Except everyone easily agrees that an individual has an inherent right to his life. It's a much harder argument to make that society has an inherent right to an individual's (or private group's) creative output. Depriving you of something you do not have a right to is not stealing.
And what if the only hospital in a 50 mile radius is privately owned? And the owner(s) don't want to serve black people? Should we force them to, just b/c some black person is going to die without their services? What if it's not a hospital, but the only grocery store around? Black people can always grow their own food, right? You choose a trivial example, which perforce trivializes the consequences of your position. The thing is, we have historical examples within living memory of discrimination where the consequences were not nearly so trivial as some dude couldn't get a drink. Sure, anti-discrimination laws impinge on an individuals freedom to discriminate (on a few protected classes), but I think most people agree that this is a non-essential right that society can trample on in the name of the greater good.
Yeah, I want advertisements, just like I want another hole in my dick.
An oddly apropos analogy. Turns out, there are a lot of guys out there that DO want another hole (or two) in their dicks. I suspect there are also freaks out there that LIKE advertising. Hell, how many times have you heard coworkers talk about some commercial like it was actual entertainment?
A) I prefer Bureau of Justice statistics over an organization calling itself The Leadership Council. One which apparently finds value in polygraphs.
B)ONE example of an outlier in no way implies that actual rates are likely much higher.
C) Please provide me with any credible evidence that "most sex crimes are never reported". I have to admit, I don't see any possible way to prove/disprove that claim. Seems like a bullshit made-up "fact" you want to use to support your hand waving.
D) Even if I accepted every thing you presented here as 100% factual, you are still only up 40% recidivism, which is still a long ways from your original 100% claim.
Like I said, you actually do have a few solid arguments for chemical castration of repeat (or maybe first time? Not sure what you're saying) offenders. But I make it a point not to debate people that make shit up to support their arguments (obviously, other than to attack their "facts"). Although, you do at least have the opportunity to sound more credible next time, now that you have found a link and know the appropriate statistics to throw around to utilize that link.
Why is it that the people spouting the most ridiculous "facts" are always the ones that demand proof their fantasies aren't true? Especially given the obvious fact that you have in no way researched your own claims... Seriously, 5 seconds on Google - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94pr.htm The relevant bit, an estimated 3.3% of child molesters did so again within a 3 year period of being released from jail. A very very long way from your "basically 100% recidivism rate".
If you want to argue the merits of chemical castration compared to other forms of punishment, or even the semantics of referring to it as maiming, fine. But you didn't start with that; you started with a completely bullshit statistic made-up to support your argument. It severely weakens your position and makes your ranting against the ACLU and liberals sound like paranoid delusions on par with your delusional statistics.
Child molesters have basically a 100% recidivism rate
If you don't know the actual facts of an issue (*hint* the above quote is factually incorrect), your opinions on "solutions", especially when they involve maiming people, should absolutely be ignored.
Isn't it funny how an entire office goes crazy with word about *possible* layoffs coming, but somehow "Someone" (which always seems to be the other major political party than the person telling you) has this hugely elaborate plan, involving ridiculous amounts of logistics and pre-planning, involving thousands of people.. And nothing is leaked?
This isn't nearly as far-fetched as it at first appears. For one, those thousands of people involved in the execution of Government Conspiracy #567 are all just doing one tiny piece that they have no way of relating to the whole. The number of people in on the overall picture would be much smaller. Also, a small cabal of highly placed government (or military) officials has many more resources for squelching rumors than does a corporate mid to high level manager. When you can make discussing anything related to your secret illegal and arrest people for even speculating on what the bigger picture may look like, it discourages gossip. It is easier to motivate people to shady actions "as a true patriot" than it is to motivate people "as an IBMer". Etcetera etcetera.
Just as it is ludicrous to believe every stupid thing that comes out of government is some conspiracy, it is ludicrous to believe that highly motivated people with their hands on the reins of a tremendously powerful bureaucracy never abuse that position and try to do so in a secretive manner. I believe it is a certainty that some conspiracy theories are correct; it's just impossible to differentiate them from the batshit insane ones.
My father tells me that there was a huge concern in the 50s (60s?) that we were running out of arable land. After all, land is one thing they aren't making any more of. There were lots of studies and predictions that showed the US would be unable to support its own population at some fairly close future point. Many a doomsayer came out predicting hunger riots and the like. Then, technologies that vastly increased the productivity of an acre of farmland were discovered/invented, causing the amount of arable land we had to suddenly be much more than we needed. Just b/c certain natural resources that seem absolutely vital now are limited, doesn't mean society is limited by the availability of those resources.
In terms of getting pure enjoyment and satisfaction out of life I think it's much better be a little dim and therefore not be able to see all the problems.
Nah, I find it much preferable to be intelligent so as to be able to enjoy the more subtle pleasures. And I find that a combination of narcissism, hedonism and a borderline sociopathic personality offset the greater awareness intelligence brings quite nicely.
I thought someone would do that - replace "theologically" to mean "things that were practiced by religions".
What other "theological knowledge" would you suggest?
It's a common fallacy - claim that religion is better than science, or something like that, and then back-peddle to a position of saying that thousands of years ago people who happened to be religious knew things, citing an example where they found these facts out through observation and testing
I'm not at all suggesting that religion is better than science, I'm just saying that there are religious practices from thousands of years ago that we have scientifically validated as beneficial. And yes, there are even more that we have invalidated as mere superstition. And we don't know how they obtained their "knowledge"; maybe observation and testing, as you suggest, maybe paranoid hallucinations, maybe speaking to God. Your post I was responding to suggested that there were no examples of religions believing things that we now know to be true (i.e., reaching some metaphorical peak of knowledge before science). I gave a couple of easy examples of things religious people believed (I don't like the term knew in this context, but that is b/c I prefer scientific based knowledge) long before science proved them true. They believed them based on their religion; I don't know what else you might mean by theological knowledge.
Basically, I think it a bit mean-spirited and insecure to insist that only science has ever reached any true knowledge. Hell, if I believe that the universe tends toward entropy b/c a pink unicorn told me so after eating a bunch of acid, it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It makes my arguments very very unconvincing to others, it doesn't make listening to pink unicorns while on acid a good method of learning about the universe, but I'm still right.
Well, ignoring the debatable use of the word "know" in the context of belief without evidence, there are in fact numerous examples of theologically passed wisdom that we now scientifically know is correct. Cheap example: Jewish dietary prohibitions. Violating these religious restrictions would have been a really bad idea 2000 years ago. More modern: power of prayer. There are many studies that attribute various benefits to meditation/relaxation/prayer. Spending a small amount of time each day in prayer is good for you, just like religion has been saying for years.
No one can have a "right" to the productive efforts of others. That is slavery. If you feel that anyone "owes" society anything thren you are admitting that every person is a slave to everyone else.
Nonsense, people have a right to others' productive efforts all the time. If you and I make a $5 bet, and you lose, I have a right to your productive efforts as represented by $5.
Now, admittedly, in my little example, you willingly obligated yourself. The benefits you have accrued from society are a little bit grayer, b/c you didn't initially choose to benefit from society - your parents did when they chose to raise you in a society. Plus, it is not nearly as clear-cut to whom and to what degree you have accrued an obligation, b/c we can't quantify exactly which benefits and to which degree society has provided these benefits to you. But you most likely have benefited somewhat from society; perhaps you disagree, but I think this imbues you with a moral obligation to return some benefit to "society", i.e. other individuals. How you choose to do so and to what degree should be your choice, but to equate this moral obligation to your fellow humans with slavery is so wildly exaggerated as to seem merely self-serving rationalization.
Well, perhaps some of us decide what actions are and are not acceptable based on our own personal morality and don't really care what the law says (as far as determining right/wrong). In this case, identity theft vs. copyright infringement seem to me to have wildly different moral implications - direct harm vs. not so much any harm.
Now, you can't be refused treatment because of your ability to pay (which is fine, I'm not saying let people die in the street), but you should pay for it, and take care of your self.
Um, what? You agree that inability to pay shouldn't prevent someone from receiving treatment, but then say that person should have to pay for it. Which is it? Either someone that can't afford treatment doesn't get it, or someone else (the rest of us) pays for it. The person receiving the treatment can't pay for it, that's the entire predicate.
Any half-way decent omniscient, omnipotent being wins golf tournaments by setting the universal constants at big bang time in such a manner as to make his winning inevitable.
Unless they decide to renovate the home, in which case, the Fire, the Zoning, and the Building Inspectors have to approve and the Tax Assessor becomes very interested too...
Nope, you can renovate your home any way you so choose and don't have to get it inspected at all; of course, when you try to sell your house, the buyer might have some objections. And if you hire a contractor to do the work for you, any one worth a damn will insist on doing the work to code.
Oh, and Zoning permits isn't the gov't interfering in your personal business. It is a codified way of the preventing YOU from infringing ME by keeping a herd of elephants in the yard right beside mine. Maybe you dislike the idea of the gov't preventing you from doing so, but in the long run, we're all better off doing it through permits than settling it by me shooting your elephants late at night.
I agree completely here. However, I find that simply stating "I hear only what you say, not what you are thinking or meant to say" results in "But you should try to understand me, I shouldn't have to spell everything out". People need much more visceral instruction, generally. What you need to realize is that she is actually telling you "Don't listen to what I say, I expect you to interpret my words in order to understand my meaning". A couple of times of "interpreting" something she says completely wrong ("I know you said you didn't want to throw a dinner party this weekend, but I figured you just meant you wanted it to be a surprise. Should I tell all of our friends to go home now?") and she'll start communicating more directly.
WARNING - you MUST appear completely well-meaning, loving and supportive. Any hint that you are attempting to "teach her" something will result in pure Hell reigning down upon you for the rest of your life together with this woman. She will begin communicating MUCH more directly and you will regret it.
Yep, I love my credit union. Stable, willing to actually work with me, doesn't try to squeeze every dime possible out of me. The only thing I wish is that their credit card offered frequent flyer miles. Oh well, can't have everything.
As an amusing afterthought, when I mentioned this article to friends, some of them said "So that means I should fuck every day?", while others said "So that means it's okay if I jack off every day?" Caught them with their guard down, spilled the beans all by themselves.
In other words, don't let someone force you to take an action you wouldn't have normally or already taken.
That's a ridiculous blanket statement. So, I shouldn't slam on brakes when some idiot runs a red light right in front of me? After all, that is allowing someone to force me into taking an action I otherwise would not have. If other cars or bikes or whatever are putting me at an increased level of danger due to their behavior, instead of ignoring them, I should take whatever actions will best reduce my (and hopefully everyone's) risk.
If I recall correctly, Justin Bailey simply changed the way your character looked; it didn't change the game play at all. I wouldn't call that a cheat. Contra, on the other hand - yeah, extra lives is absolutely a cheat.
There's nothing wrong with having cheats available, really. For players who want to just breeze through the game, it saves them frustration, and for players who want a challenge, they don't have to use it. Everyone wins.
Yes, this exactly. The only reason I can see for people to be upset is that it somehow diminishes their accomplishment in beating the game when others can do the same thing by cheating. Which is a pretty lame attitude, IMHO.
The difference is if you willingly compromise your rights to a degree in order to obtain what you see as a greater good than strict adherence to an absolute ideal. Versus someone else forcing you to compromise your rights against your will. For instance, in some places, you have the right to kill an intruder in your home in self-defense. What if rather than killing the intruder, you shoot them in the leg? You exercised your rights to the degree you chose, rather than as far as the law allows. Why is that a bad thing?
Slashdot Mirror
Except everyone easily agrees that an individual has an inherent right to his life. It's a much harder argument to make that society has an inherent right to an individual's (or private group's) creative output. Depriving you of something you do not have a right to is not stealing.
I agree with your classifications, but I've never been able to express the distinction as clearly as you just did. Thanks.
And what if the only hospital in a 50 mile radius is privately owned? And the owner(s) don't want to serve black people? Should we force them to, just b/c some black person is going to die without their services? What if it's not a hospital, but the only grocery store around? Black people can always grow their own food, right? You choose a trivial example, which perforce trivializes the consequences of your position. The thing is, we have historical examples within living memory of discrimination where the consequences were not nearly so trivial as some dude couldn't get a drink. Sure, anti-discrimination laws impinge on an individuals freedom to discriminate (on a few protected classes), but I think most people agree that this is a non-essential right that society can trample on in the name of the greater good.
You forgot the can opener.
Yeah, I want advertisements, just like I want another hole in my dick.
An oddly apropos analogy. Turns out, there are a lot of guys out there that DO want another hole (or two) in their dicks. I suspect there are also freaks out there that LIKE advertising. Hell, how many times have you heard coworkers talk about some commercial like it was actual entertainment?
A) I prefer Bureau of Justice statistics over an organization calling itself The Leadership Council. One which apparently finds value in polygraphs.
B)ONE example of an outlier in no way implies that actual rates are likely much higher.
C) Please provide me with any credible evidence that "most sex crimes are never reported". I have to admit, I don't see any possible way to prove/disprove that claim. Seems like a bullshit made-up "fact" you want to use to support your hand waving.
D) Even if I accepted every thing you presented here as 100% factual, you are still only up 40% recidivism, which is still a long ways from your original 100% claim.
Like I said, you actually do have a few solid arguments for chemical castration of repeat (or maybe first time? Not sure what you're saying) offenders. But I make it a point not to debate people that make shit up to support their arguments (obviously, other than to attack their "facts"). Although, you do at least have the opportunity to sound more credible next time, now that you have found a link and know the appropriate statistics to throw around to utilize that link.
Why is it that the people spouting the most ridiculous "facts" are always the ones that demand proof their fantasies aren't true? Especially given the obvious fact that you have in no way researched your own claims... Seriously, 5 seconds on Google - http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/rsorp94pr.htm The relevant bit, an estimated 3.3% of child molesters did so again within a 3 year period of being released from jail. A very very long way from your "basically 100% recidivism rate".
If you want to argue the merits of chemical castration compared to other forms of punishment, or even the semantics of referring to it as maiming, fine. But you didn't start with that; you started with a completely bullshit statistic made-up to support your argument. It severely weakens your position and makes your ranting against the ACLU and liberals sound like paranoid delusions on par with your delusional statistics.
Child molesters have basically a 100% recidivism rate
If you don't know the actual facts of an issue (*hint* the above quote is factually incorrect), your opinions on "solutions", especially when they involve maiming people, should absolutely be ignored.
Isn't it funny how an entire office goes crazy with word about *possible* layoffs coming, but somehow "Someone" (which always seems to be the other major political party than the person telling you) has this hugely elaborate plan, involving ridiculous amounts of logistics and pre-planning, involving thousands of people.. And nothing is leaked?
This isn't nearly as far-fetched as it at first appears. For one, those thousands of people involved in the execution of Government Conspiracy #567 are all just doing one tiny piece that they have no way of relating to the whole. The number of people in on the overall picture would be much smaller. Also, a small cabal of highly placed government (or military) officials has many more resources for squelching rumors than does a corporate mid to high level manager. When you can make discussing anything related to your secret illegal and arrest people for even speculating on what the bigger picture may look like, it discourages gossip. It is easier to motivate people to shady actions "as a true patriot" than it is to motivate people "as an IBMer". Etcetera etcetera.
Just as it is ludicrous to believe every stupid thing that comes out of government is some conspiracy, it is ludicrous to believe that highly motivated people with their hands on the reins of a tremendously powerful bureaucracy never abuse that position and try to do so in a secretive manner. I believe it is a certainty that some conspiracy theories are correct; it's just impossible to differentiate them from the batshit insane ones.
My father tells me that there was a huge concern in the 50s (60s?) that we were running out of arable land. After all, land is one thing they aren't making any more of. There were lots of studies and predictions that showed the US would be unable to support its own population at some fairly close future point. Many a doomsayer came out predicting hunger riots and the like. Then, technologies that vastly increased the productivity of an acre of farmland were discovered/invented, causing the amount of arable land we had to suddenly be much more than we needed. Just b/c certain natural resources that seem absolutely vital now are limited, doesn't mean society is limited by the availability of those resources.
In terms of getting pure enjoyment and satisfaction out of life I think it's much better be a little dim and therefore not be able to see all the problems.
Nah, I find it much preferable to be intelligent so as to be able to enjoy the more subtle pleasures. And I find that a combination of narcissism, hedonism and a borderline sociopathic personality offset the greater awareness intelligence brings quite nicely.
I thought someone would do that - replace "theologically" to mean "things that were practiced by religions".
What other "theological knowledge" would you suggest?
It's a common fallacy - claim that religion is better than science, or something like that, and then back-peddle to a position of saying that thousands of years ago people who happened to be religious knew things, citing an example where they found these facts out through observation and testing
I'm not at all suggesting that religion is better than science, I'm just saying that there are religious practices from thousands of years ago that we have scientifically validated as beneficial. And yes, there are even more that we have invalidated as mere superstition. And we don't know how they obtained their "knowledge"; maybe observation and testing, as you suggest, maybe paranoid hallucinations, maybe speaking to God. Your post I was responding to suggested that there were no examples of religions believing things that we now know to be true (i.e., reaching some metaphorical peak of knowledge before science). I gave a couple of easy examples of things religious people believed (I don't like the term knew in this context, but that is b/c I prefer scientific based knowledge) long before science proved them true. They believed them based on their religion; I don't know what else you might mean by theological knowledge.
Basically, I think it a bit mean-spirited and insecure to insist that only science has ever reached any true knowledge. Hell, if I believe that the universe tends toward entropy b/c a pink unicorn told me so after eating a bunch of acid, it doesn't mean I'm wrong. It makes my arguments very very unconvincing to others, it doesn't make listening to pink unicorns while on acid a good method of learning about the universe, but I'm still right.
Well, ignoring the debatable use of the word "know" in the context of belief without evidence, there are in fact numerous examples of theologically passed wisdom that we now scientifically know is correct. Cheap example: Jewish dietary prohibitions. Violating these religious restrictions would have been a really bad idea 2000 years ago. More modern: power of prayer. There are many studies that attribute various benefits to meditation/relaxation/prayer. Spending a small amount of time each day in prayer is good for you, just like religion has been saying for years.
No one can have a "right" to the productive efforts of others. That is slavery. If you feel that anyone "owes" society anything thren you are admitting that every person is a slave to everyone else.
Nonsense, people have a right to others' productive efforts all the time. If you and I make a $5 bet, and you lose, I have a right to your productive efforts as represented by $5.
Now, admittedly, in my little example, you willingly obligated yourself. The benefits you have accrued from society are a little bit grayer, b/c you didn't initially choose to benefit from society - your parents did when they chose to raise you in a society. Plus, it is not nearly as clear-cut to whom and to what degree you have accrued an obligation, b/c we can't quantify exactly which benefits and to which degree society has provided these benefits to you. But you most likely have benefited somewhat from society; perhaps you disagree, but I think this imbues you with a moral obligation to return some benefit to "society", i.e. other individuals. How you choose to do so and to what degree should be your choice, but to equate this moral obligation to your fellow humans with slavery is so wildly exaggerated as to seem merely self-serving rationalization.
Well, perhaps some of us decide what actions are and are not acceptable based on our own personal morality and don't really care what the law says (as far as determining right/wrong). In this case, identity theft vs. copyright infringement seem to me to have wildly different moral implications - direct harm vs. not so much any harm.
Now, you can't be refused treatment because of your ability to pay (which is fine, I'm not saying let people die in the street), but you should pay for it, and take care of your self.
Um, what? You agree that inability to pay shouldn't prevent someone from receiving treatment, but then say that person should have to pay for it. Which is it? Either someone that can't afford treatment doesn't get it, or someone else (the rest of us) pays for it. The person receiving the treatment can't pay for it, that's the entire predicate.
Any half-way decent omniscient, omnipotent being wins golf tournaments by setting the universal constants at big bang time in such a manner as to make his winning inevitable.
Unless they decide to renovate the home, in which case, the Fire, the Zoning, and the Building Inspectors have to approve and the Tax Assessor becomes very interested too...
Nope, you can renovate your home any way you so choose and don't have to get it inspected at all; of course, when you try to sell your house, the buyer might have some objections. And if you hire a contractor to do the work for you, any one worth a damn will insist on doing the work to code.
Oh, and Zoning permits isn't the gov't interfering in your personal business. It is a codified way of the preventing YOU from infringing ME by keeping a herd of elephants in the yard right beside mine. Maybe you dislike the idea of the gov't preventing you from doing so, but in the long run, we're all better off doing it through permits than settling it by me shooting your elephants late at night.
I agree completely here. However, I find that simply stating "I hear only what you say, not what you are thinking or meant to say" results in "But you should try to understand me, I shouldn't have to spell everything out". People need much more visceral instruction, generally. What you need to realize is that she is actually telling you "Don't listen to what I say, I expect you to interpret my words in order to understand my meaning". A couple of times of "interpreting" something she says completely wrong ("I know you said you didn't want to throw a dinner party this weekend, but I figured you just meant you wanted it to be a surprise. Should I tell all of our friends to go home now?") and she'll start communicating more directly.
WARNING - you MUST appear completely well-meaning, loving and supportive. Any hint that you are attempting to "teach her" something will result in pure Hell reigning down upon you for the rest of your life together with this woman. She will begin communicating MUCH more directly and you will regret it.
Yep, I love my credit union. Stable, willing to actually work with me, doesn't try to squeeze every dime possible out of me. The only thing I wish is that their credit card offered frequent flyer miles. Oh well, can't have everything.
"If you have legs and are flammable, you are never blocking a fire escape."
RIP, Mitch Hedberg
As an amusing afterthought, when I mentioned this article to friends, some of them said "So that means I should fuck every day?", while others said "So that means it's okay if I jack off every day?" Caught them with their guard down, spilled the beans all by themselves.
Only the second group...
In other words, don't let someone force you to take an action you wouldn't have normally or already taken.
That's a ridiculous blanket statement. So, I shouldn't slam on brakes when some idiot runs a red light right in front of me? After all, that is allowing someone to force me into taking an action I otherwise would not have. If other cars or bikes or whatever are putting me at an increased level of danger due to their behavior, instead of ignoring them, I should take whatever actions will best reduce my (and hopefully everyone's) risk.
If I recall correctly, Justin Bailey simply changed the way your character looked; it didn't change the game play at all. I wouldn't call that a cheat. Contra, on the other hand - yeah, extra lives is absolutely a cheat.
There's nothing wrong with having cheats available, really. For players who want to just breeze through the game, it saves them frustration, and for players who want a challenge, they don't have to use it. Everyone wins.
Yes, this exactly. The only reason I can see for people to be upset is that it somehow diminishes their accomplishment in beating the game when others can do the same thing by cheating. Which is a pretty lame attitude, IMHO.
The difference is if you willingly compromise your rights to a degree in order to obtain what you see as a greater good than strict adherence to an absolute ideal. Versus someone else forcing you to compromise your rights against your will. For instance, in some places, you have the right to kill an intruder in your home in self-defense. What if rather than killing the intruder, you shoot them in the leg? You exercised your rights to the degree you chose, rather than as far as the law allows. Why is that a bad thing?