Heart attack? Nope. Just pointing out how dickish you're being using something considered bad form by people who don't have personal reasons for feeling that way.
Agreeing? Hardly. My point was that honesty is moral. Just not the only thing to keep in mind making a decision like, you know, your pointless ugly extremist example.
Here my argument, put simply, just for you:
Lying to someone is being dishonest towards them. Period. That you choose to be dishonest in order to serve a more important morality does not diminish the fact that its dishonest. That said the dishonesty does not diminish the moral value of your choice if it was indeed the proper action.
Now let's look at your argument, which is the bizarro-version:
You're trying to absolve stealing, an act considered by every society I've ever heard of to be immoral, by simply lying about your theft, another immoral act. You're trying to take theft and squeeze through as "not necessarily immoral"... because it... may not be properly considered to be described with the word "dishonest"? Regardless of whether lying is right or wrong, it's still no excuse for the point at hand- the choice made to steal. Sounds like you don't really have a good argument for that idiotic premise that stealing is fine. Sorry but I can't help you on that fool's errand. Here's a tip to shorten your journey though- count the appearances of "dishonest" in England's definition of the word "theft".
Since you insist on going to Nazis to try making your silly argument, I'll speak to it on behalf of any of my fellow Jews who share my views. Yes, informing my hiding mother would have been honest. That said, it doesn't mean being honest was more important than saving her life by deceiving the murderers by pretending to raise her as a Christian. Virtues can and do conflict. You don't need to read volumes of Greek philosophy to understand this.
Honesty is neither an appeal to emotion, nor a loosely defined idea. It is simply being truthful, and used often to signify being truthful regardless of perceived negative consequences to oneself. The word you're looking for "abides by the principles I preach" is "integrity", which is a self-accepted moral code. For example, I consider those who find honesty harmful to their convenience to lack integrity. Oh, the same goes for asshats who employ reductio ad Hitlerum so casually- go fuck yourself.
You're trying to explain quite simple things to someone who can't understand that "government" in the US means "the people". These fools believe "founders" who wrote the constitution weren't politicians, but "patriots", who not only could do no wrong, and would never ever serve in public office because that's for "elites".
The Bill of Rights was handed down from God, you know, government and legislation had nothing to do with securing our rights from government.
From the way I see it, if these politicians actually had the will to put their foot down on net neutrality then Google wouldn't even have to compromise and cut deals. But what do I know.
Evidently, not much about the US political system and current climate.
Four house members represent less than one percent of the 435 member body. A majority of which being the bare minimum required to pass a law.
More than a half of them regardless of party take money from content corporations or communication providers or both, and would probably block even a watered-down version of net neutrality. Add to this the fact that Republicans want to deny Democrats any "victories", or avoid seeming like both corrupt parties are similar, and there's really no point in hoping for legislation getting passed even if filibusters weren't yet another obstacle.
So no, four congressmen can't easily get anything they want done. Getting the FCC to maybe take their ideas seriously is about the best we can expect given how idiotic political discourse gets these days. Net neutrality is very far far far down the list of things the general public cares about.
I was working with what I was given- a very poor combination of mismatched issues and arguments. Your provided "definition" is just as useless, since a dictionary definition has no relation to the US, which is comprised of a single people and a very minor collection of territories.
And the relevance to congress and Twain is what? The makeup of the US is nothing like Austro-Hungaria, its sentiments and history are very different from Twain's time. Eve NRA nuts, corrupt as they are, are anywhere near crazed enough to storm congress, despite a few teabaggers voicing the notion.
If you have an argument- voice it. Don't just vaguely imply you know better and go hide behind long texts you think nobody will bother to read.
China has caused a drop in US wages and employment and collapse of what was left of US industry. Its currency manipulation doesn't help Americans either. It's not China that's broken (except for the leaders we don't like, yet haven't toppled, which was your argument), it's the "empire" which is suffering without taking advantage of its "empire" status. That makes us one really cowardly "empire".
Your second question is a self-contradicted strawman and your opinion is both baseless and uninteresting
The first amendment is pretty clear. Any ruling that contradicts the clear and obvious meaning of the first amendment is wrong.
Only if you're a raging loon with no capacity for self-doubt and the mentality of an Iranian cleric.
It's certainly not clear, having required volumes of clarification. Of course, what's the point telling an extremist that strict literal reading is often stupid? Have you ever approved of a judge, or is even Justice Thomas too intellectual for you?
East Timor? They're not worth anything to us. Why should we spend to get them to do anything? Did you bother to read what I wrote? I wasn't talking about being a moral non-empire.
. We still use the military to protect our economic interests, but we no longer need to occupy a country in order to exploit it. We just overthrow any elected head of state who won't play ball with our business interests.
We haven't done this to China yet to stop the huge trade deficit and fix our economy. Why not? Oh right- because we don't do that the way you suggest.
American interference in other sovereignties is not equal to maintaining an empire over them. That's an exaggeration made by people who can't find a proper way to explain their grievances.
Nations have long sought to influence and interfere with their neighbors. Spying, inciting unrest, sabotage, assassination- none of these were invented by the USA.
Empires expand to tax and pillage. The US actually gives money to other nations to get them to do what we want. Maintaining military bases is objectionable, but still doesn't count, if for no other reason than different bases are maintained for different reasons requiring different definitions and arguments.
I'm as against American Exceptionalism as the next guy, but pulling the simplistic empire card as if we're equivalent to the British, the Ottomans and the Macedonians is intellectually dishonest.
If you're not into traditional funerals, why not just be cremated and save the land for someone living?
It depends on what you consider 'traditional': You might still follow the religious tradition requiring burial (or prohibiting cremation or other body disposal methods) but acknowledge that the traditional horizontal plot may be less socially-considerate than a vertical grave.
But we did! On the last dozen or so times SC2 has come up, and when a long list of grievances to King Morhaime wasn't completely off-topic. It's been done to death.
We're bored of confronting the haters who have nothing better to do than be bitter about their difference of opinion and disappointment that life isn't perfect. We've moved on and keep enjoying the game.
Ha! I like your idea- use "demographics" to hide the machine's actual decision algorithm.
I'm one of those who doesn't have preferences- just blacklisted items which other guys my age eat/drink. Dietary need introduces a completely different variable, which if ignored means many people can't use the machines.
You really think your personal childhood crap equates to a hand-lettered sign by the architect of the national landmark?
No. Read it again to see that I was using an example of something that the general public should have no interest in, regardless of my caring for my junk. Don't assume I'm an idiot just because you can't read or debate.
Are you confusing me with MarkGriz, perhaps?
Yeah, him, fine, whatever, doesn't matter. You seemed to be defending his position which I argued against. Answer the point, ignore it, or butt out. I don't care what your name is, nor his. It's not important to the discussion. If you've nothing useful to add, don't.
I will not dignify that.
Whatever. Be snobbish all you want. You still display a lack of it.
Worth of preservation does not come close to being appropriate of designation of a national landmark. I've got a collection of a bunch of crap from my childhood which the public has no interest in preserving. Likewise, the sign does not command national significance.
Yes the impact is the same, for which they went to court. That's not my point. The piss-poor journalist you blindly quoted who made silly assumptions about their intent was my problem.
I won't try to argue that there aren't people who vote for bad reasons. I often accuse Republicans of doing just that. I'm not, nor would I ever be naive enough to claim Obama was voted strictly for legitimate reasons (which of course, 'historic' is not, as you pointed out).
That aside, there's no point saying "there are people who didn't read Obama's platform", because that not the issue. The same is obviously true for ALL politicians, left, right, middle and the various extremes. We need no more evidence than the teabaggers who decried "death panels pulling the plug on grandma" and "government hands off my medicare"- plenty of people across the spectrum are terribly ignorant. The take-away from this cross-partisan problem isn't "Obama is illegitimate", it's "we need a much smarter public to be informed and engaged about the political process and issues."
Anything else is just the useless partisan nonsense with which we're already saturated.
Classy, ending on a stream of ad hominems after you whining about them being made about you. Again, you're a fucking hypocrite.
You've also proven your stupidity beyond any doubt by calling (alleged) yelling an appeal to emotion. For your own reputation, stop misusing that fallacy until you actually grow up enough to admit you're have no idea what it means.
Really? Is anyone stupid enough to believe a sign could be a national historic landmark?
No, genius. The sign is attached to the actual landmark, which the sign is about: the Desert View Watchtower. Mary Colter, who painted the sign wasn't an artist but an architect. Facts kind of matter, even when they're about grammar nazis.
Is it stupid to do their thing on a sign with actual importance? Duh... The thing is nobody but you assumes they did that knowing it wasn't just a poorly-written sign produced by the park service.
The bill of rights has little to do with people or property but everything to do with governed people. The only property issues mentioned are in the 4th- search and seizure and the 5th- eminent domain, both of which are protection from government not other people. State government is where individual property protection is provided, and it's not done just to give the public a good feeling so they're productive. It was designed for the maintenance of an ordered society where might is not necessarily right. That money perverts state legal systems is important and related but off-topic.
As for the slave trade, I don't know that it was a personal protection as you suggested. My understanding is that slaves were allowed for the sake of to public good in colonies which depended on the cheap labor. The morality doesn't change of course, but "protection of commerce" with regards to the suggestion of FBI preferential treatment is about a specific corporation influencing government as opposed to something done for the public's welfare.
They added the seventh since I visited there. The last one does actually show the unfilled name.
7 . XXXXXXAct ofXXXX (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)[H.R.1586.ENR][PDF]
On closer inspection even the complaints about the name are sillier than I had thought.
"SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the _______Act of______."
What people are complaining about is the definition of an informal name for the bill. Those (what passes in congress for) catchy acronyms, like PATRIOT, which have zero meaning beyond trying to confuse politicians and the public.
Good to know it's all the fusses we make are about important things.
PS- Minor point, the bill (see the PDF) actually has underscores rather than those eye-catching X's. I wonder if that some default if you leave a field blank in the THOMAS system, and why that field wouldn't be set as mandatory.
You obviously don't understand fallacies. Quoting them is insufficient- you need to match them properly too. It's not hard, it just requires being precise and honest about your argument. Let me explain: 1) That was hardly an ad hominem, which would require me to actually ATTACK THE PERSON. Say, by calling teabaggers idiots, which I clearly didn't. You could try to claim that there's an implied ad hominem included, but that's false because some teabaggers actually embrace the word. It's also an accepted way to say concisely and precisely convey my point, so if you can't handle it, get another term into the vernacular. 2) That's not a strawman. It's a real position, though it may not be yours. I was speaking generally, you couldn't help but take things personally like a child. 3) That's not an appeal to emotion. "Think of the starving children" would be. It was a taunt and a put-down. And it worked- you flew off the handle and wrote your little rant.
You're thinking three years in the past when TEA was about government and taxation, rather than strictly about playing politics rather than debating issues.
Teabagging is not Libertarianism. It started there, but that's not what I'm talking about. That's why I use the word "teabagging" but not "libertarianism". Misguided as I think he is in places, I'm not arguing against Ron Paul's philosophy. I didn't mean to offend your fucking messiah. SORRY.
Texas wanting to secede from the union because of democrats is similar to the DOI. Teabagging on the other hand, is a load of anti-democrat horseshit which is a quite novel thing. Prior to it, it was usually only political parties which engaged in this behavior, and they were honest about being part of government. These wackos claim to be no part of government, including the ORIGINAL POINT WHICH YOU'VE STILL NOT ADDRESSED: "the people didn't vote for you, therefore you are not a legitimate government".
Here's a tip for better success: Want to try to convince someone about a specific point, don't just send them to a large website and say "go read". If it was just you here, I wouldn't bother schooling you, random stranger. It's at least a dozen people who've been modding me up. And they should be shielded from ignorance.
No, you discounted Obama's and the Democrats' win as non-legitimate by contesting the worth of their voters, and by pointlessly replying to a post which explained how conservatives do the same with their repetitive nonsense about being the voice of america.
I'll also call your Al Gore and raise you a Norm Coleman. Hypocrite. Hypocrite. Hypocrite.
Slashdot Mirror
Heart attack? Nope. Just pointing out how dickish you're being using something considered bad form by people who don't have personal reasons for feeling that way.
Agreeing? Hardly. My point was that honesty is moral. Just not the only thing to keep in mind making a decision like, you know, your pointless ugly extremist example.
Here my argument, put simply, just for you:
Lying to someone is being dishonest towards them. Period. That you choose to be dishonest in order to serve a more important morality does not diminish the fact that its dishonest. That said the dishonesty does not diminish the moral value of your choice if it was indeed the proper action.
Now let's look at your argument, which is the bizarro-version:
You're trying to absolve stealing, an act considered by every society I've ever heard of to be immoral, by simply lying about your theft, another immoral act. You're trying to take theft and squeeze through as "not necessarily immoral"... because it... may not be properly considered to be described with the word "dishonest"? Regardless of whether lying is right or wrong, it's still no excuse for the point at hand- the choice made to steal. Sounds like you don't really have a good argument for that idiotic premise that stealing is fine. Sorry but I can't help you on that fool's errand. Here's a tip to shorten your journey though- count the appearances of "dishonest" in England's definition of the word "theft".
But it wasn't an important part of the poster's comment.
Neither was my telling him off, yet that's all you found to comment about? ;)
Bullshit.
Since you insist on going to Nazis to try making your silly argument, I'll speak to it on behalf of any of my fellow Jews who share my views. Yes, informing my hiding mother would have been honest. That said, it doesn't mean being honest was more important than saving her life by deceiving the murderers by pretending to raise her as a Christian. Virtues can and do conflict. You don't need to read volumes of Greek philosophy to understand this.
Honesty is neither an appeal to emotion, nor a loosely defined idea. It is simply being truthful, and used often to signify being truthful regardless of perceived negative consequences to oneself. The word you're looking for "abides by the principles I preach" is "integrity", which is a self-accepted moral code. For example, I consider those who find honesty harmful to their convenience to lack integrity. Oh, the same goes for asshats who employ reductio ad Hitlerum so casually- go fuck yourself.
Forget it, friend.
You're trying to explain quite simple things to someone who can't understand that "government" in the US means "the people". These fools believe "founders" who wrote the constitution weren't politicians, but "patriots", who not only could do no wrong, and would never ever serve in public office because that's for "elites".
The Bill of Rights was handed down from God, you know, government and legislation had nothing to do with securing our rights from government.
From the way I see it, if these politicians actually had the will to put their foot down on net neutrality then Google wouldn't even have to compromise and cut deals. But what do I know.
Evidently, not much about the US political system and current climate.
Four house members represent less than one percent of the 435 member body. A majority of which being the bare minimum required to pass a law.
More than a half of them regardless of party take money from content corporations or communication providers or both, and would probably block even a watered-down version of net neutrality. Add to this the fact that Republicans want to deny Democrats any "victories", or avoid seeming like both corrupt parties are similar, and there's really no point in hoping for legislation getting passed even if filibusters weren't yet another obstacle.
So no, four congressmen can't easily get anything they want done. Getting the FCC to maybe take their ideas seriously is about the best we can expect given how idiotic political discourse gets these days. Net neutrality is very far far far down the list of things the general public cares about.
Just tell Murdoch it's a "cyber newspaper" or some other ridiculous thing that would sound reasonable to a caveman.
I was working with what I was given- a very poor combination of mismatched issues and arguments. Your provided "definition" is just as useless, since a dictionary definition has no relation to the US, which is comprised of a single people and a very minor collection of territories.
And the relevance to congress and Twain is what? The makeup of the US is nothing like Austro-Hungaria, its sentiments and history are very different from Twain's time. Eve NRA nuts, corrupt as they are, are anywhere near crazed enough to storm congress, despite a few teabaggers voicing the notion.
If you have an argument- voice it. Don't just vaguely imply you know better and go hide behind long texts you think nobody will bother to read.
Indeed: CIVISROMANUSSUM
China has caused a drop in US wages and employment and collapse of what was left of US industry. Its currency manipulation doesn't help Americans either. It's not China that's broken (except for the leaders we don't like, yet haven't toppled, which was your argument), it's the "empire" which is suffering without taking advantage of its "empire" status. That makes us one really cowardly "empire".
Your second question is a self-contradicted strawman and your opinion is both baseless and uninteresting
The first amendment is pretty clear. Any ruling that contradicts the clear and obvious meaning of the first amendment is wrong.
Only if you're a raging loon with no capacity for self-doubt and the mentality of an Iranian cleric.
It's certainly not clear, having required volumes of clarification. Of course, what's the point telling an extremist that strict literal reading is often stupid? Have you ever approved of a judge, or is even Justice Thomas too intellectual for you?
What did we do to protect East Timor
East Timor? They're not worth anything to us. Why should we spend to get them to do anything? Did you bother to read what I wrote? I wasn't talking about being a moral non-empire.
. We still use the military to protect our economic interests, but we no longer need to occupy a country in order to exploit it. We just overthrow any elected head of state who won't play ball with our business interests.
We haven't done this to China yet to stop the huge trade deficit and fix our economy. Why not? Oh right- because we don't do that the way you suggest.
American interference in other sovereignties is not equal to maintaining an empire over them. That's an exaggeration made by people who can't find a proper way to explain their grievances.
Nations have long sought to influence and interfere with their neighbors. Spying, inciting unrest, sabotage, assassination- none of these were invented by the USA.
Empires expand to tax and pillage. The US actually gives money to other nations to get them to do what we want. Maintaining military bases is objectionable, but still doesn't count, if for no other reason than different bases are maintained for different reasons requiring different definitions and arguments.
I'm as against American Exceptionalism as the next guy, but pulling the simplistic empire card as if we're equivalent to the British, the Ottomans and the Macedonians is intellectually dishonest.
I don't see an exception for criminal investigations in the First Amendment.
That's because you don't understand the law. Read any court case about the limitation of freedom of speech and you'll see where that comes from.
Neither do you have unrestricted access to 'arms' as the NRA narrowly thinks the Second states.
If you're not into traditional funerals, why not just be cremated and save the land for someone living?
It depends on what you consider 'traditional': You might still follow the religious tradition requiring burial (or prohibiting cremation or other body disposal methods) but acknowledge that the traditional horizontal plot may be less socially-considerate than a vertical grave.
the lack of people defending it
But we did! On the last dozen or so times SC2 has come up, and when a long list of grievances to King Morhaime wasn't completely off-topic. It's been done to death.
We're bored of confronting the haters who have nothing better to do than be bitter about their difference of opinion and disappointment that life isn't perfect. We've moved on and keep enjoying the game.
Ha! I like your idea- use "demographics" to hide the machine's actual decision algorithm.
I'm one of those who doesn't have preferences- just blacklisted items which other guys my age eat/drink. Dietary need introduces a completely different variable, which if ignored means many people can't use the machines.
You really think your personal childhood crap equates to a hand-lettered sign by the architect of the national landmark?
No. Read it again to see that I was using an example of something that the general public should have no interest in, regardless of my caring for my junk. Don't assume I'm an idiot just because you can't read or debate.
Are you confusing me with MarkGriz, perhaps?
Yeah, him, fine, whatever, doesn't matter. You seemed to be defending his position which I argued against. Answer the point, ignore it, or butt out. I don't care what your name is, nor his. It's not important to the discussion. If you've nothing useful to add, don't.
I will not dignify that.
Whatever. Be snobbish all you want. You still display a lack of it.
Worth of preservation does not come close to being appropriate of designation of a national landmark. I've got a collection of a bunch of crap from my childhood which the public has no interest in preserving. Likewise, the sign does not command national significance.
Yes the impact is the same, for which they went to court. That's not my point. The piss-poor journalist you blindly quoted who made silly assumptions about their intent was my problem.
It's called "perspective". Get some. Please.
I won't try to argue that there aren't people who vote for bad reasons. I often accuse Republicans of doing just that. I'm not, nor would I ever be naive enough to claim Obama was voted strictly for legitimate reasons (which of course, 'historic' is not, as you pointed out).
That aside, there's no point saying "there are people who didn't read Obama's platform", because that not the issue. The same is obviously true for ALL politicians, left, right, middle and the various extremes. We need no more evidence than the teabaggers who decried "death panels pulling the plug on grandma" and "government hands off my medicare"- plenty of people across the spectrum are terribly ignorant. The take-away from this cross-partisan problem isn't "Obama is illegitimate", it's "we need a much smarter public to be informed and engaged about the political process and issues."
Anything else is just the useless partisan nonsense with which we're already saturated.
Classy, ending on a stream of ad hominems after you whining about them being made about you. Again, you're a fucking hypocrite.
You've also proven your stupidity beyond any doubt by calling (alleged) yelling an appeal to emotion. For your own reputation, stop misusing that fallacy until you actually grow up enough to admit you're have no idea what it means.
Kind of? More like supremely...
The sign, a National Historic Landmark
Really? Is anyone stupid enough to believe a sign could be a national historic landmark?
No, genius. The sign is attached to the actual landmark, which the sign is about: the Desert View Watchtower. Mary Colter, who painted the sign wasn't an artist but an architect. Facts kind of matter, even when they're about grammar nazis.
Is it stupid to do their thing on a sign with actual importance? Duh... The thing is nobody but you assumes they did that knowing it wasn't just a poorly-written sign produced by the park service.
The bill of rights has little to do with people or property but everything to do with governed people. The only property issues mentioned are in the 4th- search and seizure and the 5th- eminent domain, both of which are protection from government not other people. State government is where individual property protection is provided, and it's not done just to give the public a good feeling so they're productive. It was designed for the maintenance of an ordered society where might is not necessarily right. That money perverts state legal systems is important and related but off-topic.
As for the slave trade, I don't know that it was a personal protection as you suggested. My understanding is that slaves were allowed for the sake of to public good in colonies which depended on the cheap labor. The morality doesn't change of course, but "protection of commerce" with regards to the suggestion of FBI preferential treatment is about a specific corporation influencing government as opposed to something done for the public's welfare.
Thanks for the URL check and correction.
They added the seventh since I visited there. The last one does actually show the unfilled name.
7 . XXXXXXAct ofXXXX (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] - ENR)[H.R.1586.ENR][PDF]
On closer inspection even the complaints about the name are sillier than I had thought.
"SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the _______Act of______."
What people are complaining about is the definition of an informal name for the bill. Those (what passes in congress for) catchy acronyms, like PATRIOT, which have zero meaning beyond trying to confuse politicians and the public.
Good to know it's all the fusses we make are about important things.
PS- Minor point, the bill (see the PDF) actually has underscores rather than those eye-catching X's. I wonder if that some default if you leave a field blank in the THOMAS system, and why that field wouldn't be set as mandatory.
You obviously don't understand fallacies. Quoting them is insufficient- you need to match them properly too. It's not hard, it just requires being precise and honest about your argument. Let me explain:
1) That was hardly an ad hominem, which would require me to actually ATTACK THE PERSON. Say, by calling teabaggers idiots, which I clearly didn't. You could try to claim that there's an implied ad hominem included, but that's false because some teabaggers actually embrace the word. It's also an accepted way to say concisely and precisely convey my point, so if you can't handle it, get another term into the vernacular.
2) That's not a strawman. It's a real position, though it may not be yours. I was speaking generally, you couldn't help but take things personally like a child.
3) That's not an appeal to emotion. "Think of the starving children" would be. It was a taunt and a put-down. And it worked- you flew off the handle and wrote your little rant.
You're thinking three years in the past when TEA was about government and taxation, rather than strictly about playing politics rather than debating issues.
Teabagging is not Libertarianism. It started there, but that's not what I'm talking about. That's why I use the word "teabagging" but not "libertarianism". Misguided as I think he is in places, I'm not arguing against Ron Paul's philosophy. I didn't mean to offend your fucking messiah. SORRY.
Texas wanting to secede from the union because of democrats is similar to the DOI. Teabagging on the other hand, is a load of anti-democrat horseshit which is a quite novel thing. Prior to it, it was usually only political parties which engaged in this behavior, and they were honest about being part of government. These wackos claim to be no part of government, including the ORIGINAL POINT WHICH YOU'VE STILL NOT ADDRESSED: "the people didn't vote for you, therefore you are not a legitimate government".
Here's a tip for better success: Want to try to convince someone about a specific point, don't just send them to a large website and say "go read". If it was just you here, I wouldn't bother schooling you, random stranger. It's at least a dozen people who've been modding me up. And they should be shielded from ignorance.
No, you discounted Obama's and the Democrats' win as non-legitimate by contesting the worth of their voters, and by pointlessly replying to a post which explained how conservatives do the same with their repetitive nonsense about being the voice of america.
I'll also call your Al Gore and raise you a Norm Coleman. Hypocrite. Hypocrite. Hypocrite.