Clarity and consistency. Both in the law as in its execution. For example, if the actual definition of fruit and vegetables would have been applied from the start, tomatoes would not have been exempt from the taxes on fruit, and there would have been no courtcase to begin with.
In contrast, we now have to consider that any fruit could be considered a vegetable on subjective and arbitrary definitions and conditions, such as: being sweet, what people think about it in their ignorance, what the intent of the lawmaker was, if it can be cooked or not, etc. This leaves the door wide open to a plethora of similar cases, where not one of any of the variables is consistently used and contradictions are bound to happen because there is no internal logic to it. True justice needs logical laws applied correctly and consistently. The less arbitrary judgements based on subjective grounds that are contradictory, the better.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable in stating this principle. Yes, yes, you can argue it will never be thus 100%, and you would be right, but that shouldn't stop us from *striving* to do it that way.
A fruit is a fruit, period. Saying it has nothing to do with whether it is a fruit or not, when the taxation is for vegetables OR FRUIT, makes no sense at all. In your view, it has nothing to do with reality... but any judgment about whether something is applicable or not HAS to deal with reality, that's just the point. If a flat-earther makes a law that ordains the world is not spherical and none may contradict this, and someone says it's a cube, the court could say he still gets fined because the original maker of the law wanted to say the Earth was a flat disk. That's basically what you're saying. And what I'm saying is, that the court should have stuck to reality in any case, and concluded people are right if they say the Earth is spherical, and thus the fine void. Reality is not about what one wants, intents, or the majority of the people - lawmakers included - wrongly think of something - but just is. And courts should always look if a law is in accordance with that reality. An observable reality is best described by science and through the scientific method, using logic and rationality. Conclusions of the court that deal with intent vs reality, should let reality supersede. Always.
My point is, we - justice included - are better off with the latter instead of the former attitude. It would be quite nefarious to let mere intent, with no regard to reality, determine justice: there would be - literally - no reality-check on the things claimed and any intent would go unchallenged, then.
And if your stance is that a court can't do anything else BUT go with the presumed intent of a lawmaker, you would be wrong; there's enough jurisprudence where the courts have not followed the law, also in it's intent. So yes, you're right that the lawmaker made a bad law, if his intent was to allow some fruits like tomatoes to be taxed like vegetables, but that doesn't mean the courts have to go along with it, if the logical interpretation - and not an assumption of the intent - is used. I get that you want to say they did the latter. My point is, they should have done the former, and that logical and rational reasoning based on the factual reality needs to supersede (guesses of) ill-informed intent based on ignorance.
And yes, the lawmaker was either ignorant or incompetent, if he made that law. Which is exactly why the court should not have gone along with it, but instead followed it consistently with logic and conclude, correctly, that tomato's are fruit, and thus exempt from the tax. This would have send that lawmaker - if he was really 'intent' on it - back to the drawingboard, and come up with a better, more consistent law that does not contradict itself: another advantage of such an approach! Ad infinitum if necessary, until you have a proper law based on reality and adequately formulated and logical consistent, as best one can. Something, I would claim, which should be strived for, in any jurisdiction or lawmaking.
I've seen the flat-earthers conspiracy theories, so yes, no doubt this, in comparison, will be a piece of cake for the same kind of nutcases to ignore the truth, yes.
Reading your text I found myself a bit puzzled about the seemingly randomness and off-topic sidetracks in your comment. I suspect some irony and (self?)mockery were at play here too, and/or wild-associative thoughts on the matter, which, I must confess, I didn't fully manage to follow.
But.. I'll go with your last paragraph, and agree with you there.
Basically, it's a miscategorisation learned from infancy and perpetuated by ignorance.
I know this. However, what they're actually doing is claiming that reality is subservient to what people *think* about something, and this is a very dangerous or at least foolish thing to do.
The court, fully well KNEW that tomatoes are, in effect fruits. We seem to both agree on this. However, they decided that it actually being a fruit is of no importance because people consider(ed) it to be a vegetable. The precedence this creates is, that it doesn't matter what something *actually* is, what counts is what people think of it, EVEN if that's faulty, comes from ignorance, laziness or is arbitrary and is utterly inconsistent. I simply do not subscribe to this pretty dangerous and foolish viewpoint. It undermines the believability of the court (due to it's arbitrary and inconsistent nature of the ruling), and sets precedent for similar justifications - which might do more harm than just unjustly demanding taxes - in matters that are of greater import. It's the principle that is at play here. If one makes the decision that whatever most people wrongly think and assume is what should count for a ruling of the court, than basically you have no true justice anymore.
This whole concept and viewpoint flies in the face of the age-old adagium "Fiat justitia ruat cælum" which is what the courts have tried and should try to follow, exactly for the reasons mentioned above. The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences or whatever people 'feel' about it.
"As your parent pointed out: many fruits are considered vegetables, and that includes tomatoes."
Not all that many, but the point was more: with the given definition of 'part of a plant and used as food', ALL fruit should be considered fruit.since it isn't, there clearly is something wrong with his reasoning of when you define fruit to be vegetables.
"it is not an either or"
But the question before the court was an 'or' question, since the difference of the taxes was made between vegetables OR fruits.
"Hint: vegetables are usually cooked."
That has the same hallmarks as the arbitrary condition of the court about it being sweet. You yourself point already out it's perfectly possible to cook fruit - you can do so even without turning it into marmalade, even. In reverse, it's perfectly possible to eat vegetables raw. this leaves the 'usually' as defining characteristic, but that's even vaguer than anything else. And there too, we see the non-consistency: there are vegetables that are 'usually' eaten raw and not cooked, and in fact, tomatoes are 'usually' eaten raw as well, and we've already established they're actually fruit, so why aren't they considered fruit, if being 'usually cooked' is the condition for calling a fruit a vegetable. again, this sort of wishy-wash definition and added condition is not logical, nor is it consistently applied.
"Every person I know learned what a vegetable is as a child"
That's not a very compelling argument as to the correctness of something. Before science, 'every child' knew humans were created by God as well. The Jews knew it was their God, the Catholics theirs, the Islamists theirs, etc. Point is, if 'everyone' learns something to their kids that is incorrect or dubious, every child will have learned something incorrect. the incorrectness of a statement, therefor, is not determined by how many children think the world is what it is because their parents told them.
In fact, I myself as a child thought a tomato was no fruit as well, since my parents didn't know and learned me this, etc. This is rather a continuation of ignorance, more than anything else. Science thought me this was faulty, and I stand corrected. I think that's more in accordance to how people should behave than continuing 'learning' or promoting something which isn't factual correct, but is left alone due to ignorance or comfort.
Fruit: a fruit is the seed-bearing structure in flowering plants (also known as angiosperms).
However you look at it, thus, tomatoes are fruits.
Since the case was about whether it is a vegetable OR a fruit, and it definitely is a fruit, what that does is the court 'un-fruiting' a fruit. Makes no sense.
EVEN if your explanation would be valid, one would have to explain, logically and rationally, why a fruit shouldn't be considered a fruit anymore. After all, with all your examples, this is not the case. For instance, if a celery is a leaf stalk, it doesn't stop being a leaf-stalk even if it is considered a vegetable. So if you taxed vegetables, but not leaf stalks, you INHERENTLY already make the distinction between the two. And then you can't say it's NOT a leaf stalk anymore even if one would consider it a vegetable. Think about it. If the requirement, as you say, is that 'it is a part of a plant that is used for food', regardless of it being a fruit or not, why then make a difference in the first place, and why would not ALL fruits fall under the 'vegetable' category? All fruits are part of a plant, and are used for food. If that's the defining characteristic and overrules the definition of a fruit, all fruits should be considered vegetables. Yet only tomatoes are considered such. Ergo: this makes no sense, EVEN if we follow your reasoning.
Now, the truth is, the court gave a very contentious and arbitrary EXTRA characteristic(s): such that fruit is sweet to be considered fruit, while vegetables aren't. This is, of course, nonsensical, since neither in the definition of fruit NOR in the definition of vegetables such a condition is ever mentioned: it's just something they invented themselves. And they're not even consistent in it, since sweet potatoes are sweet, yet are still considered vegetables, and some fruits aren't sweet at all, and yet are considered fruits.
This whole mess could have been avoided if they just kept it logically and looked at things from a rational perspective, instead of adding arbitrary conditions to the definitions and meaning and then not following your own bric-a-brac invented definitions.
Finally we can lay this idiocy, nonsense and stupidity to rest. For years it was clear to anyone with a grain of understanding that the discrepancies were due to artefacts, measure-errors or influences they didn't account for. Instead, pipe-dream-believers - or rather fanatics - kept insisting the hype was real.
Now that it's been shown it is, indeed, the latter - as a rational person would expect - no doubt the die-hards EM-fanfappers will claim some conspiracy theory, but ultimately, the case has been settled, and this hype will die out. It's unbelievable how many years this stupidity has been perpetuated and continued. even if the EM itself wasn't a perpetual motion/energy machine, sometimes it looked like the hyped up story *was*.
And, of course, deep down, everyone knew, even the believers. I remember having offered, from the start, a wager of 1000 dollar if it turned out te be true and the EM would be a reactionless engine. Of course, no-one of the EM-fans ever accepted the wager...
The only thing that is depressing is the unbelievable gullibility of large portions of the masses and hoi palloi. One wonders how democracies are still doing relative well, with this kind of illiterate and ignorant electorate.
Person A: The medicine isn't working because their body is dying. Person B: All bodies are dying, so that on itself, can not be a valid argument.
Yes, you are incapable to comprehend that. Yes, your counter was silly. The argument was faulty, due to it being a general statement that is applicable to all bodies. You can't seem to differentiate at all, and then complain about the semantics of it. Well, maybe you *should* learn what words mean. McDonalds? Feeling smug, are we? Seriously, act as a grown up.
You're still not getting the point. You PRESUME - in front - it will not show up with cancer patients. But since 'better health' is not longevity nor a cure, but exactly what I gave as a definition, the fact remains that if it's effective with everyone, and cancer-patients are a subset of 'everyone', they would have those benefits too.
It's only because you place a priori conditions on it why it 'will not show up', that you can't see that your changing the premise along the way.
Ok, let's do it this way. Say, you have a medicine that lets your nails grow 5 times faster than normal. You say it works with everyone. You deny cancer patients can be used. Well, now... take a group of cancer patients that take this medicine, and take a similar group of cancer patients that use a placebo. You then look at the difference between the two groups. If the first group has 5 times longer nails in the same timeperiod as the control group YOU HAVE PROVEN it works.
Now: was it do demonstrate something that 'improves cancer outcome'? No. But it doesn't matter. That's why your reasoning is wrong, above. Cancer patients are useful to research cancer-medicine on, but it doesn't mean other medicines working on 'everyone' suddenly won't work on them. That's just faulty logic. You try to counter that by claiming it won't work because they don't live long, but that doesn't matter for the DIFFERENCE between the two groups. Yes: with normal people living longer, the nails would be 5 cm versus 1 cm, with people living shorter, like the cancer-patients, the time will be shorter, but the *difference* will still be there, say 5 mm versus 1 mm. BOTH measurements show the product is working. So you CAN use it on cancer patients as well. Why is this so difficult to understand for you? Saying 'but it won't work due to the chemicals' is a priori ASSUMPTION you yourself are adding. Unless you have reasons to assume the specific chemicals used - if any are used to begin with, because some cancer patients have stopped taking it, or use other treatments, so there is already an assumption you made there - effectively will counter the chemical bounds of the product you're using, this is nothing but wild speculation and conjecture. It makes as much sense to claim that, as to say the nail-growing only work *because* of the chemicals.
With your example of an aspirin, you are, once again, alluding to longer lifespan. Same with your "Eating healthy will improve your life span." You're mixing cause and effect. How many times do I have to tell you that 'better health' is NOT the same as having a longer lifespan? And it's not 'longer lifespan' you're researching, but 'better health'. I already gave you the definition of it. And by that definition, it's perfectly possible to determine health benefits, even with cancer-patients, just like a nail-growing medicine would also be noticeable in that group. You don't seem to be able to get your head around the fact what the difference is between measuring better health, and measuring longer living.
No. An analogue is never meant to compare the original object and the analogue to it, but it's to compare *the reasoning* behind it. So I'm not equating normal aging with cancer proliferation. At all. I'm saying the reasoning behind your counterargument that 'the body is dying' is an unsatisfactory argument, since all bodies are dying.
If you don't understand this, maybe clocking at McDonalds is a bit too high of a goal for you?
It wasn't. If it were, you wouldn't be congratulating, but pointing out 'everyone' means something else, and 'health' means something else as well (as you tried, with equating it as being the same as longevity or a cure for cancer; it isn't).
You don't have to make a fuss about it. Just acknowledge the premise wasn't correct and you meant "everyone except cancer patients". Of course, what with other people, then? With other diseases? Since you automatically presume it won't show up in 4th grade cancer-patients, what about 3d grade? 2d grade? What about other diseases, where other chemicals are used? What if the health benefit only shows up after you're 100 years old? Would anyone notice?
Point is, once you make assumptions and a priori decide something is going to show up or not, you're never going to be sure. The proof is in the (eating of the) pudding. You can demonstrate the medicine works, also by cancer-patients. Period. If their health augments, that is proof. If nothing shows up, then it's not proof of not working at all, but it is proof it's not working on everyone. BTW, you can never 'infer' a product isn't working if you set your own conditions for it, *ever*. What if a medicine would only work if you drank 3 blends of tea before it, and it only shows up if you're 100 years old? It hardly would show up in any statistics at all. So, generally speaking, one can not infer something is definitely not working because it hasn't shown up. However, science can't hold it's breath for it, and if something doesn't show up in the statistics when the scientific methodology was applied, it presumed as 'not proven it works'. If, however, one presumes it 'works for everyone', than it's logically to assume it works for cancer-patients as well, since 'health' is not longevity, nor has to be a cure, and 'everyone' means, indeed, everyone. Nor is there any a priori reason to assume it won't work through the 'chemicals' counteracting whatever is causing the health-benefit, nor that it would only show up at old age.
As said numerous times by now: you're changing the basic premise by automatically including and excluding different factors and variables after the facts, while that wasn't inherently part of the statement originally made. In contrast, it's perfectly possible that it shows benefits in cancer-patients as well, contrary to your claim, IF one does not use any a-priori assumptions of how and when it works and on whom (aka; the 'everyone' is non-excluding).
"you can't fucking hope to measure an improvement or health"
How would you know? You just said you can't infer anything, and yet you're doing the same. If there is a health benefit - especially one that is claimed to work on "everyone', it's quite possible to see it in cancer patients as well. That is is the definition of 'everyone', after all. Otherwise, you should have said 'everyone, except cancer patients', but in that case, you're already speculating. After all, ALL our bodies are actively dying, so that's not the point. If one sees no benefit due to the chemicals - wich is a piroi assumption of your part, one could as well research that theory with patients that have stopped using chemicals.
Of course, a random sample of the general population would be better, but the question was, if one could use cancer-patients. Yes, one could. After all, if I use the opposite assumption, that the research would show health benefits in the sample group who took the medicine as compared to the control group, where would that leave you? Then it *would* be confirmed to work, EVEN with cancer-patients - which, unless your medicine fails the moment it detects cancercells, is the normal thing to assume. If it works on everyone, it should work on cancer-patients as well. If it doesn't, it doesn't work on 'everyone'. There is no way around this, I'm afraid.
"You cannot infer that it does *not* improve general health from its failure to save terminal patients."
The question was not whether it can save terminal patients. I see you keep confusing this. Getting a better health != a cure for cancer. It just means that, compared to the similar control group of cancer patients, they have *better* health.
I've explained this three times by now. I can't help it if you don't get it. You are changing the premise, and you don't seem to be aware of it. A medicine that improves health for 'everyone', would also improve HEALTH for cancer patients. No-one was talking about longevity or a cure for cancer, merely being healthier. Health is the ability of a biological system to acquire, convert, allocate, distribute, and utilize energy with maximum efficiency. If the cancer group sees no improvements whatsoever in this regard compared to the control group, it's not working for them, and thus, not working for 'everyone'.
The premise was: "a new wonder drug that makes everyone healthier". Note the "everyone" and "healthier". Don't go changing into something else.
Now, on that premise, as I've said, the other poster was right. Try to think logically. If EVERYONE gets healthier of it, then cancer patients get healthier too. Sure, they're still unhealthy compared to the normal populace, but if you take two groups of cancer patients, than one can compare the ones getting a placebo with the ones that got the medicine, and see if their is any health benefit from it. If there is no health benefit for those cancer patients, then one can, at the very least, conclude not 'everyone' gets a health benefit from it.
I think people like you are putting to much value on it. Work, for the VAST majority of people (aka, the grunts), is just something one HAS to do to get paid. If I got as much money from an UBI as I earn now - which isn't THAT much, rest assured - then I would stop working in a heartbeat.
And yes, I could keep myself busy with other things, but most of these things would be pure entertainment. As is the case for most people. I think either only people which are at the hierarchical top, those with the 'my-hobby-is-my-work' enthusiasm, and academics in their ivory tower think differently. They extrapolate their own thoughts on this and think it's valid for everyone. But it isn't. Even the romans already knew the masses only need panem et circensis - so why do they think this has changed?
The vast majority of people are inherently lazy and hedonistic in nature. Give enough money so they can live in comfort without having to work, and they won't work. There will still be some creativity going on, no doubt - people have other drives to, like social status and feeling important, for instance - or just being curious/gifted... but the majority isn't or won't do much trouble. Besides, not everyone can be a VIP, or it looses its meaning. Point is, it's almost a given most people getting an UBI large enough to live comfortably of it, won't work, will spend their income on basic necessities (such as food) and the rest on entertainment, and that will be all. And yes, they're perfectly fine, even for extended periods, as long as they're entertained.
I'm rather leaning to the right myself and find excessive welfare-sate thingies misguided as best, but... I could mayhaps agree to a law as what the parent poster said. Let's say one can only have maximum 15 or 20 times as what the lowest-paid employee in the same company in the same country gets... 20 times is still plenty.
Note that in the '60ies the CEO already had far more than the average employee, but that also the *relative* gap has widened. Aka, a CEO of a 10000 men company earned, say, 20 times more, but a CEO of the same company of 10000 now earns *40 times more*. Now, is the CEO of today double as good as the one in the 60ies, and that for all CEO's, worldwide? That's very unlikely. So, there is something more to it than just 'equivalent pay for work', because while no-one would deny deserves to get more loan than a simple '20 minutes learning job' employee, this does not explain why during the past years, even the relative gap, compared to CEO's before them, is getting wildly vaster. Some argue: "That because the world has become complexer', but that seems like an excuse: the world was never very simply. And while the technology has indeed changed, the same technology also provided tools to manage that complexity better, so I find that argument not very convincing.
There is no real reason - in the sense of that they deserve it through their work - why CEO's now would have 50 times more, while it used to be 20 times... apart from being the 'us-knows-us' crowd: those that agree to those lucrative deals in one 'board of directors' get the same lucrative deal themselves, by the ones they have pampered before. It's just a matter of pampering eachother, thus. Once you 'get in', it's exceedingly easy to get the same sort of deals. And, much like politicians having to vote on their own income, it never goes down, it always goes up - convinced as they are they deserve a raise, whether that's actually true or not. But who would shoot in their own foot by denying yourself a raise?
Granted, one can say that those CEO's who build something up from nothing, deserved it. But the Elon Musks are pretty rare. Mostly it's just one big shot being given the opportunity by other big shots, without actually having to demonstrate any competence. Even if they grind the company into bankruptcy they come out largely unscathed, pockets still reasonably filled by money (still WAY more than any employee) and usually can begin without much trouble in another company.
Now...as to the 'why should I'... Suffice it to say that, throughout history, the more their was disproportionate wealth distribution - aka, the growing gap between haves and have nots - the more unstable a society becomes. that's why societies with a large middle class, for instance, are usually the most stable. Basically, if this keeps up, and that gap keeps getting larger and larger: a difference of 100 times, 1000 times, 10000 times... the populace will revolt. One can lament that, find it unfair or not, but I'm just giving a social-historical certitude here. If the difference gets too large, the disenfranchised will take it from those on top, with violence if they have too.
It's not I am saying that is a good thing, just that that is what will happen. CEO's and their companies don't live in a vacuum, after all, but are part of the society they live in. They don't form the mass of that society however, so if a trigger springs in action - like rising food-prices or whatever - sooner or later it will go wrong. In the long term, thus, for a society at large, it's better not to let the gap become to wide, and to always make sure you have a broad and large middle-class.
On the other hand, it very much depends on your definition of 'bad intentions'. If someone wants a different, or less costly, or less abuse-prone safety net, or even wants NO safety net, then one can say those are 'bad intentions', but basically, it are just opinions you don't agree with.
If it's about the 'tone' in which some posts are made, I can follow you a bit better, but even then it bags the question whether using the same tone will help in normalizing and calming the debate. IMHO, this is never the case. That said, I understand the principle of reciprocity, so it use it myself, but only on personal attacks, one-on-one. I try to not respond with vitriol to general, non-personal statements, even when I don't agree with them.
No, the other poster was right, and you have it wrong. So you're lol'ing in error.
You said EVERYONE gets healthier with it. If you want to make a trial to assess the risks, you could very well take a sample of cancer-patients. What you do, then, is have a control group of stage4 cancer patients whom you give a placebo, and another group of stage4 cancer patients, which you give the actual medicine to.
If the latter doesn't show any amelioration in health compared to the first group, at the very least one can conclude not 'everyone' gets health-benefits from it. Yes, both groups will still be unhealthier than a random sample of the general populace, but the efficacy of the medicine is determined by the *comparison* of two similar groups, where the only variable that differs is having the medicine or not.
Slashdot really has come down a lot, if even basic scientific methodology has to be explained to a poster here, nowadays.
Sigh. Note that I was reacting to the comments, not the article. For instance, the main post where this whole thread has come from, talks about "abusive trolls". Another was directly talking that a person who post a picture of someone else while making racist comments is good enough to be called a Nazi. Surely, it hasn't escaped you that many on this forum equate 'racism' with 'Nazism'. Some even say posting 'vile' things and 'behave in a pattern' makes then Nazis.
Does everyone do it and say so? Well, I suppose not.
Well, let me rephrase it this way, then: IF one is equating trolls or racists with Nazi's, you're hollowing out the term. That way, I don't have to prove anything, except the internal logic of the argument.
Secondly, even if one looks at the article, it says this halfway: "The impersonator trolls seethed." Impersonator trolls. Yet, the title says "Confessions of a Digital Nazi Hunter", and also in the article itself he clearly regards them as Nazis.
So I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Yes, I regard it as self-evident that equating 'impersonating tr0lls' with Nazis is not correct, and that it hollows out the term Nazi, for the simple reason that it's highly unlikely any such impersonating trol will be an actual Nazi who helped in killing 6 millions Jews. It's even doubtful all such impersonators will be neo-nazis for that matter.
So, yes: it's self-evident. What do you want me to do? Search for demographic statistics that show how unlikely it is real Nazis are still alive and posting on twitter? I really can't waste my time on that.
Similarly, I don't give much importance or place much weight to irrational and unsubstantiated opinions. Those are thirteen-in-a-dozen, and never amount to anything, except maybe as a mental venting machine. Being convinced that you are right, solely based on your own feelings, is one of the surest ways to get it wrong and to make decisions that are biased and not in accordance to reality. But reality never loses to irrationality, and sooner or later, reality will bite back.
I always found it strange that in the divide between right and left (even the extremes of it), they never seem to note how similar they are in their convictions of 'being right', based on their own feelings and emotions. You said it yourself: a dark place in their hart. But you do not note it's basically the same place you're coming from, but with the delusion *you're* doing the right thing, of course.
Did you ever wonder how some people, like the fanatic Muslims of ISIS see the world? They see it much the same as you. Yes, of course, much more extreme yet, but still the same in principle. I have little doubt, that they too, solely act on emotions and their feelings. I'm sure, too, they are convinced they're doing the right thing. And they, as well, think their own interpretation of whatever terminology and words are mentioned in the Koran is the correct one and can be used for whatever purposes they deem fit, and they don't give a shit about what others are saying about it. And, of course, they too have no qualms in describing people who talk and behave in a way they do not like and find highly offensive, as unbelievers who only get what's coming to them. "If we kill some of those that draw cartoons and ridicule our prophet, next time maybe they won't post such nasty shit and then they can avoid their little broflake feelings getting hurt when they're called unbelievers that deserve to die." would be quite plausible to hear, from them.
Now, mind you, I'm not saying you're equal to an ISIS member, nor that would you go to such extremes as they. It's clear they are far more violent and intolerable than you (at least, so I assume). But, in essence, both you and them (and, yes, racists, Nazis and even leftist snowflakes, etc.), start from that same premise, namely that your own conviction is all that is needed - because it is just and right to do so - and think their own feelings trump all the rest, including logic. So, to be clear, since I know how oversensitive some are with analogies that they not like; I do not equate you to an ISIS terrorist, I'm saying you both have the same sort of attitude, even if the ideology and the means in which you express it differ, much like two sides of the same coin. Feelings, not mitigated by logic and reason, are THE prime factor of most of the 'evil' done by humans in the world. And that's a thing to avoid. That's why, for instance, the mob-rule gave a way to the more rational process of due law in our modern democracies.
In your own, very little and limited way, with your insistence of disregarding logic, you revert back to that mob-rule attitude.
I do not concur with this kind of self-indulgent... reasoning, if one can even call it that. Logic and rationality, and the things that are based on it, like science, is the only true way people can go forward. That's why it's both futile and ironic to see some of the left, who used to be against fascism, employ the same tactics as the fascists, and don't even seem to realize it. But of course, without logic, and based on ones' own emotions and feelings, there is no way they could see that, now could they?
Anyway, you say you disagree. Fair enough. Let's agree to disagree, then.
Slashdot Mirror
Also: " What would be the point?"
Clarity and consistency. Both in the law as in its execution. For example, if the actual definition of fruit and vegetables would have been applied from the start, tomatoes would not have been exempt from the taxes on fruit, and there would have been no courtcase to begin with.
In contrast, we now have to consider that any fruit could be considered a vegetable on subjective and arbitrary definitions and conditions, such as: being sweet, what people think about it in their ignorance, what the intent of the lawmaker was, if it can be cooked or not, etc. This leaves the door wide open to a plethora of similar cases, where not one of any of the variables is consistently used and contradictions are bound to happen because there is no internal logic to it. True justice needs logical laws applied correctly and consistently. The less arbitrary judgements based on subjective grounds that are contradictory, the better.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable in stating this principle. Yes, yes, you can argue it will never be thus 100%, and you would be right, but that shouldn't stop us from *striving* to do it that way.
Let's agree to disagree.
A fruit is a fruit, period. Saying it has nothing to do with whether it is a fruit or not, when the taxation is for vegetables OR FRUIT, makes no sense at all. In your view, it has nothing to do with reality... but any judgment about whether something is applicable or not HAS to deal with reality, that's just the point. If a flat-earther makes a law that ordains the world is not spherical and none may contradict this, and someone says it's a cube, the court could say he still gets fined because the original maker of the law wanted to say the Earth was a flat disk. That's basically what you're saying. And what I'm saying is, that the court should have stuck to reality in any case, and concluded people are right if they say the Earth is spherical, and thus the fine void. Reality is not about what one wants, intents, or the majority of the people - lawmakers included - wrongly think of something - but just is. And courts should always look if a law is in accordance with that reality. An observable reality is best described by science and through the scientific method, using logic and rationality. Conclusions of the court that deal with intent vs reality, should let reality supersede. Always.
My point is, we - justice included - are better off with the latter instead of the former attitude. It would be quite nefarious to let mere intent, with no regard to reality, determine justice: there would be - literally - no reality-check on the things claimed and any intent would go unchallenged, then.
And if your stance is that a court can't do anything else BUT go with the presumed intent of a lawmaker, you would be wrong; there's enough jurisprudence where the courts have not followed the law, also in it's intent. So yes, you're right that the lawmaker made a bad law, if his intent was to allow some fruits like tomatoes to be taxed like vegetables, but that doesn't mean the courts have to go along with it, if the logical interpretation - and not an assumption of the intent - is used. I get that you want to say they did the latter. My point is, they should have done the former, and that logical and rational reasoning based on the factual reality needs to supersede (guesses of) ill-informed intent based on ignorance.
And yes, the lawmaker was either ignorant or incompetent, if he made that law. Which is exactly why the court should not have gone along with it, but instead followed it consistently with logic and conclude, correctly, that tomato's are fruit, and thus exempt from the tax. This would have send that lawmaker - if he was really 'intent' on it - back to the drawingboard, and come up with a better, more consistent law that does not contradict itself: another advantage of such an approach! Ad infinitum if necessary, until you have a proper law based on reality and adequately formulated and logical consistent, as best one can. Something, I would claim, which should be strived for, in any jurisdiction or lawmaking.
I've seen the flat-earthers conspiracy theories, so yes, no doubt this, in comparison, will be a piece of cake for the same kind of nutcases to ignore the truth, yes.
Reading your text I found myself a bit puzzled about the seemingly randomness and off-topic sidetracks in your comment. I suspect some irony and (self?)mockery were at play here too, and/or wild-associative thoughts on the matter, which, I must confess, I didn't fully manage to follow.
But.. I'll go with your last paragraph, and agree with you there.
Basically, it's a miscategorisation learned from infancy and perpetuated by ignorance.
But a tenacious one.
I know this. However, what they're actually doing is claiming that reality is subservient to what people *think* about something, and this is a very dangerous or at least foolish thing to do.
The court, fully well KNEW that tomatoes are, in effect fruits. We seem to both agree on this. However, they decided that it actually being a fruit is of no importance because people consider(ed) it to be a vegetable. The precedence this creates is, that it doesn't matter what something *actually* is, what counts is what people think of it, EVEN if that's faulty, comes from ignorance, laziness or is arbitrary and is utterly inconsistent. I simply do not subscribe to this pretty dangerous and foolish viewpoint. It undermines the believability of the court (due to it's arbitrary and inconsistent nature of the ruling), and sets precedent for similar justifications - which might do more harm than just unjustly demanding taxes - in matters that are of greater import. It's the principle that is at play here. If one makes the decision that whatever most people wrongly think and assume is what should count for a ruling of the court, than basically you have no true justice anymore.
This whole concept and viewpoint flies in the face of the age-old adagium "Fiat justitia ruat cælum" which is what the courts have tried and should try to follow, exactly for the reasons mentioned above. The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences or whatever people 'feel' about it.
errata: *should be considered vegetables.
But I assume you knew what I meant.
"As your parent pointed out: many fruits are considered vegetables, and that includes tomatoes."
Not all that many, but the point was more: with the given definition of 'part of a plant and used as food', ALL fruit should be considered fruit.since it isn't, there clearly is something wrong with his reasoning of when you define fruit to be vegetables.
"it is not an either or"
But the question before the court was an 'or' question, since the difference of the taxes was made between vegetables OR fruits.
"Hint: vegetables are usually cooked."
That has the same hallmarks as the arbitrary condition of the court about it being sweet. You yourself point already out it's perfectly possible to cook fruit - you can do so even without turning it into marmalade, even. In reverse, it's perfectly possible to eat vegetables raw. this leaves the 'usually' as defining characteristic, but that's even vaguer than anything else. And there too, we see the non-consistency: there are vegetables that are 'usually' eaten raw and not cooked, and in fact, tomatoes are 'usually' eaten raw as well, and we've already established they're actually fruit, so why aren't they considered fruit, if being 'usually cooked' is the condition for calling a fruit a vegetable. again, this sort of wishy-wash definition and added condition is not logical, nor is it consistently applied.
"Every person I know learned what a vegetable is as a child"
That's not a very compelling argument as to the correctness of something. Before science, 'every child' knew humans were created by God as well. The Jews knew it was their God, the Catholics theirs, the Islamists theirs, etc. Point is, if 'everyone' learns something to their kids that is incorrect or dubious, every child will have learned something incorrect. the incorrectness of a statement, therefor, is not determined by how many children think the world is what it is because their parents told them.
In fact, I myself as a child thought a tomato was no fruit as well, since my parents didn't know and learned me this, etc. This is rather a continuation of ignorance, more than anything else. Science thought me this was faulty, and I stand corrected. I think that's more in accordance to how people should behave than continuing 'learning' or promoting something which isn't factual correct, but is left alone due to ignorance or comfort.
Fruit: a fruit is the seed-bearing structure in flowering plants (also known as angiosperms).
However you look at it, thus, tomatoes are fruits.
Since the case was about whether it is a vegetable OR a fruit, and it definitely is a fruit, what that does is the court 'un-fruiting' a fruit. Makes no sense.
EVEN if your explanation would be valid, one would have to explain, logically and rationally, why a fruit shouldn't be considered a fruit anymore. After all, with all your examples, this is not the case. For instance, if a celery is a leaf stalk, it doesn't stop being a leaf-stalk even if it is considered a vegetable. So if you taxed vegetables, but not leaf stalks, you INHERENTLY already make the distinction between the two. And then you can't say it's NOT a leaf stalk anymore even if one would consider it a vegetable. Think about it. If the requirement, as you say, is that 'it is a part of a plant that is used for food', regardless of it being a fruit or not, why then make a difference in the first place, and why would not ALL fruits fall under the 'vegetable' category? All fruits are part of a plant, and are used for food. If that's the defining characteristic and overrules the definition of a fruit, all fruits should be considered vegetables. Yet only tomatoes are considered such. Ergo: this makes no sense, EVEN if we follow your reasoning.
Now, the truth is, the court gave a very contentious and arbitrary EXTRA characteristic(s): such that fruit is sweet to be considered fruit, while vegetables aren't. This is, of course, nonsensical, since neither in the definition of fruit NOR in the definition of vegetables such a condition is ever mentioned: it's just something they invented themselves. And they're not even consistent in it, since sweet potatoes are sweet, yet are still considered vegetables, and some fruits aren't sweet at all, and yet are considered fruits.
This whole mess could have been avoided if they just kept it logically and looked at things from a rational perspective, instead of adding arbitrary conditions to the definitions and meaning and then not following your own bric-a-brac invented definitions.
Finally we can lay this idiocy, nonsense and stupidity to rest. For years it was clear to anyone with a grain of understanding that the discrepancies were due to artefacts, measure-errors or influences they didn't account for. Instead, pipe-dream-believers - or rather fanatics - kept insisting the hype was real.
Now that it's been shown it is, indeed, the latter - as a rational person would expect - no doubt the die-hards EM-fanfappers will claim some conspiracy theory, but ultimately, the case has been settled, and this hype will die out. It's unbelievable how many years this stupidity has been perpetuated and continued. even if the EM itself wasn't a perpetual motion/energy machine, sometimes it looked like the hyped up story *was*.
And, of course, deep down, everyone knew, even the believers. I remember having offered, from the start, a wager of 1000 dollar if it turned out te be true and the EM would be a reactionless engine. Of course, no-one of the EM-fans ever accepted the wager...
The only thing that is depressing is the unbelievable gullibility of large portions of the masses and hoi palloi. One wonders how democracies are still doing relative well, with this kind of illiterate and ignorant electorate.
No, the argument was:
Person A: The medicine isn't working because their body is dying.
Person B: All bodies are dying, so that on itself, can not be a valid argument.
Yes, you are incapable to comprehend that. Yes, your counter was silly. The argument was faulty, due to it being a general statement that is applicable to all bodies. You can't seem to differentiate at all, and then complain about the semantics of it. Well, maybe you *should* learn what words mean. McDonalds? Feeling smug, are we? Seriously, act as a grown up.
You're still not getting the point. You PRESUME - in front - it will not show up with cancer patients. But since 'better health' is not longevity nor a cure, but exactly what I gave as a definition, the fact remains that if it's effective with everyone, and cancer-patients are a subset of 'everyone', they would have those benefits too.
It's only because you place a priori conditions on it why it 'will not show up', that you can't see that your changing the premise along the way.
Ok, let's do it this way. Say, you have a medicine that lets your nails grow 5 times faster than normal. You say it works with everyone. You deny cancer patients can be used. Well, now... take a group of cancer patients that take this medicine, and take a similar group of cancer patients that use a placebo. You then look at the difference between the two groups. If the first group has 5 times longer nails in the same timeperiod as the control group YOU HAVE PROVEN it works.
Now: was it do demonstrate something that 'improves cancer outcome'? No. But it doesn't matter. That's why your reasoning is wrong, above. Cancer patients are useful to research cancer-medicine on, but it doesn't mean other medicines working on 'everyone' suddenly won't work on them. That's just faulty logic. You try to counter that by claiming it won't work because they don't live long, but that doesn't matter for the DIFFERENCE between the two groups. Yes: with normal people living longer, the nails would be 5 cm versus 1 cm, with people living shorter, like the cancer-patients, the time will be shorter, but the *difference* will still be there, say 5 mm versus 1 mm. BOTH measurements show the product is working. So you CAN use it on cancer patients as well. Why is this so difficult to understand for you? Saying 'but it won't work due to the chemicals' is a priori ASSUMPTION you yourself are adding. Unless you have reasons to assume the specific chemicals used - if any are used to begin with, because some cancer patients have stopped taking it, or use other treatments, so there is already an assumption you made there - effectively will counter the chemical bounds of the product you're using, this is nothing but wild speculation and conjecture. It makes as much sense to claim that, as to say the nail-growing only work *because* of the chemicals.
With your example of an aspirin, you are, once again, alluding to longer lifespan. Same with your "Eating healthy will improve your life span." You're mixing cause and effect. How many times do I have to tell you that 'better health' is NOT the same as having a longer lifespan? And it's not 'longer lifespan' you're researching, but 'better health'. I already gave you the definition of it. And by that definition, it's perfectly possible to determine health benefits, even with cancer-patients, just like a nail-growing medicine would also be noticeable in that group. You don't seem to be able to get your head around the fact what the difference is between measuring better health, and measuring longer living.
No. An analogue is never meant to compare the original object and the analogue to it, but it's to compare *the reasoning* behind it. So I'm not equating normal aging with cancer proliferation. At all. I'm saying the reasoning behind your counterargument that 'the body is dying' is an unsatisfactory argument, since all bodies are dying.
If you don't understand this, maybe clocking at McDonalds is a bit too high of a goal for you?
It wasn't. If it were, you wouldn't be congratulating, but pointing out 'everyone' means something else, and 'health' means something else as well (as you tried, with equating it as being the same as longevity or a cure for cancer; it isn't).
You don't have to make a fuss about it. Just acknowledge the premise wasn't correct and you meant "everyone except cancer patients". Of course, what with other people, then? With other diseases? Since you automatically presume it won't show up in 4th grade cancer-patients, what about 3d grade? 2d grade? What about other diseases, where other chemicals are used? What if the health benefit only shows up after you're 100 years old? Would anyone notice?
Point is, once you make assumptions and a priori decide something is going to show up or not, you're never going to be sure. The proof is in the (eating of the) pudding. You can demonstrate the medicine works, also by cancer-patients. Period. If their health augments, that is proof. If nothing shows up, then it's not proof of not working at all, but it is proof it's not working on everyone. BTW, you can never 'infer' a product isn't working if you set your own conditions for it, *ever*. What if a medicine would only work if you drank 3 blends of tea before it, and it only shows up if you're 100 years old? It hardly would show up in any statistics at all. So, generally speaking, one can not infer something is definitely not working because it hasn't shown up. However, science can't hold it's breath for it, and if something doesn't show up in the statistics when the scientific methodology was applied, it presumed as 'not proven it works'. If, however, one presumes it 'works for everyone', than it's logically to assume it works for cancer-patients as well, since 'health' is not longevity, nor has to be a cure, and 'everyone' means, indeed, everyone. Nor is there any a priori reason to assume it won't work through the 'chemicals' counteracting whatever is causing the health-benefit, nor that it would only show up at old age.
As said numerous times by now: you're changing the basic premise by automatically including and excluding different factors and variables after the facts, while that wasn't inherently part of the statement originally made. In contrast, it's perfectly possible that it shows benefits in cancer-patients as well, contrary to your claim, IF one does not use any a-priori assumptions of how and when it works and on whom (aka; the 'everyone' is non-excluding).
"you can't fucking hope to measure an improvement or health"
How would you know? You just said you can't infer anything, and yet you're doing the same. If there is a health benefit - especially one that is claimed to work on "everyone', it's quite possible to see it in cancer patients as well. That is is the definition of 'everyone', after all. Otherwise, you should have said 'everyone, except cancer patients', but in that case, you're already speculating. After all, ALL our bodies are actively dying, so that's not the point. If one sees no benefit due to the chemicals - wich is a piroi assumption of your part, one could as well research that theory with patients that have stopped using chemicals.
Of course, a random sample of the general population would be better, but the question was, if one could use cancer-patients. Yes, one could. After all, if I use the opposite assumption, that the research would show health benefits in the sample group who took the medicine as compared to the control group, where would that leave you? Then it *would* be confirmed to work, EVEN with cancer-patients - which, unless your medicine fails the moment it detects cancercells, is the normal thing to assume. If it works on everyone, it should work on cancer-patients as well. If it doesn't, it doesn't work on 'everyone'. There is no way around this, I'm afraid.
"In drug studies, statistics are used. Nothing helps everyone."
Which is why the premise you used in the comment was faulty from the start.
I'm glad we seem to agree on this, then, at least.
"does not help terminal cancer patients"
Then it does not help "everyone".
"You cannot infer that it does *not* improve general health from its failure to save terminal patients."
The question was not whether it can save terminal patients. I see you keep confusing this. Getting a better health != a cure for cancer. It just means that, compared to the similar control group of cancer patients, they have *better* health.
I've explained this three times by now. I can't help it if you don't get it. You are changing the premise, and you don't seem to be aware of it. A medicine that improves health for 'everyone', would also improve HEALTH for cancer patients. No-one was talking about longevity or a cure for cancer, merely being healthier. Health is the ability of a biological system to acquire, convert, allocate, distribute, and utilize energy with maximum efficiency. If the cancer group sees no improvements whatsoever in this regard compared to the control group, it's not working for them, and thus, not working for 'everyone'.
The premise was: "a new wonder drug that makes everyone healthier". Note the "everyone" and "healthier". Don't go changing into something else.
Now, on that premise, as I've said, the other poster was right. Try to think logically. If EVERYONE gets healthier of it, then cancer patients get healthier too. Sure, they're still unhealthy compared to the normal populace, but if you take two groups of cancer patients, than one can compare the ones getting a placebo with the ones that got the medicine, and see if their is any health benefit from it. If there is no health benefit for those cancer patients, then one can, at the very least, conclude not 'everyone' gets a health benefit from it.
I think people like you are putting to much value on it. Work, for the VAST majority of people (aka, the grunts), is just something one HAS to do to get paid. If I got as much money from an UBI as I earn now - which isn't THAT much, rest assured - then I would stop working in a heartbeat.
And yes, I could keep myself busy with other things, but most of these things would be pure entertainment. As is the case for most people. I think either only people which are at the hierarchical top, those with the 'my-hobby-is-my-work' enthusiasm, and academics in their ivory tower think differently. They extrapolate their own thoughts on this and think it's valid for everyone. But it isn't. Even the romans already knew the masses only need panem et circensis - so why do they think this has changed?
The vast majority of people are inherently lazy and hedonistic in nature. Give enough money so they can live in comfort without having to work, and they won't work. There will still be some creativity going on, no doubt - people have other drives to, like social status and feeling important, for instance - or just being curious/gifted... but the majority isn't or won't do much trouble. Besides, not everyone can be a VIP, or it looses its meaning. Point is, it's almost a given most people getting an UBI large enough to live comfortably of it, won't work, will spend their income on basic necessities (such as food) and the rest on entertainment, and that will be all. And yes, they're perfectly fine, even for extended periods, as long as they're entertained.
I'm rather leaning to the right myself and find excessive welfare-sate thingies misguided as best, but... I could mayhaps agree to a law as what the parent poster said. Let's say one can only have maximum 15 or 20 times as what the lowest-paid employee in the same company in the same country gets... 20 times is still plenty.
Note that in the '60ies the CEO already had far more than the average employee, but that also the *relative* gap has widened. Aka, a CEO of a 10000 men company earned, say, 20 times more, but a CEO of the same company of 10000 now earns *40 times more*. Now, is the CEO of today double as good as the one in the 60ies, and that for all CEO's, worldwide? That's very unlikely. So, there is something more to it than just 'equivalent pay for work', because while no-one would deny deserves to get more loan than a simple '20 minutes learning job' employee, this does not explain why during the past years, even the relative gap, compared to CEO's before them, is getting wildly vaster. Some argue: "That because the world has become complexer', but that seems like an excuse: the world was never very simply. And while the technology has indeed changed, the same technology also provided tools to manage that complexity better, so I find that argument not very convincing.
There is no real reason - in the sense of that they deserve it through their work - why CEO's now would have 50 times more, while it used to be 20 times... apart from being the 'us-knows-us' crowd: those that agree to those lucrative deals in one 'board of directors' get the same lucrative deal themselves, by the ones they have pampered before. It's just a matter of pampering eachother, thus. Once you 'get in', it's exceedingly easy to get the same sort of deals. And, much like politicians having to vote on their own income, it never goes down, it always goes up - convinced as they are they deserve a raise, whether that's actually true or not. But who would shoot in their own foot by denying yourself a raise?
Granted, one can say that those CEO's who build something up from nothing, deserved it. But the Elon Musks are pretty rare. Mostly it's just one big shot being given the opportunity by other big shots, without actually having to demonstrate any competence. Even if they grind the company into bankruptcy they come out largely unscathed, pockets still reasonably filled by money (still WAY more than any employee) and usually can begin without much trouble in another company.
Now...as to the 'why should I'... Suffice it to say that, throughout history, the more their was disproportionate wealth distribution - aka, the growing gap between haves and have nots - the more unstable a society becomes. that's why societies with a large middle class, for instance, are usually the most stable. Basically, if this keeps up, and that gap keeps getting larger and larger: a difference of 100 times, 1000 times, 10000 times... the populace will revolt. One can lament that, find it unfair or not, but I'm just giving a social-historical certitude here. If the difference gets too large, the disenfranchised will take it from those on top, with violence if they have too.
It's not I am saying that is a good thing, just that that is what will happen. CEO's and their companies don't live in a vacuum, after all, but are part of the society they live in. They don't form the mass of that society however, so if a trigger springs in action - like rising food-prices or whatever - sooner or later it will go wrong. In the long term, thus, for a society at large, it's better not to let the gap become to wide, and to always make sure you have a broad and large middle-class.
On the other hand, it very much depends on your definition of 'bad intentions'. If someone wants a different, or less costly, or less abuse-prone safety net, or even wants NO safety net, then one can say those are 'bad intentions', but basically, it are just opinions you don't agree with.
If it's about the 'tone' in which some posts are made, I can follow you a bit better, but even then it bags the question whether using the same tone will help in normalizing and calming the debate. IMHO, this is never the case. That said, I understand the principle of reciprocity, so it use it myself, but only on personal attacks, one-on-one. I try to not respond with vitriol to general, non-personal statements, even when I don't agree with them.
Except the Holocaust Jews were prisoners and couldn't look for a better job if they wished to do so.
Which makes this whole analogy pure BS, but you already knew that, and that's why you posted as an anonymous coward.
Indeed.
As said above, Slashdot really has come down a lot, if even basic scientific methodology has to be explained to a poster here, nowadays.
No, the other poster was right, and you have it wrong. So you're lol'ing in error.
You said EVERYONE gets healthier with it. If you want to make a trial to assess the risks, you could very well take a sample of cancer-patients. What you do, then, is have a control group of stage4 cancer patients whom you give a placebo, and another group of stage4 cancer patients, which you give the actual medicine to.
If the latter doesn't show any amelioration in health compared to the first group, at the very least one can conclude not 'everyone' gets health-benefits from it. Yes, both groups will still be unhealthier than a random sample of the general populace, but the efficacy of the medicine is determined by the *comparison* of two similar groups, where the only variable that differs is having the medicine or not.
Slashdot really has come down a lot, if even basic scientific methodology has to be explained to a poster here, nowadays.
Sigh. Note that I was reacting to the comments, not the article. For instance, the main post where this whole thread has come from, talks about "abusive trolls". Another was directly talking that a person who post a picture of someone else while making racist comments is good enough to be called a Nazi. Surely, it hasn't escaped you that many on this forum equate 'racism' with 'Nazism'. Some even say posting 'vile' things and 'behave in a pattern' makes then Nazis.
Does everyone do it and say so? Well, I suppose not.
Well, let me rephrase it this way, then: IF one is equating trolls or racists with Nazi's, you're hollowing out the term. That way, I don't have to prove anything, except the internal logic of the argument.
Secondly, even if one looks at the article, it says this halfway: "The impersonator trolls seethed." Impersonator trolls. Yet, the title says "Confessions of a Digital Nazi Hunter", and also in the article itself he clearly regards them as Nazis.
So I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Yes, I regard it as self-evident that equating 'impersonating tr0lls' with Nazis is not correct, and that it hollows out the term Nazi, for the simple reason that it's highly unlikely any such impersonating trol will be an actual Nazi who helped in killing 6 millions Jews. It's even doubtful all such impersonators will be neo-nazis for that matter.
So, yes: it's self-evident. What do you want me to do? Search for demographic statistics that show how unlikely it is real Nazis are still alive and posting on twitter? I really can't waste my time on that.
Similarly, I don't give much importance or place much weight to irrational and unsubstantiated opinions. Those are thirteen-in-a-dozen, and never amount to anything, except maybe as a mental venting machine. Being convinced that you are right, solely based on your own feelings, is one of the surest ways to get it wrong and to make decisions that are biased and not in accordance to reality. But reality never loses to irrationality, and sooner or later, reality will bite back.
I always found it strange that in the divide between right and left (even the extremes of it), they never seem to note how similar they are in their convictions of 'being right', based on their own feelings and emotions. You said it yourself: a dark place in their hart. But you do not note it's basically the same place you're coming from, but with the delusion *you're* doing the right thing, of course.
Did you ever wonder how some people, like the fanatic Muslims of ISIS see the world? They see it much the same as you. Yes, of course, much more extreme yet, but still the same in principle. I have little doubt, that they too, solely act on emotions and their feelings. I'm sure, too, they are convinced they're doing the right thing. And they, as well, think their own interpretation of whatever terminology and words are mentioned in the Koran is the correct one and can be used for whatever purposes they deem fit, and they don't give a shit about what others are saying about it. And, of course, they too have no qualms in describing people who talk and behave in a way they do not like and find highly offensive, as unbelievers who only get what's coming to them. "If we kill some of those that draw cartoons and ridicule our prophet, next time maybe they won't post such nasty shit and then they can avoid their little broflake feelings getting hurt when they're called unbelievers that deserve to die." would be quite plausible to hear, from them.
Now, mind you, I'm not saying you're equal to an ISIS member, nor that would you go to such extremes as they. It's clear they are far more violent and intolerable than you (at least, so I assume). But, in essence, both you and them (and, yes, racists, Nazis and even leftist snowflakes, etc.), start from that same premise, namely that your own conviction is all that is needed - because it is just and right to do so - and think their own feelings trump all the rest, including logic. So, to be clear, since I know how oversensitive some are with analogies that they not like; I do not equate you to an ISIS terrorist, I'm saying you both have the same sort of attitude, even if the ideology and the means in which you express it differ, much like two sides of the same coin. Feelings, not mitigated by logic and reason, are THE prime factor of most of the 'evil' done by humans in the world. And that's a thing to avoid. That's why, for instance, the mob-rule gave a way to the more rational process of due law in our modern democracies.
In your own, very little and limited way, with your insistence of disregarding logic, you revert back to that mob-rule attitude.
I do not concur with this kind of self-indulgent... reasoning, if one can even call it that. Logic and rationality, and the things that are based on it, like science, is the only true way people can go forward. That's why it's both futile and ironic to see some of the left, who used to be against fascism, employ the same tactics as the fascists, and don't even seem to realize it. But of course, without logic, and based on ones' own emotions and feelings, there is no way they could see that, now could they?
Anyway, you say you disagree. Fair enough. Let's agree to disagree, then.