You know what? I was writing a detailed refutation of each of your points (it wasn't very hard to do). You know why? I don't like people posting things that are clearly wrong. I guess that makes me easy bait for trolls, but I really don't care. But when I read the following:
"But everyone knows how to use Windows".
No; many people know how to do a small number of simple tasks by rote, and get stuck if the smallest thing changes. They do not "know" Windows.
Fuck you. I never said that, that is a blatently made up quote. In fact I never even said anything even remotely resembling that. Making up quotes goes beyond trolling. I'm putting you on my shit list.
"But that does nothing to help my brother.. this implies that you are looking for some solution that will help your brother"
No, I'm pointing out your policy of giving out licenses and then revoking them when something bad happens only works retroactively. A driver will only lose his license after he has done something wrong which may well be too late. Are you illiterate?
Besides, I still never mentioned money. That was your little contribution.
"It appears as though you apply my claim of red herring to other peoples arguments rather than mine."
I was arguing against a statement you were defending. If you now wish to distance yourself from it, your entire line of posts have been nothing but red herrings.
" I did already say that accidents will happen no matter what..."
Yeah, I read it. Then I said that licensing does virtually nothing to keep bad truck drivers off the road.
"In that case my solution may have helped."
A kid lost control of an experiemental vehicle and ran into an innocent van. How would forcing the van driver to obtain a special license have prevented that?
"Yet another personal attack. "
I prefer the term "observation". Its more accurate.
You know you have some nerve accusing me of only caring about money because I support not blaming the existence of large vehicles on every accident on the road and then accusing me of using 'personal attacks' when I call you on it. It all just goes to show that you are nothing more than a hypocrite (and that too is an observation, not a personal attack).
"Capitalize this....
-Proper nouns
--* Specific persons and things: George W. Bush, the White House, General Motors Corporation..."
The Internet (as opposed to an internet, which refers to any interconnected group of networks) is a specific internet, thus it is a proper noun, thus it must be capitalized.
Wired isn't considered an authority on grammar for a a reason. But they are just furthering a stereotype that geeks cannot use the English language properly.
Exactly. If they had just checked the dictionary before trying to redefine words on their own they would know that the words internet and Internet are not the same.
"The Mac has a small niche and nothing like the support of Windows."
You know how much I hate it when you don't answer the question.
"Yes; and one good reason to use Windows is that it receives the bulk of mainstream support, with the niche Mac a poor second. Linux is still not a consumer OS IMHO."
So Windows is chosen because of benefits from using the most popular OS family? Imagine what would happen if no OS were able to reach that level.
"Can't say I remember anything worthwhile being done as a result of the MS cases."
Regardless, it counters you assertion that large companies like MS avoid lawsuits.
"'Prefers' because it comes with all the useful stuff that plays (e.g.) Windows Media nicely integrated? Oh, hang on... people like WM built-in because so many websites use it because.... MS bundled it with the OS!"
No, many people just like having tools bundled with their operating system so they don't have to spend hours installing stuff and configuring it. Believe it or not, not all of the world is full of nerds.
"In particular, it *did* treat the ox as a tool, as the ox represented faceless, dehumanised business."
But the problem, in case you missed it, is that corporations are not mere tools. There are people invested in them who must be taken as ends in themselves.
"Employees? We all know that businesses would justify layoffs by saying they have to maximise profit, or cut losses ("our job is to make money")."
Yeah, hence why the employee's interests are tied to the corporation.
"This is a "Somone think of the children!" defence (grandma fills the same niche here)."
Please, it is clear to anyone with half a brain that I used 'grandma' to represent someone who is not familiar with computers, not as an emotional plea. But if there is too much of an emotional connotation to the word grandma for you that you are unable to argue against it, feel free to substitute it with someone else who has little knowledge of computers.
"Wouldn't it be great if there was more choice, so grandma could buy a pre-configged OS *and* we could buy something more flexible; without either of us being marginalised?"
You want it both ways. You want the advantages of having a popular OS and having one customized for you. Guess what? You can't have that.
"I just think people should be forced to go through more training, more licensing, and overall a more rigorous process before getting behind the wheel of one"
Or we could just recognize that there will always be the possibility that we could get in an accident with a driver of a larger vehicle (actually in this instance the quality of the driver doesn't matter as the accident was the student's fault) and design our vehicles to take that into account.
"Red herring, this has nothing to do with the argument at hand, put up your smoke screens and fallacious reasoning elsewhere."
Well someone has a short attention span. This whole debate came as a result of the claim that it is the existence of SUVs, minivans, and Hummers that caused the kids death. Thus arguments that defend their existence certainly are neither red herrings nor strawmen.
"You were seeking restitution for your brother's accident. "
No, I was offering his accident as an example of a bad truck driver. You, with your prejudical view of what people who disagree with you believe in thought I was just trying to get money out of them.
One's prejudice gets really bad when one mistakes it with reality. Most bigots can at least recognize when something they percieve is based on their prejudice.
"His commercial lincense would almost certainly be revoked but his standard drivers license would not for the situation you describe."
What would happen with his license would vary from state to state. Here, that could go as reckless driving which could get your license suspended. However, at the very least that would raise his insurance through the roof.
"But your suggestion that idiots to good driver ratio is the same for truck drivers(or worse) than normal licenses is moronic to say the least."
No, no, no. Don't get into strawmen with me. I made no comparision of the ratio of good truck drivers and good car drivers. Format your arguments to counter what I did say, not what you wanted me to say.
"Most truck driving companies will not hire you in order to train and eventually help you get your commercial license if you have any points or accidents on your normal license."
I'm sure they do everything they can to get rid of bad drivers, but some do get through. Not having any accidents or points on your record doesn't mean you are a good driver, it means you havn't been caught.
Add to that there are other issues that affect how truck drivers drive. They are often driving for long periods of time which negatively affects their saftey. Also they often become cocky, which also makes them less safe. Again, you just need to go out on the nearest interstate to see poor truck drivers.
"But the day you get your normal license you could hop behind the wheel of a hummer or other large non-commercial vehicle, drive that around and be a menace to the other drivers on the road."
And if they do so they must be only driving a large car to compensate for their small penis size, right? Believe it or not, there are legitimate reasons to drive a large car. For instance would you prefer one soccer mom carpooling half a dozen kids to practice in a minivan or half a dozen soccer moms each driving one kid to practice?
"Seems big monetary settlements are all people who pose your argument seem to understand."
Oh I get it. I don't subscribe to your blind ideology so I must be in it for the money. Fuck you you bigoted piece of shit.
"If you are a computer expert (relatively speaking) *and* you do not realistically have to do business with all the MS-using people, that's true."
So you have to be a computer expert to use a Mac? I know some who would disagree with that.
"Unfortunately, support for "consumer" OSs is totally skewed towards Windows, which I do not believe indicates that everyone prefers Windows."
No, it indicates that the majority of those needing consumer OSs have chosen to purchase a computer running MS Windows.
There are many reasons why someone would choose Windows as their operating system, just as there are many reasons to choose an alternative. I'm just asking to let the consumer make their own choice.
"One reason for large companies' dominance is the misuse and exploitation of legal systems (i.e. they do something that should go against them in court, but they rely on the fact that it would be ruinously expensive for their smaller competitors)."
I seem to remember some sort of massive lawsuit filed against MS in recent years...
"My argument is that, if business wish to justify their actions in such amoral light, then they should not expect sympathy for their plight"
I'm not asking for sympathy for them, I'm just asking to stop asking the government to tear them apart just because they made an operating system that the average customer prefers over Mac OS or Linux.
"I like to think of business as an ox. It would not be constructive to tether the ox to a post with a yard-long rope and leave it there. But it is equally stupid to let the ox run where it likes, when it likes, kicking over fences and goring people. In such cases, the ox should be shot; but the best solution is to keep it under control and use it to plough your field."
My problem with that analogy is that in the case of the ox you only take in account your own interests. Sure those interests may on occasion be the same interests as the ox's (if he starves to death you can't plow your fields) and if you are an animal lover you may on occasion make a nomimal attempt to honor it's interests, but in general you treat the ox as a tool to fullfill your own needs.
In a corporation, those within the corporation have interests that must be honored. They may be employees, they may be investors, but they have interests which need to be honored as ends in themselves. And even the customers are more diverse. Yeah, you and I may like it more if certain tools were less integrated within the OS. But grandma may prefer an easy to use consistent operating system that doesn't require spending hours configuring to get it right. If we force the government to split up MS, then that could make it harder for grandma to use. Why should our interests overwhelm grandma's?
I honestly do not understand why they would want to do this. To protect against software piracy? Who would do such a thing? Surely the general population has enough respect for software developers that they would refrain from pirating software without copy protection schemes.
</sarcasm>
I might actually install that if they made so that income generated from selling the ad space went to the mozilla foundation. I'd get to be cheap and financially help out mozilla.
I know we are getting a bit off topic here, but the argument that we need the government to take down MS really gets me going. The fact is we do have a choice, even if many people make the same one. I am personally running Slackware Linux, not MS. I know many others who run various Linux distributions rather than MS Windows, and many others who use Mac OS. Use the choices you have, don't just whine to the government to do what you are unwilling to do.
"Are you now arguing that this only applies if you didn't know that your decision was a poor one ?"
Well now it wouldn't really be foreseeable otherwise, now would it?
"I'd say that all my examples were foreseeable consequences of your own decisions."
But in case you missed it, I had more criteria than it just being a foreseeable consequence of your own decision.
"Take a route through a bad part of town and it is foreseeable that you might be mugged."
Only if you have physic powers.
"It seems to me that this would equate not charging the perperator."
Well thats because you are an idiot. I am talking about metaethical issues here, not legal ones. Need any help understanding the difference?
"I'm assuming that you meant to say "unless the junkie gets sick or dies"."
Actually I did say that.
"Murder ? The junkie knew the dangers, and chose to accept them. No one forced him to take the heroin. "Murder" implies the dealer ended the junkies life purposefully; no such thing has happened."
Not according to the definition of murder. But fine, manslaughter if you want to nitpick. Still illegal.
"Think of it this way: if you play russian roulette by yourself with one pull of trigger per night, is whoever sells you ammunition (knowing of your habbit) a murderer when you lose ?"
Thats so dumb it doesn't deserve another thought.
"And if I work in a hamburger joint, and a really fat man comes in and orders a hamburger and french fries, am I a murderer to sell them to him ?"
Actually I believe they do do that (and not just for people in Asia, think about all those "educational discounts" on software you can get). And since software has a high capital cost with a low marginal cost, they make money doing so. Basically rich Americans are paying for the software everyone else is using.
Requiring a special license does nothing to ensure the drivers are safe. You have to look no further than your local interstate to see examples of unsafe truck drivers. Most are driving well over the speed limit and tailgaiting smaller cars, despite the fact that there is no way they would be able to stop if needed.
Case in point, earlier this summer my little brother was in an accident where the truck behind was tailgaiting and he had to hit the breaks because another car driving much slower tried to merge in front of him. In short the car was totaled (I learned to drive on that car...), and had anyone been in the back seat they would probably still be in the hospital. Sure, he may end up with his license revoked (though that would probably have happened had he been driving a pickup with a standard license), but that does nothing to help my brother. Special licenses only add to the beuracracy. They do nothing to help safety.
I hate SUVs as much as the next guy, but you can't blame them for this car's apparent saftey issues.
It can't be worse than Resurrection. Can someone please tell me how cloned Ripley has all the memories and other learned attributes that could never come through cloning (and don't give me any of that BS about her being half alien, thats just dumb). Of course I would also like to know what Lance Henrickson is doing in AvP. Is his character supposed to be around 200 in Alien 3?
And no, I am not someone who just hates all sequels of popular movies, I actually liked Alien 3.
"In this case whoever used Windows in a computer system connected to the Internet has no grounds for complains."
Only if a) The security issue is indeed known, b) The patch is ready or you have a reasonable alternative to using Windows, c) You personally are aware of the issue, d) You still use the unpatched operating system knowing full well what could happen, and e) There are no other extenuating circumstances.
"Furthermore, almost everything that happens to you is influenced at least somewhat by your decisions. "
See, thats what we smart people call a strawman. I did not say that it merely had to be influenced by your actions. Go back and read my post again.
"If we allow criminals to be targeted for other crimes without punishment on the excuse that the victim engaged in unlawfull behaviour himself"
You have some sort of straw fetish or something. I never said they should go unpunished.
"The junkie has no grounds to complain to the dealer, because the dealer has done no crime against the junkie."
Not if he gets sick or dies. Unless you don't consider murder a crime.
I would submit that if you cause something that is a foreseeable consequence of your own poor decision, you have no grounds for a complaint, regardless of whether or not it itself is fair or lawful.
For instance if someone injects heroin into his veins and suffers major health problems as a result, I would claim he has no grounds to complain about his drug dealer supplying him with the heroin, even though the dealer was acting illegally and arguably unfairly in supplying him with the drugs as what happened to him is his own damn fault.
"The point is ambiquity, why it's there, and how to avoid it."
You mean "ambiguity"? I said the word was ambiguous, that there are two accepted meanings for that phrase. Yes, he could have avoided that by using a different phrase. Or he could have avoided that by using it in a context where the meaning is clear. Wait, the latter is exactly what he did! Even you were able to figure out what meaning he intended, or else you would not be trolling this issue. Regardless, having a minor degree of ambiguity is not the same as misusing the phrase.
"There doesn't seem to be a way to get you to use other references."
I'm sorry, I find reputable dictionaries better sources of information than random assholes who happen to have a webpage. Add to that, even he doesn't support your claim that his use of "beg the question" is wrong, only that it is better to avoid it when possible. Regardless, even if you could find dozens of actually reputable sources backing your point, I only need one to prove that he was not misusing the word.
"BTW, Merrian Webster didn't address "begs the question"."
Didn't need to, its examples show the use is acceptable. Dictionaries do not have to list every possible phrase in existence (and as the decimate citation showed, had it considered "begs the question" a misuse, it likely would have cited it).
"The dictionary you were hoping to reference but couldn't find was the New Oxford Dictionary of English. "
Well I wasn't looking for it as I didn't need another source (and they are not available online as far as I know so I would be unable to cite it here with a link), but thanks anyways.
I beg your pardon troll boy (and no, that does not mean I'm assuming your pardon), but the dictionary is the authority on the English language, and it clearly states that the use of the word 'beg', even without a 'for', to mean to ask something, is perfectly acceptable. Not only does it define it that way, but it offers several examples using the word in that way, thus removing all doubt over the proper use of the word. And as long as an reputable dictionary accepts the term's use, you cannot claim that it is being misused. Not because I say so, because real linguists (not slashdot grammar trolls) say so.
And before you claim that "begs the question" is a special case which must use the third definition of the word solely because it is commonly used that way, it is also just as (if not more) commonly used in the way the origional post used it.
Direct all complaints to Merriam Webster. Maybe you can get them to change their definition for their next version. Unlikely, but possible.
BTW, the dictionary does address the confusion over the word decimate. Sorry to spoil your perfect example that the dictionary use can be wrong.
" In that case, it would be begs for the question, not begs the question."
RTFD. No Mr. English wiz, the 'for' is not needed. Go back to the dictionary here and you will see under the section from the M-W unabridged the following uses of the word with the "To ask earnestly for; to entreat or supplicate for; to beseech" definition:
I do beg your good will in this case. --Shak.
[Joseph] begged the body of Jesus. --Matt. xxvii. 58.
Note: Sometimes implying deferential and respectful, rather than earnest, asking; as, I beg your pardon; I beg leave to disagree with you.
The dictionary (which we use as our primary source of proper word use, not you) says the use of beg to mean "to ask earnestly" is perfectly appropriate.
"Begging the point is an attempt to convince someone of a point because its the point your trying to convince them of. "
Yes, I am perfectly aware of the third use of the word, as I stated in my last post. However (also as I stated in my last post) the word is ambiguous. There are several definitions for it and in order to know what the writer meant you must read the context which here clearlly shows what the writer meant.
"But the two are easily confused, so "prompt" is a good choice to avoid the confusion."
A) Who, other than you, gets confused when someone says "Begs the question" in that context? Anyone with half a brain and the ability to read English can figure it out.
B) So are you now admitting that his use of the word 'beg' was only confusing, not improper?
beg Audio pronunciation of "beg" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bg)
v. begged, begging, begs
v. tr.
1. To ask for as charity: begged money while sitting in a doorway.
2. To ask earnestly for or of; entreat: begged me for help.
3.
1. To evade; dodge: a speech that begged the real issues.
2. To take for granted without proof: beg the point in a dispute.
His use of the word beg was clearly made with the second definition in mind, not the third. You see English is what we call an ambiguous language. One word or phrase can have different meanings in different contexts.
And yes, I know what "Begging the question" means when used to identify a logical fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck you. I never said that, that is a blatently made up quote. In fact I never even said anything even remotely resembling that. Making up quotes goes beyond trolling. I'm putting you on my shit list.
No, I'm pointing out your policy of giving out licenses and then revoking them when something bad happens only works retroactively. A driver will only lose his license after he has done something wrong which may well be too late. Are you illiterate?
Besides, I still never mentioned money. That was your little contribution.
"It appears as though you apply my claim of red herring to other peoples arguments rather than mine."
I was arguing against a statement you were defending. If you now wish to distance yourself from it, your entire line of posts have been nothing but red herrings.
" I did already say that accidents will happen no matter what..."
Yeah, I read it. Then I said that licensing does virtually nothing to keep bad truck drivers off the road.
"In that case my solution may have helped."
A kid lost control of an experiemental vehicle and ran into an innocent van. How would forcing the van driver to obtain a special license have prevented that?
"Yet another personal attack. "
I prefer the term "observation". Its more accurate.
You know you have some nerve accusing me of only caring about money because I support not blaming the existence of large vehicles on every accident on the road and then accusing me of using 'personal attacks' when I call you on it. It all just goes to show that you are nothing more than a hypocrite (and that too is an observation, not a personal attack).
The Internet (as opposed to an internet, which refers to any interconnected group of networks) is a specific internet, thus it is a proper noun, thus it must be capitalized.
Wired isn't considered an authority on grammar for a a reason. But they are just furthering a stereotype that geeks cannot use the English language properly.
Exactly. If they had just checked the dictionary before trying to redefine words on their own they would know that the words internet and Internet are not the same.
You know how much I hate it when you don't answer the question.
"Yes; and one good reason to use Windows is that it receives the bulk of mainstream support, with the niche Mac a poor second. Linux is still not a consumer OS IMHO."
So Windows is chosen because of benefits from using the most popular OS family? Imagine what would happen if no OS were able to reach that level.
"Can't say I remember anything worthwhile being done as a result of the MS cases."
Regardless, it counters you assertion that large companies like MS avoid lawsuits.
"'Prefers' because it comes with all the useful stuff that plays (e.g.) Windows Media nicely integrated? Oh, hang on... people like WM built-in because so many websites use it because.... MS bundled it with the OS!"
No, many people just like having tools bundled with their operating system so they don't have to spend hours installing stuff and configuring it. Believe it or not, not all of the world is full of nerds.
"In particular, it *did* treat the ox as a tool, as the ox represented faceless, dehumanised business."
But the problem, in case you missed it, is that corporations are not mere tools. There are people invested in them who must be taken as ends in themselves.
"Employees? We all know that businesses would justify layoffs by saying they have to maximise profit, or cut losses ("our job is to make money")."
Yeah, hence why the employee's interests are tied to the corporation.
"This is a "Somone think of the children!" defence (grandma fills the same niche here)."
Please, it is clear to anyone with half a brain that I used 'grandma' to represent someone who is not familiar with computers, not as an emotional plea. But if there is too much of an emotional connotation to the word grandma for you that you are unable to argue against it, feel free to substitute it with someone else who has little knowledge of computers.
"Wouldn't it be great if there was more choice, so grandma could buy a pre-configged OS *and* we could buy something more flexible; without either of us being marginalised?"
You want it both ways. You want the advantages of having a popular OS and having one customized for you. Guess what? You can't have that.
Or we could just recognize that there will always be the possibility that we could get in an accident with a driver of a larger vehicle (actually in this instance the quality of the driver doesn't matter as the accident was the student's fault) and design our vehicles to take that into account.
"Red herring, this has nothing to do with the argument at hand, put up your smoke screens and fallacious reasoning elsewhere."
Well someone has a short attention span. This whole debate came as a result of the claim that it is the existence of SUVs, minivans, and Hummers that caused the kids death. Thus arguments that defend their existence certainly are neither red herrings nor strawmen.
"You were seeking restitution for your brother's accident. "
No, I was offering his accident as an example of a bad truck driver. You, with your prejudical view of what people who disagree with you believe in thought I was just trying to get money out of them.
One's prejudice gets really bad when one mistakes it with reality. Most bigots can at least recognize when something they percieve is based on their prejudice.
Mozilla already takes in donations. Being not-for-profit doesn't mean your organization cannot bring in money.
What would happen with his license would vary from state to state. Here, that could go as reckless driving which could get your license suspended. However, at the very least that would raise his insurance through the roof.
"But your suggestion that idiots to good driver ratio is the same for truck drivers(or worse) than normal licenses is moronic to say the least."
No, no, no. Don't get into strawmen with me. I made no comparision of the ratio of good truck drivers and good car drivers. Format your arguments to counter what I did say, not what you wanted me to say.
"Most truck driving companies will not hire you in order to train and eventually help you get your commercial license if you have any points or accidents on your normal license."
I'm sure they do everything they can to get rid of bad drivers, but some do get through. Not having any accidents or points on your record doesn't mean you are a good driver, it means you havn't been caught.
Add to that there are other issues that affect how truck drivers drive. They are often driving for long periods of time which negatively affects their saftey. Also they often become cocky, which also makes them less safe. Again, you just need to go out on the nearest interstate to see poor truck drivers.
"But the day you get your normal license you could hop behind the wheel of a hummer or other large non-commercial vehicle, drive that around and be a menace to the other drivers on the road."
And if they do so they must be only driving a large car to compensate for their small penis size, right? Believe it or not, there are legitimate reasons to drive a large car. For instance would you prefer one soccer mom carpooling half a dozen kids to practice in a minivan or half a dozen soccer moms each driving one kid to practice?
"Seems big monetary settlements are all people who pose your argument seem to understand."
Oh I get it. I don't subscribe to your blind ideology so I must be in it for the money. Fuck you you bigoted piece of shit.
So you have to be a computer expert to use a Mac? I know some who would disagree with that.
"Unfortunately, support for "consumer" OSs is totally skewed towards Windows, which I do not believe indicates that everyone prefers Windows."
No, it indicates that the majority of those needing consumer OSs have chosen to purchase a computer running MS Windows.
There are many reasons why someone would choose Windows as their operating system, just as there are many reasons to choose an alternative. I'm just asking to let the consumer make their own choice.
"One reason for large companies' dominance is the misuse and exploitation of legal systems (i.e. they do something that should go against them in court, but they rely on the fact that it would be ruinously expensive for their smaller competitors)."
I seem to remember some sort of massive lawsuit filed against MS in recent years...
"My argument is that, if business wish to justify their actions in such amoral light, then they should not expect sympathy for their plight"
I'm not asking for sympathy for them, I'm just asking to stop asking the government to tear them apart just because they made an operating system that the average customer prefers over Mac OS or Linux.
"I like to think of business as an ox. It would not be constructive to tether the ox to a post with a yard-long rope and leave it there. But it is equally stupid to let the ox run where it likes, when it likes, kicking over fences and goring people. In such cases, the ox should be shot; but the best solution is to keep it under control and use it to plough your field."
My problem with that analogy is that in the case of the ox you only take in account your own interests. Sure those interests may on occasion be the same interests as the ox's (if he starves to death you can't plow your fields) and if you are an animal lover you may on occasion make a nomimal attempt to honor it's interests, but in general you treat the ox as a tool to fullfill your own needs.
In a corporation, those within the corporation have interests that must be honored. They may be employees, they may be investors, but they have interests which need to be honored as ends in themselves. And even the customers are more diverse. Yeah, you and I may like it more if certain tools were less integrated within the OS. But grandma may prefer an easy to use consistent operating system that doesn't require spending hours configuring to get it right. If we force the government to split up MS, then that could make it harder for grandma to use. Why should our interests overwhelm grandma's?
I honestly do not understand why they would want to do this. To protect against software piracy? Who would do such a thing? Surely the general population has enough respect for software developers that they would refrain from pirating software without copy protection schemes.
</sarcasm>
I might actually install that if they made so that income generated from selling the ad space went to the mozilla foundation. I'd get to be cheap and financially help out mozilla.
I know we are getting a bit off topic here, but the argument that we need the government to take down MS really gets me going. The fact is we do have a choice, even if many people make the same one. I am personally running Slackware Linux, not MS. I know many others who run various Linux distributions rather than MS Windows, and many others who use Mac OS. Use the choices you have, don't just whine to the government to do what you are unwilling to do.
"Are you now arguing that this only applies if you didn't know that your decision was a poor one ?"
Well now it wouldn't really be foreseeable otherwise, now would it?
"I'd say that all my examples were foreseeable consequences of your own decisions."
But in case you missed it, I had more criteria than it just being a foreseeable consequence of your own decision.
"Take a route through a bad part of town and it is foreseeable that you might be mugged."
Only if you have physic powers.
"It seems to me that this would equate not charging the perperator."
Well thats because you are an idiot. I am talking about metaethical issues here, not legal ones. Need any help understanding the difference?
"I'm assuming that you meant to say "unless the junkie gets sick or dies"."
Actually I did say that.
"Murder ? The junkie knew the dangers, and chose to accept them. No one forced him to take the heroin. "Murder" implies the dealer ended the junkies life purposefully; no such thing has happened."
Not according to the definition of murder. But fine, manslaughter if you want to nitpick. Still illegal.
"Think of it this way: if you play russian roulette by yourself with one pull of trigger per night, is whoever sells you ammunition (knowing of your habbit) a murderer when you lose ?"
Thats so dumb it doesn't deserve another thought.
"And if I work in a hamburger joint, and a really fat man comes in and orders a hamburger and french fries, am I a murderer to sell them to him ?"
Is a halfway relevant analogy coming soon?
Actually I believe they do do that (and not just for people in Asia, think about all those "educational discounts" on software you can get). And since software has a high capital cost with a low marginal cost, they make money doing so. Basically rich Americans are paying for the software everyone else is using.
Case in point, earlier this summer my little brother was in an accident where the truck behind was tailgaiting and he had to hit the breaks because another car driving much slower tried to merge in front of him. In short the car was totaled (I learned to drive on that car...), and had anyone been in the back seat they would probably still be in the hospital. Sure, he may end up with his license revoked (though that would probably have happened had he been driving a pickup with a standard license), but that does nothing to help my brother. Special licenses only add to the beuracracy. They do nothing to help safety.
I hate SUVs as much as the next guy, but you can't blame them for this car's apparent saftey issues.
And no, I am not someone who just hates all sequels of popular movies, I actually liked Alien 3.
Only if a) The security issue is indeed known, b) The patch is ready or you have a reasonable alternative to using Windows, c) You personally are aware of the issue, d) You still use the unpatched operating system knowing full well what could happen, and e) There are no other extenuating circumstances.
"Furthermore, almost everything that happens to you is influenced at least somewhat by your decisions. "
See, thats what we smart people call a strawman. I did not say that it merely had to be influenced by your actions. Go back and read my post again.
"If we allow criminals to be targeted for other crimes without punishment on the excuse that the victim engaged in unlawfull behaviour himself"
You have some sort of straw fetish or something. I never said they should go unpunished.
"The junkie has no grounds to complain to the dealer, because the dealer has done no crime against the junkie."
Not if he gets sick or dies. Unless you don't consider murder a crime.
You must be new. Welcome to slashdot. The land where groupthink is modded +5 insightful, anything remotely disagreeing with anything is -1 troll.
At least this guy was honest enough to admit that is the criteria for modding something a troll.
...to portray free market competition as a bad thing.
For instance if someone injects heroin into his veins and suffers major health problems as a result, I would claim he has no grounds to complain about his drug dealer supplying him with the heroin, even though the dealer was acting illegally and arguably unfairly in supplying him with the drugs as what happened to him is his own damn fault.
Then why is there more to your post?
"The point is ambiquity, why it's there, and how to avoid it."
You mean "ambiguity"? I said the word was ambiguous, that there are two accepted meanings for that phrase. Yes, he could have avoided that by using a different phrase. Or he could have avoided that by using it in a context where the meaning is clear. Wait, the latter is exactly what he did! Even you were able to figure out what meaning he intended, or else you would not be trolling this issue. Regardless, having a minor degree of ambiguity is not the same as misusing the phrase.
"There doesn't seem to be a way to get you to use other references."
I'm sorry, I find reputable dictionaries better sources of information than random assholes who happen to have a webpage. Add to that, even he doesn't support your claim that his use of "beg the question" is wrong, only that it is better to avoid it when possible. Regardless, even if you could find dozens of actually reputable sources backing your point, I only need one to prove that he was not misusing the word.
"BTW, Merrian Webster didn't address "begs the question"."
Didn't need to, its examples show the use is acceptable. Dictionaries do not have to list every possible phrase in existence (and as the decimate citation showed, had it considered "begs the question" a misuse, it likely would have cited it).
"The dictionary you were hoping to reference but couldn't find was the New Oxford Dictionary of English. "
Well I wasn't looking for it as I didn't need another source (and they are not available online as far as I know so I would be unable to cite it here with a link), but thanks anyways.
And before you claim that "begs the question" is a special case which must use the third definition of the word solely because it is commonly used that way, it is also just as (if not more) commonly used in the way the origional post used it.
Direct all complaints to Merriam Webster. Maybe you can get them to change their definition for their next version. Unlikely, but possible.
BTW, the dictionary does address the confusion over the word decimate. Sorry to spoil your perfect example that the dictionary use can be wrong.
RTFD. No Mr. English wiz, the 'for' is not needed. Go back to the dictionary here and you will see under the section from the M-W unabridged the following uses of the word with the "To ask earnestly for; to entreat or supplicate for; to beseech" definition:
The dictionary (which we use as our primary source of proper word use, not you) says the use of beg to mean "to ask earnestly" is perfectly appropriate."Begging the point is an attempt to convince someone of a point because its the point your trying to convince them of. "
Yes, I am perfectly aware of the third use of the word, as I stated in my last post. However (also as I stated in my last post) the word is ambiguous. There are several definitions for it and in order to know what the writer meant you must read the context which here clearlly shows what the writer meant.
"But the two are easily confused, so "prompt" is a good choice to avoid the confusion."
A) Who, other than you, gets confused when someone says "Begs the question" in that context? Anyone with half a brain and the ability to read English can figure it out.
B) So are you now admitting that his use of the word 'beg' was only confusing, not improper?
There is a big difference between something being unfair or illegal and you having the grounds to complain about it.
And yes, I know what "Begging the question" means when used to identify a logical fallacy.