthusiast (read: gamers) market is people who buy more hardware for ePenis only.
These people don't have wives!
less regulation is not neccesarily better. just like less government is not neccesarily better. neither is the more version of either of those sentances.
Telecommunications companies have government sanctioned monopolies because they taxpayers paid for the communications lines and the companies agreed to follow Common Carrier rules to be allwoed to operate those lines and install them (on behave of the people, with the people's money)
The VOLUNTARILY subjected themselves to a higher level of regulation.
Force them to honor the terms of their sanctioned monopolies and stop screwing the consumer
You assume that I need, let alone want, 30+ gigabytes of space for my MP3 collection. I don't store my mp3s in 1152kbps like one of my high school teachers did in 2001. I use 128kbit encoding - so about 1meg/minute
1GB=1024MB ~ 1024 minutes = 17.06 hours
plenty
if they want to try and prosecute me for format shifting they can bow down to my lawyers and die in a fire :D
I have no interest in a video or audio ipod, nor do I have interest in this. Why should i? If I want an MP3 player I'll get a much cheaper generic one that is less likely to be stolen and doesn't involve brand name price inflation. If I want a portable video player I'll get a PSP and hack it.
the structure of the german language is extremely flexible, ignoring the rigid verb positioning that enables the flexibility of the subject, direct object, and indirect object
the following two sentances have the same meaning in german
Der Koenig triff den Bischof.
Den Bischof triff der Koenig.
just different emphasis by position of the subject and direct object.
Adjective phrases is another nice thing
seems to missed the point of my post in my half-awake blabbering. I was proposing a form change - -is/-us plural to -ii
virus, penis, corpus, radius plural to viri, penii, corpii, radii
i was refering to germanic identify of the language in linguistic rules and pronounciations, not neccesary in plurals. One of the influences on our language is latin and I happen to like the way it does plurals. It was just an idea from my half-awake brain-fried self
ffs meant even
i really need to wake up before typing on the subject of language reform!
off to get something with caffeine!
mean't to type -is/-us go to -ii
i was proposing a change you ignoramus
s/bad solid/back solid
clever abuse of the major phonetic differences between the germanic language english and the germanic language german :D
german is honestly the superior language IMHO - rules are solid, it structurally allows for more interesting usage
(and german is my second language)
If we want to do major reform of the english language to simplify it's spelling we should perhaps restrengthen the germanic identity of the langage - reform pronounciation and spelling, bring bad solid language rules with almost no exceptions - use consistent pluralization rules
-a goes to -ae: ie supernovae, larvae
-is goes to -ii: virii, penii
some other things that I cannot think of at this moment
Since morals seem to be universally attributed to religious codes...perhaps it was disingenous of me to do so.
not in my book
so your entire argument can be boiled down the the following:
attempting to accuse me of doing that which i just pointed out you were doing (ignoring the difference between rights and license)
congratulations, you don't know how to debate in good faith or even use arguments that follow - what you claim is a red herring and what is a straw men are not, contrary to your bare assertion - and saying that someone is being intentionally obtuse and dishonest in argumentation cannot be an argumentum ad hominem when it's true.
You forfeit by means of dishonesty.
1 sections of which have already been overturned (note: USA PATRIOT act is a functional duplicate of Article 48 of the Weimar constitution!)
2 you can still reasonably call things unconstitutional if they are clearly in conflict with the constitution even if the court hasn't yet ruled on them
no new laws have been made that allow wiretapping without warrants - because they would be unconstitutional!
and if they've already done
1, don't want to do 2?
I have three two legit copies of WinXP - NONE of my systems have WGA and NONE of my systems ever will have WGA
you are misinformed - the function of the government is to protect individuals rights from ALL TRANSGRESSORS
otherwise their wouldn't be laws against theft, murder, rape, assault, etc.
social factors can also promote the violation of individuals rights - such as the inertia behind the male genital mutilation practice of the united states. Which was initially started up int he late 1800s by radical fundamentalist christians as a "cure" to masturbation - since masturbation was the root of all evil
Censorship is a violation of peoples rights - yet it's done "for their protection". If you are incapable of making the differentiation between protecting a right, and "protecting" someone from something irrelevant like swear words, twinkies, boobies or dissent then you are being intentionally obtuse.
Correct, but you fail to recognize infringing exercises of a right at not protected exercise of a right. IE You have the right to do to your own body whatever you want, but if what you are doing affects other peolpes bodies against their will then your right does not apply since it is infringing upon anothers.
Infringing uses of a right are "license" and are not protected exercises of the right - in effect the right is void for an exercise of it that violates the rights of others.
wrong, a properly run government doesn't engage in give-and-take it respects the true laws of rights. Some people, notably libertarians, completely ignore the fact that there is a difference between Right and License.
and fails to take protective action in other situations - such as the unethical removal of healthy tissue from the infant male penis, or the damage to the lungs of a non-smoker by a smoker.
you seem to have a faulty understanding of what rights are as I covered before - any exercise of "a right" that violates the rights of others is NOT protected - it is License instead of Right.
Please attempt to understand the concepts of which you speak!
of course not, and your attempt to godwin with argument through intentionally being obtuse demonstrates the underlying knowledge that your position is weak and willfully ignorant of the difference between rights and license
indeed it is the crux of your argument, and it is a weak argument as the entire argument rests upon a fundamental misunderstanding of the function and limitations of rights.
no it's not part of our form 1040, instead they just hide the money they take from you by getting politicians to pass laws only for their religious agenda and getting money given to them by the Department of Faith Based Initiatives
B) reduce vehicle emissions - absolutely, more clean energy please
C) ETS less harmful than campfire/grill - nope, not so much - The carcinogens in ETS are far more potent carcinogens - though it shares a few with ALL combustions of organic materials.
D) ETS not "as harmful as claimed" - if you're only looking at one study that overestimated it and ignore all the others that didn't. I cannot breath in any concentration of ETS, I get an instant headache as well - ETS is also a cause of asthma - not to mention cancer, etc.
E) most of the funding for ETS studies comes from Big Coal? nope, not so much
PS "mildly radioactive goal" - i assume you mean Carbon-14
Carbon 14 decays into Nitrogen 14 via beta decay - only harmful in the lungs pretty much (so you got that) but
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
a nanny state is where a state takes away rights "for your protection" - a government protected your rights is therefore NOT nanny-statism
the function of government is to protect rights. If you irreversably damage my rights then there is no redress - if the government could have prevented then the government has failed in it's function.