If that were the case, people wouldn't feel the need to mischaracterize Ahmadinejad's comment and would have no problem with an accurate translation of it. There may be no difference to anti-semites in the Iranian state media, but even to organizations like MEMRI, Farsi is a real language with words that have real meanings.
So there's no distinction between advocating genocide and advocating that a state as a political entity cease to exist? By that reasoning, the U.S. advocates the murder of all Koreans in the DPRK.
The only thing capitalism needs to work "in the real world" is a seller that has something a buyer wants, and a buyer that has the means to pay for that product or service. Period. Regulation that does anything other than prevent fraud is nothing more than a drag on markets. There is no categorical necessity that we prevent any evil at all "in the real world", but that isn't some sort of normative argument that we shouldn't do so, either. Regulation that promotes social welfare may be a drag on the markets, but this is acceptable if human beings are deemed more valuable than the market.
Ok, interesting, but what about the rest of the world.
Are the rules at least similar to what you describe? It was actually the U.S. that was a pirate nation for over a century until it came into line with European copyright laws where copyright is automatic among other things in 1989.
Re:It also lacked wireless..
on
iMac Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
It had that IR port. Who the hell ever used those? Seriously, I never figured out what the deal was with that.
Yes, Carter's multiple attempts to use aggressive military force to rescue the hostages were too peaceful; surely any real man would have engaged in the mass murder of Iranian civilians instead of attempting merely to rescue the hostages.
Perhaps this might be true if Ahmadinejad had ever said anything about wiping Israel off any map. But he didn't, he said that the Israeli regime must vanish from the pages of time.
The point is that customers should be patrons of businesses, not enemies. We are not merely talking about companies charging higher prices for more services: we are talking about companies going out of their way to expend a positive amount of effort to make their service worse for customers so that they can charge a higher price for doing less to make their service purposely bad. This sort of market-driven antagonism is "amoral" on the part of firms in the sense that a sociopathic killer is amoral compared to a killer who commits a crime of passion.
Personally, I think the threat from mercury is a bunch of liberal hype. I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous, but let's wait until the science is all in before making this a political issue and conjuring all sorts of doomsday scenarios about "mercury in tuna" and such. Why is it that the media only covers the pro-"mercury is dangerous" side of the debate?
America was founded on the premise that rights are inalienable and that governments must not abridge these rights. It is certain more convenient to treat rights and privileges and to disregard the rights of others; it is even in some cases perhaps even legal. Does that make is desirable? If the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens, we can simply torture them to death and rape and kill their non-citizen families, too, but I think there are plenty of extra-Constitutional arguments against these things.
Libya chaired the Commission on Human Rights, not the Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Council is in fact the successor to the now-defunct Commission on Human Rights; it was created to address the failures of the UNCHR, and Libya's tenure as chair was part of the impetus for the creation of the new body. Although the UNHRC has not fared much better, it is nonetheless wise not to ignore actual facts in favor of needless polemics.
Don't be an idiot. What people *say* isn't an appearance (except for politicians:^)) and it seems perfectly reasonable to draw conclusions about someone's intelligence based on their speech. Actually, this is an example of the fundamental attribution error. Intelligence is not the same as one's manner of speech, or even necessarily of how articulate one is. Ideally, one should try to judge intelligence based on the content of ideas imparted by speech, not by the structure of the speech itself. In fact, judging a person on their speech is very much akin to judging them on their voluntary appearance, for example how they dress. Obviously manners of attire send social cues which reasonable people can be expected to have some familiarity with, but it is very possible that a person may be very different from the stereotype projected by how they dress.
The parent is simply saying "When you choose an ambiguous swearing word like "f*ck", you are either outright dumb or too lazy to think of something more appropriate. Neither reflects well on you". They do reflect poorly in many contexts, and whether or not this is justified, people should indeed be cognizant of this and adjust their behavior accordingly. Still, even if its use is mostly gratuitous, there certainly are occasions when a word like "fuck" is exactly the right word to use.
If the FCC actually regulated the airwaves in the public interest, tenuous as their legal foundation (as you have recapitulated here) to do so is, I might support their efforts, or at least be less than vehemently opposed. However, they do not, and there is no real argument otherwise since they do not even meaningfully try to do so, nor even bother to attempt to pretend to do so. They censor. If a stranger is rude, kick him out of your house. Would you be upset at a stranger peeing on your child but simply chastise him verbally rather than doing anything about it? Because that is precisely where you fit into your own metaphor.
Any power not specifically enumerated in the constitution is not granted to the government. This was the original idea (that lasted for all of zero administrations), but it simply isn't true today; in fact, it is so far removed from the truth that pretending that it is true or even that it is reasonable simply to act as though it were true is ludicrously out of touch with reality. I mean, constitutionally, the prime minister of the United Kingdom serves at the pleasure of the monarch, but that doesn't mean that the Queen could just decide to scrap elections one day. Then again, the U.K. has no effective written constitution, so perhaps from a constructionist point of view, their government doesn't actually exist (which I suppose would be consistent with the non-existence of society proclaimed by Thatcher). Obviously the U.S. government cannot ignore the constitution, but you cannot ignore more than two centuries of constitutional case law, either.
Your statement with no backing examples makes me first think that Europe as a whole much be very far to the left if they find all the USes news to be right, especially from CBS, NBC or even some CNN which I view to often be slanted to the left. Much of Europe is to the left of America, or America is to the right of Europe. The Democratic Party, for example, would be a center-right party in all of Northern and most of Western Europe; they are even to the right of the center-left party in Britain that has largely adopted the policies of conservatives (sort of like Bill Clinton, I suppose). By the average standards of liberal democracies in general, the largest left-wing party in the U.S. is the Green Party, and they're pretty damned small.
Little or no local competition and a general deficiency of means or knowledge on the part of consumers to shop elsewhere give markets in many poor neighborhoods sufficient monopoly power to set prices higher than in more affluent neighborhoods.
The only way to get positive feedback is to not exist, at least if you're in authority. Is this necessarily such a bad thing, though? The antagonism expressed toward authority today does not diminish the effectiveness of authority figures to the point of impotence; abuse of authority poses a much more substantial danger than disorder, and as such more negative feedback is probably a good thing. Authority should exist as little as possible, and until such a scenario becomes plausible, it is nonsensical to worry about those in authority having an undeservedly negative reputation.
It would be like forcing a supermarket to charge those of lesser means less Actually, supermarkets on average charge those of lesser means more, and I would be all for outlawing this discriminatory practice.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately the states demonstrated that their semi-independence was a disastrous idea that was entirely antithetical to freedom.
If that were the case, people wouldn't feel the need to mischaracterize Ahmadinejad's comment and would have no problem with an accurate translation of it. There may be no difference to anti-semites in the Iranian state media, but even to organizations like MEMRI, Farsi is a real language with words that have real meanings.
So there's no distinction between advocating genocide and advocating that a state as a political entity cease to exist? By that reasoning, the U.S. advocates the murder of all Koreans in the DPRK.
It had that IR port. Who the hell ever used those? Seriously, I never figured out what the deal was with that.
Yes, Carter's multiple attempts to use aggressive military force to rescue the hostages were too peaceful; surely any real man would have engaged in the mass murder of Iranian civilians instead of attempting merely to rescue the hostages.
Perhaps this might be true if Ahmadinejad had ever said anything about wiping Israel off any map. But he didn't, he said that the Israeli regime must vanish from the pages of time.
The point is that customers should be patrons of businesses, not enemies. We are not merely talking about companies charging higher prices for more services: we are talking about companies going out of their way to expend a positive amount of effort to make their service worse for customers so that they can charge a higher price for doing less to make their service purposely bad. This sort of market-driven antagonism is "amoral" on the part of firms in the sense that a sociopathic killer is amoral compared to a killer who commits a crime of passion.
Personally, I think the threat from mercury is a bunch of liberal hype. I'm not saying that it isn't dangerous, but let's wait until the science is all in before making this a political issue and conjuring all sorts of doomsday scenarios about "mercury in tuna" and such. Why is it that the media only covers the pro-"mercury is dangerous" side of the debate?
A corporation is a society, eh? So perhaps we should name our system on the basis of these social entities--why, we could call it socialism!
For most of its history, the U.S. has been a pirate nation that didn't even respect foreign copyright.
America was founded on the premise that rights are inalienable and that governments must not abridge these rights. It is certain more convenient to treat rights and privileges and to disregard the rights of others; it is even in some cases perhaps even legal. Does that make is desirable? If the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens, we can simply torture them to death and rape and kill their non-citizen families, too, but I think there are plenty of extra-Constitutional arguments against these things.
Libya chaired the Commission on Human Rights, not the Human Rights Council. The Human Rights Council is in fact the successor to the now-defunct Commission on Human Rights; it was created to address the failures of the UNCHR, and Libya's tenure as chair was part of the impetus for the creation of the new body. Although the UNHRC has not fared much better, it is nonetheless wise not to ignore actual facts in favor of needless polemics.
And as for irrational apologetics, is isn't propaganda or stupidity, it's what we read and post. Trolling: they call it pollution, we call it life.
It's a pretty rough drive from Germany to Canada, though.
Actually, this is an example of the fundamental attribution error. Intelligence is not the same as one's manner of speech, or even necessarily of how articulate one is. Ideally, one should try to judge intelligence based on the content of ideas imparted by speech, not by the structure of the speech itself. In fact, judging a person on their speech is very much akin to judging them on their voluntary appearance, for example how they dress. Obviously manners of attire send social cues which reasonable people can be expected to have some familiarity with, but it is very possible that a person may be very different from the stereotype projected by how they dress.
The parent is simply saying "When you choose an ambiguous swearing word like "f*ck", you are either outright dumb or too lazy to think of something more appropriate. Neither reflects well on you".
They do reflect poorly in many contexts, and whether or not this is justified, people should indeed be cognizant of this and adjust their behavior accordingly. Still, even if its use is mostly gratuitous, there certainly are occasions when a word like "fuck" is exactly the right word to use.
If the FCC actually regulated the airwaves in the public interest, tenuous as their legal foundation (as you have recapitulated here) to do so is, I might support their efforts, or at least be less than vehemently opposed. However, they do not, and there is no real argument otherwise since they do not even meaningfully try to do so, nor even bother to attempt to pretend to do so. They censor. If a stranger is rude, kick him out of your house. Would you be upset at a stranger peeing on your child but simply chastise him verbally rather than doing anything about it? Because that is precisely where you fit into your own metaphor.
Little or no local competition and a general deficiency of means or knowledge on the part of consumers to shop elsewhere give markets in many poor neighborhoods sufficient monopoly power to set prices higher than in more affluent neighborhoods.
An allowance to buy salt is also a salary, but I have as much salt as I want and not as much money. Please stop the semantics crap.
Occasionalism solves all science problems much more thoroughly, even.