I watched the video and I have to ask, why didn't you watch it through to the end?
Sure, Romney said "Corporations are people", but it's painfully obvious from his elaboration that he was referring to corporations being used by people, not that they are somehow people in their own right.
So we don't actually have a case of a "right wing" person who believes that corporations are people.
But you cannot prevent them from opening the door at 30,000 feet
Yes, you can. By making it physically impossible to open the door at 30,000 feet which incidentally is already done. And if they start whacking on a window with a heavy item, there would be plenty of passengers to subdue the person.
And if they do open the door or break the window, it's not likely to kill many people. I think the risk is acceptable, especially given that people not diagnosed as mentally ill can do whatever a mentally ill person can do.
If there isn't enough evidence to show mentally ill people harm others, but after mass murders the culprit is often diagnosed as mentally ill because one of the symptoms is harming others or themselves seems like you went full circle.
Ok, why do you think that is confusing? A verdict of mental illness doesn't require that the people be a danger to others. And the point about the absence of correlation is that most mentally ill people aren't actually a danger to others.
I simply show that our lack of addressing mental illness has resulted in the latest mass shootings which would fall under highly deadly if someone wanted to make the case.
And the replier noted that there isn't enough such mass shootings to show a correlation between mental illness and that sort of violence. I also note that people who kill a lot of other people tend to be classified as mentally ill after the fact. After all, a common checklist item of mental illness is simply that it harms someone, either the sufferer or another.
Odd how you were modded as a troll but you've identified a major problem - corporations cannot be executed.
That can work, if it somehow punishes the people who actually made or were responsible for the crimes committed. And it would fail, if it doesn't.
As to punishing corporations, a lot of it is for pretty worthless reasons. For example, EU regulations on goods packaging and electronics connections. Anyone, including evil corporations, should be able to blow off that bullshit. Every nonsensical regulation dilutes society's regard for the law.
The right wing are forever claiming that corporations are people.
It isn't the right wing saying that. It's certain anti-corporation types with a weak understanding of global business law. Corporate personhood is not corporations being people. It's a legal fiction throughout the developed world where for some purposes corporations are treated as people for certain court proceedings.
Did you know that rich people who think "someone" should fund the government almost always mean "someone else, obviously, I've got yachts to buy" ?
I haven't noticed that being rich had an effect on that particular mindset. The point of government is to give me free shit. Having me actually pay for that defeats the purpose - whether I'm rich or poor.
One lesson that seems to be glossed over here is that since richer countries fare better, then making a country richer is (according to the model) a successful strategy for mitigating the harm of disease (and probably a huge variety of disasters, natural and man-made, as well). But my take is that there's a lot of countries, both rich and poor, which are trying hard to make their countries poorer and hence, more susceptible to disease under this model.
Back in 1900, virtually everyone was suffering from the same diseases. The Western world had discovered the benefits of public sanitation and fire control, but a lot of places still didn't have that. Medicine was still in the sawbones era where uncontrollable infections routinely led to amputation. What changed from then to now is that the developed world developed, including vast knowledge of pathology and the biology of our bodies.
Everyone on the planet can use that development process as a template, readily subject to local modification. It's something that has been demonstrated to work, to make people wealthier and healthier. And they are doing so. I think it's getting better.
Eh, I hope that sumdumass listens to weilawei's and your criticisms. He could have done better, even if he had thought as much about the argument as it took to type it in.
we wouldn't want to respect the wishes of an author so widely admired
What makes you think his wishes aren't being respected? Dead guy makes a lot of crazy rules just to read a few writings? Maybe he wanted us to break those rules.
. The fact that this copy has been leaked, and pirated massively means that Salinger has no incentive to write any more!
Unless it was his intent that this work be massively pirated. Creating a cookie jar that Must Not Be Opened is a great way to get people to open it and generate free publicity for whatever they find inside. I have zero clue about whatever Salinger might have been thinking.
But what I've heard of the "rules" for this work (in order to read this stuff, you had to sit in a particular room and be watched by a nanny) does make it sound like the point of the game was to break the rules.
What does working in a profit-focused megacorporate environment have to do with "experience to make one a good editor"?
He actually worked for a time at a place that turns scientific discoveries into things that benefit humanity. Excluding that group means you're excluding one of the more productive and useful areas of science.
And you might not have noticed this, but a lot of places have figured out how to handle conflicts of interest without firing all their productive staff. An editor of a scientific journal is not notably different than an accountant or a journalist, for example.
And, more importantly, having worked at Monsanto should automatically exclude you from being considered from holding an editorial position like this. You mostly have to assume these guys are going to be paid shills who have already made up their mind that it's safe, and he's basically just demonstrated that Food and Chemical Toxicology isn't interested in objective science.
Ignoring that working for Monsanto is one avenue to getting the sort of experience in the field that can make one a good editor, everyone has some sort of conflict of interest. I guess we'll just have to do without editors, huh?
Funny how Monsanto isn't required to definitively prove their crap is safe, but everyone else is required to definitely prove that it isn't.
It's not that way for either party and shouldn't be ("definitively prove" is a ludicrously high threshold). This was apparently half-assed research which didn't "prove" anything.
you've completely missed the fact that there's no correlation in the first place.
From the grandparent post:
This is also straight up cherry-picking. If it's not statistically likely that a mentally ill person will commit a terrorist act, then why would you base your argument around it?
I think it's fair to say that the biggest threat to the world wasn't communism, it was the interplay of two superpowers struggling for dominance
If that were true, and I don't believe it is, you still have that communism was less of a threat than the conflict because it was opposed. If there were no conflict and everyone went gently into that darkness, communism would have been a far greater threat.
Everybody should have the right to fly in principle
I see you take back that claim in the very next sentence about no one having the obligation to actually enforce this alleged "right". What right is here, I think, is the right to make your own choices, even ones which can harm you, even many which can harm others (like driving or running a nuclear power plant). Pretty much what you said in the first paragraph.
So my view remains unchanged. Flying becomes "something of a privilege" because no one is required to offer you that service at any price.
Slashdot Mirror
I watched the video and I have to ask, why didn't you watch it through to the end?
Sure, Romney said "Corporations are people", but it's painfully obvious from his elaboration that he was referring to corporations being used by people, not that they are somehow people in their own right.
So we don't actually have a case of a "right wing" person who believes that corporations are people.
But you cannot prevent them from opening the door at 30,000 feet
Yes, you can. By making it physically impossible to open the door at 30,000 feet which incidentally is already done. And if they start whacking on a window with a heavy item, there would be plenty of passengers to subdue the person.
And if they do open the door or break the window, it's not likely to kill many people. I think the risk is acceptable, especially given that people not diagnosed as mentally ill can do whatever a mentally ill person can do.
If there isn't enough evidence to show mentally ill people harm others, but after mass murders the culprit is often diagnosed as mentally ill because one of the symptoms is harming others or themselves seems like you went full circle.
Ok, why do you think that is confusing? A verdict of mental illness doesn't require that the people be a danger to others. And the point about the absence of correlation is that most mentally ill people aren't actually a danger to others.
It is possible that I could have been sarcastic.
I simply show that our lack of addressing mental illness has resulted in the latest mass shootings which would fall under highly deadly if someone wanted to make the case.
And the replier noted that there isn't enough such mass shootings to show a correlation between mental illness and that sort of violence. I also note that people who kill a lot of other people tend to be classified as mentally ill after the fact. After all, a common checklist item of mental illness is simply that it harms someone, either the sufferer or another.
Odd how you were modded as a troll but you've identified a major problem - corporations cannot be executed.
That can work, if it somehow punishes the people who actually made or were responsible for the crimes committed. And it would fail, if it doesn't.
As to punishing corporations, a lot of it is for pretty worthless reasons. For example, EU regulations on goods packaging and electronics connections. Anyone, including evil corporations, should be able to blow off that bullshit. Every nonsensical regulation dilutes society's regard for the law.
The right wing are forever claiming that corporations are people.
It isn't the right wing saying that. It's certain anti-corporation types with a weak understanding of global business law. Corporate personhood is not corporations being people. It's a legal fiction throughout the developed world where for some purposes corporations are treated as people for certain court proceedings.
Cosmetic surgery is a subclass of plastic surgery. And why don't you consider aging another disfiguring medical condition?
Did you know that rich people who think "someone" should fund the government almost always mean "someone else, obviously, I've got yachts to buy" ?
I haven't noticed that being rich had an effect on that particular mindset. The point of government is to give me free shit. Having me actually pay for that defeats the purpose - whether I'm rich or poor.
How convenient.
And if he's dead, it works.
One lesson that seems to be glossed over here is that since richer countries fare better, then making a country richer is (according to the model) a successful strategy for mitigating the harm of disease (and probably a huge variety of disasters, natural and man-made, as well). But my take is that there's a lot of countries, both rich and poor, which are trying hard to make their countries poorer and hence, more susceptible to disease under this model.
Back in 1900, virtually everyone was suffering from the same diseases. The Western world had discovered the benefits of public sanitation and fire control, but a lot of places still didn't have that. Medicine was still in the sawbones era where uncontrollable infections routinely led to amputation. What changed from then to now is that the developed world developed, including vast knowledge of pathology and the biology of our bodies.
Everyone on the planet can use that development process as a template, readily subject to local modification. It's something that has been demonstrated to work, to make people wealthier and healthier. And they are doing so. I think it's getting better.
Eh, I hope that sumdumass listens to weilawei's and your criticisms. He could have done better, even if he had thought as much about the argument as it took to type it in.
we wouldn't want to respect the wishes of an author so widely admired
What makes you think his wishes aren't being respected? Dead guy makes a lot of crazy rules just to read a few writings? Maybe he wanted us to break those rules.
. The fact that this copy has been leaked, and pirated massively means that Salinger has no incentive to write any more!
Unless it was his intent that this work be massively pirated. Creating a cookie jar that Must Not Be Opened is a great way to get people to open it and generate free publicity for whatever they find inside. I have zero clue about whatever Salinger might have been thinking.
But what I've heard of the "rules" for this work (in order to read this stuff, you had to sit in a particular room and be watched by a nanny) does make it sound like the point of the game was to break the rules.
That's a Buffalo, New York problem not a US problem. There aren't enough teachers in New York wanting plastic surgery to throw the US market.
What does working in a profit-focused megacorporate environment have to do with "experience to make one a good editor"?
He actually worked for a time at a place that turns scientific discoveries into things that benefit humanity. Excluding that group means you're excluding one of the more productive and useful areas of science.
And you might not have noticed this, but a lot of places have figured out how to handle conflicts of interest without firing all their productive staff. An editor of a scientific journal is not notably different than an accountant or a journalist, for example.
And, more importantly, having worked at Monsanto should automatically exclude you from being considered from holding an editorial position like this. You mostly have to assume these guys are going to be paid shills who have already made up their mind that it's safe, and he's basically just demonstrated that Food and Chemical Toxicology isn't interested in objective science.
Ignoring that working for Monsanto is one avenue to getting the sort of experience in the field that can make one a good editor, everyone has some sort of conflict of interest. I guess we'll just have to do without editors, huh?
Funny how Monsanto isn't required to definitively prove their crap is safe, but everyone else is required to definitely prove that it isn't.
It's not that way for either party and shouldn't be ("definitively prove" is a ludicrously high threshold). This was apparently half-assed research which didn't "prove" anything.
you've completely missed the fact that there's no correlation in the first place.
From the grandparent post:
This is also straight up cherry-picking. If it's not statistically likely that a mentally ill person will commit a terrorist act, then why would you base your argument around it?
It wasn't missed.
who uses the term maize any longer??
Scientific researchers for starters. And anyone who speaks Spanish.
I think it's fair to say that the biggest threat to the world wasn't communism, it was the interplay of two superpowers struggling for dominance
If that were true, and I don't believe it is, you still have that communism was less of a threat than the conflict because it was opposed. If there were no conflict and everyone went gently into that darkness, communism would have been a far greater threat.
Flying is a contract between you and the airline, not you and the government.
Ok. So where's the disagreement? Should the airline be required to enter into contracts with you?
Do you really disagree? Or just think you disagree?
For me, there's a simple test. Should someone be required to allow and enable you to fly on a passenger jet?
Everybody should have the right to fly in principle
I see you take back that claim in the very next sentence about no one having the obligation to actually enforce this alleged "right". What right is here, I think, is the right to make your own choices, even ones which can harm you, even many which can harm others (like driving or running a nuclear power plant). Pretty much what you said in the first paragraph.
So my view remains unchanged. Flying becomes "something of a privilege" because no one is required to offer you that service at any price.
We can make law more or less fair in how it is applied. After all, more people will be harmed than helped by arbitrary enforcement of law.