It even gets out of you way if you are just doing something like cut and paste.
Oh, how I wish that were true. More than once, I have been unable to get to a cell in an Excel spreadsheet, b/c that cell was covered by the formatting pop-up thingy. And I couldn't make it go away. I had to click on a different cell, arrow over to the cell I wanted, then copy/paste from the formula bar to get that value.
number of people who didn't die from a disease they didn't catch because of a vaccination, who weren't permanently damaged by a head injury they didn't receive because of a helmet, and the number of people who weren't shot by a gun that wasn't there
A term for this thrown around in public health is the "unobserved counter-factual" - "what we didn't see cause it didn't happen". Your point is exactly why cost-benefit analysis is so incredibly difficult for these types of interventions.
Even more amazing, it's often the same person making both claims, depending on whether the particular government function is one he wants and wishes operated more efficiently or is one he fears.
I've noticed a funny thing: the same person that is against government b/c it is by definition incompetent and can't do anything as good as the private sector AT THE SAME TIME firmly believes the government runs secret programs to < Insert Contrails Theory Here > and is so competent there exists no proof of this years/decades long program.
You do realize that some of the most ardent resistance to the abolition of slavery and the crusades for civil rights in the 60's came from Democrats, right?
Who all left to join the Republican party over Democratic support for civil liberties. Southern Democrats. So, what exactly was your point about the modern day parties?
He's *not* judging somebody's ability based on race.
That's exactly what he said he was doing. Yes, the underlying motivation for his judgement is something other than bigotry, but he is still stereotyping that doctor based on nothing but knowledge of his race. He doesn't know that doctor's educational background, has no idea if he received his position due to affirmative action, all he knows is the guy is black. And is making an assumption about his abilities based on that. He might be right, he might have legitimate reasons to make that assumption, but that doesn't make it not racism. I merely objected to his assertion that the word racism doesn't mean what it does.
Well, let's just say, I would be reluctant to go to a black doctor and would be more inclined to go to a doctor from India. Does that make me a racist? Hell no it doesn't.
Dude, no matter what the justification, whether it be right or wrong, judging someone's ability based SOLELY on their race is, in fact, the very definition of racism. Just b/c I am likely to be right doesn't make it any less racist for me to assume the black guy of the same height is better at basketball than the white guy. It's still stereotyping someone based on their race, i.e. racism.
Subsidies also reduce the likelihood of all of "our" arable land being sold off piece-meal as various farms have bad years. You don't want to wake up in 100 years and realize we can't meet our own domestic food demand even during good years b/c all the farms were turned into strip malls.
There is a very large distance between assuming cops are basically legally sanctioned murderers and not trusting cops to effectively police themselves when one of their coworkers and friends screws up. Maybe London PD can be trusted to do so, maybe they can't. But it seems to me that some people feel they can't.
Of course, there will always be those that don't trust the police, no matter how honest and transparent they are. Just as there will always be those that implicitly trust the police, no matter how corrupt they are.
I assume b/c these people don't trust the police to actually report the truth if that truth reflects negatively on the officers involved. I don't know enough about the culture of London PD to say whether that mistrust is justified or not.
but the entire problem was because people who never should have been given loans got them....You can say that this exposed terrible practices in the industry, but you certainly cant blame the industry for CAUSING it
You mean the industry that gave out these loans? The industry that knew the loans were crap and bribed the ratings agencies to rate them AAA anyway, so they could turn around and sell them (to Freddie/Fannie)? The industry that then decided to buy insurance on bad loans (credit default swaps) that was worth way more than the loans? Which of these are NOT "the industry's" fault? What exactly are you saying is Freddie/Fannie's role that caused the housing crisis?
The initial morbidity rates in Mexico, where H1N1 made it's first major appearance, were far greater than typical flu morbidity rates. Initial reaction was based on the assumption that these would be the morbidity rates across all populations H1N1 spread to. Turns out, this assumption was incorrect. For various reasons, most other populations infected suffered lower morbidity rates than typical flu strains.
It would probably only take a few minutes to get a list using google of the lefts wackos who are in Congress, or consistently on TV.
And yet you didn't do it in order to provide any support for your assertion. Instead, you rely on the old "Conservatives, are, like, being oppressed, man, by the MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Reality is the opposite of what you see." Seriously, this mantra from right-wing apologists gets pretty old. I've been hearing it since the 80s, how the poor misunderstood right wing is misrepresented by the media (or academia), while the evil left wing is nefariously undermining our society, in collusion with the PRESS. After a while, you all just start to sound like a bunch of crybabies. Which isn't helped by the absolute tantrums Congressional Republicans have thrown the last two times the Dems took the Whitehouse (I'd guess it goes back further, but I don't remember Carter). I don't have any particular respect for Democrats, but geez, at least they aren't the fat kid that wants to take the ball we all chipped in on and go home when the group decides to play the bushes as an automatic double and he wants to play no boundaries. Then cries to mommy about how we are all just SO MEAN b/c we don't wanna play exactly like he does.
You need to clarify to yourself whether you're describing the facts as they are or whether you're designing an ideal state.
He was describing a moral code, which is pretty much by definition an ideal state (given the assumptions of that moral code as to what "ideal" means). To what degree this code correlates to the facts as they are, well, different people will have different perspectives. Just because you can demonstrate that certain behaviors exist does not demonstrate that they should. Unless you subscribe to Leibiniz's theory that this is the best of all possible worlds, of course.
. Everyone has shat themselves. Everyone has been in a really embarrassing or compromising situation at some point or another.
Based on your phrasing, I gather you don't necessarily find one of these to be a proper subset of the other. Possibly merely overlapping sets? If so, I admire your iron-clad sense of confidence.
It's true that any group can point to specific instances of "victimhood" by a member of that group. I would suggest that being passed over for a job is much less harmful than being beaten to death.
As for the gaying up pop culture, it's specifically men. Men have not historically been much of a market for fashion, "trendy" products and the like. Gay men are viewed, and view themselves, as being trendy. Voila! A new market is open for the producers of all sorts of goods. And in the marketing blitz ("You're cool, but not really cool till you buy our product, Gay Market!") Gay and Trendy have become even more entwined in the popular consciousness. It's even become a marketing technique to women, now ("Our product is so cool Gay Men use it").
The race by the superficial to be au courant is a side effect of this, not a main motivator.
Increasing government stimulus won't do any good. Hoover tried everything, FDR tried everything, but none of it worked. It took WWII to finally get us out of that great depression.
Uhm, you mean the period in American history where we went to an all but demand economy, with the majority of our economic output going into the war effort? So basically, your argument is that Hoover and FDR tried everything politically possible, but it took a World War for the political will to be there to really spend enough to come out of the Depression? Or did you have some other mechanism in mind for how a publicly financed war effort would have ended the Depression?
Fuck the banks, we hate banks and all their money and high paying jobs!
Uhm, we hate banks playing fast and loose with the global economy, driving it into the largest recession in a very long time. It doesn't help that we then see some of the big players turn around and award large bonuses to their leadership while thousands of people are suffering directly due to their incompetence.
And the oil companies, screw them! Who needs money and jobs and tax revenue?
And clean water and healthy ecosystems and seafood...
Seriously, are you so incredibly out of touch that you imagine the overwhelming dissatisfaction with those two industries is really some sort of backlash against their success?!
and could possibly be construed to have been 'victims' by someone at sometime in history,
The fact that you use quotes around victim, implying it is a false victimhood, while referring to the likely groups of 'victims' as: ethnic minorities, handicapped, women, homosexuals is incredibly telling. You're either very ignorant or very biased. Maybe not the handicapped, but no educated, sane person would question for a moment that the other three groups on your list have faced persecution. When was the last time a straight, white male was either A) denied his right to vote or work based on one of those three qualifications or B) attacked and beaten b/c of one of those qualifications?
Perhaps instead of just reflexively dismissing it according to your political biases, you could try to understand the criticism and address the fact of it?
Sure, but the only criticism I see so far is "The new character isn't whiiiiiiiiite, it's political correctness run amok!" You really think they are pandering to the black-tino community? All 3 of them? Or did the artist just want to try something stylistically new? Did the writers want to develop a character of mixed race background in order to be able to develop that into the storylines? Are there many many other reasons they could have made this choice that have absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness run amok"? Have you or any of the other critics provided any evidence or reason to suspect none of the other explanations are valid? Again, the only argument I have seen so far is "They replaced a white guy with a mixed race guy and they obviously did it to try and make me feel bad."
Re:Could Someone Help Me Out With This?
on
Debt Deal Reached
·
· Score: 1
The "law" Christ is talking about here is the rules in the Old Testament. So if you're a Christian, you always have been, and will continue to be, are 100% subject to the rules in the OT, according to Christ, until heaven and the earth have disappeared. Now, if you want to ignore Christ's position,
Considering that Jesus himself broke the Law, as interpreted at the time by learned scholars, I'd say unless you also have a direct line to God, pretending you know which rules must be followed and which can be ignored for a greater good is pretty damn arrogant. Jesus also said (paraphrasing) "Love the Lord they God with all they heart, mind and soul. This is the first law. Love thy neighbor as thyself is the second. All other Laws descend from these two." I seriously doubt "Christ wouldn't give you the time of day" b/c you broke/interpreted the Law in an unorthodox manner in order to help your fellow man.
f a rank and file person contradicts Christ, and you take their word over his... then again, you're no Christian. There is more along those line in the NT, from Paul, for example, where he says
Paul was an asshole who was coerced into his faith. The man never met Christ and I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to take his interpretations of Christianity over my own.
Even if the practical stumbling blocks DrgnDancer pointed out could be overcome, there is still a very large political barrier. The highway system is a perfect example. You ever wonder why the drinking age in every single state is 21? B/c the Federal government came in years ago and said "You want funds for your highways? Drinking age needs to be 21". Giving states money is how the Federal government affects policies that they technically have no say in. They have no desire to reduce that influence by passing some of the purse strings back to the stats.
I have never been so proud as when my 3 year old niece said Empire Strikes Back was her favorite Star Wars movie. She does like Jar Jar, but hey! She's only 3...
If you're at the point where you're giving out heavier penalties for specific motives (other than the distinction between premeditated/accidental
So you agree that is some cases motivation should be considered when determining the harshness of a penalty. Everything else is merely arguing over where to draw that line. You can argue that current legislation goes too far, but once you've accepted that motivation for a crime is sometimes a mitigating factor, you can no longer argue against hate crimes on principle.
So if a guy who has murdered a black person and said (or by his actions clearly implied) that he is going to murder more, every black person would reasonably assume that the threat 1) applies to him, and 2) can be reasonably apprehended - hence we should count it as an assault of a clearly identifiable group "black people", and prosecute as such in addition to murder itself.
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure violating hate crime legislation IS tried as a separate offense. The statutes are different from assualt. The only question is do prosecutors bother prosecuting under both assault and hate crime statutes, or do they merely go for the more penalized offense? I suspect, but don't know, that they throw everything they can at a defendant.
Slashdot Mirror
It even gets out of you way if you are just doing something like cut and paste.
Oh, how I wish that were true. More than once, I have been unable to get to a cell in an Excel spreadsheet, b/c that cell was covered by the formatting pop-up thingy. And I couldn't make it go away. I had to click on a different cell, arrow over to the cell I wanted, then copy/paste from the formula bar to get that value.
I hate that damn pop-up.
number of people who didn't die from a disease they didn't catch because of a vaccination, who weren't permanently damaged by a head injury they didn't receive because of a helmet, and the number of people who weren't shot by a gun that wasn't there
A term for this thrown around in public health is the "unobserved counter-factual" - "what we didn't see cause it didn't happen". Your point is exactly why cost-benefit analysis is so incredibly difficult for these types of interventions.
Even more amazing, it's often the same person making both claims, depending on whether the particular government function is one he wants and wishes operated more efficiently or is one he fears.
I've noticed a funny thing: the same person that is against government b/c it is by definition incompetent and can't do anything as good as the private sector AT THE SAME TIME firmly believes the government runs secret programs to < Insert Contrails Theory Here > and is so competent there exists no proof of this years/decades long program.
You do realize that some of the most ardent resistance to the abolition of slavery and the crusades for civil rights in the 60's came from Democrats, right?
Who all left to join the Republican party over Democratic support for civil liberties. Southern Democrats. So, what exactly was your point about the modern day parties?
He's *not* judging somebody's ability based on race.
That's exactly what he said he was doing. Yes, the underlying motivation for his judgement is something other than bigotry, but he is still stereotyping that doctor based on nothing but knowledge of his race. He doesn't know that doctor's educational background, has no idea if he received his position due to affirmative action, all he knows is the guy is black. And is making an assumption about his abilities based on that. He might be right, he might have legitimate reasons to make that assumption, but that doesn't make it not racism. I merely objected to his assertion that the word racism doesn't mean what it does.
Well, let's just say, I would be reluctant to go to a black doctor and would be more inclined to go to a doctor from India. Does that make me a racist? Hell no it doesn't.
Dude, no matter what the justification, whether it be right or wrong, judging someone's ability based SOLELY on their race is, in fact, the very definition of racism. Just b/c I am likely to be right doesn't make it any less racist for me to assume the black guy of the same height is better at basketball than the white guy. It's still stereotyping someone based on their race, i.e. racism.
Subsidies also reduce the likelihood of all of "our" arable land being sold off piece-meal as various farms have bad years. You don't want to wake up in 100 years and realize we can't meet our own domestic food demand even during good years b/c all the farms were turned into strip malls.
By suing innocent people and using the courts to threaten them into settlement?
There is a very large distance between assuming cops are basically legally sanctioned murderers and not trusting cops to effectively police themselves when one of their coworkers and friends screws up. Maybe London PD can be trusted to do so, maybe they can't. But it seems to me that some people feel they can't.
Of course, there will always be those that don't trust the police, no matter how honest and transparent they are. Just as there will always be those that implicitly trust the police, no matter how corrupt they are.
Why not wait for the police report?
I assume b/c these people don't trust the police to actually report the truth if that truth reflects negatively on the officers involved. I don't know enough about the culture of London PD to say whether that mistrust is justified or not.
but the entire problem was because people who never should have been given loans got them....You can say that this exposed terrible practices in the industry, but you certainly cant blame the industry for CAUSING it
You mean the industry that gave out these loans? The industry that knew the loans were crap and bribed the ratings agencies to rate them AAA anyway, so they could turn around and sell them (to Freddie/Fannie)? The industry that then decided to buy insurance on bad loans (credit default swaps) that was worth way more than the loans? Which of these are NOT "the industry's" fault? What exactly are you saying is Freddie/Fannie's role that caused the housing crisis?
The initial morbidity rates in Mexico, where H1N1 made it's first major appearance, were far greater than typical flu morbidity rates. Initial reaction was based on the assumption that these would be the morbidity rates across all populations H1N1 spread to. Turns out, this assumption was incorrect. For various reasons, most other populations infected suffered lower morbidity rates than typical flu strains.
It would probably only take a few minutes to get a list using google of the lefts wackos who are in Congress, or consistently on TV.
And yet you didn't do it in order to provide any support for your assertion. Instead, you rely on the old "Conservatives, are, like, being oppressed, man, by the MAINSTREAM MEDIA. Reality is the opposite of what you see." Seriously, this mantra from right-wing apologists gets pretty old. I've been hearing it since the 80s, how the poor misunderstood right wing is misrepresented by the media (or academia), while the evil left wing is nefariously undermining our society, in collusion with the PRESS. After a while, you all just start to sound like a bunch of crybabies. Which isn't helped by the absolute tantrums Congressional Republicans have thrown the last two times the Dems took the Whitehouse (I'd guess it goes back further, but I don't remember Carter). I don't have any particular respect for Democrats, but geez, at least they aren't the fat kid that wants to take the ball we all chipped in on and go home when the group decides to play the bushes as an automatic double and he wants to play no boundaries. Then cries to mommy about how we are all just SO MEAN b/c we don't wanna play exactly like he does.
You need to clarify to yourself whether you're describing the facts as they are or whether you're designing an ideal state.
He was describing a moral code, which is pretty much by definition an ideal state (given the assumptions of that moral code as to what "ideal" means). To what degree this code correlates to the facts as they are, well, different people will have different perspectives. Just because you can demonstrate that certain behaviors exist does not demonstrate that they should. Unless you subscribe to Leibiniz's theory that this is the best of all possible worlds, of course.
. Everyone has shat themselves. Everyone has been in a really embarrassing or compromising situation at some point or another.
Based on your phrasing, I gather you don't necessarily find one of these to be a proper subset of the other. Possibly merely overlapping sets? If so, I admire your iron-clad sense of confidence.
From upwind, of course.
It's true that any group can point to specific instances of "victimhood" by a member of that group. I would suggest that being passed over for a job is much less harmful than being beaten to death.
As for the gaying up pop culture, it's specifically men. Men have not historically been much of a market for fashion, "trendy" products and the like. Gay men are viewed, and view themselves, as being trendy. Voila! A new market is open for the producers of all sorts of goods. And in the marketing blitz ("You're cool, but not really cool till you buy our product, Gay Market!") Gay and Trendy have become even more entwined in the popular consciousness. It's even become a marketing technique to women, now ("Our product is so cool Gay Men use it").
The race by the superficial to be au courant is a side effect of this, not a main motivator.
Increasing government stimulus won't do any good. Hoover tried everything, FDR tried everything, but none of it worked. It took WWII to finally get us out of that great depression.
Uhm, you mean the period in American history where we went to an all but demand economy, with the majority of our economic output going into the war effort? So basically, your argument is that Hoover and FDR tried everything politically possible, but it took a World War for the political will to be there to really spend enough to come out of the Depression? Or did you have some other mechanism in mind for how a publicly financed war effort would have ended the Depression?
Fuck the banks, we hate banks and all their money and high paying jobs!
Uhm, we hate banks playing fast and loose with the global economy, driving it into the largest recession in a very long time. It doesn't help that we then see some of the big players turn around and award large bonuses to their leadership while thousands of people are suffering directly due to their incompetence.
And the oil companies, screw them! Who needs money and jobs and tax revenue?
And clean water and healthy ecosystems and seafood...
Seriously, are you so incredibly out of touch that you imagine the overwhelming dissatisfaction with those two industries is really some sort of backlash against their success?!
So 5 in 2.5 years? Cool, slightly less per year than 18 in 8 years .
and could possibly be construed to have been 'victims' by someone at sometime in history,
The fact that you use quotes around victim, implying it is a false victimhood, while referring to the likely groups of 'victims' as: ethnic minorities, handicapped, women, homosexuals is incredibly telling. You're either very ignorant or very biased. Maybe not the handicapped, but no educated, sane person would question for a moment that the other three groups on your list have faced persecution. When was the last time a straight, white male was either A) denied his right to vote or work based on one of those three qualifications or B) attacked and beaten b/c of one of those qualifications?
Perhaps instead of just reflexively dismissing it according to your political biases, you could try to understand the criticism and address the fact of it?
Sure, but the only criticism I see so far is "The new character isn't whiiiiiiiiite, it's political correctness run amok!" You really think they are pandering to the black-tino community? All 3 of them? Or did the artist just want to try something stylistically new? Did the writers want to develop a character of mixed race background in order to be able to develop that into the storylines? Are there many many other reasons they could have made this choice that have absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness run amok"? Have you or any of the other critics provided any evidence or reason to suspect none of the other explanations are valid? Again, the only argument I have seen so far is "They replaced a white guy with a mixed race guy and they obviously did it to try and make me feel bad."
The "law" Christ is talking about here is the rules in the Old Testament. So if you're a Christian, you always have been, and will continue to be, are 100% subject to the rules in the OT, according to Christ, until heaven and the earth have disappeared. Now, if you want to ignore Christ's position,
Considering that Jesus himself broke the Law, as interpreted at the time by learned scholars, I'd say unless you also have a direct line to God, pretending you know which rules must be followed and which can be ignored for a greater good is pretty damn arrogant. Jesus also said (paraphrasing) "Love the Lord they God with all they heart, mind and soul. This is the first law. Love thy neighbor as thyself is the second. All other Laws descend from these two." I seriously doubt "Christ wouldn't give you the time of day" b/c you broke/interpreted the Law in an unorthodox manner in order to help your fellow man.
f a rank and file person contradicts Christ, and you take their word over his... then again, you're no Christian.
There is more along those line in the NT, from Paul, for example, where he says
Paul was an asshole who was coerced into his faith. The man never met Christ and I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to take his interpretations of Christianity over my own.
Even if the practical stumbling blocks DrgnDancer pointed out could be overcome, there is still a very large political barrier. The highway system is a perfect example. You ever wonder why the drinking age in every single state is 21? B/c the Federal government came in years ago and said "You want funds for your highways? Drinking age needs to be 21". Giving states money is how the Federal government affects policies that they technically have no say in. They have no desire to reduce that influence by passing some of the purse strings back to the stats.
I have never been so proud as when my 3 year old niece said Empire Strikes Back was her favorite Star Wars movie. She does like Jar Jar, but hey! She's only 3...
If you're at the point where you're giving out heavier penalties for specific motives (other than the distinction between premeditated/accidental
So you agree that is some cases motivation should be considered when determining the harshness of a penalty. Everything else is merely arguing over where to draw that line. You can argue that current legislation goes too far, but once you've accepted that motivation for a crime is sometimes a mitigating factor, you can no longer argue against hate crimes on principle.
So if a guy who has murdered a black person and said (or by his actions clearly implied) that he is going to murder more, every black person would reasonably assume that the threat 1) applies to him, and 2) can be reasonably apprehended - hence we should count it as an assault of a clearly identifiable group "black people", and prosecute as such in addition to murder itself.
I could be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure violating hate crime legislation IS tried as a separate offense. The statutes are different from assualt. The only question is do prosecutors bother prosecuting under both assault and hate crime statutes, or do they merely go for the more penalized offense? I suspect, but don't know, that they throw everything they can at a defendant.