I don't think you're using "subjective" or "opinion" properly. If I think chocolate tastes better than vanilla, that's my opinion. But if I think that an interview candidate will not perform very well, that is my *judgement*: either he will or he won't, and based on the evidence I have, I think he won't.
It's your judgement, and it's also subjective and opinion. All those words fit. Look if you can't even accept the definitions of common words such as that, you're not going to come round on a reasonable, objective and widely-agreed definition of Christian.
I stand by my suggestion, and I'm sure that most people would agree with me and not you. Beyond that, it's not worthwhile continuing the discussion. Your mind is set. And it's set because you want to disassociate WBC from your group. No amount of reasoning is going to make you change your mind.
That's not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is defined as "a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle. Those things are highly restricted in the US and nearly impossible to get nowadays unless you're very wealthy and well-connected. Perhaps you mean "assault weapon"? Definitions vary wildly, are usually used and set by people with no meaningful familiarity with firearms, and are often contradictory. Usually it boils down to "black and scary-looking".
OK, thanks for that. Indeed I come from a country where all such weapons are banned. Other than for the Army and specialist police. Never seen one, certainly never used one.
Whilst that may mean I'm not sure the exact combinations of words to describe a specific gun, it does mean I know what the end point of decent gun-control is.
America has a gun problem. And the only people that can't see it are some Americans.
Um, how is "A true Christian accepts Christ's teachings" an unreasonable, subjective criteria that is not widely agreed? (Criteria because it's not a full definition, but it's one aspect of a definition.) What would you propose as a reasonable, objective, widely-agreed definition?
Because it's your opinion on what Christ's teachings are, and your opinion on how they match up to that. Doubly subjective. And in any case I think you're wrong that it would be widely accepted. For a start, Christians tend to act contrary to Christ's teachings everyday. That's why praying for forgiveness or going to confession is a regular occurrence. Even you accept that isn't only a criteria rather than a definition, which suggests even you accept it's weak.
I propose that a reasonable, objective and widely-agreed definition is: A person who believes that Jesus Christ existed and was the son of God.
And indeed that's the definition I used for the Christian part of WBC being a Christian Church.
Don't forget these two: *According to the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports, 430 burglary-related homicides occurred between 2003 and 2007 on average annually. This number translates to less than 1% of all homicides during that period.
* Between 2003 and 2007, approximately 2.1 million household burglaries were reported to the FBI each year on average. Household burglaries ending in homicide made up 0.004% of all burglaries during that period.
So, 430 burglary related homicides. Now, how many homicides are caused by the ownership of guns? Bear in mind that guns kill the owner or a family member or an innocent visiter far more often than they kill an intruder.
Wait, are you saying that NO TRUE ATHEIST would not call themselves an atheist? That NO TRUE ATHEIST would call themselves a Baptist Church?
No I'm not saying either of those things. I'm pointing out you don't understand the No True Scotsman fallacy. You're just putting the phrase "no true scotsman" in sentences and trying to make an argument with it.
"No true Christian would teach something opposite to Christ's teachings" is perfectly reasonable.
No it's not, it's entirely subjective. You're comparing the person with your idea of how a christian behaves, rather than coming up with a reasonable, objective and widely agreed definition of what a christian is, and then testing the person against that.
You might have a point if they called themselves the Westboro Atheist group, were accepted by the government as an atheist group, and said they don't believe in God.
As they don't, or indeed have anything at all that says they are atheist, all that's left is your misunderstanding of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Does owning a gun make you a spree murderer? No, but it makes it a lot easier. Especially if the gun is an semi-automatic assault rifle. Indeed that is the exact purpose of an semi-automatic assault rifle - to kill lots of people quickly.
In China, the very same day, there was a man who went on a stabbing spree with a knife. 22 people stabbed, not a single casualty. If he'd had a gun however, it would have been a very different story.
Ok, so you are either a troll or a fucking moron. I NEVER CLAIMED NOR IMPLIED that EACH INDIVIDUAL win was in the level of millions. Only that they make millions off of suing people. Moron.
And you've done precisely nothing to back it up, other than patronise another poster with LMGTFY and insult me. What you say clearly isn't true. Not about the money, not with regard to them not being a christian church.
Heck, if offensive behaviour made someone not Christian, then this post of yours would exclude you too.
see that a quarter to one third of Americans are by default ineligible for a carry permit in the first place.
So most are, and most states are will issue. I don't know what point you are trying to make here. America has a big problem, and a proportion not being able to carry does not mean the problem goes away.
I'll agree with you regarding your last point, it seems that the people of Switzerland better recognize that their weapons are principal among the tools needed to keep their relatively small nation from being enveloped by their neighbors the next time Europe once again breaks out in a conflagration of war.
The Swiss have reason to have a people's militia. They have no standing army. That argument doesn't apply in the USA. The whole militia argument is an excuse for those who want guns for mainly leisure purposes. And leisure use is not worth innocent people's lives. Especially children.
Actually I did. "There is no SINGULAR event with a count down. There may never be a hit again. Or there may be a million hits tomorrow."
You didn't understand then. Turns out you still don't understand now.
None will be offered until you stop raping children. And no, the fact that your father and grandfather raped you continuously through your childhood while your mother and grandmother stood on the sideline and cheered is not an excuse.
Ah, you've lost your rationality again. That was a brief glimmer. The difference between what I write and what you write is that mine is based on reality. When I say you have a lot in common with Anders Breivik it's because you've actually expressed those opinions. Trying to retaliate with stuff created entirely in your imagination doesn't work.
The best you can do is google it or spend time digging through court records. That's why I used LMGTFY.
So link directly to one or two that are even in the ball park of $millions.
Your LMGTFY attempt was a fraud.
WBC are so disgusting, I can't see the point of inventing bad things to say about them. The truth is bad enough. I think the problem is that wasn't your motive. Your motive was to attribute non-christian motives to their behaviour so as to disassociate them with christianity. And that's why you lied.
No, it is not. I list the TWO things that they have in common with Christian churches, and then go on to list all the things they do NOT have in common with Christian churches. In fact I very specifically point to that they are FEIGNING being a church for tax purposes, and use their lawyer skills to retain that classification.
He was born in Scotland, and he has ginger hair. But he doesn't wear a kilt, he doesn't drink, and he eats healthily. Therefore he's not a true scotsman. He's feigning being a scotsman because that means he can make money as a piper.
Sorry, but your argument is exactly the no true scotsman fallacy.
Is only an informal fallacy. (Sometimes Angus really ISN'T a true Scotsman.)
If he was born in Scotland he's a scotsman. It doesn't matter how he behaves. Your comments about WBC concern things where you think the WBC don't behave as you'd see a Christian Church behaving. And many of them are your opinion as to their motives. None of it concerns whether they are actually a Christian Church.
B. Due to (a) it is used overbroadly to shut down argument. The WSBC case is almost textbook: 1 - Crazy group uses Christianity as cover for evil. 2 - Atheists conflate this group with all Christians everywhere as a way of pushing their own agenda. 3 - Christians of all stripes roundly condemn crazy group and reject them while pointing out that these people aren't really Christian. 4 - Atheists start screaming "No True Scotsman! No true Scotsman!" and continue to conflate the two groups.
This just speaks of your desire to not have Christian Churches associated with WBC. It says nothing of whether WBC is a Christian Church. I'd say you logic is being overruled by your feelings.
If you are going to conflate a small group engaging in clearly fringe behavior with a larger mainstream group, it is YOUR responsibility as the accuser to show the links.
i.e. Even though he was born in Scotland, he doesn't behave like most scotsmen, therefore it's your duty to prove he's a scotsman.
What defines a Christian Church? I suggest it's that they believe Jesus is the son of God, and that they hold group acts of worship. These things appear to be true of WBC. They certainly say that's the case. So all we have is you saying you don't believe it. So no, the responsibility of the accuser to prove their case is with you. And a "no true scotsman" argument such as you've provided so far doesn't do it.
Before trying to humiliate someone by using Let Me Google That For You, you ought to double check that somewhere on the first page of results there actually is the thing you are referring to.
There in nothing in the results that indicates WBC is making $millions from suing people. They win some, they lose some. When they win it looks like thousands not millions. And that's in costs. And there's no indication they've won enough times for the thousands to approach even one million.
Now, because I can just hear the Atheist trolls firing up their "No True Scotsman fallacy" engines
The reason you predict people are going to respond that way is that you know full well that is exactly the logical fallacy you are indulging in.
You list a number of claimed attributes of the WBC, and argue that real Christians would not be like that. That is a perfect example of the no true scotsman fallacy.
What you didn't do is show that they are not a Christian church. To do that, you have to do something like prove that they don't believe in Christ being the son of God, or prove that they don't observe organised Christian services.
That number may be wrong, but did you not notice the insanity of charging someone who used a toy gun to scare off someone attempting to steal from them?
Of course it's insane. And you'd think that living in Britain I'd have heard the news. Or something like them. Or even recognised that the law even has that potential. But no. It's insane because it doesn't ring true. And without a link, nor a searchable name nor location nor anything substantive at all, and considering the rest of the description of Britain, which I also don't recognise, I assume it's not true.
Who'd have thunk it. A right wing blogger making stuff up.
Please refute something worth refuting. I find it deplorable that people don't realize just how skewed the world is.
Perhaps you shouldn't be so credulous. When someone says something that sounds bizarre, don't just accept it. By cynical. Expect a link, or at least some means by which you can fact check it. If it's too vague to be fact checked, and doesn't sound right, it probably isn't. This goes double if it otherwise fits your prejudices.
That's the difference. They both make use of the data, but Google has the ability to build up individual user profiles from the data. Apple just knows what crowds are doing.
And it's not detail, nor a moral difference. It stems from their different business models.
Google's business model is targeted advertising. For several years, their every move is about profiling users to advertise to them.
Apple's business model is selling hardware. Their moves are about making the product more attractive.
Slashdot Mirror
Since I haven't used a goto since the 1980s, except in assembler, I'd love to see some examples.
And I mean of actual gotos, not similar statements like break and continue.
Most diffs can ignore whitespace...
I don't understand your second point.
You didn't understand his first point.
I don't think you're using "subjective" or "opinion" properly. If I think chocolate tastes better than vanilla, that's my opinion. But if I think that an interview candidate will not perform very well, that is my *judgement*: either he will or he won't, and based on the evidence I have, I think he won't.
It's your judgement, and it's also subjective and opinion. All those words fit. Look if you can't even accept the definitions of common words such as that, you're not going to come round on a reasonable, objective and widely-agreed definition of Christian.
I stand by my suggestion, and I'm sure that most people would agree with me and not you. Beyond that, it's not worthwhile continuing the discussion. Your mind is set. And it's set because you want to disassociate WBC from your group. No amount of reasoning is going to make you change your mind.
That's not an assault rifle. An assault rifle is defined as "a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It is not to be confused with assault weapons.". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle. Those things are highly restricted in the US and nearly impossible to get nowadays unless you're very wealthy and well-connected. Perhaps you mean "assault weapon"? Definitions vary wildly, are usually used and set by people with no meaningful familiarity with firearms, and are often contradictory. Usually it boils down to "black and scary-looking".
OK, thanks for that. Indeed I come from a country where all such weapons are banned. Other than for the Army and specialist police. Never seen one, certainly never used one.
Whilst that may mean I'm not sure the exact combinations of words to describe a specific gun, it does mean I know what the end point of decent gun-control is.
America has a gun problem. And the only people that can't see it are some Americans.
Further, your use of "semi-automatic assault rifle" tells me that you know very little about what you're talking about.
This s the weapon Adam Lanza killed with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_XM-15
As you can see, the civilian version is a "semi-automatic assault rifle".
Therefore, YOU don't know what you are talking about.
There are very many things available to the ordinary person that make $crime a lot easier. Bad analogy.
And many of them are controlled or banned. You only say it's a bad analogy because you can't deny my argument.
The sum total of school massacres with guns is greater than the sum total with explosives.
Explosives are tightly controlled, so why not guns?
I'm saddened buy your loss. And I'm impressed by your clarity of thought. That was the most insightful post I've read on Slashdot for a while.
Um, how is "A true Christian accepts Christ's teachings" an unreasonable, subjective criteria that is not widely agreed? (Criteria because it's not a full definition, but it's one aspect of a definition.) What would you propose as a reasonable, objective, widely-agreed definition?
Because it's your opinion on what Christ's teachings are, and your opinion on how they match up to that. Doubly subjective. And in any case I think you're wrong that it would be widely accepted. For a start, Christians tend to act contrary to Christ's teachings everyday. That's why praying for forgiveness or going to confession is a regular occurrence. Even you accept that isn't only a criteria rather than a definition, which suggests even you accept it's weak.
I propose that a reasonable, objective and widely-agreed definition is: A person who believes that Jesus Christ existed and was the son of God.
And indeed that's the definition I used for the Christian part of WBC being a Christian Church.
Don't forget these two:
*According to the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports, 430 burglary-related homicides occurred between 2003 and 2007 on average annually. This number translates to less than 1% of all homicides during that period.
* Between 2003 and 2007, approximately 2.1 million household burglaries were reported to the FBI each year on average. Household burglaries ending in homicide made up 0.004% of all burglaries during that period.
So, 430 burglary related homicides. Now, how many homicides are caused by the ownership of guns? Bear in mind that guns kill the owner or a family member or an innocent visiter far more often than they kill an intruder.
Wait, are you saying that NO TRUE ATHEIST would not call themselves an atheist? That NO TRUE ATHEIST would call themselves a Baptist Church?
No I'm not saying either of those things. I'm pointing out you don't understand the No True Scotsman fallacy. You're just putting the phrase "no true scotsman" in sentences and trying to make an argument with it.
"No true Christian would teach something opposite to Christ's teachings" is perfectly reasonable.
No it's not, it's entirely subjective. You're comparing the person with your idea of how a christian behaves, rather than coming up with a reasonable, objective and widely agreed definition of what a christian is, and then testing the person against that.
You might have a point if they called themselves the Westboro Atheist group, were accepted by the government as an atheist group, and said they don't believe in God.
As they don't, or indeed have anything at all that says they are atheist, all that's left is your misunderstanding of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
For casualty, of course I meant fatality.
No, but it makes being a pyromaniac a lot easier.
Does owning a gun make you a spree murderer? No, but it makes it a lot easier. Especially if the gun is an semi-automatic assault rifle. Indeed that is the exact purpose of an semi-automatic assault rifle - to kill lots of people quickly.
In China, the very same day, there was a man who went on a stabbing spree with a knife. 22 people stabbed, not a single casualty. If he'd had a gun however, it would have been a very different story.
Me? You call me a child murder.
No, I said you had a lot in common with Anders Breivik. Presumably child murdering not being one of them.
It was intended as a note of caution, regarding which way you are heading.
We have already established that you are a moronic troll.
No, we've established that you can't cope with being shown to be wrong, and instantly start with childish tantrums.
Ok, so you are either a troll or a fucking moron.
I NEVER CLAIMED NOR IMPLIED that EACH INDIVIDUAL win was in the level of millions. Only that they make millions off of suing people. Moron.
And you've done precisely nothing to back it up, other than patronise another poster with LMGTFY and insult me. What you say clearly isn't true. Not about the money, not with regard to them not being a christian church.
Heck, if offensive behaviour made someone not Christian, then this post of yours would exclude you too.
see that a quarter to one third of Americans are by default ineligible for a carry permit in the first place.
So most are, and most states are will issue. I don't know what point you are trying to make here. America has a big problem, and a proportion not being able to carry does not mean the problem goes away.
I'll agree with you regarding your last point, it seems that the people of Switzerland better recognize that their weapons are principal among the tools needed to keep their relatively small nation from being enveloped by their neighbors the next time Europe once again breaks out in a conflagration of war.
The Swiss have reason to have a people's militia. They have no standing army. That argument doesn't apply in the USA. The whole militia argument is an excuse for those who want guns for mainly leisure purposes. And leisure use is not worth innocent people's lives. Especially children.
Actually I did. "There is no SINGULAR event with a count down. There may never be a hit again. Or there may be a million hits tomorrow."
You didn't understand then. Turns out you still don't understand now.
None will be offered until you stop raping children. And no, the fact that your father and grandfather raped you continuously through your childhood while your mother and grandmother stood on the sideline and cheered is not an excuse.
Ah, you've lost your rationality again. That was a brief glimmer. The difference between what I write and what you write is that mine is based on reality. When I say you have a lot in common with Anders Breivik it's because you've actually expressed those opinions. Trying to retaliate with stuff created entirely in your imagination doesn't work.
The best you can do is google it or spend time digging through court records. That's why I used LMGTFY.
So link directly to one or two that are even in the ball park of $millions.
Your LMGTFY attempt was a fraud.
WBC are so disgusting, I can't see the point of inventing bad things to say about them. The truth is bad enough. I think the problem is that wasn't your motive. Your motive was to attribute non-christian motives to their behaviour so as to disassociate them with christianity. And that's why you lied.
No, it is not. I list the TWO things that they have in common with Christian churches, and then go on to list all the things they do NOT have in common with Christian churches. In fact I very specifically point to that they are FEIGNING being a church for tax purposes, and use their lawyer skills to retain that classification.
He was born in Scotland, and he has ginger hair. But he doesn't wear a kilt, he doesn't drink, and he eats healthily. Therefore he's not a true scotsman. He's feigning being a scotsman because that means he can make money as a piper.
Sorry, but your argument is exactly the no true scotsman fallacy.
Is only an informal fallacy. (Sometimes Angus really ISN'T a true Scotsman.)
If he was born in Scotland he's a scotsman. It doesn't matter how he behaves. Your comments about WBC concern things where you think the WBC don't behave as you'd see a Christian Church behaving. And many of them are your opinion as to their motives. None of it concerns whether they are actually a Christian Church.
B. Due to (a) it is used overbroadly to shut down argument. The WSBC case is almost textbook:
1 - Crazy group uses Christianity as cover for evil.
2 - Atheists conflate this group with all Christians everywhere as a way of pushing their own agenda.
3 - Christians of all stripes roundly condemn crazy group and reject them while pointing out that these people aren't really Christian.
4 - Atheists start screaming "No True Scotsman! No true Scotsman!" and continue to conflate the two groups.
This just speaks of your desire to not have Christian Churches associated with WBC. It says nothing of whether WBC is a Christian Church. I'd say you logic is being overruled by your feelings.
If you are going to conflate a small group engaging in clearly fringe behavior with a larger mainstream group, it is YOUR responsibility as the accuser to show the links.
i.e. Even though he was born in Scotland, he doesn't behave like most scotsmen, therefore it's your duty to prove he's a scotsman.
What defines a Christian Church? I suggest it's that they believe Jesus is the son of God, and that they hold group acts of worship. These things appear to be true of WBC. They certainly say that's the case. So all we have is you saying you don't believe it. So no, the responsibility of the accuser to prove their case is with you. And a "no true scotsman" argument such as you've provided so far doesn't do it.
Before trying to humiliate someone by using Let Me Google That For You, you ought to double check that somewhere on the first page of results there actually is the thing you are referring to.
There in nothing in the results that indicates WBC is making $millions from suing people. They win some, they lose some. When they win it looks like thousands not millions. And that's in costs. And there's no indication they've won enough times for the thousands to approach even one million.
Now, because I can just hear the Atheist trolls firing up their "No True Scotsman fallacy" engines
The reason you predict people are going to respond that way is that you know full well that is exactly the logical fallacy you are indulging in.
You list a number of claimed attributes of the WBC, and argue that real Christians would not be like that. That is a perfect example of the no true scotsman fallacy.
What you didn't do is show that they are not a Christian church. To do that, you have to do something like prove that they don't believe in Christ being the son of God, or prove that they don't observe organised Christian services.
So, there is ONE weakness in my statement
No there's lots of things wrong with your various statements on this problem. But I'm happy that you are beginning to see them.
You could have gone for that, but you didn't. You should have. The fact that you didn't just shows you are a moron.
The fact is I DID point this out to you. Amongst the many other problems with your reasoning. I pointed this particular failure in your reasoning here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3312495&cid=42278983
I'll accept your apology.
That number may be wrong, but did you not notice the insanity of charging someone who used a toy gun to scare off someone attempting to steal from them?
Of course it's insane. And you'd think that living in Britain I'd have heard the news. Or something like them. Or even recognised that the law even has that potential. But no. It's insane because it doesn't ring true. And without a link, nor a searchable name nor location nor anything substantive at all, and considering the rest of the description of Britain, which I also don't recognise, I assume it's not true.
Who'd have thunk it. A right wing blogger making stuff up.
Please refute something worth refuting. I find it deplorable that people don't realize just how skewed the world is.
Perhaps you shouldn't be so credulous. When someone says something that sounds bizarre, don't just accept it. By cynical. Expect a link, or at least some means by which you can fact check it. If it's too vague to be fact checked, and doesn't sound right, it probably isn't. This goes double if it otherwise fits your prejudices.
That's the difference. They both make use of the data, but Google has the ability to build up individual user profiles from the data. Apple just knows what crowds are doing.
And it's not detail, nor a moral difference. It stems from their different business models.
Google's business model is targeted advertising. For several years, their every move is about profiling users to advertise to them.
Apple's business model is selling hardware. Their moves are about making the product more attractive.