Which brings us back to the anti-utopian point that it's an unachievable system. There's no motivation for people to get up off their naturally lazy asses when they get nothing in return for any extra effort. They'll call in sick, constantly do the minimum to get by, etc. Witness this in every historical version of every Socialist/Welfare State ever attempted. When you remove the motivation for people to work hard, and improve their own lot in life, you're doomed to failure.
Out of fuel? Funny that their engine is clearly running. A large ship doesn't turn easily, the Ady was a fast maneuverable boat, and this was clearly a stunt to garner support.
Sea Shepherd simply enforce the ban in International waters
I find it very hard to condone harming sentient beings to defend ideas, but the destruction of property doesn't seem like an unbearable tactic.
Your quotes are from different posts, but I hope you can see the contradiction. Sea Shepherd has zero enforcement authority. And, the fact that they do sabotage puts them into a poor position to argue that they're just there to do good.
Public Opinion has in the region is around 90-10 against the Whalers, especially after the Sea Shepherd Stunt.
Oh, you mean the part where they deliberately put the accelerated (as can be clearly seen in the videos) into the path of an oncoming ship? I'm not a fan of whaling, but if you're that stupid, you deserve what you get.
This is big, and surprisingly, non-obvious stuff. The course was extremely easy for me since anyone with a CS or math background should have the logic stuff down pat, but some of my classmates (especially the older ones) seemed to struggle with what was a big paradigm shift for them. Many people don't even think to try to break arguments up and figure out if they actually make sense, they'd rather just go with whatever "feels" right.
While I'm in agreement with pretty much your entire post, I'm struggling to understand how you can justify your comment regarding your older classmates.
Maybe we could if someone could provide linkage to it. Don't misunderstand...I'm not for it, but you're claims of these statements ("never" use drones on Americans...and we all flipped out....and "never" be used domestically) seem to be lacking. Maybe that's why "no one else remembers either".
Unless he lived directly under the glidepath, he's unlikely to be able to have enough range to even touch a plane with a shotgun. Max range I've heard of is around 500 yds, and at that the pelets/slug would just bounce off.
You missed my point. Once a couple are separated, if children are involved, they don't necessarily have a "private life" still since both parents still have rights (unless there have been other legal actions)...been there, done that, myself, and I got custody.
Once a couple are separated, neither one has a legal right to intrude on the others' private life.
Not quite if children are involved. Both parties still have an interest, and you can't force the other out w/o legal orders. Other than that, I'm in agreement with your post.
what do you call it when several helicopters full of navy seals are sent into a foreign nation to kidnap or kill an individual who is living there with the implicit permission of the host nation, killing anyone who resists, taking the body of the target out... all without notice or permission of the host nation?
This is completely different from "petition the government for a redress of grievances", as well as it being something that the politicians are inviting.
Any reasonably competent lawyer could argue you out of any charges on this on first amendment grounds. Not primarily the freedom of speech part, although that enters in, but the "right of the people to...petition the government for redress of grievances" part.
I think that you're statement shows ignorance of the actual legal system, and what those rights mean. While it might be nice, it just doesn't work that way, and if charges were brought against someone, the govt. attorneys have nearly unlimited funds to fight you.
Free speech does not mean that you can harass someone. And, you'd never get any attorney to try and convince a judge/jury on the petition portion...dialing your representative/senator doesn't come close to that.
Just to be clear, I hate these calls as much as anyone here, and would love to be able to give them a dose of their own medicine.
That was not the question you asked...go back and read what you wrote. Maybe that's why I didn't understand where you were going with your line of though. Please don't jump to conclusions about my intentions.
I arrived in Korea in the mid 80s, when the average annual wage was about $800. By the time the Olympics were over ('88), the standard of living had increased dramatically. By the early 90s, they were importing workers from other countries to do jobs they didn't want to do.
You're missing the point. Sure wages are one factor. Quality, transportation, taxes, overhead, culture, etc. are just a few of the others. Owners take the big picture into consideration, not just wages. If you extend my example to a small 100 person company, it becomes about a million dollar change in expense. I've dealt with multi-million dollar budgets in my job...if you don't think it's enough to make a tipping point, you're mistaken.
Slashdot Mirror
everyone has equal share in this
Which brings us back to the anti-utopian point that it's an unachievable system. There's no motivation for people to get up off their naturally lazy asses when they get nothing in return for any extra effort. They'll call in sick, constantly do the minimum to get by, etc. Witness this in every historical version of every Socialist/Welfare State ever attempted. When you remove the motivation for people to work hard, and improve their own lot in life, you're doomed to failure.
with the kind of bigotry problem that Ron Paul has.
Please enlighten those of us who don't know wtf you're talking about?
Out of fuel? Funny that their engine is clearly running. A large ship doesn't turn easily, the Ady was a fast maneuverable boat, and this was clearly a stunt to garner support.
I stand corrected...I'd lived there for six years, and never seen weather come from the east.
Well, then I guess you'd be as "justified" as the anti-whalers in attempting to enforce that...please do.
I argue that anti-whalers are justified in using lethal force to enforce international whaling law.
And your argument would fail in any court in the world.
hence Sea Shepard has to step in and enforce the law.
You've just duplicated the definition of vigilantism. They have no authority to enforce anything, and are thus nothing more than illegals themselves.
Sea Shepherd simply enforce the ban in International waters
I find it very hard to condone harming sentient beings to defend ideas, but the destruction of property doesn't seem like an unbearable tactic.
Your quotes are from different posts, but I hope you can see the contradiction. Sea Shepherd has zero enforcement authority. And, the fact that they do sabotage puts them into a poor position to argue that they're just there to do good.
and part of what the Sea Shepherds are doing is enforcing laws that nobody else is?
Unless they've been authorized to enforce those laws, then they're nothing but vigilantes.
Why? Southern Germany was nowhere near any of the fallout path from Chernobyl.
Public Opinion has in the region is around 90-10 against the Whalers, especially after the Sea Shepherd Stunt.
Oh, you mean the part where they deliberately put the accelerated (as can be clearly seen in the videos) into the path of an oncoming ship? I'm not a fan of whaling, but if you're that stupid, you deserve what you get.
This is big, and surprisingly, non-obvious stuff. The course was extremely easy for me since anyone with a CS or math background should have the logic stuff down pat, but some of my classmates (especially the older ones) seemed to struggle with what was a big paradigm shift for them. Many people don't even think to try to break arguments up and figure out if they actually make sense, they'd rather just go with whatever "feels" right.
While I'm in agreement with pretty much your entire post, I'm struggling to understand how you can justify your comment regarding your older classmates.
Maybe we could if someone could provide linkage to it. Don't misunderstand...I'm not for it, but you're claims of these statements ("never" use drones on Americans...and we all flipped out....and "never" be used domestically) seem to be lacking. Maybe that's why "no one else remembers either".
Unless he lived directly under the glidepath, he's unlikely to be able to have enough range to even touch a plane with a shotgun. Max range I've heard of is around 500 yds, and at that the pelets/slug would just bounce off.
You obviously have not dealt with this or have knowledge of the law.
You missed my point. Once a couple are separated, if children are involved, they don't necessarily have a "private life" still since both parents still have rights (unless there have been other legal actions)...been there, done that, myself, and I got custody.
Once a couple are separated, neither one has a legal right to intrude on the others' private life.
Not quite if children are involved. Both parties still have an interest, and you can't force the other out w/o legal orders. Other than that, I'm in agreement with your post.
what do you call it when several helicopters full of navy seals are sent into a foreign nation to kidnap or kill an individual who is living there with the implicit permission of the host nation, killing anyone who resists, taking the body of the target out... all without notice or permission of the host nation?
Victory?
This is completely different from "petition the government for a redress of grievances", as well as it being something that the politicians are inviting.
Any reasonably competent lawyer could argue you out of any charges on this on first amendment grounds. Not primarily the freedom of speech part, although that enters in, but the "right of the people to...petition the government for redress of grievances" part.
I think that you're statement shows ignorance of the actual legal system, and what those rights mean. While it might be nice, it just doesn't work that way, and if charges were brought against someone, the govt. attorneys have nearly unlimited funds to fight you.
Free speech does not mean that you can harass someone. And, you'd never get any attorney to try and convince a judge/jury on the petition portion...dialing your representative/senator doesn't come close to that.
Just to be clear, I hate these calls as much as anyone here, and would love to be able to give them a dose of their own medicine.
That was not the question you asked...go back and read what you wrote. Maybe that's why I didn't understand where you were going with your line of though. Please don't jump to conclusions about my intentions.
To the point where calling them 3rd world was no longer applicable. And to answer your second question...yes, so where are you going with it?
I'm happy not to be carefree.
Trade policy
Counter offer: Oversimplification
I arrived in Korea in the mid 80s, when the average annual wage was about $800. By the time the Olympics were over ('88), the standard of living had increased dramatically. By the early 90s, they were importing workers from other countries to do jobs they didn't want to do.
You're missing the point. Sure wages are one factor. Quality, transportation, taxes, overhead, culture, etc. are just a few of the others. Owners take the big picture into consideration, not just wages. If you extend my example to a small 100 person company, it becomes about a million dollar change in expense. I've dealt with multi-million dollar budgets in my job...if you don't think it's enough to make a tipping point, you're mistaken.