Anonymous anything will be the first to go! The legal ( and its sound reasoning ) will be sure the first amendment provides you can say pretty much anything you want but it says nothing about you being able to do it in anonymity.
Every human being on the planet is more attracted to light colored hair than dark
One, and only one, of the following is true:
1. You personally interviewed every single one of the 7 billion people currently living on Earth - individually and confidentially, with the assistance of a magically infallible lie detector - and confirmed their preference for light hair over dark.
2. You are stupid on a scale that should be counted as a war crime.
Seriously, "proven scientific fact"? By all means, please show us the pop-science article that you barely skimmed to come to that conclusion. If it even exists.
What am I alleged to have dismissed? What specific fact are you pointing to that proves your position? The answer is none, because you didn't cite any particular fact in the article that allegedly proves your point.
He's not a superhero, just like Tarzan is not a superhero, as isn't Zorro
I'm not familiar enough with Tarzan to make a claim one way or the other. But Zorro? Of course he's a superhero. He was Batman before there was a Batman. Hell, he's even specifically mentioned on that list I linked earlier. You know, the one you keep pretending "proves" the Lone Ranger not to be one by omission?
I think your anger and frustration show how much you care. I appreciate that you care so much and I am sure you are quite a valuable person
My anger and frustration are in your imagination; the fact that I'm thorough in my responses doesn't suggest otherwise. And you clearly care about this at least as much as I do, since you continue to respond. Also, this emotional argument that you're making is transparently a venting of your frustration that you're losing. You're acting like one of those XBox Live kids who loses a round of Halo and angrily accuses that his opponent of being a loser who just plays video games all day.
However, I don't care how many superhero tropes he fulfills, the thing is that he continues not to be a superhero.
Fulfilling numerous superhero tropes IS what makes a character a superhero. You still haven't stated anything that disqualifies him as one.
For example "The Man With No Name" is also not a superhero, and although he lacks the mask he still conceals his identity (by having no name). He's not a superhero is he?
I wouldn't say so, no. But he has far fewer "superhero" attributes than, say, the Lone Ranger. I'm not claiming one or two things qualify, but the Lone Ranger has too many of them not to be one. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc.
I already bought into a person not needing superpowers to be a superhero, but this does not make him a superhero. For example Hawkeye, he is an unbelievably good archer, far better than any real archer could be, thus he's a superhero.
If Hawkeye were merely a competent archer, and had only bows and arrows that could exist in real life, he'd still be a superhero (just as Kick-Ass is a superhero despite having crap fighting skills). You claim you've conceded that superhuman abilities aren't necessary for a superhero, but what you're missing is that "super-skill" is itself such an ability. However, even that point is moot, because...
The Lone Ranger, while good with his gun was not amazing with it
...yes, he is. The Lone Ranger displays a degree of marksmanship that no real person could ever achieve. He regularly shoots the bad guys' guns out of their hands (not sure if he ever did in this latest movie as haven't seen it, but it's a staple of the character). Nobody in the real world could manage that on an even remotely reliable basis; in fact nobody who's competent with a firearm would even try. If you know what you're doing in a real firefight, you aim for center mass, and if you aren't fully prepared to kill the guy then you don't even draw (let alone fire) your weapon. But the Lone Ranger damn well does it anyway. Because he has incredible marksmanship skills. So even though he doesn't need super-skills to qualify as a superhero, he still has them. However, he'd still be one even if he was merely a decent shot.
And before you say it: No, I'm not claiming that every character with Improbable Aiming Skills is automatically a superhero, so you can put whatever TV cop you were about to offer up as yet a
Objective Facts?
I thought we were talking about a made up character.
Not mutually exclusive. It's an objective fact that, for example, the Lone Ranger wears a mask during his adventures. That's provably true, even though he's a fictional character. Of course, you knew that, and you're just trying to weasel out of admitting that the facts in this argument are against you.
The thing is, not every radio/television/comic book character is a superhero.
Nor did I suggest that, so leave the strawman alone.
Are you really convinced that he is?
Well, he fits perfectly with a number of archetypal superhero tropes in terms of his backstory, personality, and actions, so yes. And I note that you have yet to successfully note anything that disqualifies him from the title. Seriously, how is he not a superhero? He fights criminals, while protecting his identity with a disguise (that by all rights shouldn't fool anyone), with the help of a trusted partner, as a direct result of an origin involving a tragic loss. That's enough to fill any superhero-trope bingo card. The only point you've brought up against him is the lack of superpowers, but I showed (and you even acknowledged) that said powers are not required to qualify.
I've already mentioned that he wasn't on the other list of non-special-power superheroes
And I've already pointed out that the list isn't exhaustive. Do you understand what that means?
Go back to the beginning of this thread. You said the Lone Ranger isn't a superhero because he doesn't have super powers. That was it. That was your entire argument. By linking that list, I showed you dozens of examples of superheroes who share that same trait, thus refuting the one and only argument you have even attempted to make.
you didn't accept that
I didn't accept it because it's a bloody stupid argument. The fact that the Lone Ranger isn't explicitly mentioned on that particular list isn't evidence against his status. If I were to make a list of fruits that only mentioned apples, oranges, and lemons, would that be evidence that bananas aren't a fruit? Because that's exactly the kind of claim you're making here.
so you might also dismiss the wikipedia entry
What's to dismiss? You haven't pointed out anything in it that supports your claim. It doesn't explicitly call him a superhero, but then again it doesn't explicitly say that he's a human either, which by the reasoning you put forth "proves" that he isn't. Look up "argument from ignorance".
My pass at an insult was clumsy?
Quite.
I thought it was pretty funny,
Possibly by the standards of an 80's sitcom. Not one like Cheers or Night Court, mind you. Small Wonder, perhaps?
sorry if it cut too close.
Do you have a checklist of losing-the-argument cliches that you're working through? Are you going to try the puppetmaster defense next?
Superhero = superpower, superintelligence, superstrength, and/or special ability
That is a common attribute of superheroes. Not a required one.
And if you want to justify those characters by saying that "special ability" includes things like fighting ability, then the Lone Ranger gets the same benefit, because marksmanship is as much a "special ability" as kung fu.
If we went by your definition Charles Manson would have been a superhero.
No. I wasn't saying that "an overwhelming need to express his self-righteous indignation upon the world with extreme violence" automatically made someone a superhero. I was pointing out that it is not a disqualifier. Nor is the lack of superhuman abilities, as has already been conclusively proven.
I think that, like most people who have this kind of misconception, you're operating on an unconscious assumption that "superheroes" exist solely in post-1900 urban settings. But like superpowers, that's a common attribute, not a required one.
My point here is that you described the Lone Ranger in a way that defines the core concepts of dozens of superheroes, and offered that as proof that he isn't one. That's like saying a penguin isn't a bird because it can't fly and eats fish.
A better response would have been "Oh, right, I just realized that I described one of the most elemental and well-known superhero archetypes, thus fatally undermining my own position".
Yeah, the Lone Ranger isn't a superhero. He's just a guy who fights criminals, in disguise, without any kind of official legal authority, and operates according to a strict moral code. Totally different thing.
The wording is a little vague, but it might be referring to the "day one patch" that you need to download to remove the phone-home crap. Either that or Microsoft is still retaining a vestige of permission-to-play by forcing the initial setup to register the console with the mothership (perhaps to gather statistics on how often new consoles are set up vs. existing ones being traded, or some such).
I support the NSW police, aka government, on this one 100%. Make the possession of printing instructions for a weapon of this type illegal
You want people to be forcibly dragged out of their homes by armed men and thrown into a prison cell for possessing facts. You are, quite literally, violently opposed to the very notion of free speech.
Remember that the context of this conversation is meat grown in a lab/factory setting.
If it's ground at the plant, it's going to be in transit and storage way too long to be suitable for raw consumption (again, unless it's vacuum-sealed or something).
If the meat is shipped "whole" and then ground right before cooking, then that's no different than traditional hacked-off-the-cow meat, so Jartan's statement that the lab-grown burger is safer to eat rare is still incorrect; the risk level is identical at best.
About the only way I can think of where ground lab-grown meat would be safer to eat raw (compared to good old dead cow) would be if it could be grown at home, since the meat would have the shortest possible exposure time.
All that said, I'm a fan of the concept, and I hope it can be made workable on a large scale.
We're talking about ground meat here, Einstein. Not a steak. Far more surface area exposed to bacteria. If you think that's safe to eat raw, you've pretty well forfeited any high ground for criticizing anyone else's food-safety standards.
I don't think #1 applies. The texture of ground meat comes from physical damage done to the fat and tissues (and from the subsequent mixing of the two). You'd still have to grind it. Trying to grow "pre-ground" meat would be like trying to grow a broken bone.
Consequently, #2 wouldn't apply either, unless the meat was ground in a completely sterile room and stored in vacuum-sealed containers or something.
I think you'll find that the average conservative actually has a problem with "marriage" due to the first amendment and its separation of church and state, and marriage being predominantly a religious institution. As a conservative, I don't give a damn who you bang, but marriage is a religious thing, and I believe in the first amendment. I tend to think most conservatives want to see the abolishment of the concept of legal marriage as it's a bastardization of the first amendment.
Huh? What's your basis for believing that the "average" conservative feels this way? The only ones I've ever known to espouse it are libertarians, many of whom don't identify as conservative and none of whom can honestly be called "average" by conservative standards.
While I have no faith in Microsoft's honesty, I can see that they would have no reason to lie about this particular thing. If the 720 requires an Internet connection to function, there would be no way to hide that fact. They would get much better traction by spinning the requirement as a Good Thing(TM) than they would by denying its existence only to have the denial proven false in a matter of minutes.
That said, it's academic for the moment because the poster you replied to is wrong; Microsoft hasn't denied (or confirmed) an always-online requirement yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Censorship IS weak-minded people doing stupid things.
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission says hi.
I'm no doctor, but I think you may be undervaluing the contributions of food and oxygen.
One, and only one, of the following is true:
Seriously, "proven scientific fact"? By all means, please show us the pop-science article that you barely skimmed to come to that conclusion. If it even exists.
What am I alleged to have dismissed? What specific fact are you pointing to that proves your position? The answer is none, because you didn't cite any particular fact in the article that allegedly proves your point.
I'm not familiar enough with Tarzan to make a claim one way or the other. But Zorro? Of course he's a superhero. He was Batman before there was a Batman. Hell, he's even specifically mentioned on that list I linked earlier. You know, the one you keep pretending "proves" the Lone Ranger not to be one by omission?
My anger and frustration are in your imagination; the fact that I'm thorough in my responses doesn't suggest otherwise. And you clearly care about this at least as much as I do, since you continue to respond. Also, this emotional argument that you're making is transparently a venting of your frustration that you're losing. You're acting like one of those XBox Live kids who loses a round of Halo and angrily accuses that his opponent of being a loser who just plays video games all day.
Fulfilling numerous superhero tropes IS what makes a character a superhero. You still haven't stated anything that disqualifies him as one.
I wouldn't say so, no. But he has far fewer "superhero" attributes than, say, the Lone Ranger. I'm not claiming one or two things qualify, but the Lone Ranger has too many of them not to be one. Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, etc.
If Hawkeye were merely a competent archer, and had only bows and arrows that could exist in real life, he'd still be a superhero (just as Kick-Ass is a superhero despite having crap fighting skills). You claim you've conceded that superhuman abilities aren't necessary for a superhero, but what you're missing is that "super-skill" is itself such an ability. However, even that point is moot, because...
And before you say it: No, I'm not claiming that every character with Improbable Aiming Skills is automatically a superhero, so you can put whatever TV cop you were about to offer up as yet a
Not mutually exclusive. It's an objective fact that, for example, the Lone Ranger wears a mask during his adventures. That's provably true, even though he's a fictional character. Of course, you knew that, and you're just trying to weasel out of admitting that the facts in this argument are against you.
Nor did I suggest that, so leave the strawman alone.
Well, he fits perfectly with a number of archetypal superhero tropes in terms of his backstory, personality, and actions, so yes. And I note that you have yet to successfully note anything that disqualifies him from the title. Seriously, how is he not a superhero? He fights criminals, while protecting his identity with a disguise (that by all rights shouldn't fool anyone), with the help of a trusted partner, as a direct result of an origin involving a tragic loss. That's enough to fill any superhero-trope bingo card. The only point you've brought up against him is the lack of superpowers, but I showed (and you even acknowledged) that said powers are not required to qualify.
And I've already pointed out that the list isn't exhaustive. Do you understand what that means? Go back to the beginning of this thread. You said the Lone Ranger isn't a superhero because he doesn't have super powers. That was it. That was your entire argument. By linking that list, I showed you dozens of examples of superheroes who share that same trait, thus refuting the one and only argument you have even attempted to make.
I didn't accept it because it's a bloody stupid argument. The fact that the Lone Ranger isn't explicitly mentioned on that particular list isn't evidence against his status. If I were to make a list of fruits that only mentioned apples, oranges, and lemons, would that be evidence that bananas aren't a fruit? Because that's exactly the kind of claim you're making here.
What's to dismiss? You haven't pointed out anything in it that supports your claim. It doesn't explicitly call him a superhero, but then again it doesn't explicitly say that he's a human either, which by the reasoning you put forth "proves" that he isn't. Look up "argument from ignorance".
Quite.
Possibly by the standards of an 80's sitcom. Not one like Cheers or Night Court, mind you. Small Wonder, perhaps?
Do you have a checklist of losing-the-argument cliches that you're working through? Are you going to try the puppetmaster defense next?
Ah, yes, appeal to popularity. That'll magically make the objective facts go away. Especially when combined with a clumsy pass at an insult.
Anything else?
Are you now suggesting that the above list is exhaustive? Because that would be really stupid. I shouldn't have to explain why.
That is a common attribute of superheroes. Not a required one.
And if you want to justify those characters by saying that "special ability" includes things like fighting ability, then the Lone Ranger gets the same benefit, because marksmanship is as much a "special ability" as kung fu.
No. I wasn't saying that "an overwhelming need to express his self-righteous indignation upon the world with extreme violence" automatically made someone a superhero. I was pointing out that it is not a disqualifier. Nor is the lack of superhuman abilities, as has already been conclusively proven.
I think that, like most people who have this kind of misconception, you're operating on an unconscious assumption that "superheroes" exist solely in post-1900 urban settings. But like superpowers, that's a common attribute, not a required one.
My point here is that you described the Lone Ranger in a way that defines the core concepts of dozens of superheroes, and offered that as proof that he isn't one. That's like saying a penguin isn't a bird because it can't fly and eats fish.
A better response would have been "Oh, right, I just realized that I described one of the most elemental and well-known superhero archetypes, thus fatally undermining my own position".
You really didn't think that argument through, did you?
Yeah, the Lone Ranger isn't a superhero. He's just a guy who fights criminals, in disguise, without any kind of official legal authority, and operates according to a strict moral code. Totally different thing.
Right, just like he has your bank account because of the ATM in the store...
The wording is a little vague, but it might be referring to the "day one patch" that you need to download to remove the phone-home crap. Either that or Microsoft is still retaining a vestige of permission-to-play by forcing the initial setup to register the console with the mothership (perhaps to gather statistics on how often new consoles are set up vs. existing ones being traded, or some such).
You must have thought it was perfect, if you expected your OP to be sensible advice. Otherwise it's textbook Just World Fallacy.
Or ever be suspected or accused of committing one. What, you thought the 5th Amendment was just for the guilty?
No, you're not, you lying, subhuman filth:
You want people to be forcibly dragged out of their homes by armed men and thrown into a prison cell for possessing facts. You are, quite literally, violently opposed to the very notion of free speech.
In other words, absolutely nothing whatsoever. You have surrendered the argument unconditionally.
Remember that the context of this conversation is meat grown in a lab/factory setting.
If it's ground at the plant, it's going to be in transit and storage way too long to be suitable for raw consumption (again, unless it's vacuum-sealed or something).
If the meat is shipped "whole" and then ground right before cooking, then that's no different than traditional hacked-off-the-cow meat, so Jartan's statement that the lab-grown burger is safer to eat rare is still incorrect; the risk level is identical at best.
About the only way I can think of where ground lab-grown meat would be safer to eat raw (compared to good old dead cow) would be if it could be grown at home, since the meat would have the shortest possible exposure time.
All that said, I'm a fan of the concept, and I hope it can be made workable on a large scale.
We're talking about ground meat here, Einstein. Not a steak. Far more surface area exposed to bacteria. If you think that's safe to eat raw, you've pretty well forfeited any high ground for criticizing anyone else's food-safety standards.
I don't think #1 applies. The texture of ground meat comes from physical damage done to the fat and tissues (and from the subsequent mixing of the two). You'd still have to grind it. Trying to grow "pre-ground" meat would be like trying to grow a broken bone.
Consequently, #2 wouldn't apply either, unless the meat was ground in a completely sterile room and stored in vacuum-sealed containers or something.
By that reasoning, since First Amendment doesn't say that anyone anywhere can post on the Internet, it's okay to outlaw Slashdot.
Huh? What's your basis for believing that the "average" conservative feels this way? The only ones I've ever known to espouse it are libertarians, many of whom don't identify as conservative and none of whom can honestly be called "average" by conservative standards.
In what country?
While I have no faith in Microsoft's honesty, I can see that they would have no reason to lie about this particular thing. If the 720 requires an Internet connection to function, there would be no way to hide that fact. They would get much better traction by spinning the requirement as a Good Thing(TM) than they would by denying its existence only to have the denial proven false in a matter of minutes.
That said, it's academic for the moment because the poster you replied to is wrong; Microsoft hasn't denied (or confirmed) an always-online requirement yet.