I see now that trying to get autistic people to think in real-life terms is not something that works in this sort of forum. It is certainly possible to (like you) construct a series of demonstrably correct statements that nonetheless are incorrect in total. That is one extremely reliable way to detect someone with ASD - their argument style is to pick at details, hoping to wear down the opponent. All the while concertedly avoiding arguing the actual point. (which in this case related to asking you to honestly consider the real-world results of something you want to change for everyone).
Each time you had the opportunity to discuss the real-world, you emotionally and reflexively swerved into the theoretical. It was an interesting study of aberrant mental processes; very helpful. Thanks for contributing.
My thesis is that as a society/country progresses in civility, that there is a proportional increase in the percentage of inhabitants who suffer from ASD spectrum disorders. This is caused by the increase in opportunity for those who only have the ability to function when protected by a stable class system, and there are ample ways that they can thrive without needing to be a generalist (like non-ASD people).
Of course this has consequences; as soon as you reach a tipping point to where there are enough brain-damaged people to affect how the nation is governed. Then there will be an erosion of whatever it was that led to the rise of the nation in the first place; as non-productive policies are put in place.
Then the nation falls. The protection that civilization provided to the weak-minded collapses, the ASD people shrink in numbers (due to the lack of ability to have the kind of all-around competence that living in chaos requires, as well as their impaired ability to collectively act in constructive ways) to the point where the whole is not dragged down by them anymore. Then the cycle repeats. And yes, I understand that ASD people are the ones who come up with great ideas and inventions. But what percentage of them? Based on my experience, about.01% of ASD people possess specialized skills that enhance their community in ways that keep it strong.
I don't why I'm telling you this; for you to even process this information, you would have to be able to have insight into both the NT and the ASD mind, as well as be willing to evaluate your own worth - not a likely skill for the ASD types out there.
Yes, as I stated, I live in the USA. If you don't, then you are not in the group of people I was referring my comments to. Even so, you again avoided following out the consequences of the changes you (not I) propose.
If you do live in a different country - then I would encourage any and all changes in laws that someone like you supports.
I'm not talking about porn. At all. I am referring to a tiny subset of porn - child porn. Pornography that shows children in a sexual fashion.
Are you saying that you have access to statistics which show that those who molest children do not seek to access child pornography?
Please address this specific point, not the straw man argument that you *say* I am making.
I'd love to see how science supports the decriminalization of sexualizing children for no other reason than to gratify the sick needs of a tiny subset of the population.
I see that you cannot address my point without showing the dangerous flaws in your goals. This odious and universally hated crime is one of the best ways to show the REAL WORLD DAMAGE that the policies you push will directly facilitate. You, either argue that I'm wrong, and that the weakening of the ability of police agencies to detect this crime would not cause an increase in it - or argue how child pornography is a "victim-less" crime (which I'm guessing is your real opinion).
If you cannot defend your aims; maybe you should reconsider them. I *can* defend my opinion, if you can't - it means *something*.
I am lower middle class, and at least half of my life I have lived in communities which were more than 50% minorities. And I am not speaking of other countries; I'm talking about the one I live in.
Since this was completely clear in my comments, I can only conclude that you are steering the conversation towards communist countries because you know that your arguments are more applicable there. This is intellectual cowardice.
Address my argument directly, or slink away like a coward. I'm not the one looking to change existing law - you are.
I personally think that you know you are wrong, and that the goals you are pursuing would NOT help the whole. I think you are pushing bad policy for selfish reasons.
Orwellian? Really? So . . . how many of the 2 million people are completely innocent of the charges they were imprisoned for?
You know, when I vacuum my house I fill up my vacuum cleaner bag *really* quickly. However, my neighbor does not have this problem.
If I used what seems to be your logical process; I would be forced to conclude that either my bags were defective, or that my vacuum was defective.
Instead of the reality, which is that I am a fucking slob and my floor is just WAY dirtier than my neighbors.
So, maybe the numbers you are concerned about have more to do with the actions of the imprisoned people than with some defect in the the process. The cops don't just randomly show up and start arresting people - someone has to call them, a complaint must be filed. They have ample opportunities to present their case.
Just think for a moment - how many consecutive things have to go against someone to land them in prison. When at any point in the process you can stop the process by proving that ANY part of the process is wrong.
If all of this doesn't convince you - then I know what would: forcing you to live in a community inhabited by only those that you yourself (after careful vetting of the record) have concluded were imprisoned improperly. Lets see how fun your life is then. God, I wish I had the power to bring this about - it would be epic.
Just the expression on your face while your throat was being cut by one the animals you released - I would pay a lot to see that.
My job makes it hard for me to accompany them to school. Part of what CURRENT law provides is a early warning system to detect patterns of behavior by deranged children. You know, like purchasing bomb parts over the internet and the like. Or like the processes that are CURRENTLY in place to allow schools the vetting process they need to make sure they don't hire pedophiles who have already run afoul of the law.
I personally believe that any teacher who wishes to, be allowed under their 2nd amendment rights to protect themselves and the children in their charge. I'm guessing that you might agree with that.
However, the people that you vote for are vehemently against this - and all gun rights. All because they say the right thing that makes it seem like they support your wishes.
They don't - liberalism only "works" (in a short term way) when the government can compel it's citizens to act against their and their family's best interests. This makes anyone who supports politicians who wish to move us towards socialism a bit of a fool, since your cry of freedom and anonymity is at cross-purposes of the only way of compelling the general public to behave in ways that defy normal human behavior.
I already know the knee-jerk propaganda reply to that, so why not actually think about the end result of your wants, and see for yourself how they would not meet the needs of the huge majority. Unless you think you can convince people that CURRENT law needs to be changed, and that the hamstringing of law enforcement to protect those who do not wish their predilections to be noticed, if even in an anonymous way, is a net benefit to the community.
>> you are getting it exactly backwards because you fail to recognize the more serious threat to the safety of the communit
Based on my nearly 50 years of real-world experience, the most serious threat to my family is violent criminal behavior. So, you are trying to convince me that police being allowed to do their jobs represents a more direct threat to my family's safety?
I'm sorry, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What non-theoretical proof do you have that CURRENT law will have to be changed; where if it isn't, the people paid by the community to protect them will become the highest percentage threat of violence to law-abiding citizens?
I am not proposing changes to current law. The burden of proof falls on those who are proposing radical change. As far as I can see, there already exist avenues for addressing police abuses (which are incredibly rare compared to violent crime statistics). If you feel that those avenues are inadequate for your needs, then I submit that is still preferable to creating a dangerous environment for no other reason than to satisfy your need to have your actions unscrutinized.
I'm sorry, but your arguments only hold water in a theoretical world that does not exist. In the world I live in, the threat of violence from the police is minuscule compared to the threat of violence by other citizens.
The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by individuals who have a long record of being on the wrong side of the law. Certain types of likely future human behavior is extremely predictable based on past behavior; I am not willing to support any CHANGES in current law which make it easier for these people to remain undetected by police agencies.
You are responsible to present a path that meets both of goals - thus far, when prompted, none of the many people arguing your side have done so. It always ends with them finally admitting that my family's safety does not supersede their wants.
I should have made it more clear in the post you replied to that I was not specifically referencing the article. So, with that in mind, can you address my post again? Remember, I'm looking for concrete answers, not theoretical generalities.
I think it is a given that parents should strive to make sure their children are good citizens and do knowingly harm others. Nothing I said is referencing that - it is about OTHER people. How do I protect my family (within the framework of the changes you would like to see in the laws) proactively? And I mean without moving my family into the wilderness or otherwise removing them from society.
I understand that there is no way to guarantee the safety of anyone, but there is such a thing as making sure that the odds favor life and safety - and not the opposite.
Children should not be armed. Therefore being properly armed as an adult can only serve as a punishment for the offender, not a preventative.
and
There is wide-spread misunderstanding of the last four words of your quote. I don't know about you, but I can tell you that my rights to protect myself (and my family) is severely infringed - just as soon as I leave my property.
I was speaking on the subject in a general manner, not on this particular article.
The reason I brought up molestation and murder is that I believe that many of the things which civil libertarians push would result in more of this sort of crime happening. For instance, if true internet "freedom" was achieved, then the guy next door who might otherwise have been busted for downloading child pornography, will not to be found out to be a dangerous pedophile until after he gets *caught* molesting a child.
By making child pornography a "victim-less" offense (arguments for this have appear countless times on slashdot), you remove the opportunity to catch a pedophile *before* he ruins a child's life. The fact that he would have to break the law to satisfy his sexual proclivities sets up a character test - it shows that he values the gratification of his sexual desires over conforming to the law. It's a test.
There are many people out there who do not like a particular law, yet because they are a member of society, they obey it nonetheless. This fact alone says that there is something different about someone who is not able to resist temptation despite the risk to his life and liberty. They have already shown that, unlike a normal person, they are willing to break the law for their own purposes.
I want those people to be given opportunities to expose themselves - and if everyone's WiFi is unsecured (as many on this site argued the merits of in the last day), then there is no way to identify those with dangerous proclivities *before* they destroy others with them.
I wasn't specifically citing the linked article, but the general trend of like articles here on slashdot. I'm starting to think I will not get any replies to my specific point/question. Usually when you cannot understand why someone supports something that you consider a bad idea; it is because you have dissimilar goals.
My goal is to have a safe environment for myself and my family to live in. If the source of our disagreement is dissimilar goals, then that would explain the lack of answers. I'd like to think that the other side cares enough about my family (even if only in the abstract) that they would not push their ideas without thought to how it would negatively affect people.
I am not willing to trade abstract ideas of freedom for the lives of my family. In my experience, I have found very few instances where an individual vehemently was against a particular law, when they were not already breaking that law, or intended to. I would like to protect my family from these people.
>> but an all-seeing eye that intrudes upon 100% of the people to save considerably fewer victims is worse
I see where someone would feel that way, but I doubt that those who have been victims of violent crime would agree. If you are saying that by supporting your cause, I would be voluntarily help to create a situation where my family is less safe; then that is something that is a non-starter for me.
The extreme end of the social liberties spectrum does not seem to have any alternatives that still hold the safety of the community first and foremost.
Again, please enlighten me if I am missing the point here. And please address your comments to the questions I am asking in these two posts; I am very familiar with the arguments against internet control, surveillance, etc. Please do not restate what is on the pages of slashdot on nearly a daily basis.
Again, you have slipped into theory - and away from the real-world. Specifically, how do those who vigorously defend civil liberties propose the community should protect themselves?
You guys sometimes have good points and all; no one wants someone spying on them - right? But people would probably listen to you a bit more if you explained how *communities* can both protect the rights of innocent people, as well as deal with potential threats to life and liberty.
A lot of the things you are for and against sound great in theory, but not so much when it comes out that the person next door to you has been quietly collecting explosives for the last decade. Or has a long record of molesting children.
Without referencing the government or law enforcement; how is the individual going to protect themselves and their families against those who would do them harm? It seems that the only things you agree with are reactive, and not protective. I personally would find little solace in the conviction of someone who murdered my family. I'd rather prevent it from happening.
Can any of you who vigorously push for "freedom" tell me how your efforts will directly help to make things safer for my family?
Because *that* is my goal. If it is not yours, please care to share how we differ.
>> Um, you know the vast majority of very highly / prestigiously educated people (eg. Harvard grads) are Democrats, right?
Yes, I am aware that most of those afflicted autistic spectrum disorders heavily skew democrat - this proves only that people who are born without the ability to judge social situations, along with lots of other perceptual problems, can't tell when they are being lied to. And being smart, and very good a one particular thing, does not mean you can understand everything. Look up the peter principle.
>> but I am sure you are aware of the widely publicized study that showed Daily Show viewers >> were more appraised of current issues than Fox News viewers.
I easily could have guessed this - but see how you switch subjects? It is a reflex of the weak minded. I was speaking specifically about the QUALITY of people who watch - I'm not going to leave the point - either address it from a basis of actual knowledge, or move along.
You really can't refute someone else's point by talking about something else altogether. Maybe re-read what I wrote, actually think about it, and then reply to what I specifically said.
If you find yourself unable to keep your mind on point; maybe you should think about why that is.
You have done a great job of collecting a lot of propaganda all in one place! Great job; you have been programmed well. And I only debate in person, that way the other guy can't just disappear when he gets owned. Based on what you chose to say here, I can say that you are solidly in the group that I spoke of. It's easy to tell - you speak in nothing but political catchprases.
That all probably seems reasonable to you (and some others), doesn't mean it matches reality. You really think that the 98% black vote for democrats is the result of careful reflection? Also, if you look at the demographics of Rush Limbaugh's audience, you will see that as a whole they are solidly in groups who are the most knowledgeable about who and what they vote for.
There isn't a show on TV or radio that wouldn't kill for the quality of the audience he has.
I simply cannot find any single person who votes democrat that is capable of explaining what they want and why. I consistently find that as a group their knowledge of their own beliefs is paper-thin and if you challenge them to back up any of their opinions, they cannot. That's when they start switching subjects, parsing what you say to them (looking for something to argue about that leads away from the actual point), and slinging mud.
That is the secret of ensuring taxes are too high for a single earner to support a family, combined with guilting the most talented of our women into the workforce. This and other anti-family practices guarantees a steady supply of damaged children - who are certain to vote democrat in droves.
Of course, even with this - democrats are simply incapable of winning national office without the 90-98% black vote. Look it up. There is a reason that political maps show you all of the bad places to live in this country, they very helpfully mark them as blue splotches.
And for those who overtly push free speech, but covertly censor free speech that you do not agree with: There is nothing demonstratively incorrect in this post - and yet you will mod it down just the same. Cowards.
The monkeys are not smarter. What the researchers did was drug them and then introduce a system that helps them overcome the artificial impediment placed on them.
I was waiting for this bit of scientific support for liberal laziness. The media ran all these stories during Clinton's troubles on how lying and infidelity were "normal". Now that yet another high-profile liberal rag has been caught plagiarizing, it's "normal" now.
I have some additional arguments that I thought of myself:
So, two and half centuries ago, there were quite different values in place. What's so shocking about it?
and
Newspapers of the time could have obtained the same results without any plagiarism (e.g. by hiring field correspondents).
The alleged cause-effect relationship exists only in the author's obviously underpowered mind.
Slashdot Mirror
I see now that trying to get autistic people to think in real-life terms is not something that works in this sort of forum. It is certainly possible to (like you) construct a series of demonstrably correct statements that nonetheless are incorrect in total. That is one extremely reliable way to detect someone with ASD - their argument style is to pick at details, hoping to wear down the opponent. All the while concertedly avoiding arguing the actual point. (which in this case related to asking you to honestly consider the real-world results of something you want to change for everyone).
Each time you had the opportunity to discuss the real-world, you emotionally and reflexively swerved into the theoretical. It was an interesting study of aberrant mental processes; very helpful. Thanks for contributing.
My thesis is that as a society/country progresses in civility, that there is a proportional increase in the percentage of inhabitants who suffer from ASD spectrum disorders. This is caused by the increase in opportunity for those who only have the ability to function when protected by a stable class system, and there are ample ways that they can thrive without needing to be a generalist (like non-ASD people).
Of course this has consequences; as soon as you reach a tipping point to where there are enough brain-damaged people to affect how the nation is governed. Then there will be an erosion of whatever it was that led to the rise of the nation in the first place; as non-productive policies are put in place.
Then the nation falls. The protection that civilization provided to the weak-minded collapses, the ASD people shrink in numbers (due to the lack of ability to have the kind of all-around competence that living in chaos requires, as well as their impaired ability to collectively act in constructive ways) to the point where the whole is not dragged down by them anymore. Then the cycle repeats. And yes, I understand that ASD people are the ones who come up with great ideas and inventions. But what percentage of them? Based on my experience, about .01% of ASD people possess specialized skills that enhance their community in ways that keep it strong.
I don't why I'm telling you this; for you to even process this information, you would have to be able to have insight into both the NT and the ASD mind, as well as be willing to evaluate your own worth - not a likely skill for the ASD types out there.
Yes, as I stated, I live in the USA. If you don't, then you are not in the group of people I was referring my comments to. Even so, you again avoided following out the consequences of the changes you (not I) propose.
If you do live in a different country - then I would encourage any and all changes in laws that someone like you supports.
I'm not talking about porn. At all. I am referring to a tiny subset of porn - child porn. Pornography that shows children in a sexual fashion.
Are you saying that you have access to statistics which show that those who molest children do not seek to access child pornography?
Please address this specific point, not the straw man argument that you *say* I am making.
I'd love to see how science supports the decriminalization of sexualizing children for no other reason than to gratify the sick needs of a tiny subset of the population.
I see that you cannot address my point without showing the dangerous flaws in your goals. This odious and universally hated crime is one of the best ways to show the REAL WORLD DAMAGE that the policies you push will directly facilitate. You, either argue that I'm wrong, and that the weakening of the ability of police agencies to detect this crime would not cause an increase in it - or argue how child pornography is a "victim-less" crime (which I'm guessing is your real opinion).
If you cannot defend your aims; maybe you should reconsider them. I *can* defend my opinion, if you can't - it means *something*.
I am lower middle class, and at least half of my life I have lived in communities which were more than 50% minorities. And I am not speaking of other countries; I'm talking about the one I live in.
Since this was completely clear in my comments, I can only conclude that you are steering the conversation towards communist countries because you know that your arguments are more applicable there. This is intellectual cowardice.
Address my argument directly, or slink away like a coward. I'm not the one looking to change existing law - you are.
I personally think that you know you are wrong, and that the goals you are pursuing would NOT help the whole. I think you are pushing bad policy for selfish reasons.
Orwellian? Really? So . . . how many of the 2 million people are completely innocent of the charges they were imprisoned for?
You know, when I vacuum my house I fill up my vacuum cleaner bag *really* quickly. However, my neighbor does not have this problem.
If I used what seems to be your logical process; I would be forced to conclude that either my bags were defective, or that my vacuum was defective.
Instead of the reality, which is that I am a fucking slob and my floor is just WAY dirtier than my neighbors.
So, maybe the numbers you are concerned about have more to do with the actions of the imprisoned people than with some defect in the the process. The cops don't just randomly show up and start arresting people - someone has to call them, a complaint must be filed. They have ample opportunities to present their case.
Just think for a moment - how many consecutive things have to go against someone to land them in prison. When at any point in the process you can stop the process by proving that ANY part of the process is wrong.
If all of this doesn't convince you - then I know what would: forcing you to live in a community inhabited by only those that you yourself (after careful vetting of the record) have concluded were imprisoned improperly. Lets see how fun your life is then. God, I wish I had the power to bring this about - it would be epic.
Just the expression on your face while your throat was being cut by one the animals you released - I would pay a lot to see that.
I DO NOT PROPOSE ANY CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW. There, maybe that will help your reading comprehension issue.
My job makes it hard for me to accompany them to school. Part of what CURRENT law provides is a early warning system to detect patterns of behavior by deranged children. You know, like purchasing bomb parts over the internet and the like. Or like the processes that are CURRENTLY in place to allow schools the vetting process they need to make sure they don't hire pedophiles who have already run afoul of the law.
I personally believe that any teacher who wishes to, be allowed under their 2nd amendment rights to protect themselves and the children in their charge. I'm guessing that you might agree with that.
However, the people that you vote for are vehemently against this - and all gun rights. All because they say the right thing that makes it seem like they support your wishes.
They don't - liberalism only "works" (in a short term way) when the government can compel it's citizens to act against their and their family's best interests. This makes anyone who supports politicians who wish to move us towards socialism a bit of a fool, since your cry of freedom and anonymity is at cross-purposes of the only way of compelling the general public to behave in ways that defy normal human behavior.
I already know the knee-jerk propaganda reply to that, so why not actually think about the end result of your wants, and see for yourself how they would not meet the needs of the huge majority. Unless you think you can convince people that CURRENT law needs to be changed, and that the hamstringing of law enforcement to protect those who do not wish their predilections to be noticed, if even in an anonymous way, is a net benefit to the community.
So, that's all you have to do.
>> you are getting it exactly backwards because you fail to recognize the more serious threat to the safety of the communit
Based on my nearly 50 years of real-world experience, the most serious threat to my family is violent criminal behavior. So, you are trying to convince me that police being allowed to do their jobs represents a more direct threat to my family's safety?
I'm sorry, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What non-theoretical proof do you have that CURRENT law will have to be changed; where if it isn't, the people paid by the community to protect them will become the highest percentage threat of violence to law-abiding citizens?
I am not proposing changes to current law. The burden of proof falls on those who are proposing radical change. As far as I can see, there already exist avenues for addressing police abuses (which are incredibly rare compared to violent crime statistics). If you feel that those avenues are inadequate for your needs, then I submit that is still preferable to creating a dangerous environment for no other reason than to satisfy your need to have your actions unscrutinized.
I'm sorry, but your arguments only hold water in a theoretical world that does not exist. In the world I live in, the threat of violence from the police is minuscule compared to the threat of violence by other citizens.
The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by individuals who have a long record of being on the wrong side of the law. Certain types of likely future human behavior is extremely predictable based on past behavior; I am not willing to support any CHANGES in current law which make it easier for these people to remain undetected by police agencies.
You are responsible to present a path that meets both of goals - thus far, when prompted, none of the many people arguing your side have done so. It always ends with them finally admitting that my family's safety does not supersede their wants.
So, that seems to be that.
I should have made it more clear in the post you replied to that I was not specifically referencing the article. So, with that in mind, can you address my post again? Remember, I'm looking for concrete answers, not theoretical generalities.
I think it is a given that parents should strive to make sure their children are good citizens and do knowingly harm others. Nothing I said is referencing that - it is about OTHER people. How do I protect my family (within the framework of the changes you would like to see in the laws) proactively? And I mean without moving my family into the wilderness or otherwise removing them from society.
I understand that there is no way to guarantee the safety of anyone, but there is such a thing as making sure that the odds favor life and safety - and not the opposite.
Two issues with your theoretical argument:
Children should not be armed. Therefore being properly armed as an adult can only serve as a punishment for the offender, not a preventative.
and
There is wide-spread misunderstanding of the last four words of your quote. I don't know about you, but I can tell you that my rights to protect myself (and my family) is severely infringed - just as soon as I leave my property.
I was speaking on the subject in a general manner, not on this particular article.
The reason I brought up molestation and murder is that I believe that many of the things which civil libertarians push would result in more of this sort of crime happening. For instance, if true internet "freedom" was achieved, then the guy next door who might otherwise have been busted for downloading child pornography, will not to be found out to be a dangerous pedophile until after he gets *caught* molesting a child.
By making child pornography a "victim-less" offense (arguments for this have appear countless times on slashdot), you remove the opportunity to catch a pedophile *before* he ruins a child's life. The fact that he would have to break the law to satisfy his sexual proclivities sets up a character test - it shows that he values the gratification of his sexual desires over conforming to the law. It's a test.
There are many people out there who do not like a particular law, yet because they are a member of society, they obey it nonetheless. This fact alone says that there is something different about someone who is not able to resist temptation despite the risk to his life and liberty. They have already shown that, unlike a normal person, they are willing to break the law for their own purposes.
I want those people to be given opportunities to expose themselves - and if everyone's WiFi is unsecured (as many on this site argued the merits of in the last day), then there is no way to identify those with dangerous proclivities *before* they destroy others with them.
I wasn't specifically citing the linked article, but the general trend of like articles here on slashdot. I'm starting to think I will not get any replies to my specific point/question. Usually when you cannot understand why someone supports something that you consider a bad idea; it is because you have dissimilar goals.
My goal is to have a safe environment for myself and my family to live in. If the source of our disagreement is dissimilar goals, then that would explain the lack of answers. I'd like to think that the other side cares enough about my family (even if only in the abstract) that they would not push their ideas without thought to how it would negatively affect people.
I am not willing to trade abstract ideas of freedom for the lives of my family. In my experience, I have found very few instances where an individual vehemently was against a particular law, when they were not already breaking that law, or intended to. I would like to protect my family from these people.
>> but an all-seeing eye that intrudes upon 100% of the people to save considerably fewer victims is worse
I see where someone would feel that way, but I doubt that those who have been victims of violent crime would agree. If you are saying that by supporting your cause, I would be voluntarily help to create a situation where my family is less safe; then that is something that is a non-starter for me.
The extreme end of the social liberties spectrum does not seem to have any alternatives that still hold the safety of the community first and foremost.
Again, please enlighten me if I am missing the point here. And please address your comments to the questions I am asking in these two posts; I am very familiar with the arguments against internet control, surveillance, etc. Please do not restate what is on the pages of slashdot on nearly a daily basis.
Again, you have slipped into theory - and away from the real-world. Specifically, how do those who vigorously defend civil liberties propose the community should protect themselves?
You guys sometimes have good points and all; no one wants someone spying on them - right? But people would probably listen to you a bit more if you explained how *communities* can both protect the rights of innocent people, as well as deal with potential threats to life and liberty.
A lot of the things you are for and against sound great in theory, but not so much when it comes out that the person next door to you has been quietly collecting explosives for the last decade. Or has a long record of molesting children.
Without referencing the government or law enforcement; how is the individual going to protect themselves and their families against those who would do them harm? It seems that the only things you agree with are reactive, and not protective. I personally would find little solace in the conviction of someone who murdered my family. I'd rather prevent it from happening.
Can any of you who vigorously push for "freedom" tell me how your efforts will directly help to make things safer for my family?
Because *that* is my goal. If it is not yours, please care to share how we differ.
>> Um, you know the vast majority of very highly / prestigiously educated people (eg. Harvard grads) are Democrats, right?
Yes, I am aware that most of those afflicted autistic spectrum disorders heavily skew democrat - this proves only that people who are born without the ability to judge social situations, along with lots of other perceptual problems, can't tell when they are being lied to. And being smart, and very good a one particular thing, does not mean you can understand everything. Look up the peter principle.
>> but I am sure you are aware of the widely publicized study that showed Daily Show viewers
>> were more appraised of current issues than Fox News viewers.
I easily could have guessed this - but see how you switch subjects? It is a reflex of the weak minded. I was speaking specifically about the QUALITY of people who watch - I'm not going to leave the point - either address it from a basis of actual knowledge, or move along.
You really can't refute someone else's point by talking about something else altogether. Maybe re-read what I wrote, actually think about it, and then reply to what I specifically said.
If you find yourself unable to keep your mind on point; maybe you should think about why that is.
You have done a great job of collecting a lot of propaganda all in one place! Great job; you have been programmed well. And I only debate in person, that way the other guy can't just disappear when he gets owned. Based on what you chose to say here, I can say that you are solidly in the group that I spoke of. It's easy to tell - you speak in nothing but political catchprases.
Good luck with that frontal lobe problem you got.
That all probably seems reasonable to you (and some others), doesn't mean it matches reality. You really think that the 98% black vote for democrats is the result of careful reflection? Also, if you look at the demographics of Rush Limbaugh's audience, you will see that as a whole they are solidly in groups who are the most knowledgeable about who and what they vote for.
There isn't a show on TV or radio that wouldn't kill for the quality of the audience he has.
I simply cannot find any single person who votes democrat that is capable of explaining what they want and why. I consistently find that as a group their knowledge of their own beliefs is paper-thin and if you challenge them to back up any of their opinions, they cannot. That's when they start switching subjects, parsing what you say to them (looking for something to argue about that leads away from the actual point), and slinging mud.
That is the secret of ensuring taxes are too high for a single earner to support a family, combined with guilting the most talented of our women into the workforce. This and other anti-family practices guarantees a steady supply of damaged children - who are certain to vote democrat in droves.
Of course, even with this - democrats are simply incapable of winning national office without the 90-98% black vote. Look it up. There is a reason that political maps show you all of the bad places to live in this country, they very helpfully mark them as blue splotches.
And for those who overtly push free speech, but covertly censor free speech that you do not agree with: There is nothing demonstratively incorrect in this post - and yet you will mod it down just the same. Cowards.
The monkeys are not smarter. What the researchers did was drug them and then introduce a system that helps them overcome the artificial impediment placed on them.
Stupid study, does not belong on slashdot.
+1 Obscure ELO reference.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
I was waiting for this bit of scientific support for liberal laziness. The media ran all these stories during Clinton's troubles on how lying and infidelity were "normal". Now that yet another high-profile liberal rag has been caught plagiarizing, it's "normal" now.
I have some additional arguments that I thought of myself:
So, two and half centuries ago, there were quite different values in place. What's so shocking about it?
and
Newspapers of the time could have obtained the same results without any plagiarism (e.g. by hiring field correspondents).
The alleged cause-effect relationship exists only in the author's obviously underpowered mind.
Now I'm ready to cover the conventions!