And now you use fallacy to try and prove me wrong? This is what I'm referring to in suggesting that you find some education.
Look, this part is rather simple. You are not going to convince me that a person is wrong because you disagree with their position. You will also not convince me that using Ad hominem is ever proper, worthy, correct, or meritorious. Similarly, weak fallacy does not work to prove any points in a debate.
You can try to circle around the same thing for the rest of your life, many people do. Denying one lacks maturity and education will never move a person to an educated mature position. It takes work to do that, and as previously mentioned it is much easier not to do the work.
So what can you do? You could admit that you were wrong to attack someone and strive to become a better, or do nothing and continue to think fallacy and Ad hominem are just fine. If you choose the later you should expect people that understand rhetoric point out that your statements are immature and show a lack of education. There is no more for me to discuss on this topic.
I believe you misunderstand how human nature works. We never instantly change opinions, never ever. I will argue until I'm blue in the face very often, hell I admit as much, and later change my opinion. You seem to be doing the same thing here. See what I'm getting at?
Opinions change in time not instantly. The mind takes a long time to comprehend complex issues. It's not anyone's fault, that is the way we are built.
You also neglect a simple fact that we can not, and never will be able to be subject matter experts at everything. This is plural, not just myself. Anyone that tells you they know everything about any topic is a liar, and anyone that tells you they are experts at everything is also a liar. Add to this the fact that we have so much information available due to the Internet that it is easy to find contradictory "facts". If we have said facts, our opinions become much more secure.
So you had a different opinion, I can assure you that this is absolutely normal and happens all the time. Dialogue does not have to change a persons opinion but rather represent your own so that the person (or audience) can contemplate your point of view, and of course allow you to contemplate an alternative opinion. An educated debate is awesome, and extremely health for all parties assuming that the rules are followed. The rules of rhetoric go back thousands of years, and were classified and documented to promote progressive dialogue, as well as show what is bad form (fallacy and untruth).
Contrary to what you state, I have no fundamental error since I have no vested interests outside of what I originally intended to do: Which is to point out that you were using fallacies to berate and belittle someone, which shows a lack of maturity and education on your part. Both of those things can be remedied in time with effort. Quite honestly I am impressed you have held this dialogue civilly for as long as you have. It's a great sign of progress in a relatively short amount of time. It could be very well that you have some education that is just below the surface, and you just needed a nudge to move it outward. Still, I would recommend proper education on rhetoric since you inject a lot of fallacy into the discussion. And to answer any questions regarding my last statement: I have had years of formal training and still have to practice and learn every day. It is an ongoing education, primarily because it's easy to fall in to the trap of using simple fallacy to end arguments or debates as fast as possible. Thinking is work, and we humans enjoy leisure.
If you have employees I'm really surprised this has never come up until you hired a female. Your company has, or the guys working there have, no contact with females at all? Search on line for HR material and get it out quickly so you don't end up in court, or having to fire 10 guys for hooting at the new coworker. Search for Business Ethics training materials, you will come up with quite a bit.
Let this be a lesson also. If you own a business, there should be policies and statements in place as quickly as possible for all of these types of common legal issues. "No pr0n at work", "don't print pr0n" on your printers, equality in the work place, 0 tolerance for discrimination, etc.. etc... Even a small business with 1-2 people should have this.
Then debate the point instead of resorting to fallacy. One can not change their opinions or learn new facts without alternative opinions and alternative facts being presented correct? This is the whole point of dialogue, and also why dialogue itself requires a tremendous amount of education. Ad hominem attacks and simple fallacy may get you pats on the back from people that already agree with you, but it is impossible to sway someone else with a different opinion with those same tactics.
A separate and equal point is that I often change my opinion by debating properly, this is how we best learn new facts and alter our opinions. I freely admit that I am often mistaken in my opinion, I often lack perspectives that someone else has. If I am correct then dialogue will assert my correctness, if I am wrong I can either remain ignorant or update my opinion. So it's not just about swaying someone to your point of view, it's also about making sure your point of view is correct.
While I do agree with the broad point you are making, I think it is the misuse of science outside of the group of people who really understand the science that is the problem here.
This statement is absolutely fallacy. First, it's not a broad point. It's a very specific point. "Science" has a criteria defined by the Scientific Method. There is no possible way that this is Science, and claiming it is science would require a completely new definition of Scientific Method.
Second, it's not about misuse at all. This relates to what is stated above, it is not and can not be science. If it is not Science, there can be no such thing as "misuse of science". Most pseudo science, such as this would be, is almost _always_ misused (and calling this pseudo science is an over statement).
Psychology is quite adept at understanding that (a) everyone is capable of "psychopathic" behaviour at times (b) in some situations behaving psychopathically is the expected, normal and sensible way to behave but (c) this doesn't change the fact that some people behave psychopathically with such consistency across situations, and in such inappropraite situations that a diagnosis is appropriate.
If one could use actual "Science" on the subjects I might agree with you. Reviewing a string of text limited to 1024 characters makes it impossible to perform any Scientific experimentation or analysis. Even if you had 100 of these strings for the same person, it would be a failure without knowing numerous key elements required for the Scientific Method.
While culture, learned behaviour and the environment all play a role, current knowledge strongly suggests that some people are "born psychopaths".
I never stated that this was impossible to be born that way, I stated that the majority, meaning 99.999% of people, can be diagnosed with any number of psychological disorders ranging from being a psychopath, to a sociopath, to paranoid, etc.. etc... and so on and so on at any given time (based on coping mechanisms due to the environment). There is no current testing to determine if someone is permanently or temporarily any one of those things, and measuring someone's "tweet" is not the way of performing such testing! In order to do such testing, tests would have to be against biology, not a "tweet". Tests would also have to meet the criteria for the Scientific Method, which is impossible to do based on someones "tweet".
So your intelligent response to me is numerous additional fallacies? I think you answered any possible further questions. You see, I have seen Jane Q post intelligent responses, point out rhetorical mistakes, properly debate her point of view, and use rhetoric very well. From your responses, I have no confidence that you know what either fallacy or rhetoric are.
I believe you have some education to find, so I'll let you go on your merry way.
It also allowed for cover ups, deceit, and distraction from everything you state in your last statement. Like any other media medium, it is a medium that has many purposes. Since we no longer teach concepts like "The good of Humanity" and instead teach bullshit, the medium is more often abused than used for the benefit of society.
The point is, everything you stated is a fallacy. Your statement regarding not having a TV causing famine is completely irrational (perhaps you meant that as sarcasm?).
Media has always been used for three main purposes, the difference with the internet and TV is that it allows nearly instant transfer of information. The main purposes are for propaganda, information, and entertainment.
TFA is simply talking about 1 aspect of the medium (entertainment). It's not the most important contrary to their position since each has a purpose and share importance. How good is would a News Paper be if it was nothing but comics? How many people would stop reading it if there was no entertainment? Internet trends will hopefully keep this in balance (though I have doubts since I have seen what happened to TV).
Oooh. People doing things without permission. Oooh. This must be stopped! Only the Authorities should have access to this sort of thing (because you know we can trust them).
From anywhere on the globe, the software can penetrate the most private spaces, turning on computer web cameras and reading documents as they are being typed.
If it is installed on your computer.
It was "the Authories" that had access and used it to spy on citizens, read TFA.
To your second point, do you really believe that they have no way of brute forcing a hunk of Spyware on to any Windows PC? I think you missed the articles last month where MS key stores were not the only thing at issue with Flame and Stuxnet, it was that the Government had agents working inside MS. A dollar says they have more than 1 "oh shit" back door on any MS PC, if not something permanently installed that they can do the same thing at the flip of a switch.
While I don't disagree with your sentiment, I do say that there is more we can do as people to resolve these issues. Educate people around you, and wake people up is the first step. After that, you can actually have enough mass to make changes. Complacency is not going to resolve the problems (obviously).
Of course this is an extension of your thoughts. The sentiment alone hints at being defeated, perhaps that was not your opinion.
If you don't agree with facts or opinion at least have enough intellect to present valid arguments. Ad Hominem, a string of informal fallacies, followed by a base rate fallacy does not count.
I guess it works if you are trying to be the poster child for "don't do this" samples in the "Idiot's guide to fallacy (tm)".
People had to know this was coming, it's painfully obvious and is obvious with all such technology. Algorithms are used to validate, and one only needs to do reverse engineering of 2 aspects. 1) Math function to match data. 2) input mechanism used to get test data.
The same thing was done with fingerprint scanners, and why we did not have a mass adoption. Jello was found to be the easiest way to lift and place fingerprints (This trick was used at a DOD site during our pilots.)
This is why most secure areas have numerous layers of security. Door 1) 2 factor Auth, Door 2) fingerprint or Iris, Door 3) a 2 factor Auth with different information than Door 1.
I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.
You're missing the point. Facebook is a tool that _you_ use to spy on and stalk _other_ people. As long as you don't post anything any more revealing that "omg wtf my dog just farted!!1!!!1" then you don't have a problem. It's not like anyone can spy on anything other than what you post there.
Wait what? So have you missed all the stories where Facebook employees are monitoring chat and turning people in to police? What do they do when they see people say things like "I hate our President"? I'm betting that you don't know, because I don't know. I highly doubt that they have made, or will make, any policies public. It is obvious that they are scraping a lot of data.
Think G+ is any different? I have no confidence myself, and the best rationale I have seen from people in justifying it is that the morals of Google seem to differ from FB. Okay, I get that but is it fair to give two different standards to two different companies based on something impossible to measure such as "morality"?
It's not the information I take issue with, information is fine. It's having to know the real name, address, phone number, place of work, etc.. that I take issue with. That and the constant changes that open things to everyone even after you set them as hidden data.
Usenet names like "jackrabbit" and "c0dr" give one a bit of a mask. I see/. the same way. I could hide if I wished, yet you could still track my comments to a personality. It's a way of being anonymous without being truly anonymous.
My apologies if you took my words as "Hostile", it was meant to be more "direct" than hostile.
What you seem to have missed completely is how it would be possible to distinguish temporary symptoms from permanent, which is an obviously large issue with using "Tweets" to diagnose someone.
Look at your last statement for a moment, then compare to what I previously stated. How many environment issues could cause a person to have a variety of those symptoms? They are incredibly numerous. Guy steals your neighbor's bike and gets hit by a car, do you feel any empathy for the person? What if he was stealing the bike to sell for money to feed his family since he can't find a job and unemployment ran out? Do you feel the same empathy if your neighbor was abusing his wife or kids, or sold dope?
I don't take issue with people having tests or knowing symptoms. What I take issue with is that someone could be labeled permanently in some database as psychopathic due to a state of mind that is almost always subjective and temporary.
From TFA remember that you are not talking about someone doing this labeling because of an extensive test, but rather due to 1-1024 characters of text. This would remove things critical such as base lines and responses to at least dozens of subject matter areas.
No, most aren't dangerous, but you generally don't want one in your life.
So you want me to believe that you have never shown traits that would lead you to be diagnosed as psychopathic? Tell the truth or don't say a word. I'll recommend that you go read the symptoms before making any such claim. Are you naive enough to believe you have to have more than one symptom to be diagnosed as Psychopathic, or are you being delusional?
How about I give a nice example of mass induced psychopathy: Email from CEO goes out to all employees stating "Due to financial issues we will be reducing the work force by 20%, we will be monitoring people to determine who is the best to keep and who is the best to dismiss."
Yes, just that easily we have mass induced psychopathy and even a high level of paranoia. People's mechanism for coping is normal and even expected. This is just one example of countless possible, and it does not make the person a "dickhead" as you state.
Without those responses, people do go insane. Trying to suppress normal responses is when we have things like Post Office shootings and the Uni-bomber.
Honestly, I think I realize what is broken in your logic: There is really no way of determining when someone is showing temporary symptoms or permanent symptoms, you only have a way of testing for symptoms. Such testing is not possible by the way, just like there is no way of looking at Genes to determine if people will have it because everyone has the potential and even does show traits from time to time (at least).
I'm not pro-terrorist by any means, but you should really investigate both sides of the story and not just believe the propaganda machine. Many of these people see no option. They know they can't outgun the soldiers, but don't want to be conquered. You won't like hearing it, but that is exactly what most of them see and is happening. The US comes in, sets up sock puppets, takes all their goods, tells them they can't do things they normally do or need to do for their Religion, etc... US Soldiers for the most part fine, but when the US companies and their Private Security come in, fuck up their economy, trash their neighborhoods, bully them around, break the law and flaunt it, people get pissed off.
Are there some wackos there also? Sure, but in most cases it's not the wackos that are recruited.. it's Kids that can't get jobs, watch their familes get bullied around or killed, watch friends and neighbors get sick from all the DU rounds we leave in the area and never clean up (US Soldiers get screwed by that one also, do some reading.), etc.. etc...
The point is, there is plenty of blame to go around. At this point in time, I find the amount of ignorance staggering and inexcusable. There is simply no excuse to believe everything you are told, facts are _everywhere_! It's rare to find them on the Evening News, but they are there.
Sure, it's possible the message was unclear and relied on too much knowledge of recent events; then the appropriate question is "what do you mean by that?" rather than "wow what a jerk!"
FTFY
Sure, it's possible the message was unclear and relied on too much knowledge of A TV Series; then the appropriate question is "what do you mean by that?" rather than "wow what a jerk!"
Can't say I watch the show. I assumed I knew what the comment meant, but having no such knowledge of Babylon 5 was happy that an AC clarified the issue later. Speculation: Maybe that was what the person was upset about?
You do realize that you are very broken in terms of critical thinking correct? Based on an assumption, and not a very well thought assumption at that, you declare a winner. Not that I'm shocked mind you, I just wanted to point out that your logic is broken.
Good luck proving that in court dumbass, they are impersonating you. Do you realize how easy it would be to just claim it was you sending the texts and they took the phone after you had asked? "Yeah, when we caught him he sent the first couple texts. We just added the rest to set up the meeting spot.
Look at reality for a moment. Not every Cop would do something like above and quite honestly that is not the issue. The issue is that you have enabled the people that do operate "above the law" the ability to do more "above the law", and in fact made it legal for them to act above the law.
Since you see nothing wrong with the impersonation aspect, I'm guessing that the above statement simply goes way beyond your ability to comprehend. Check some history, and look at the massive amount of "Acts" passed in the last 30 years that put certain people and groups above the law. You will probably deny any impact on society, but I'll caution you to look in to things like Fast and Furious, and make sure you take note of demand letter 3.
My hunch is, as The Alegory of the Cave suggests, you will happily sit in denial. I do hope you prove me wrong!
Anonymity is not bad, but do you see the obvious problems trying to have progressive dialogue on a forum where numerous people wear a mask? Post anonymous, I'm all for it and even use the feature on occasion. Nowhere does my signature imply that it's "bad", but rather it's not conducive to dialogue.
I often reply to people posting anonymous, perhaps you should check facts before making foolish assumptions. I am less inclined however to maintain a debate when I don't know if I'm trying to respond to one or five different people posting similar opinions all anonymously.
Most psychopaths are not dangerous, the desire for a so called pseudo-science of trying to cure something obviously not broken is odd. Just like most people have some type of phobia, have narcissistic tendencies, some type of rational paranoia, etc... We don't run around trying to make magic bullets trying to fix it all for several reasons.
First, most of those traits are healthy and responses to the environment. Second, most people do not experience those tendencies for extended durations of time. If the environment is messed up, so are the people.. it's called a coping mechanism. Trying to fix the "problem" without really fixing the problem is something us humans have an extremely poor habit of doing, and the results are often much worse than working on the root cause (environment, education, social influences, etc...)
Instead of trying to fix symptoms, we should be trying to fix the problems...
Slashdot Mirror
And now you use fallacy to try and prove me wrong? This is what I'm referring to in suggesting that you find some education.
Look, this part is rather simple. You are not going to convince me that a person is wrong because you disagree with their position. You will also not convince me that using Ad hominem is ever proper, worthy, correct, or meritorious. Similarly, weak fallacy does not work to prove any points in a debate.
You can try to circle around the same thing for the rest of your life, many people do. Denying one lacks maturity and education will never move a person to an educated mature position. It takes work to do that, and as previously mentioned it is much easier not to do the work.
So what can you do? You could admit that you were wrong to attack someone and strive to become a better, or do nothing and continue to think fallacy and Ad hominem are just fine. If you choose the later you should expect people that understand rhetoric point out that your statements are immature and show a lack of education. There is no more for me to discuss on this topic.
I believe you misunderstand how human nature works. We never instantly change opinions, never ever. I will argue until I'm blue in the face very often, hell I admit as much, and later change my opinion. You seem to be doing the same thing here. See what I'm getting at?
Opinions change in time not instantly. The mind takes a long time to comprehend complex issues. It's not anyone's fault, that is the way we are built.
You also neglect a simple fact that we can not, and never will be able to be subject matter experts at everything. This is plural, not just myself. Anyone that tells you they know everything about any topic is a liar, and anyone that tells you they are experts at everything is also a liar. Add to this the fact that we have so much information available due to the Internet that it is easy to find contradictory "facts". If we have said facts, our opinions become much more secure.
So you had a different opinion, I can assure you that this is absolutely normal and happens all the time. Dialogue does not have to change a persons opinion but rather represent your own so that the person (or audience) can contemplate your point of view, and of course allow you to contemplate an alternative opinion. An educated debate is awesome, and extremely health for all parties assuming that the rules are followed. The rules of rhetoric go back thousands of years, and were classified and documented to promote progressive dialogue, as well as show what is bad form (fallacy and untruth).
Contrary to what you state, I have no fundamental error since I have no vested interests outside of what I originally intended to do: Which is to point out that you were using fallacies to berate and belittle someone, which shows a lack of maturity and education on your part. Both of those things can be remedied in time with effort. Quite honestly I am impressed you have held this dialogue civilly for as long as you have. It's a great sign of progress in a relatively short amount of time. It could be very well that you have some education that is just below the surface, and you just needed a nudge to move it outward. Still, I would recommend proper education on rhetoric since you inject a lot of fallacy into the discussion. And to answer any questions regarding my last statement: I have had years of formal training and still have to practice and learn every day. It is an ongoing education, primarily because it's easy to fall in to the trap of using simple fallacy to end arguments or debates as fast as possible. Thinking is work, and we humans enjoy leisure.
Oooh, a really good solid mace made of the finest iron, full of spikes! I'll pay to watch! :O
You don't know much about Facebook do you? The answer is yes, there can really be an office full of cartoon frat boys out there...
If you have employees I'm really surprised this has never come up until you hired a female. Your company has, or the guys working there have, no contact with females at all? Search on line for HR material and get it out quickly so you don't end up in court, or having to fire 10 guys for hooting at the new coworker. Search for Business Ethics training materials, you will come up with quite a bit.
Let this be a lesson also. If you own a business, there should be policies and statements in place as quickly as possible for all of these types of common legal issues. "No pr0n at work", "don't print pr0n" on your printers, equality in the work place, 0 tolerance for discrimination, etc.. etc... Even a small business with 1-2 people should have this.
Then debate the point instead of resorting to fallacy. One can not change their opinions or learn new facts without alternative opinions and alternative facts being presented correct? This is the whole point of dialogue, and also why dialogue itself requires a tremendous amount of education. Ad hominem attacks and simple fallacy may get you pats on the back from people that already agree with you, but it is impossible to sway someone else with a different opinion with those same tactics.
A separate and equal point is that I often change my opinion by debating properly, this is how we best learn new facts and alter our opinions. I freely admit that I am often mistaken in my opinion, I often lack perspectives that someone else has. If I am correct then dialogue will assert my correctness, if I am wrong I can either remain ignorant or update my opinion. So it's not just about swaying someone to your point of view, it's also about making sure your point of view is correct.
While I do agree with the broad point you are making, I think it is the misuse of science outside of the group of people who really understand the science that is the problem here.
This statement is absolutely fallacy. First, it's not a broad point. It's a very specific point. "Science" has a criteria defined by the Scientific Method. There is no possible way that this is Science, and claiming it is science would require a completely new definition of Scientific Method.
Second, it's not about misuse at all. This relates to what is stated above, it is not and can not be science. If it is not Science, there can be no such thing as "misuse of science". Most pseudo science, such as this would be, is almost _always_ misused (and calling this pseudo science is an over statement).
Psychology is quite adept at understanding that (a) everyone is capable of "psychopathic" behaviour at times (b) in some situations behaving psychopathically is the expected, normal and sensible way to behave but (c) this doesn't change the fact that some people behave psychopathically with such consistency across situations, and in such inappropraite situations that a diagnosis is appropriate.
If one could use actual "Science" on the subjects I might agree with you. Reviewing a string of text limited to 1024 characters makes it impossible to perform any Scientific experimentation or analysis. Even if you had 100 of these strings for the same person, it would be a failure without knowing numerous key elements required for the Scientific Method.
While culture, learned behaviour and the environment all play a role, current knowledge strongly suggests that some people are "born psychopaths".
I never stated that this was impossible to be born that way, I stated that the majority, meaning 99.999% of people, can be diagnosed with any number of psychological disorders ranging from being a psychopath, to a sociopath, to paranoid, etc.. etc... and so on and so on at any given time (based on coping mechanisms due to the environment). There is no current testing to determine if someone is permanently or temporarily any one of those things, and measuring someone's "tweet" is not the way of performing such testing! In order to do such testing, tests would have to be against biology, not a "tweet". Tests would also have to meet the criteria for the Scientific Method, which is impossible to do based on someones "tweet".
So your intelligent response to me is numerous additional fallacies? I think you answered any possible further questions. You see, I have seen Jane Q post intelligent responses, point out rhetorical mistakes, properly debate her point of view, and use rhetoric very well. From your responses, I have no confidence that you know what either fallacy or rhetoric are.
I believe you have some education to find, so I'll let you go on your merry way.
It also allowed for cover ups, deceit, and distraction from everything you state in your last statement. Like any other media medium, it is a medium that has many purposes. Since we no longer teach concepts like "The good of Humanity" and instead teach bullshit, the medium is more often abused than used for the benefit of society.
The point is, everything you stated is a fallacy. Your statement regarding not having a TV causing famine is completely irrational (perhaps you meant that as sarcasm?).
Media has always been used for three main purposes, the difference with the internet and TV is that it allows nearly instant transfer of information. The main purposes are for propaganda, information, and entertainment.
TFA is simply talking about 1 aspect of the medium (entertainment). It's not the most important contrary to their position since each has a purpose and share importance. How good is would a News Paper be if it was nothing but comics? How many people would stop reading it if there was no entertainment? Internet trends will hopefully keep this in balance (though I have doubts since I have seen what happened to TV).
The sarcasm in your post was obviously.. not obvious. Seems like we are thinking at least very similar.
Oooh. People doing things without permission. Oooh. This must be stopped! Only the Authorities should have access to this sort of thing (because you know we can trust them).
If it is installed on your computer.
It was "the Authories" that had access and used it to spy on citizens, read TFA.
To your second point, do you really believe that they have no way of brute forcing a hunk of Spyware on to any Windows PC? I think you missed the articles last month where MS key stores were not the only thing at issue with Flame and Stuxnet, it was that the Government had agents working inside MS. A dollar says they have more than 1 "oh shit" back door on any MS PC, if not something permanently installed that they can do the same thing at the flip of a switch.
While I don't disagree with your sentiment, I do say that there is more we can do as people to resolve these issues. Educate people around you, and wake people up is the first step. After that, you can actually have enough mass to make changes. Complacency is not going to resolve the problems (obviously).
Of course this is an extension of your thoughts. The sentiment alone hints at being defeated, perhaps that was not your opinion.
If you don't agree with facts or opinion at least have enough intellect to present valid arguments. Ad Hominem, a string of informal fallacies, followed by a base rate fallacy does not count.
I guess it works if you are trying to be the poster child for "don't do this" samples in the "Idiot's guide to fallacy (tm)".
People had to know this was coming, it's painfully obvious and is obvious with all such technology. Algorithms are used to validate, and one only needs to do reverse engineering of 2 aspects. 1) Math function to match data. 2) input mechanism used to get test data.
The same thing was done with fingerprint scanners, and why we did not have a mass adoption. Jello was found to be the easiest way to lift and place fingerprints (This trick was used at a DOD site during our pilots.)
This is why most secure areas have numerous layers of security. Door 1) 2 factor Auth, Door 2) fingerprint or Iris, Door 3) a 2 factor Auth with different information than Door 1.
I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.
You're missing the point. Facebook is a tool that _you_ use to spy on and stalk _other_ people. As long as you don't post anything any more revealing that "omg wtf my dog just farted!!1!!!1" then you don't have a problem. It's not like anyone can spy on anything other than what you post there.
Wait what? So have you missed all the stories where Facebook employees are monitoring chat and turning people in to police? What do they do when they see people say things like "I hate our President"? I'm betting that you don't know, because I don't know. I highly doubt that they have made, or will make, any policies public. It is obvious that they are scraping a lot of data.
Think G+ is any different? I have no confidence myself, and the best rationale I have seen from people in justifying it is that the morals of Google seem to differ from FB. Okay, I get that but is it fair to give two different standards to two different companies based on something impossible to measure such as "morality"?
It's not the information I take issue with, information is fine. It's having to know the real name, address, phone number, place of work, etc.. that I take issue with. That and the constant changes that open things to everyone even after you set them as hidden data.
Usenet names like "jackrabbit" and "c0dr" give one a bit of a mask. I see /. the same way. I could hide if I wished, yet you could still track my comments to a personality. It's a way of being anonymous without being truly anonymous.
My apologies if you took my words as "Hostile", it was meant to be more "direct" than hostile.
What you seem to have missed completely is how it would be possible to distinguish temporary symptoms from permanent, which is an obviously large issue with using "Tweets" to diagnose someone.
Look at your last statement for a moment, then compare to what I previously stated. How many environment issues could cause a person to have a variety of those symptoms? They are incredibly numerous. Guy steals your neighbor's bike and gets hit by a car, do you feel any empathy for the person? What if he was stealing the bike to sell for money to feed his family since he can't find a job and unemployment ran out? Do you feel the same empathy if your neighbor was abusing his wife or kids, or sold dope?
I don't take issue with people having tests or knowing symptoms. What I take issue with is that someone could be labeled permanently in some database as psychopathic due to a state of mind that is almost always subjective and temporary.
From TFA remember that you are not talking about someone doing this labeling because of an extensive test, but rather due to 1-1024 characters of text. This would remove things critical such as base lines and responses to at least dozens of subject matter areas.
No, most aren't dangerous, but you generally don't want one in your life.
So you want me to believe that you have never shown traits that would lead you to be diagnosed as psychopathic? Tell the truth or don't say a word. I'll recommend that you go read the symptoms before making any such claim. Are you naive enough to believe you have to have more than one symptom to be diagnosed as Psychopathic, or are you being delusional?
How about I give a nice example of mass induced psychopathy: Email from CEO goes out to all employees stating "Due to financial issues we will be reducing the work force by 20%, we will be monitoring people to determine who is the best to keep and who is the best to dismiss."
Yes, just that easily we have mass induced psychopathy and even a high level of paranoia. People's mechanism for coping is normal and even expected. This is just one example of countless possible, and it does not make the person a "dickhead" as you state.
Without those responses, people do go insane. Trying to suppress normal responses is when we have things like Post Office shootings and the Uni-bomber.
Honestly, I think I realize what is broken in your logic: There is really no way of determining when someone is showing temporary symptoms or permanent symptoms, you only have a way of testing for symptoms. Such testing is not possible by the way, just like there is no way of looking at Genes to determine if people will have it because everyone has the potential and even does show traits from time to time (at least).
I'm not pro-terrorist by any means, but you should really investigate both sides of the story and not just believe the propaganda machine. Many of these people see no option. They know they can't outgun the soldiers, but don't want to be conquered. You won't like hearing it, but that is exactly what most of them see and is happening. The US comes in, sets up sock puppets, takes all their goods, tells them they can't do things they normally do or need to do for their Religion, etc... US Soldiers for the most part fine, but when the US companies and their Private Security come in, fuck up their economy, trash their neighborhoods, bully them around, break the law and flaunt it, people get pissed off.
Are there some wackos there also? Sure, but in most cases it's not the wackos that are recruited.. it's Kids that can't get jobs, watch their familes get bullied around or killed, watch friends and neighbors get sick from all the DU rounds we leave in the area and never clean up (US Soldiers get screwed by that one also, do some reading.), etc.. etc...
The point is, there is plenty of blame to go around. At this point in time, I find the amount of ignorance staggering and inexcusable. There is simply no excuse to believe everything you are told, facts are _everywhere_! It's rare to find them on the Evening News, but they are there.
Sure, it's possible the message was unclear and relied on too much knowledge of recent events; then the appropriate question is "what do you mean by that?" rather than "wow what a jerk!"
FTFY
Sure, it's possible the message was unclear and relied on too much knowledge of A TV Series; then the appropriate question is "what do you mean by that?" rather than "wow what a jerk!"
Can't say I watch the show. I assumed I knew what the comment meant, but having no such knowledge of Babylon 5 was happy that an AC clarified the issue later. Speculation: Maybe that was what the person was upset about?
You do realize that you are very broken in terms of critical thinking correct? Based on an assumption, and not a very well thought assumption at that, you declare a winner. Not that I'm shocked mind you, I just wanted to point out that your logic is broken.
Good luck proving that in court dumbass, they are impersonating you. Do you realize how easy it would be to just claim it was you sending the texts and they took the phone after you had asked? "Yeah, when we caught him he sent the first couple texts. We just added the rest to set up the meeting spot.
Look at reality for a moment. Not every Cop would do something like above and quite honestly that is not the issue. The issue is that you have enabled the people that do operate "above the law" the ability to do more "above the law", and in fact made it legal for them to act above the law.
Since you see nothing wrong with the impersonation aspect, I'm guessing that the above statement simply goes way beyond your ability to comprehend. Check some history, and look at the massive amount of "Acts" passed in the last 30 years that put certain people and groups above the law. You will probably deny any impact on society, but I'll caution you to look in to things like Fast and Furious, and make sure you take note of demand letter 3.
My hunch is, as The Alegory of the Cave suggests, you will happily sit in denial. I do hope you prove me wrong!
Anonymity is not bad, but do you see the obvious problems trying to have progressive dialogue on a forum where numerous people wear a mask? Post anonymous, I'm all for it and even use the feature on occasion. Nowhere does my signature imply that it's "bad", but rather it's not conducive to dialogue.
I often reply to people posting anonymous, perhaps you should check facts before making foolish assumptions. I am less inclined however to maintain a debate when I don't know if I'm trying to respond to one or five different people posting similar opinions all anonymously.
Most psychopaths are not dangerous, the desire for a so called pseudo-science of trying to cure something obviously not broken is odd. Just like most people have some type of phobia, have narcissistic tendencies, some type of rational paranoia, etc... We don't run around trying to make magic bullets trying to fix it all for several reasons.
First, most of those traits are healthy and responses to the environment. Second, most people do not experience those tendencies for extended durations of time. If the environment is messed up, so are the people.. it's called a coping mechanism. Trying to fix the "problem" without really fixing the problem is something us humans have an extremely poor habit of doing, and the results are often much worse than working on the root cause (environment, education, social influences, etc...)
Instead of trying to fix symptoms, we should be trying to fix the problems...
I wrote off all social media long ago, I don't even keep track. No thanks, spy on someone else.