Re:This is as good a place as any for rebuttals...
on
School Bans 'Tag'
·
· Score: 1
A soldier should never be without a sense of humility. Do not make the mistake of overestimating your own importance. The truth is that you depend on the "sheep" more than they depend on you. I know it's not a pleasant thought, but you ought to get acquainted with it.
Banning games of tag is, of course, pointless. I doubt it will have any effect on the kids once they grow up.
Given the choice between (1) individuals solving problems on their own, bypassing the enormous, costly apparatus of the state, and (2) individuals running to government at the first hint of a problem -- which benefits the power elite more?
There's a wrinkle in that logic. The ultimate hallmark of big government is a big military to exert the government's power. Clearly, a sniveling incompetent does not make a good soldier. So a giant government would be better served by fostering some combination of bloodlust and blind loyalty among its citizens.
Okay, I don't get it. I'm pretty sure you're trying to bash liberals, or maybe intellectuals in general. But what do the names "Kennedy" and "Kerry" have to do with tag? Am I looking too hard for something clever here?
Then we'd veto. Besides, if fundamentalist christians in the US have been unable to censor the internet (despite having allies at the highest levels of the government) then I don't think it's going to happen in the UN.
After all - can you tell me what you consider to be "essential" liberty?
This argument is mealymouthed and ridiculous. It is generally understood that free speech is an essential liberty. Your examples are absurd as well. No matter what you choose to do, there will always be things you didn't choose to do. Therefore you've sacrificed essential liberty? Give me a break.
You mean, are they going to investigate someone who has an anti-bush bumper sticker?
No, I'm not talking about bumper stickers that say that Bush should be decapitated or any other potential incitement of tyrannicide. As I tried to make clear, I'm talking about people who do not support the president. And yes, there are many more of them than the Secret Service could possibly investigate. I, for example, do not support the president. Yet I have not been interrogated. Giving Bush a thumbs-down is not the same thing as saying that he should die a fiery death for his crimes.
You need to realize that security is not a trump card that sanctions any and all harassment. There are limits to what constitutes a potential threat and a thumbs-down is nowhere close, even by Secret Service standards.
But there are many, many people who support the Bill of Rights and don't support the president. Are you saying that the Secret Service is going to investigate all of them? I think it's much more likely that they saw an opportunity to terrorize a helpless kid for his political views. And I would bet that the Secret Service would not even have been called had this happened during Clinton's presidency.
Of course we're not living in a science fiction novel. We all know that 1984 is fiction - exaggerated to make a point. But that point is more relevant today than ever, and Orwell was remarkably prescient in this regard.
Regarding the use of the word "tyranny", the dictionary tells us that a tyrant is someone who is (a) a ruler and (b) unjust. I see nothing in the definiton that makes "tyranny" a superlative. I see no reason why an unjust ruler should not be called a tyrant. Political correctness is the only reason why you might shy away from powerful words - and Orwell has a response to that as well.
He also said that he'd catch bin Laden "dead or alive". He also said that he'd make sure that "no child is left behind". He also said that he'd support Americorps. He also said that he'd improve the culture in Washington. He also said that he wouldn't do nation building. etc. etc. etc.
There is no mirroring operation that can simulate a rotation. You'd have to mirror it twice to achieve the same effect. You enter Granfalloon's (there's another odd reference for you) room from the right, but you enter Galamoth's room from the left. If the castle were mirrored vertically, you'd enter both from the right.
For what it's worth, I think it's quite obvious that the change is supposed to clarify that the "Big Brother" we're talking about is not our "Big Brother" but another "Big Brother".
Your closing quip indicates that you're not willing to have a serious discussion, so I'll be brief.
I maintain that a Ponzi scheme is defined by paying unsustainably high returns to investors. Read more here. I claim that Social Security isn't precisely like that. It's a social service paid for with tax dollars. Calling it a Ponzi scheme is at best a metaphor. I'm not going to defend Social Security, although you've tried very hard to bait me with a simplistic straw man. Have a nice day.
Convince me that the earth isn't flat without resorting to scientific consensus. Oh, and I can't be bothered to perform experiments or travel outside my house. Naturally, I won't trust any research papers or recorded data you provide me with. Until you manage to convince me, I'll maintain my "normal scientific skepticism" about your round earth theory.
The point, of course, is that the only valid way to break with scientific consensus is to disprove it. It is not "normal scientific skepticism" to dismiss scientific findings on the basis of politics, prejudice, or convenience. I disagree with Crichton's claim that great scientists are defined by their disagreement with consensus. To the contrary, they're defined by having their theories firmly established by consensus among scientists. To ignore the consensus is to ignore science.
Social Security and debt are not Ponzi schemes because they are not technically unsustainable. The real Ponzi scheme in the government is the "starve-the-beast" technique, which intentionally steers the government toward fiscal disaster in order to free it of its financial obligations.
The postal service is part of the federal government, but law enforcement is not allowed to view your mail without a warrant. I don't know of any court cases, but it's generally accepted (outside the White House) that the protections provided by the fourth amendment extend even to data managed by the government.
Open oyur eyes and you'll realize that this war is very real and it's a grave threat to all people who want to live their lives in peace.
Oh yeah, I'll all for beating Terror. We just need to spy on Americans a little more and - poof! - no more Terror! Clearly we should place blind faith in politicians and bureaucrats to do the right thing for ordinary Americans.
Enough sarcasm; I'll spell it out for you. The "War on Terror" is a sham because it is not actually a war and it is not actually against terror. You believe too much of what politicians say, and have probably been watching too much television. Wake up and realize that no matter how many Americans you spy on you're not going to make terror disappear. You might make your government gigantic and you might instill a fear of authority in people, but you will not win your "war".
Does the government constitutionally need a warrant to search its own property (financial aid info)?
Yes. The constitution offers no exceptions in cases where law enforcement wants to search records from an institution that happens to be part of the same government.
Slashdot Mirror
It's "Gaim"
A soldier should never be without a sense of humility. Do not make the mistake of overestimating your own importance. The truth is that you depend on the "sheep" more than they depend on you. I know it's not a pleasant thought, but you ought to get acquainted with it.
Banning games of tag is, of course, pointless. I doubt it will have any effect on the kids once they grow up.
"New age" doesn't mean what you think it means. The wikipedia article is a fine place to begin.
There's a wrinkle in that logic. The ultimate hallmark of big government is a big military to exert the government's power. Clearly, a sniveling incompetent does not make a good soldier. So a giant government would be better served by fostering some combination of bloodlust and blind loyalty among its citizens.
Okay, I don't get it. I'm pretty sure you're trying to bash liberals, or maybe intellectuals in general. But what do the names "Kennedy" and "Kerry" have to do with tag? Am I looking too hard for something clever here?
Then we'd veto. Besides, if fundamentalist christians in the US have been unable to censor the internet (despite having allies at the highest levels of the government) then I don't think it's going to happen in the UN.
This argument is mealymouthed and ridiculous. It is generally understood that free speech is an essential liberty. Your examples are absurd as well. No matter what you choose to do, there will always be things you didn't choose to do. Therefore you've sacrificed essential liberty? Give me a break.
In other words, everything good that happens is directly linked to Bush and everything bad that happens has nothing to do with him.
No, I'm not talking about bumper stickers that say that Bush should be decapitated or any other potential incitement of tyrannicide. As I tried to make clear, I'm talking about people who do not support the president. And yes, there are many more of them than the Secret Service could possibly investigate. I, for example, do not support the president. Yet I have not been interrogated. Giving Bush a thumbs-down is not the same thing as saying that he should die a fiery death for his crimes.
You need to realize that security is not a trump card that sanctions any and all harassment. There are limits to what constitutes a potential threat and a thumbs-down is nowhere close, even by Secret Service standards.
They're cheating now? Why can't they just play fair like the rest of us?
But there are many, many people who support the Bill of Rights and don't support the president. Are you saying that the Secret Service is going to investigate all of them? I think it's much more likely that they saw an opportunity to terrorize a helpless kid for his political views. And I would bet that the Secret Service would not even have been called had this happened during Clinton's presidency.
Of course we're not living in a science fiction novel. We all know that 1984 is fiction - exaggerated to make a point. But that point is more relevant today than ever, and Orwell was remarkably prescient in this regard.
Regarding the use of the word "tyranny", the dictionary tells us that a tyrant is someone who is (a) a ruler and (b) unjust. I see nothing in the definiton that makes "tyranny" a superlative. I see no reason why an unjust ruler should not be called a tyrant. Political correctness is the only reason why you might shy away from powerful words - and Orwell has a response to that as well.
He also said that he'd catch bin Laden "dead or alive". He also said that he'd make sure that "no child is left behind". He also said that he'd support Americorps. He also said that he'd improve the culture in Washington. He also said that he wouldn't do nation building. etc. etc. etc.
The fact that this post and its parent were modded up pretty much invalidates the point, doesn't it?
There is no mirroring operation that can simulate a rotation. You'd have to mirror it twice to achieve the same effect. You enter Granfalloon's (there's another odd reference for you) room from the right, but you enter Galamoth's room from the left. If the castle were mirrored vertically, you'd enter both from the right.
If there is a considerable number of intelligent people in this country as was suggested, then they would easily be able to dominate politics.
If they're so bright then why don't they vote?
For what it's worth, I think it's quite obvious that the change is supposed to clarify that the "Big Brother" we're talking about is not our "Big Brother" but another "Big Brother".
Your closing quip indicates that you're not willing to have a serious discussion, so I'll be brief.
I maintain that a Ponzi scheme is defined by paying unsustainably high returns to investors. Read more here. I claim that Social Security isn't precisely like that. It's a social service paid for with tax dollars. Calling it a Ponzi scheme is at best a metaphor. I'm not going to defend Social Security, although you've tried very hard to bait me with a simplistic straw man. Have a nice day.
Convince me that the earth isn't flat without resorting to scientific consensus. Oh, and I can't be bothered to perform experiments or travel outside my house. Naturally, I won't trust any research papers or recorded data you provide me with. Until you manage to convince me, I'll maintain my "normal scientific skepticism" about your round earth theory.
The point, of course, is that the only valid way to break with scientific consensus is to disprove it. It is not "normal scientific skepticism" to dismiss scientific findings on the basis of politics, prejudice, or convenience. I disagree with Crichton's claim that great scientists are defined by their disagreement with consensus. To the contrary, they're defined by having their theories firmly established by consensus among scientists. To ignore the consensus is to ignore science.
Social Security and debt are not Ponzi schemes because they are not technically unsustainable. The real Ponzi scheme in the government is the "starve-the-beast" technique, which intentionally steers the government toward fiscal disaster in order to free it of its financial obligations.
Oh, they'll secure as many votes as you can pay for.
The postal service is part of the federal government, but law enforcement is not allowed to view your mail without a warrant. I don't know of any court cases, but it's generally accepted (outside the White House) that the protections provided by the fourth amendment extend even to data managed by the government.
Oh yeah, I'll all for beating Terror. We just need to spy on Americans a little more and - poof! - no more Terror! Clearly we should place blind faith in politicians and bureaucrats to do the right thing for ordinary Americans.
Enough sarcasm; I'll spell it out for you. The "War on Terror" is a sham because it is not actually a war and it is not actually against terror. You believe too much of what politicians say, and have probably been watching too much television. Wake up and realize that no matter how many Americans you spy on you're not going to make terror disappear. You might make your government gigantic and you might instill a fear of authority in people, but you will not win your "war".
Yes. The constitution offers no exceptions in cases where law enforcement wants to search records from an institution that happens to be part of the same government.