We haven't done [principled thing that we have done by-and-large and at tremendous expense] with [notable exceptions that generate tremendous outrage]. I just don't know.
I don't like the failures, but everyone going "We don't actually obey the constitution anymore" don't put forth any meaningful metrics to show that it changed, and a subjective examination of American history shows lots of abuses from day 1.
Suppose you have my, and a couple hundreds of other dedicated peoples' promised assistance to fix the problem. Propose a first step.
I think this is a little extreme in its assertions. It's not impossible that it's true, but I doubt you'll ever change your opinion if the white house did comply(not that complying would be enough to actually do anything important).
The failure of design by committee has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with the nature of conflicting interests and compromise. An individual can still be smart sitting in a crowded room, and in fact, when that happens we call them "Lecture halls"
And people still assert this is in spite of decades of the Flynn Effect. There's an important genetic component to intelligence, but everything we've see recently suggests fetal development, nutrition, and education make such tremendously larger difference that the "idiocricy effect" could at most be considered a momentary blip.
Human beings are smart. Given good conditions, they tend to be really smart. And we're all incredibly genetically similar.
As a consquence of this rule you've proposed X is true. X is absurd your premise is flawed
the logical version goes like this: As a consequence of your premises X is true X is also false X and not X is absurd your premise is flawed.(thus the logical opposite of the premise)
The reason the former is a fallacy and the latter is a proof, is usually because the underlying arguments of consequence in the former take an irrational extreme that aren't true logical to arrive at the absurdity.
And in the latter, each step can be verified.
Nominally, if the method by which you reach the absurd conclusion is valid in the original argumentation presented by your opponent, it's a good take down.
It just usually isn't. This fallacy is usually another fallacy in carefully constructed disguise. I defend its usage.
But previous attempts at eugenics all attempted to operate at the "can reproduce" stage, it could be very different to do so at the "How you reproduce" stage.
And... what exactly is this means you're thinking they'll have? We're talking GATTACA kinds of manipulation of recombination, not complete genome rewrites, which are so far beyond our capacity as to still be sci-fi.
It's funny how reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy, and also the name of a literal logical method of proof.
I was just trying to assert that increases in military technology are moderately decoupled from available civilian weaponry. Which I feel can stand on its own.
Literally nothing in common with Marxs' philosophy= communism. Who cares if the actual ideas you're describing go back more clearly to Machiavelli and Hobbes? Might as well call it communism, since those were the bad guys.
What if eugenics stopped involving depriving people of their right to reproduce, and instead just targeted the actual genes/gene combinations that are "bad"?
Could we get the best of both worlds? Or is eugenics always wrong, on account of pre-judging people on DNA? Regardless of the ethics, I find myself getting strongly behind genetic engineering of that sort being available, at least.
Just like 10 years after hiroshima, atom bombs were a fundamental right, right?
Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the intent and apparent results of the 2nd amendment, but we don't actually enable much of a civilian arms race in the US.
Okay, with that bit of context, it's clear that you, at least, intend it as racism, and are looking for a way to pretend it's not. Are you aware of how your broad-based assertions of this sort actually help clarify your racist intentions, and that many people are familiar with people pretending to care about Dr. Kings words while in practice doing no such thing?
Like... we've seen this for years. We know you guys. We aren't fooled. You might as well go back to the transparent racism.
And there's the fact that those companies to a lot of their manufacturing overseas or out of town, and that detroit isn't as appealing a place to build anymore in a bit of a positive feedback loop.
Yeah, it's not like shifting globalized markets can turn one of the places with the best median standards of living into a slum over a couple decades. Yep, it's gotta be "those" people. You know "those ones". They're just incompatible with success.
I don't know if you're racist or anti-union, but either way, your opinions are just biases stated in words.
Yes, every characteristic is optional. e.g. comic sans and windings. Attempting an objective solution to an artistic problem isn't bad, the complaints that come out of that can help point you towards better objective constraints. Assuming you've succeeded because you're trying to be objective would be the only problem.
Slashdot Mirror
We haven't done [principled thing that we have done by-and-large and at tremendous expense] with [notable exceptions that generate tremendous outrage]. I just don't know.
I don't like the failures, but everyone going "We don't actually obey the constitution anymore" don't put forth any meaningful metrics to show that it changed, and a subjective examination of American history shows lots of abuses from day 1.
Suppose you have my, and a couple hundreds of other dedicated peoples' promised assistance to fix the problem. Propose a first step.
I think this is a little extreme in its assertions. It's not impossible that it's true, but I doubt you'll ever change your opinion if the white house did comply(not that complying would be enough to actually do anything important).
The failure of design by committee has nothing to do with intelligence, and everything to do with the nature of conflicting interests and compromise. An individual can still be smart sitting in a crowded room, and in fact, when that happens we call them "Lecture halls"
And people still assert this is in spite of decades of the Flynn Effect. There's an important genetic component to intelligence, but everything we've see recently suggests fetal development, nutrition, and education make such tremendously larger difference that the "idiocricy effect" could at most be considered a momentary blip.
Human beings are smart. Given good conditions, they tend to be really smart. And we're all incredibly genetically similar.
If you are trying to conlcude an argument, it is assumed that all presented statements are part of that argument. Not hard.
No, really. I think you've got a mistake
The fallacy goes like this:
As a consquence of this rule you've proposed X is true.
X is absurd
your premise is flawed
the logical version goes like this:
As a consequence of your premises X is true
X is also false
X and not X is absurd
your premise is flawed.(thus the logical opposite of the premise)
The reason the former is a fallacy and the latter is a proof, is usually because the underlying arguments of consequence in the former take an irrational extreme that aren't true logical to arrive at the absurdity.
And in the latter, each step can be verified.
Nominally, if the method by which you reach the absurd conclusion is valid in the original argumentation presented by your opponent, it's a good take down.
It just usually isn't. This fallacy is usually another fallacy in carefully constructed disguise. I defend its usage.
Yeah, sure, tell me how that works out for you when you tell a judge that after you buy yourself some yellow cake.
But previous attempts at eugenics all attempted to operate at the "can reproduce" stage, it could be very different to do so at the "How you reproduce" stage.
That's a bizarre assertion. The rich already have generational power transfer, and genes have very little to do with it.
And... what exactly is this means you're thinking they'll have? We're talking GATTACA kinds of manipulation of recombination, not complete genome rewrites, which are so far beyond our capacity as to still be sci-fi.
Fiction isn't reality.
It's funny how reductio ad absurdum is a logical fallacy, and also the name of a literal logical method of proof.
I was just trying to assert that increases in military technology are moderately decoupled from available civilian weaponry. Which I feel can stand on its own.
Lots of things don't need guns to be dangerous.
Oh god, I sound like a gun-nut. But rather than qualify why that statement isn't an implicit defense of guns, I'm just gonna let it stand.
Literally nothing in common with Marxs' philosophy= communism. Who cares if the actual ideas you're describing go back more clearly to Machiavelli and Hobbes? Might as well call it communism, since those were the bad guys.
What if eugenics stopped involving depriving people of their right to reproduce, and instead just targeted the actual genes/gene combinations that are "bad"?
Could we get the best of both worlds? Or is eugenics always wrong, on account of pre-judging people on DNA? Regardless of the ethics, I find myself getting strongly behind genetic engineering of that sort being available, at least.
Just like 10 years after hiroshima, atom bombs were a fundamental right, right?
Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with the intent and apparent results of the 2nd amendment, but we don't actually enable much of a civilian arms race in the US.
Okay, with that bit of context, it's clear that you, at least, intend it as racism, and are looking for a way to pretend it's not. Are you aware of how your broad-based assertions of this sort actually help clarify your racist intentions, and that many people are familiar with people pretending to care about Dr. Kings words while in practice doing no such thing?
Like... we've seen this for years. We know you guys. We aren't fooled. You might as well go back to the transparent racism.
I am almost certain their reasons were clearly fucking stated in the summary, your deceitful piece of shit.
And there's the fact that those companies to a lot of their manufacturing overseas or out of town, and that detroit isn't as appealing a place to build anymore in a bit of a positive feedback loop.
Yeah, it's not like shifting globalized markets can turn one of the places with the best median standards of living into a slum over a couple decades. Yep, it's gotta be "those" people. You know "those ones". They're just incompatible with success.
I don't know if you're racist or anti-union, but either way, your opinions are just biases stated in words.
I didn't. RTFP.
Yes, every characteristic is optional. e.g. comic sans and windings. Attempting an objective solution to an artistic problem isn't bad, the complaints that come out of that can help point you towards better objective constraints. Assuming you've succeeded because you're trying to be objective would be the only problem.
You didn't actually see the font, the first image was just about analyzing character structure in a mathematically objective way.
Maybe. But since your post affirms my own biases, I'm going to take everything in it with a grain of salt.
Increased punishment as deterrence measurably does not work. Period. We don't need to go into the details of specific kinds of crime to discuss that.
The FBI has an overview of how and why they deal with hate crime if there's anything besides that that concerns you.