You've probably hear alot but never been directly affected by terrorist attacts either. Doesn't mean that the risk isn't real and that society shouldn't prepare for it just incase.
And perhaps your country hasn't gone on a decade-long rampage of killing people and destroying civil liberties in response to terrorism. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be wary people who may be overreacting to significant, but rare, problems.
Childish taunting? Projection? I'm disappointed. I expect more from the trolls I play with, but at least it kept you from bothering other people.
At least I got a laugh when you were complaining about how da evul menz were the source of all your problems. Boo-hoo, life is hard, and it's all the fault of penis!:(
I always find it funny how willing certain people are to get offended at the introduction of a different perspective, and how adept they seem to be at turning the blame back around on the person for adding that perspective.
Yes, you've managed to do that quite well.
I can see you're enjoying your male privilege. And yes, I pointed out privilege because you seem the type to resent being reminded of it. Happy Fourth, buddy.
Excellent defense mechanism - anyone who points out your bad behavior is part of "the patriarchy", so you never have to take responsibility for your own actions. Sure it's maladaptive, you'll keep making the same mistakes over and over, but it must be such a relief to never have to accept any of the blame for anything.
As for male privilege, is that something I get for posting to Slashdot? Did they have a "sign up now, get a cock and a draft card free!" deal? If you were only dismissing my thoughts because you thought I was male, then your problem really is your own sexism.
They can both be perceived as personal attacks, I'll grant you that. But that common reaction of defensiveness...
So you did something that you admit could be perceived as a personal attack, but the rest of us are to blame for seeing it as a personal attack. Odd.
you can't declare that a conversation is emotionally-neutral simply because you don't recognize having emotions relating to it.
You're allowed to feel anything you like, but it was emotionally neutral for everyone participating until you came along. Then you chose to make things personal - something that can't possibly be emotionally neutral.
I have no idea why you would want to attack me. Perhaps if you're interested in becoming a kinder and more enlightened human being (something all of us can strive for) you could reflect on that for a bit.
If you want to know why I attacked you, figure out why your second sentence is deeply insulting, and looks calculated to provoke aggression.
I'm not going to bother continuing to try to explain...
That's fine, we can agree to disagree.
Do you not understand the difference between "this is what you're doing" and "this is what you are"?
I understand the difference, but they can both be personal attacks. On the other hand, if that's what does it for you I'll take back my narcissism comment - I'll instead point out that your post took a fairly emotionally-neutral conversation about facts and their interpretation and turned it into a rant about assumed attitudes, imagined motivations, and implied character defects.
Two wrongs make a right in your world? "You started it"?
No to the first, yes to the second. Responding in kind isn't always a good idea, but it is sometimes necessary.
However, in reality, "rights" stem from social consensus...
That's not reality, that's one particular theory about what rights are, and that is explicitly not the theory of rights (officially) used by the US government.
Any right that the government does not actively defend is moot.
You're mixing up moral and legal theory. Even if it was legal to kill someone, it could still be immoral. Likewise, just because the government could kill you doesn't mean that you don't have a moral right to life.
If you wish for "small government" you also wish for weak protection of your rights.
You're confusing two different kinds of "weak" - few people want an ineffective government, however many want one that's strong, but only within clear, specific limits.
distinction between "state government" and "federal government"... is just an arbitrary separation of duties which is not particularly good or appropriate.
Every government has arbitrary details, from jurisdictional borders to the number of members in various bodies. And since every large government has some kind of geographic subdivision, why are states inappropriate?
In what English dialect is "Well perhaps" not a precursor to a suggestion??
It was a suggestion. However, it was not a suggestion that the statement itself was wrong (as you're implying), but merely a warning against assuming things that this single fact can't support on its own. Nothing in the post suggested that the previous commenter was incorrect.
And I've already explained that I made no personal attacks.
In what English dialect is "...you're letting your assumptions and biases cloud your openness to new facts." not a personal attack?
Nice to meet you, pot. Name's kettle.
Howdy! I freely admit that I've been aggressive and somewhat rude in this encounter, but would defend myself by pointing out that I was mirroring the other person's style [see above] in order to illustrate to them how they were being perceived by other parties.
He affirmatively suggested that the other commenter was incorrect.
This is simply false. The entire post consists of a quoted factoid and a sentence starting with "Well perhaps...".
...the difference between making affirmative arguments and pointing out poor ones.
That distinction is irrelevant to anything I wrote. I only pointed out that even if they had been wrong that wouldn't justify your personal attack on them.
I'll rephrase the ending of my previous post: It could be that your problems with other people don't arise from your gender or sexism, but simply because you come across as a jerk.
So someone points out an obvious possibility of selection bias in a factoid that makes one sex appear to be better at something, in doing so implying that men and women might actually be equally good at it. And your response to this is to accuse them of sexism?
It's "as though a part of your brain was uncomfortable with" people pointing out that women might not actually be better than men at something. But don't worry, a sudden fit of blind, irrational anger toward something that you didn't even bother to read properly is very human of you. Anyway, the next time you use anti-sexism as a cover for being a hate-filled narcissist, you might want to attack someone who actually expressed a sexist idea. Just a friendly suggestion.:)
it is pretty hard to construct a remotely plausible scenario in which the weaker female initiated unprovoked violence against a stronger male and he ends up with her stuff
If you're going to assume that he's stronger, aren't most scenarios likely to end up with him being able to get/keep her stuff? Like:
She invites him back to her room, they get in a fight that culminates in her clocking him, and he grabs the wrong bag on the way out?
They have a fling for a few days, fight, and there was still some of her stuff left in his room?
She hit him for some unknown reason, and as retaliation he could (as you said) "grab some of her stuff on the way out in a childish fit of pique to get back at her"?
And why would she then accuse him of rape?
It got you to take her side, didn't it? Theft wasn't even enough to get the cops interested at all? Out of 7 billion people a few have to be crazy?
Too bad we're probably never going to find out what really happened.
My original issue (admittedly unclear) was mostly around this statement:
Now they get an award for fucking or food economy and risking environmental/ecological problems? This bullshit is tiring.
You seem to be saying that the company shouldn't get recognition for basic research because our patent regime is messed up and we need more safety testing. To me that sounds like a pharmaceutical company shouldn't get an award for a breakthrough in cancer research because their antidepressant is overprescribed.
The best info I've found says 1/5 of women will not end up having children, I think your 1/3 includes women who don't have children yet but will later.
Dude, if it's been a "life long dream" of hers surely you knew this when u married her. . So don't try to claim its "unfair"...
Dude, he doesn't have a problem with her staying home, he has a problem with the idea that if she leaves, the situation would change in a way he dislikes without having a say in how it changes.
Yeah, that did come off as harsher than I meant it to, but you seem to be saying that we shouldn't encourage potentially lifesaving biotech because in a time before the idea of product safety testing existed some people did some things that turned out to be somewhat unsafe. Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems absurd.
Just because you can kick the can down the road for a few centuries doesn't mean you can do so forever.
Literally the only other alternative I can see is "give up and guarantee that people die now, in the hopes that possibly someday there might end up being fewer total deaths". How is that not absolute lunacy?
Ask the Indian farmers killing themselves because their land will no longer produce crops due to so-called "green revolution" farming practices...
You mean the people who have often committed suicide during droughts for centuries are still doing it? Horrifying yes, but not exactly the "green revolution's" fault.
But if they show the same outward behaviour, and you don't know a priori which is which, then how can it be moral to treat them differently?
Of course if all you have to go on is outward appearance you should treat both them like people, for the same reason that you should check that someone is actually dead before doing an autopsy. But because there's a physical difference between the two (even if it's just in software) so there should be some way to test them, and once you're sure, treating them differently should be perfectly acceptable.
There would be issues with things that aren't exact copies of people or clearly simulations, but the grey area between doesn't negate the fact the the two ends of the spectrum are fairly clear-cut.
If you can't cite such a thing, then GP's point stands: humans are physical things executing certain functions some of which constitute the state we call "feeling", and a sufficiently perfect emulation of such functions would constitute "feeling" just as much if carried out by a physical thing made of metal as they would when carried out by our brains.
But we (or at least I) don't know if any specific droid has a "sufficiently perfect emulation". You could have two droids with identical hardware, one running an exact copy of a person's brain, while the other just looks up its current situation in a database of movies and 'acts out' the appropriate role. I think there's a clear difference in moral standing between the two.
And that's the issue I have with the GP - an actor or CG character can simulate anger without actually feeling it, but people can actually get angry - and that's a big difference. And I don't know if Star Wars droids are more like conscious beings that feel pain or video game monsters taking damage.
Slashdot Mirror
In the interstate commerce clause, right next to where it lets the government ban marijuana, a bit after the penumbra that protects abortion.
Over reacting *IS* just as bad or worse than under reacting in many cases.
That was my point - but apparently my message got muddled.
And perhaps your country hasn't gone on a decade-long rampage of killing people and destroying civil liberties in response to terrorism. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be wary people who may be overreacting to significant, but rare, problems.
Childish taunting? Projection? I'm disappointed. I expect more from the trolls I play with, but at least it kept you from bothering other people.
At least I got a laugh when you were complaining about how da evul menz were the source of all your problems. Boo-hoo, life is hard, and it's all the fault of penis! :(
Yes, you've managed to do that quite well.
Excellent defense mechanism - anyone who points out your bad behavior is part of "the patriarchy", so you never have to take responsibility for your own actions. Sure it's maladaptive, you'll keep making the same mistakes over and over, but it must be such a relief to never have to accept any of the blame for anything.
As for male privilege, is that something I get for posting to Slashdot? Did they have a "sign up now, get a cock and a draft card free!" deal? If you were only dismissing my thoughts because you thought I was male, then your problem really is your own sexism.
So you did something that you admit could be perceived as a personal attack, but the rest of us are to blame for seeing it as a personal attack. Odd.
You're allowed to feel anything you like, but it was emotionally neutral for everyone participating until you came along. Then you chose to make things personal - something that can't possibly be emotionally neutral.
If you want to know why I attacked you, figure out why your second sentence is deeply insulting, and looks calculated to provoke aggression.
Some women.
Identical twins are genetically identical.
That's fine, we can agree to disagree.
I understand the difference, but they can both be personal attacks. On the other hand, if that's what does it for you I'll take back my narcissism comment - I'll instead point out that your post took a fairly emotionally-neutral conversation about facts and their interpretation and turned it into a rant about assumed attitudes, imagined motivations, and implied character defects.
No to the first, yes to the second. Responding in kind isn't always a good idea, but it is sometimes necessary.
Wow! I've never even touched a gun, and I'm still calling this the biggest "citation-needed" ever.
That's not reality, that's one particular theory about what rights are, and that is explicitly not the theory of rights (officially) used by the US government.
You're mixing up moral and legal theory. Even if it was legal to kill someone, it could still be immoral. Likewise, just because the government could kill you doesn't mean that you don't have a moral right to life.
You're confusing two different kinds of "weak" - few people want an ineffective government, however many want one that's strong, but only within clear, specific limits.
Every government has arbitrary details, from jurisdictional borders to the number of members in various bodies. And since every large government has some kind of geographic subdivision, why are states inappropriate?
They could shove a cock up my ass, that still wouldn't make me gay.
It was a suggestion. However, it was not a suggestion that the statement itself was wrong (as you're implying), but merely a warning against assuming things that this single fact can't support on its own. Nothing in the post suggested that the previous commenter was incorrect.
In what English dialect is "...you're letting your assumptions and biases cloud your openness to new facts." not a personal attack?
Howdy! I freely admit that I've been aggressive and somewhat rude in this encounter, but would defend myself by pointing out that I was mirroring the other person's style [see above] in order to illustrate to them how they were being perceived by other parties.
This is simply false. The entire post consists of a quoted factoid and a sentence starting with "Well perhaps...".
That distinction is irrelevant to anything I wrote. I only pointed out that even if they had been wrong that wouldn't justify your personal attack on them.
I'll rephrase the ending of my previous post: It could be that your problems with other people don't arise from your gender or sexism, but simply because you come across as a jerk.
So someone points out an obvious possibility of selection bias in a factoid that makes one sex appear to be better at something, in doing so implying that men and women might actually be equally good at it. And your response to this is to accuse them of sexism?
It's "as though a part of your brain was uncomfortable with" people pointing out that women might not actually be better than men at something. But don't worry, a sudden fit of blind, irrational anger toward something that you didn't even bother to read properly is very human of you. Anyway, the next time you use anti-sexism as a cover for being a hate-filled narcissist, you might want to attack someone who actually expressed a sexist idea. Just a friendly suggestion. :)
If you're going to assume that he's stronger, aren't most scenarios likely to end up with him being able to get/keep her stuff? Like:
She invites him back to her room, they get in a fight that culminates in her clocking him, and he grabs the wrong bag on the way out?
They have a fling for a few days, fight, and there was still some of her stuff left in his room?
She hit him for some unknown reason, and as retaliation he could (as you said) "grab some of her stuff on the way out in a childish fit of pique to get back at her"?
It got you to take her side, didn't it? Theft wasn't even enough to get the cops interested at all? Out of 7 billion people a few have to be crazy?
Too bad we're probably never going to find out what really happened.
You seem to be saying that the company shouldn't get recognition for basic research because our patent regime is messed up and we need more safety testing. To me that sounds like a pharmaceutical company shouldn't get an award for a breakthrough in cancer research because their antidepressant is overprescribed.
The best info I've found says 1/5 of women will not end up having children, I think your 1/3 includes women who don't have children yet but will later.
Dude, he doesn't have a problem with her staying home, he has a problem with the idea that if she leaves, the situation would change in a way he dislikes without having a say in how it changes.
You might want to reread that - his current circumstances aren't a problem, he's worried about how they might be changed without his consent.
Yeah, that did come off as harsher than I meant it to, but you seem to be saying that we shouldn't encourage potentially lifesaving biotech because in a time before the idea of product safety testing existed some people did some things that turned out to be somewhat unsafe. Maybe I'm missing something, but that seems absurd.
Literally the only other alternative I can see is "give up and guarantee that people die now, in the hopes that possibly someday there might end up being fewer total deaths". How is that not absolute lunacy?
You mean the people who have often committed suicide during droughts for centuries are still doing it? Horrifying yes, but not exactly the "green revolution's" fault.
Of course if all you have to go on is outward appearance you should treat both them like people, for the same reason that you should check that someone is actually dead before doing an autopsy. But because there's a physical difference between the two (even if it's just in software) so there should be some way to test them, and once you're sure, treating them differently should be perfectly acceptable.
There would be issues with things that aren't exact copies of people or clearly simulations, but the grey area between doesn't negate the fact the the two ends of the spectrum are fairly clear-cut.
But we (or at least I) don't know if any specific droid has a "sufficiently perfect emulation". You could have two droids with identical hardware, one running an exact copy of a person's brain, while the other just looks up its current situation in a database of movies and 'acts out' the appropriate role. I think there's a clear difference in moral standing between the two.
And that's the issue I have with the GP - an actor or CG character can simulate anger without actually feeling it, but people can actually get angry - and that's a big difference. And I don't know if Star Wars droids are more like conscious beings that feel pain or video game monsters taking damage.