Rude? Possibly, but less rude than flat out accusing you of making false claims (either intentionally or unintentionally) in order to exaggerate your own perceived worth to society. You were trying to imply that you served as some sort of protector for society by locking away the big scary men. I pointed out most of those you locked away weren't a threat. So now you retort that they were in fact sex offenders (OMG, think of the children!). Sorry, also not protecting society. The vast majority of sex offenders are not repeat offenders (less than most other crimes) and most actual sexual assaults come from friends and family. Since I don't personally know anyone in prison for sexual assault, my chances of being assaulted if they were all let out of prison would increase by almost nothing.
Do these people deserve to be in prison? For the sake of argument, we'll assume a perfect justice system and say yes. Is a prison guard serving a useful function? Yes. But the idea that you and the chip on your shoulder retort "You can't criticize us b/c without us you would be raped and killed in your sleep!" is simply an offensive, dishonest statement. And one that doesn't directly address the assertion that prison guards are stupider than the general population; indirectly, it certainly seems to support it.
But the problematic assumption of his assertion is that facts always succeed in persuading, which isn't true.
I would say that a further problem implicit in taking his assertion as any sort of general moral argument is the assumption that all differences of opinions have a fact-based resolution. Imagine I go home tonight and want sex but my girlfriend isn't in the mood. The only "moral" attempt at persuading her to have sex with me is simply stating the facts: "I am horny, having sex with me will satisfy me and make me less likely to seek sexual gratification elsewhere. This will not be much of an inconvenience to you." It would be "immoral" of me to, you know, seduce her into WANTING to have sex with me.
If you've come to the decision based on what you believe to be correct information, then your logic indicates that you can make decisions based on correct information, but others cannot
Which is absolutely the correct conclusion for specific people in specific circumstances. It would be nice if everyone were always rational, or always put their responsibilities to their position and/or fellow man above their own self-interest. But that simply isn't so. If I know my superior will make an irrational, disastrous decision based on the facts, it strikes me as immoral and irresponsible to allow that to happen.
Then make sure you pay the children of your plumber, your electrician, your gardener and garbage engineer in perpetuity, because after all, you wouldn't want to deny them the fruit of their father's business, would you?
They get the benefits of the reputation in the business the father built, the branding, the contracts, etc. They get the property rights of the business. Just as I don't have to pay Christopher Tolkien for the copy of his father's book I bought 20 years ago, I don't have to pay the plumber's kids for the sink install he did. But just like I can't take away the property rights to the land the office is on just b/c dad died, I can't take away the property rights Tolkien left his kid. I don't think he has the rights he is asserting in the article, but nor does he have no rights.
But hey, lets just let all those child molesters, murderers, thieves etc, out and see how safe you feel.
You mean drug users, right? Cause the number of arrests for drug abuse has risen dramatically, while all other crime has dropped (in some cases just as dramatically) in the last 15-20 years. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=kftp&tid=3
It's a cultural taboo. Young boys tend to have no problems showing their penises off, in fact seem to enjoy it. Then, they spend their whole life being told not to pull it out in public, hide your penis. They internalize the idea that a penis is something vaguely shameful that shouldn't be shown off. Thus, seeing another man's shame exposed makes them uncomfortable.
You can see this in the guys that have the opposite reaction, i.e. take an exaggerated machismo glee in showing off their penis. It is the thrill of flouting a taboo.
Everyone is free to say what they wish without risk of government censorship.
Assuming this is a public school, i.e. government institution, which it sounds very much like it is, I would say getting fired for saying the wrong thing online is about as blatant as censorship gets.
Ah, I'm glad you clarified. I didn't understand that you were being ironic. Probably b/c I see so much of that sort of view point where people are completely serious, especially on the Internet. You make a good point that these sort of people tend to have a very self-serving definition of "free".
Personal human relationships always come with strings attached. It's pretty rare that a woman is sexually aggressive enough to view men as sexual playthings rather than human beings. Less rare for men to have this capacity. Thus, women view sex as a facet of a personal relationship with another human being more often than men.
Now, some women use sex as an edge to gain the upper position in their relationships. Just as some men use other things (wealth, privilege, physical power) to gain the upper position in their relationships. However, most of the time when a woman "attaches strings" to sexual favors, it is merely her "expecting to be treated as a human being with whom you have a personal relationship". B/c bitches be crazy like that.
Kansas is Midwestern. I can't think of any other states off-hand that have pushed creationism into the science classroom. Of course, I don't really pay much attention to it since it hasn't happened in my state yet (NC, a southern state).
What an odd non sequitur. What does the utility of shining light onto an object so the portion of it reflected back at you reveals the object have to do with the impossibility of observing light that is not reflected back at you (and thus continues to move away from you)?
I've read about these experiments, too. I find them interesting, but certainly not the doomsday knell against free will. Two points 1) Initiating a movement to pick an object was required whichever object I chose; equating the mental processes that kick-off my motor functions with a decision as to which object I choose seems a bit of a leap
2) Just b/c some portion of my decision is influenced by subconscious factors doesn't mean I couldn't pause and make a fully conscious decision if I chose. In fact, the very evidence that I put more thought into some decisions than others indicates that I am choosing to do so (otherwise, all decisions would be made at the same subconscious level).
Also, alcohol producers didn't go around putting chemicals in their product to make it extra addictive, then start marketing it at kids in an attempt to get life-long customers. All while suppressing the evidence they had that their product was harmful in any dose, and lethal in large doses. Tobacco is in large part getting the shaft b/c the industry (not the product) behaved over a course of decades as evil evil bastards. Public backlash is a bitch.
Hey, I think Bush was just about the worst President we've had in a long long time, but credit where it's due. George Washington (or his administration) started the trend of the executive branch abusing its authority.
That's true, there are summer vacations. Students get, I believe, 10 weeks off. Teachers have several weeks worth of mandatory work days during that period, however. In addition to scheduled work days, they go to staff meetings, attend training courses, prepare lesson plans for the following year, even go out and clean their classrooms. True, over the summer they don't work as much as a regular full-time job, but it isn't exactly a vacation either. And for 40-some weeks, they are expected to work much more than a full-time job. I didn't ever crunch the numbers, but my impression looking at it was that the summer vacation was not at all worth the extra time required the rest of the year.
There is also a growing movement in NC to go to year-round schooling. Several districts have done so. All of my observations are based on the traditional calendar; I imagine year-round is a worse deal for teachers. But I doubt they will get a pay raise.
They are well within their rights to terminate their business arrangements with wikileaks
Yeah, you keep saying that. And you're right. My point is that is irrelevant, yet you and others continue to hammer on it. Visa DOES have a business arrangement with my bank, who has a business arrangement with me. And these business arrangements in fact ARE governed by contracts (well, I certainly hope my bank has a contract with Visa; I would be uncomfortable learning they are morons), they are also governed by governmental regulations. Visa obviously has some obligations on their end. The question is whether these obligations allow them to deny services on a corporate whim. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, I don't recall stating a belief one way or the other. I'm simply pointing out that your rather hysterical defense of Visa is focusing on a completely irrelevant point; if any violations did occur, it would be at the exact opposite end than the one you are focused on.
I don't know about your university, but in mine, most of the science and math professors were foreigners. Hell, one of my calc professors could not speak understandable English; after the first few lectures, he quit trying and just worked problems on the board. If you couldn't follow along, that's what the TA's office hours were for.
'm all for unions in industries where employee abuse is common. Education is not one of them.
Depends on your definition of abuse. In NC, no teachers union (it's illegal). My mother, sister and ex-wife are all primary education teachers (K-12), so I have seen first hand the environment they have. Teachers earn vacation at the same rate as every other state employee, but are very restricted as to when they can take it. There are legal protections in NC that prevent salaried state employees from being forced to work too much over 40 hours. The legislation specifically exempts doctors and teachers from these protections. So, if you teach at a high-school, you can (and will) be required to work football games, collecting gate revenues. You will be required to occasionally work 12 hour days (with no overtime pay) b/c of mandatory staff meetings. Hell, teachers can't even take a bathroom break whenever they feel like it (can't leave the class unattended). This is not to mention "personal" time spent grading homework and preparing lesson plans. State employee raises are mandated by the legislature (when they happen). Teachers are ALWAYS a separate category and generally receive a smaller raise than other state employees. I could go on and on about the numerous tiny abuse that are heaped on teachers.
I wouldn't say teachers are abused in the coal-miner sense of the word, but they are specifically and consistently shat on compared to other state employees here in NC. I would never, ever be a teacher here.
I think what you mean to say is, "I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, but I'll just throw out what I *think* should have happened and assume that it's an accurate legal opinion supported by numerous precedents." ,br/>
As opposed to your well cited opinion on the legal position? To reiterate, I said exactly what I meant: I haven't gone back and read my contract with a specific eye to this issue (which is a first in my experience), but I suspect credit card companies have some obligation to their customers (credit holders) to provide services at all participating merchants. Yes, they can cut off services to specific merchants for specified reasons, but for random, non-specific reasons? I wouldn't be surprised if that opened them up to liability. Of course the question is ultimately up to any courts this comes before, but you have failed to convince me my concerns are not legitimate. A) You failed to address my point except to acknowledge it and dismiss it without any counterpoints B) You fail to provide any support for your counter position (which ignores my actual argument); you say "I disagree b/c I disagree"
My point about Walmart is simply that if Visa pulled this sort of thing with an actual player, the legal issues would quickly become muddled. The courts would become involved, and no one would imagine it was a black and white issue.
They are not OBLIGATED to serve you. They are not OBLIGATED to provide you with a platform and distribution channel for your free speech.
Without reading though my entire contract, I can't be sure, but I have a strong suspicion they have some obligation to provide me with financial services (as long as I am a customer, of course). The breach comes in their refusal to honor my desire to utilize their service to donate to Wikileaks. What if tomorrow Visa said they would no longer process any transactions with Walmart? That would end up in court, and I doubt it would be nearly as black and white as some people pretend the Wikileaks boycott is.
True. I imagine Apple's lawyers have examined this from all angles - just b/c I can't see it doesn't mean they don't think they have a legitimate legal argument.
Didn't car manufacturers try this exact stunt and get swatted? I seem to recall Congress got involved and passed legislation specifically allowing the sale of the manufacturers specialized wrenches and what not.
Slashdot Mirror
Rude? Possibly, but less rude than flat out accusing you of making false claims (either intentionally or unintentionally) in order to exaggerate your own perceived worth to society. You were trying to imply that you served as some sort of protector for society by locking away the big scary men. I pointed out most of those you locked away weren't a threat. So now you retort that they were in fact sex offenders (OMG, think of the children!). Sorry, also not protecting society. The vast majority of sex offenders are not repeat offenders (less than most other crimes) and most actual sexual assaults come from friends and family. Since I don't personally know anyone in prison for sexual assault, my chances of being assaulted if they were all let out of prison would increase by almost nothing.
Do these people deserve to be in prison? For the sake of argument, we'll assume a perfect justice system and say yes. Is a prison guard serving a useful function? Yes. But the idea that you and the chip on your shoulder retort "You can't criticize us b/c without us you would be raped and killed in your sleep!" is simply an offensive, dishonest statement. And one that doesn't directly address the assertion that prison guards are stupider than the general population; indirectly, it certainly seems to support it.
But the problematic assumption of his assertion is that facts always succeed in persuading, which isn't true.
I would say that a further problem implicit in taking his assertion as any sort of general moral argument is the assumption that all differences of opinions have a fact-based resolution. Imagine I go home tonight and want sex but my girlfriend isn't in the mood. The only "moral" attempt at persuading her to have sex with me is simply stating the facts: "I am horny, having sex with me will satisfy me and make me less likely to seek sexual gratification elsewhere. This will not be much of an inconvenience to you." It would be "immoral" of me to, you know, seduce her into WANTING to have sex with me.
If you've come to the decision based on what you believe to be correct information, then your logic indicates that you can make decisions based on correct information, but others cannot
Which is absolutely the correct conclusion for specific people in specific circumstances. It would be nice if everyone were always rational, or always put their responsibilities to their position and/or fellow man above their own self-interest. But that simply isn't so. If I know my superior will make an irrational, disastrous decision based on the facts, it strikes me as immoral and irresponsible to allow that to happen.
Then make sure you pay the children of your plumber, your electrician, your gardener and garbage engineer in perpetuity, because after all, you wouldn't want to deny them the fruit of their father's business, would you?
They get the benefits of the reputation in the business the father built, the branding, the contracts, etc. They get the property rights of the business. Just as I don't have to pay Christopher Tolkien for the copy of his father's book I bought 20 years ago, I don't have to pay the plumber's kids for the sink install he did. But just like I can't take away the property rights to the land the office is on just b/c dad died, I can't take away the property rights Tolkien left his kid. I don't think he has the rights he is asserting in the article, but nor does he have no rights.
But hey, lets just let all those child molesters, murderers, thieves etc, out and see how safe you feel.
You mean drug users, right? Cause the number of arrests for drug abuse has risen dramatically, while all other crime has dropped (in some cases just as dramatically) in the last 15-20 years. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=kftp&tid=3
It's a cultural taboo. Young boys tend to have no problems showing their penises off, in fact seem to enjoy it. Then, they spend their whole life being told not to pull it out in public, hide your penis. They internalize the idea that a penis is something vaguely shameful that shouldn't be shown off. Thus, seeing another man's shame exposed makes them uncomfortable.
You can see this in the guys that have the opposite reaction, i.e. take an exaggerated machismo glee in showing off their penis. It is the thrill of flouting a taboo.
Everyone is free to say what they wish without risk of government censorship.
Assuming this is a public school, i.e. government institution, which it sounds very much like it is, I would say getting fired for saying the wrong thing online is about as blatant as censorship gets.
Ah, I'm glad you clarified. I didn't understand that you were being ironic. Probably b/c I see so much of that sort of view point where people are completely serious, especially on the Internet. You make a good point that these sort of people tend to have a very self-serving definition of "free".
Question: if there is no due process (i.e. investigation into the killing), what makes you think the person killed was a dangerous criminal?
Personal human relationships always come with strings attached. It's pretty rare that a woman is sexually aggressive enough to view men as sexual playthings rather than human beings. Less rare for men to have this capacity. Thus, women view sex as a facet of a personal relationship with another human being more often than men.
Now, some women use sex as an edge to gain the upper position in their relationships. Just as some men use other things (wealth, privilege, physical power) to gain the upper position in their relationships. However, most of the time when a woman "attaches strings" to sexual favors, it is merely her "expecting to be treated as a human being with whom you have a personal relationship". B/c bitches be crazy like that.
Kansas is Midwestern. I can't think of any other states off-hand that have pushed creationism into the science classroom. Of course, I don't really pay much attention to it since it hasn't happened in my state yet (NC, a southern state).
What an odd non sequitur. What does the utility of shining light onto an object so the portion of it reflected back at you reveals the object have to do with the impossibility of observing light that is not reflected back at you (and thus continues to move away from you)?
I've read about these experiments, too. I find them interesting, but certainly not the doomsday knell against free will. Two points 1) Initiating a movement to pick an object was required whichever object I chose; equating the mental processes that kick-off my motor functions with a decision as to which object I choose seems a bit of a leap 2) Just b/c some portion of my decision is influenced by subconscious factors doesn't mean I couldn't pause and make a fully conscious decision if I chose. In fact, the very evidence that I put more thought into some decisions than others indicates that I am choosing to do so (otherwise, all decisions would be made at the same subconscious level).
"A witty saying proves nothing"
-Voltaire
Also, alcohol producers didn't go around putting chemicals in their product to make it extra addictive, then start marketing it at kids in an attempt to get life-long customers. All while suppressing the evidence they had that their product was harmful in any dose, and lethal in large doses. Tobacco is in large part getting the shaft b/c the industry (not the product) behaved over a course of decades as evil evil bastards. Public backlash is a bitch.
,Bush started these abuses,
Hey, I think Bush was just about the worst President we've had in a long long time, but credit where it's due. George Washington (or his administration) started the trend of the executive branch abusing its authority.
That's true, there are summer vacations. Students get, I believe, 10 weeks off. Teachers have several weeks worth of mandatory work days during that period, however. In addition to scheduled work days, they go to staff meetings, attend training courses, prepare lesson plans for the following year, even go out and clean their classrooms. True, over the summer they don't work as much as a regular full-time job, but it isn't exactly a vacation either. And for 40-some weeks, they are expected to work much more than a full-time job. I didn't ever crunch the numbers, but my impression looking at it was that the summer vacation was not at all worth the extra time required the rest of the year.
There is also a growing movement in NC to go to year-round schooling. Several districts have done so. All of my observations are based on the traditional calendar; I imagine year-round is a worse deal for teachers. But I doubt they will get a pay raise.
They are well within their rights to terminate their business arrangements with wikileaks
Yeah, you keep saying that. And you're right. My point is that is irrelevant, yet you and others continue to hammer on it. Visa DOES have a business arrangement with my bank, who has a business arrangement with me. And these business arrangements in fact ARE governed by contracts (well, I certainly hope my bank has a contract with Visa; I would be uncomfortable learning they are morons), they are also governed by governmental regulations. Visa obviously has some obligations on their end. The question is whether these obligations allow them to deny services on a corporate whim. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, I don't recall stating a belief one way or the other. I'm simply pointing out that your rather hysterical defense of Visa is focusing on a completely irrelevant point; if any violations did occur, it would be at the exact opposite end than the one you are focused on.
I don't know about your university, but in mine, most of the science and math professors were foreigners. Hell, one of my calc professors could not speak understandable English; after the first few lectures, he quit trying and just worked problems on the board. If you couldn't follow along, that's what the TA's office hours were for.
'm all for unions in industries where employee abuse is common. Education is not one of them.
Depends on your definition of abuse. In NC, no teachers union (it's illegal). My mother, sister and ex-wife are all primary education teachers (K-12), so I have seen first hand the environment they have. Teachers earn vacation at the same rate as every other state employee, but are very restricted as to when they can take it. There are legal protections in NC that prevent salaried state employees from being forced to work too much over 40 hours. The legislation specifically exempts doctors and teachers from these protections. So, if you teach at a high-school, you can (and will) be required to work football games, collecting gate revenues. You will be required to occasionally work 12 hour days (with no overtime pay) b/c of mandatory staff meetings. Hell, teachers can't even take a bathroom break whenever they feel like it (can't leave the class unattended). This is not to mention "personal" time spent grading homework and preparing lesson plans. State employee raises are mandated by the legislature (when they happen). Teachers are ALWAYS a separate category and generally receive a smaller raise than other state employees. I could go on and on about the numerous tiny abuse that are heaped on teachers.
I wouldn't say teachers are abused in the coal-miner sense of the word, but they are specifically and consistently shat on compared to other state employees here in NC. I would never, ever be a teacher here.
I think what you mean to say is, "I have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, but I'll just throw out what I *think* should have happened and assume that it's an accurate legal opinion supported by numerous precedents." />
As opposed to your well cited opinion on the legal position? To reiterate, I said exactly what I meant: I haven't gone back and read my contract with a specific eye to this issue (which is a first in my experience), but I suspect credit card companies have some obligation to their customers (credit holders) to provide services at all participating merchants. Yes, they can cut off services to specific merchants for specified reasons, but for random, non-specific reasons? I wouldn't be surprised if that opened them up to liability. Of course the question is ultimately up to any courts this comes before, but you have failed to convince me my concerns are not legitimate. A) You failed to address my point except to acknowledge it and dismiss it without any counterpoints B) You fail to provide any support for your counter position (which ignores my actual argument); you say "I disagree b/c I disagree"
,br
My point about Walmart is simply that if Visa pulled this sort of thing with an actual player, the legal issues would quickly become muddled. The courts would become involved, and no one would imagine it was a black and white issue.
They are not OBLIGATED to serve you. They are not OBLIGATED to provide you with a platform and distribution channel for your free speech.
Without reading though my entire contract, I can't be sure, but I have a strong suspicion they have some obligation to provide me with financial services (as long as I am a customer, of course). The breach comes in their refusal to honor my desire to utilize their service to donate to Wikileaks. What if tomorrow Visa said they would no longer process any transactions with Walmart? That would end up in court, and I doubt it would be nearly as black and white as some people pretend the Wikileaks boycott is.
True. I imagine Apple's lawyers have examined this from all angles - just b/c I can't see it doesn't mean they don't think they have a legitimate legal argument.
Why couldn't they just use the screws already in the phone? Unless of course it was these screws themselves that were being broken.
Didn't car manufacturers try this exact stunt and get swatted? I seem to recall Congress got involved and passed legislation specifically allowing the sale of the manufacturers specialized wrenches and what not.