There's no guarantee that you won't have a sulfur vein in your 2 inch steel armor that causes it to crack under small arms fire and let a 9mm round through to kill you.
Nothing is physically impossible. All of the atoms in your heart could spontaneously bore out of your chest by quantum probability.
Good argument. You know my argument is qualitative, but whatever. I'm not an expert on NAMBLA, it's just the only political group I know that's advocating child sexuality in society.
But you've hit it almost straight on. It's all about our beliefs about what's right and wrong, and in this case in what's sexually appropriate for society--what would we expose society to, how disruptive would it be, what are the social and legal and financial (tax) implications? These are in flux, and we're attacking someone for resisting the change; Brendan has not openly attacked homosexuals, he has not taken disciplinary action against anyone in the company, he has worked as the ideal we want to live up to and we are attacking him because he doesn't want this to be called "Marriage" in law. We're attacking a man for trying to do what he believes is right for society, for all people around him, because we have a difference in opinion over that.
If NAMBLA gained political traction, we would have this same argument. A lot of people want to argue "that won't happen," like 100 years ago we could argue about homosexuals. Puritanical values dictate that sex outside of wedlock is bad, that exposed genitals are bad, hell skirts have changed over time because exposed women's legs was a burlesque thing (exposure up to no further than mid-thigh was once considered to count as "striptease"). At a time, these values dictated that we must burn witches, heathens, even homosexuals.
We think pederasty is harmful because we think sex is harmful. Really, for the same reason we think gays are harmful: sex is dirty, sinful, and amoral outside of the closed comfort of the isolate bedroom of a married couple; society should be chaste. These beliefs are sliding away; we are even at a point where parents put their children on birth control as young as 13, where we fight actively for sexual education because we believe middle school kids should know how to use a condom, we've even made exceptions to laws to effectively allow 14 year olds to trade boob and dick pics because that's a thing. How long before we start re-evaluating whether or not a sexual relationship with a 6th grader is a bad thing? 100 years? 200? Or never? Never is a possibility; so is 100 years.
It's a matter of time. Eich is on the side of old beliefs, on the ideal society where children are shielded and naive and where homosexuality isn't a thing in media or on the streets. We're getting into new society, where homosexuality is a public topic, appropriate for children--we even want to teach about it in sex ed--and perfectly acceptable social behavior. NAMBLA is where you would have been 100 years ago: a disgusting, sinful radical group arguing for the destruction of human values in society. Perhaps in 100 years, a person of your opinions will be standing up against NAMBLA as Eich has stood up for Proposition 8, in the same situation, and be publicly ridiculed for some kind of bigotry and socially destructive policy where we put 20 year old college kids in jail for getting a handjob from a 14 year old.
It's a what-if, but it's not an unrealistic one; it's almost directly analogous, with a probability of happening or of not happening. No guarantee either way.
Also everyone I know who has been "molested" has related the experience to me in a positive light--girls who gave their first BJ at 13 or dudes who screwed around with their babysitter when they were 9. I also know people who were "raped"--you know, by force, while protesting, under duress--and they are not happy about the experience. Most are not as damaged as society wants us to believe, but it's not a great thing; several have even said that the biggest hurdle was getting over how much everyone *thinks* they should be harmed by rape, since they can't start recovering until they have an understanding of how much they really *are* harmed by rape.
I'm not saying these are scientific; they're anecdotal, and of course a study is a large and de-biased collection of anecdote, which this is not. But my experiences have not lined up with everyone else's assertions, and so I call things into question rather than simply accepting that a stated position is factually accurate. This is why, for example, I consider the question of the role of child sexual laws in society in the future to be an unknown, and thus a good example here: I don't believe conclusively that child sexualization is unharmful, but there is evidence that it is unharmful. Hell, there's evidence that child stardom is harmful--Justin Bieber being the shining example, Michael Jackson being the forgotten. In the future, we may change our societal view of these things as our puritanical values start to wane, just like we have with gay marriage.
I understand that differing opinions on what is good and bad in society is not "bigotry"; bigotry is differing opinions on who is good and bad. State recognition of gay marriage as an institution--even social recognition of such a thing--is not a matter of rights, but of society: it's a matter of what we call a behavior and how we accommodate it, not on how we teat a person based on that behavior. Employment, criminalization, verbal personal attacks, and violence are the realm of bigotry.
Mixing races is harmful to society. This has been covered by Larry Niven, along with the dangers of transportation in general: instantaneous transportation to any point on the earth results in every city looking like every other city, with the same shops selling the same fads to people who all dress the same. There are no asians, no blacks, no arabs; there is only a single race resulting in generations of genetic mixing into a homogenous grey goo, removing all variety and diversity from the human species.
Be glad you live in a world with beautiful asian women, oil-dark Jamaicans, and the occasional gorgeous mexican girl. These are finite resources and will eventually burn away like so much coal and oil.
NAMBLA holds the view that sexual activity with children is not harmful, at least in certain contexts (i.e. we can come up with abusive contexts where we harm adults during consensual sex due to emotional pressure, power dynamics, etc.).
The only difference between this and gay marriage, besides the obvious basic definition of each thing, is that gay marriage is seen as... not harmful to society, from the perspective of a sizable (not necessarily majority) and loud subset of people. In other words: NAMBLA is like gays living in the 1800s. The whole world knows that their personal activities harm those involved and the community as a whole, just like we knew this about homosexuals 100 years ago.
Today, some people still feel this would damage society. It has tax implications. It has implications where we have to explain this shit to children--which many consider harmful to children. And we have male/female rest rooms instead of cosexual rest rooms for some reason; accepting homosexuality in society is partially equivalent to accepting cosexual rest rooms in public middle schools, as some 9th graders feel they're gay (your sexual preferences can float around a bit up around 20, 25, 35,... pretty much forever, so some people flip from one side to the other in college or so).
We're living in the hypothetical NAMBLA situation.
This scheme is a mathematical scheme which requires a certain threshold of information to discover if any information is valid. It's like trying to discover the Y intercept of a polynomial of Nth degree, being able to verify that the value is correct or not: you cannot do it unless you have N points.
It's not a matter of guessing a password, but rather simultaneously guessing N passwords correctly. Not incrementally guessing N passwords, doing some tests, finding that some are 1% certain to be correct and some are 0.0001% certain to be correct, keeping the 1% ones, and then as they increase certainty to 50%, 90%, etc. eventually building a system. Every combination of N passwords has exactly two binary states: 100% certainly all are correct, 0% certainty ANY are correct.
Assuming strong constraints such as 20 character passwords, all lower case and underscore, we can deduce that the only physically possible way to crack any password in the system is sheer luck at a probability such that it should happen, on average, 10^100 times the amount of time it would take to reach the end of time. You can't just say, "oh we'll just set a process in place and, even if it takes a really long time to the point that it doesn't actually help, it WILL break it eventually." It won't. Time will end eventually.
You're separating what is considered one right into what is considered two. You're breaking down an understood social structure into components, then reassembling it differently. These are both logical fallacies. I could use the same logic to try to claim that NAMBLA is being denied the right to fuck people i.e. 20 years younger than them, which isn't denied to 38 year olds (is age discrimination still a form of bigotry?), and you will try to complain that it's semantics.
Of course you can call fallacy of fallacies on this one: that the conclusion isn't wrong because the argument is stupid. But you know. The argument is still wrong.
Still, you are missing the point. Some people, 100 years ago, were burned at the stake for being gay. We put people in jail for being gay. Now we've decided this isn't wrong. We still, however, hold the same view about people banging 15 year olds; perhaps in the future we'll change our minds on that, too. It is not logically or semantically flawed to conjecture that, in such an event, there will be people who are attacked for being on either side of the issue, first one side and then the other. That's what is happening here.
Essentially, I've changed the argument from "rights" to "right time".
I cried when I started reading Ender's Game. It didn't open bad story-wise; it opened as if I was reading a story some third-grade child wrote.
You've decided as a society that people below a certain age can't give consent, and that these things require consent for... some odd reason. You haven't decided that forcing religion on a child is harmful and damaging--but look at Brendan Eich. I question this.
You can see how I could question how, at a time, we decided that gays were harmful to society--or at least tolerance of gays was harmful--and now we are attacking someone for not inverting that view; and then we claim, now, that exposure to sexuality is harmful to children. Perhaps NAMBLA are the progressives, and in 100 years we will realize Greco-Phonecian society was right and sex is a healthy human activity and is healthy for the involvement of children of an age, as it is a simple form of play.
Thus far you have given me two views which both bank on a lot of assumptions. Assumptions are important, but nobody has ever told me why the converse for some of this is wrong. I'm sure 100 years ago people were complaining that they don't see why homosexuality is wrong--we called them gays and heathens, and burned them to death.
I am saying that "false" and "a distortion of facts" are similar concepts. You can distort facts without lying; it's called deception. If you can't spin that into a defamation charge, you can still get harassment.
And how much homophobic policy has Eich implemented? How much has he combated equal worker's rights at Mozilla Inc. during his long tenor? OKCupid told us he is a bad man and does all these things to harm other people. Show me the harm, show me the malicious acts against his subordinates.
I've been told the bible prescribes casting a man who damages the innocence of a child into the eternal fires of hell or some such. I've never read it; the book is poorly written, almost as bad as Ender's Game.
The only evidence that Brendan Eich "is" (Clinton) an opponent of equal rights for gays is an event several years ago where he donated money to a political group. That statement stretches what is "true".
Further, the campaign directly generated a strong sentiment against Eich. It was a personal attack to brand him in a certain light--a manufactured image using arranged truths. For example: Brendan Eich has not stopped beating his wife. That's a true statement if he never beat his wife; it's a stretch to compare this statement as either wholly similar OR wholly dissimilar to the statement made, but it would lean toward dissimilar since Eich has a history of political donations.
Wait, how does it do children harm? This has never been clear to me. We use this excuse to lock up 30 year old cougars for showing 16 year old boys their tits: seeing tits does irreparable psychological damage to 16 year old boys.
They actually created a reputation, as evidenced by the fact that there was no public backlash before OKCupid started. A lawyer may be able to push around the defamation "must be false" general requirement by showing that the nature of the campaign was to create a false narrative from true facts: a lot of the comments here are branding Eich as a "homophobic bigot" and talking about how he is "actively trying to bring harm to others".
He can almost definitely get them for harassment. It will take a good legal argument, but it can be done. They targeted Eich as a person in a public campaign over a long-dead issue with no frame of reference to his current behavior or any historical behavior outside of a $1000 donation.
Or in the other direction: what if Eich donated to NAMBLA? They're fighting to expand the rights of people who are being denied the opportunity to pursue the things that make them happy.
these people want to make another group of people second class because of the way they interpret a bible verse
So Eich should have instead donated to NAMBLA, who spend a large amount of their time and effort fighting for rights of people who are made second-class because of the way other people interpret a bible verse.
What if he had donated funds to NAMBLA? You know, the group who fights for the rights of a certain minority group to have sex with 8 year old boys. It's wrong to impose your religious views on others with legislation, especially legislation that puts people in jail.
Slashdot Mirror
There's no guarantee that you won't have a sulfur vein in your 2 inch steel armor that causes it to crack under small arms fire and let a 9mm round through to kill you.
Nothing is physically impossible. All of the atoms in your heart could spontaneously bore out of your chest by quantum probability.
Good argument. You know my argument is qualitative, but whatever. I'm not an expert on NAMBLA, it's just the only political group I know that's advocating child sexuality in society.
But you've hit it almost straight on. It's all about our beliefs about what's right and wrong, and in this case in what's sexually appropriate for society--what would we expose society to, how disruptive would it be, what are the social and legal and financial (tax) implications? These are in flux, and we're attacking someone for resisting the change; Brendan has not openly attacked homosexuals, he has not taken disciplinary action against anyone in the company, he has worked as the ideal we want to live up to and we are attacking him because he doesn't want this to be called "Marriage" in law. We're attacking a man for trying to do what he believes is right for society, for all people around him, because we have a difference in opinion over that.
If NAMBLA gained political traction, we would have this same argument. A lot of people want to argue "that won't happen," like 100 years ago we could argue about homosexuals. Puritanical values dictate that sex outside of wedlock is bad, that exposed genitals are bad, hell skirts have changed over time because exposed women's legs was a burlesque thing (exposure up to no further than mid-thigh was once considered to count as "striptease"). At a time, these values dictated that we must burn witches, heathens, even homosexuals.
We think pederasty is harmful because we think sex is harmful. Really, for the same reason we think gays are harmful: sex is dirty, sinful, and amoral outside of the closed comfort of the isolate bedroom of a married couple; society should be chaste. These beliefs are sliding away; we are even at a point where parents put their children on birth control as young as 13, where we fight actively for sexual education because we believe middle school kids should know how to use a condom, we've even made exceptions to laws to effectively allow 14 year olds to trade boob and dick pics because that's a thing. How long before we start re-evaluating whether or not a sexual relationship with a 6th grader is a bad thing? 100 years? 200? Or never? Never is a possibility; so is 100 years.
It's a matter of time. Eich is on the side of old beliefs, on the ideal society where children are shielded and naive and where homosexuality isn't a thing in media or on the streets. We're getting into new society, where homosexuality is a public topic, appropriate for children--we even want to teach about it in sex ed--and perfectly acceptable social behavior. NAMBLA is where you would have been 100 years ago: a disgusting, sinful radical group arguing for the destruction of human values in society. Perhaps in 100 years, a person of your opinions will be standing up against NAMBLA as Eich has stood up for Proposition 8, in the same situation, and be publicly ridiculed for some kind of bigotry and socially destructive policy where we put 20 year old college kids in jail for getting a handjob from a 14 year old.
It's a what-if, but it's not an unrealistic one; it's almost directly analogous, with a probability of happening or of not happening. No guarantee either way.
Also everyone I know who has been "molested" has related the experience to me in a positive light--girls who gave their first BJ at 13 or dudes who screwed around with their babysitter when they were 9. I also know people who were "raped"--you know, by force, while protesting, under duress--and they are not happy about the experience. Most are not as damaged as society wants us to believe, but it's not a great thing; several have even said that the biggest hurdle was getting over how much everyone *thinks* they should be harmed by rape, since they can't start recovering until they have an understanding of how much they really *are* harmed by rape.
I'm not saying these are scientific; they're anecdotal, and of course a study is a large and de-biased collection of anecdote, which this is not. But my experiences have not lined up with everyone else's assertions, and so I call things into question rather than simply accepting that a stated position is factually accurate. This is why, for example, I consider the question of the role of child sexual laws in society in the future to be an unknown, and thus a good example here: I don't believe conclusively that child sexualization is unharmful, but there is evidence that it is unharmful. Hell, there's evidence that child stardom is harmful--Justin Bieber being the shining example, Michael Jackson being the forgotten. In the future, we may change our societal view of these things as our puritanical values start to wane, just like we have with gay marriage.
I understand that differing opinions on what is good and bad in society is not "bigotry"; bigotry is differing opinions on who is good and bad. State recognition of gay marriage as an institution--even social recognition of such a thing--is not a matter of rights, but of society: it's a matter of what we call a behavior and how we accommodate it, not on how we teat a person based on that behavior. Employment, criminalization, verbal personal attacks, and violence are the realm of bigotry.
Mixing races is harmful to society. This has been covered by Larry Niven, along with the dangers of transportation in general: instantaneous transportation to any point on the earth results in every city looking like every other city, with the same shops selling the same fads to people who all dress the same. There are no asians, no blacks, no arabs; there is only a single race resulting in generations of genetic mixing into a homogenous grey goo, removing all variety and diversity from the human species.
Be glad you live in a world with beautiful asian women, oil-dark Jamaicans, and the occasional gorgeous mexican girl. These are finite resources and will eventually burn away like so much coal and oil.
You're not reading this right. The solution is to get up later, when the sun is up, so that you are immediately exposed to sunlight early in the day.
You wouldn't want your clock to be inaccurate. I mean what if you went into stasis for 18 months and came out 300 million years later?
NAMBLA holds the view that sexual activity with children is not harmful, at least in certain contexts (i.e. we can come up with abusive contexts where we harm adults during consensual sex due to emotional pressure, power dynamics, etc.).
The only difference between this and gay marriage, besides the obvious basic definition of each thing, is that gay marriage is seen as ... not harmful to society, from the perspective of a sizable (not necessarily majority) and loud subset of people. In other words: NAMBLA is like gays living in the 1800s. The whole world knows that their personal activities harm those involved and the community as a whole, just like we knew this about homosexuals 100 years ago.
Today, some people still feel this would damage society. It has tax implications. It has implications where we have to explain this shit to children--which many consider harmful to children. And we have male/female rest rooms instead of cosexual rest rooms for some reason; accepting homosexuality in society is partially equivalent to accepting cosexual rest rooms in public middle schools, as some 9th graders feel they're gay (your sexual preferences can float around a bit up around 20, 25, 35, ... pretty much forever, so some people flip from one side to the other in college or so).
We're living in the hypothetical NAMBLA situation.
This scheme is a mathematical scheme which requires a certain threshold of information to discover if any information is valid. It's like trying to discover the Y intercept of a polynomial of Nth degree, being able to verify that the value is correct or not: you cannot do it unless you have N points.
It's not a matter of guessing a password, but rather simultaneously guessing N passwords correctly. Not incrementally guessing N passwords, doing some tests, finding that some are 1% certain to be correct and some are 0.0001% certain to be correct, keeping the 1% ones, and then as they increase certainty to 50%, 90%, etc. eventually building a system. Every combination of N passwords has exactly two binary states: 100% certainly all are correct, 0% certainty ANY are correct.
Assuming strong constraints such as 20 character passwords, all lower case and underscore, we can deduce that the only physically possible way to crack any password in the system is sheer luck at a probability such that it should happen, on average, 10^100 times the amount of time it would take to reach the end of time. You can't just say, "oh we'll just set a process in place and, even if it takes a really long time to the point that it doesn't actually help, it WILL break it eventually." It won't. Time will end eventually.
You're separating what is considered one right into what is considered two. You're breaking down an understood social structure into components, then reassembling it differently. These are both logical fallacies. I could use the same logic to try to claim that NAMBLA is being denied the right to fuck people i.e. 20 years younger than them, which isn't denied to 38 year olds (is age discrimination still a form of bigotry?), and you will try to complain that it's semantics.
Of course you can call fallacy of fallacies on this one: that the conclusion isn't wrong because the argument is stupid. But you know. The argument is still wrong.
Still, you are missing the point. Some people, 100 years ago, were burned at the stake for being gay. We put people in jail for being gay. Now we've decided this isn't wrong. We still, however, hold the same view about people banging 15 year olds; perhaps in the future we'll change our minds on that, too. It is not logically or semantically flawed to conjecture that, in such an event, there will be people who are attacked for being on either side of the issue, first one side and then the other. That's what is happening here.
Essentially, I've changed the argument from "rights" to "right time".
I cried when I started reading Ender's Game. It didn't open bad story-wise; it opened as if I was reading a story some third-grade child wrote.
You've decided as a society that people below a certain age can't give consent, and that these things require consent for... some odd reason. You haven't decided that forcing religion on a child is harmful and damaging--but look at Brendan Eich. I question this.
You can see how I could question how, at a time, we decided that gays were harmful to society--or at least tolerance of gays was harmful--and now we are attacking someone for not inverting that view; and then we claim, now, that exposure to sexuality is harmful to children. Perhaps NAMBLA are the progressives, and in 100 years we will realize Greco-Phonecian society was right and sex is a healthy human activity and is healthy for the involvement of children of an age, as it is a simple form of play.
Thus far you have given me two views which both bank on a lot of assumptions. Assumptions are important, but nobody has ever told me why the converse for some of this is wrong. I'm sure 100 years ago people were complaining that they don't see why homosexuality is wrong--we called them gays and heathens, and burned them to death.
I am saying that "false" and "a distortion of facts" are similar concepts. You can distort facts without lying; it's called deception. If you can't spin that into a defamation charge, you can still get harassment.
He participated in the political process.
Dude, just fucking man up.
And how much homophobic policy has Eich implemented? How much has he combated equal worker's rights at Mozilla Inc. during his long tenor? OKCupid told us he is a bad man and does all these things to harm other people. Show me the harm, show me the malicious acts against his subordinates.
Gays are fighting for the right to marry people of the same gender as they, which is a right denied to all.
I've been told the bible prescribes casting a man who damages the innocence of a child into the eternal fires of hell or some such. I've never read it; the book is poorly written, almost as bad as Ender's Game.
I don't carry out the math at the end. I just cite the number of accounts you need to select at random.
The only evidence that Brendan Eich "is" (Clinton) an opponent of equal rights for gays is an event several years ago where he donated money to a political group. That statement stretches what is "true".
Further, the campaign directly generated a strong sentiment against Eich. It was a personal attack to brand him in a certain light--a manufactured image using arranged truths. For example: Brendan Eich has not stopped beating his wife. That's a true statement if he never beat his wife; it's a stretch to compare this statement as either wholly similar OR wholly dissimilar to the statement made, but it would lean toward dissimilar since Eich has a history of political donations.
We are encouraged to believe Eich is Fred Phelps.
Wait, how does it do children harm? This has never been clear to me. We use this excuse to lock up 30 year old cougars for showing 16 year old boys their tits: seeing tits does irreparable psychological damage to 16 year old boys.
They actually created a reputation, as evidenced by the fact that there was no public backlash before OKCupid started. A lawyer may be able to push around the defamation "must be false" general requirement by showing that the nature of the campaign was to create a false narrative from true facts: a lot of the comments here are branding Eich as a "homophobic bigot" and talking about how he is "actively trying to bring harm to others".
He can almost definitely get them for harassment. It will take a good legal argument, but it can be done. They targeted Eich as a person in a public campaign over a long-dead issue with no frame of reference to his current behavior or any historical behavior outside of a $1000 donation.
So one group of peoples' sexuality is wrong but another group is right? This sounds like the persecution of Alan Turing...
Or in the other direction: what if Eich donated to NAMBLA? They're fighting to expand the rights of people who are being denied the opportunity to pursue the things that make them happy.
these people want to make another group of people second class because of the way they interpret a bible verse
So Eich should have instead donated to NAMBLA, who spend a large amount of their time and effort fighting for rights of people who are made second-class because of the way other people interpret a bible verse.
What if he had donated funds to NAMBLA? You know, the group who fights for the rights of a certain minority group to have sex with 8 year old boys. It's wrong to impose your religious views on others with legislation, especially legislation that puts people in jail.