To add my voice to the mix: I was an editor for an academic journal for two years. It's one space for proportionally-spaced fonts. We didn't deal in monospace, so I have no personal experience with that.
I also encourage you to read up on what the strawman fallacy is. You'll find it only occurs when you misrepresent your opponent's position. I did no such thing.
A strawman argument is not one that takes an extreme claim; it is only when it is a misrepresentation that it is this fallacy.
"I don't think any such religion has been made illegal" Check every penal code. You'll find most of them illegalize murder.:)
Satanist churches do not sacrifice humans. Read.:)
"Your strawman . .." It's not a strawman. You suggested that the Constitution is to be read literally. I merely provided evidence that such a literal reading would result in an absurdity.
Similarly, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Everyone is familiar with "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater." And libel laws. And slander laws. And invasion of privacy laws.
And if "speech" is broadened to include "any act that is intended to communicate an idea," then many serial killings would be speech.
But if "speech" is read strictly as "oral communication," then sign language is not protected under the First Amendment.
All I'm saying is that a simplistic, literal reading of the Constitution is ridiculous on its face.
Yeah, but the problem is that eventually you'll perform a rolling stop, not see anyone coming, roll on through the intersection, and cause an accident. No one gets in accidents on purpose! They happen because they are accidents. As such, you need to punish all rolling stops in hopes of stopping all rolling stops.
"How can a state-issued ticket be a civil matter" The trend in the US is to consider criminal matters only those that impose jail time, the death penalty, or substantial fines. As there is no guidance in the Constitution, and history is murky on the distinction between criminal and civil matters, you'd be hard pressed to be able to make an open-and-shut case either way. You're subject to the vicissitudes of scholarship here, methinks.
And there's the case where you get t-boned, which pushes you into the right-turn lane where Triple X parachutes down and throttles you with a coaxial cable.
Just like the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but I don't hear you complaining about how my religion mandating the murder of innocents has been illegalized. I mean, it's simple, unambiguous English.
"The camera violates anti-wiretapping laws" Do you also hang out on the Loose Change forums? Have you ever even read an anti-wiretapping law?
"My brakes were broken" In most places, running a red light is a strict liability offense (much like statutory rape). Doing the act is sufficient, even if you did not have the intent to do something bad (i.e., having sex with a 13-year old is illegal even if you thought she was 23). To use legal terminology, there is no "mens rea" requirement in strict liability offenses like traffic violations.
While in undergrad, my (now-doctor) wife rode in ambulances often. She said the ambulances she rode with had some sort of clicker device that turned cross traffic lights red and their light green upon approach.
I'm not going to download this behemoth, but how the heck is a list of URLs plus some source code 2.8GB in size? Did he use PKgargantusplode to shrink it?
I don't see how you can say "12 year olds carrying loaded guns and shooting themselves" will be in any way predicted by "12 year olds crawling around in dad's closet, finding the box, opening it, taking out the gun, loading it, and accidentally shooting themselves."
Well, technically you don't need the "D" in "USD" if you've already used the "$";) I prefer "USD 1.00" etc. when I'm actually dealing with the risk of international currency confusion.
You have a very fair point, and I agree with what you're saying. I think my brain was frazzled from reading one too many facially valid (yet philosophically shallow) arguments against taxation.
The average person has no desire to engage in honest debate, and I need to remember that the average Slashdotter is, despite our protests, an average person. (I include myself in this.)
Other property is mostly left to individuals to defend by force or insurance as thieves are a low law-enforcement priority.
To be honest, you have a pretty ridiculous definition of "weak."
If the only entity who can strip you of real property is the government, that's a very, very strong right to private property.
Without government, any stronger entity could strip you of your real property.
government attempts to strip assets on death through excessively priced old-age homes
I am literally aware of no government-owned retirement homes. You must not live in the US. And since this debate has obviously been over the US tax code and its reform to include a VAT, I judge your comments are irrelevant.
What did the government do to deserve 20% of what I buy?
Establish a criminal code that respects private property and punishes the taking of property that doesn't belong to you. Hell, establish a concept of "own" and "private property" in the first frigging place.
There is no argument the government has a reasonable connection between taxation and the purchase of private property (I just provided it). There is merely an argument over what the tax rate ought to be.
Slashdot Mirror
To add my voice to the mix: I was an editor for an academic journal for two years. It's one space for proportionally-spaced fonts. We didn't deal in monospace, so I have no personal experience with that.
Neither. You only need if (foo), not if (foo==true). This is CS 101 ;)
I also encourage you to read up on what the strawman fallacy is. You'll find it only occurs when you misrepresent your opponent's position. I did no such thing.
A strawman argument is not one that takes an extreme claim; it is only when it is a misrepresentation that it is this fallacy.
"I don't think any such religion has been made illegal" :)
Check every penal code. You'll find most of them illegalize murder.
Satanist churches do not sacrifice humans. Read. :)
"Your strawman . . ."
It's not a strawman. You suggested that the Constitution is to be read literally. I merely provided evidence that such a literal reading would result in an absurdity.
Similarly, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
Everyone is familiar with "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater." And libel laws. And slander laws. And invasion of privacy laws.
And if "speech" is broadened to include "any act that is intended to communicate an idea," then many serial killings would be speech.
But if "speech" is read strictly as "oral communication," then sign language is not protected under the First Amendment.
All I'm saying is that a simplistic, literal reading of the Constitution is ridiculous on its face.
Yeah, but the problem is that eventually you'll perform a rolling stop, not see anyone coming, roll on through the intersection, and cause an accident. No one gets in accidents on purpose! They happen because they are accidents. As such, you need to punish all rolling stops in hopes of stopping all rolling stops.
"How can a state-issued ticket be a civil matter"
The trend in the US is to consider criminal matters only those that impose jail time, the death penalty, or substantial fines. As there is no guidance in the Constitution, and history is murky on the distinction between criminal and civil matters, you'd be hard pressed to be able to make an open-and-shut case either way. You're subject to the vicissitudes of scholarship here, methinks.
And there's the case where you get t-boned, which pushes you into the right-turn lane where Triple X parachutes down and throttles you with a coaxial cable.
"If you actually stop and yield"
There's your fallacy. "Yield" does not require a stop.
Just like the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," but I don't hear you complaining about how my religion mandating the murder of innocents has been illegalized.
I mean, it's simple, unambiguous English.
"The camera violates anti-wiretapping laws"
Do you also hang out on the Loose Change forums? Have you ever even read an anti-wiretapping law?
"My brakes were broken"
In most places, running a red light is a strict liability offense (much like statutory rape). Doing the act is sufficient, even if you did not have the intent to do something bad (i.e., having sex with a 13-year old is illegal even if you thought she was 23). To use legal terminology, there is no "mens rea" requirement in strict liability offenses like traffic violations.
While in undergrad, my (now-doctor) wife rode in ambulances often. She said the ambulances she rode with had some sort of clicker device that turned cross traffic lights red and their light green upon approach.
I'm not going to download this behemoth, but how the heck is a list of URLs plus some source code 2.8GB in size? Did he use PKgargantusplode to shrink it?
Your post was worthless without source.
I don't see how you can say "12 year olds carrying loaded guns and shooting themselves" will be in any way predicted by "12 year olds crawling around in dad's closet, finding the box, opening it, taking out the gun, loading it, and accidentally shooting themselves."
Well, technically you don't need the "D" in "USD" if you've already used the "$" ;)
I prefer "USD 1.00" etc. when I'm actually dealing with the risk of international currency confusion.
Well, that turns out to be wrong. But don't let my post stop you from repeating this nonsense!
I mean, founded by an act of Congress, run by Presidential appointees confirmed by the Senate...
That's a more fair statement, but it's not possible to interpret what you said originally to be the same thing.
Yeah, but I was responding to someone who said you get "nothing" out of running a marathon.
There is a chasm between "marathons can hurt your knees" and "marathons provide absolutely no benefit, physically or emotionally, whatsoever."
In typical Slashdot fashion, anti-exercise trolls come out of the woodworks!
Well, with Linux you'd have to share it with everyone else, too.
*shudder*
They'd be...err...synchronized each month, I'd wager.
Guys, can we all just take a vote and agree that it's CowboyNeal's mother who gets androided first?
You have a very fair point, and I agree with what you're saying. I think my brain was frazzled from reading one too many facially valid (yet philosophically shallow) arguments against taxation.
The average person has no desire to engage in honest debate, and I need to remember that the average Slashdotter is, despite our protests, an average person. (I include myself in this.)
To be honest, you have a pretty ridiculous definition of "weak."
If the only entity who can strip you of real property is the government, that's a very, very strong right to private property.
Without government, any stronger entity could strip you of your real property.
I am literally aware of no government-owned retirement homes. You must not live in the US. And since this debate has obviously been over the US tax code and its reform to include a VAT, I judge your comments are irrelevant.
Establish a criminal code that respects private property and punishes the taking of property that doesn't belong to you. Hell, establish a concept of "own" and "private property" in the first frigging place.
There is no argument the government has a reasonable connection between taxation and the purchase of private property (I just provided it). There is merely an argument over what the tax rate ought to be.