You do realize that paid labor is by definition not slavery? It's not that uncommon for paid laborers to have a worse deal in terms of food/lodging than the enslaved, one might even call it a reasonable price to pay for their freedom. Having the sort end of the stick is not, nor will ever be, necessarily slavery.
"By the same standards the USA is clearly a repressive regime."
So apparently 'insightful' on/. means 'completely lacking perspective regarding history, politics, and social theory'. Good to know for future reference.
(2) If a treaty signed by both nations says it only works one way, then it only works one way. You know, treaties, those things that define international law?
(3) It's not so much 'forcing'. If the UK denied us the trial of this fellow and tried him themselves, all we'd be able to do is shrug and move on. He wasn't extradited because his government was forced, he was extradited because his government agrees that he's a criminal and know that he won't be punished any more harshly under american law than he would be under british law. Welcome to the world of being able to make your allies happy at no loss to yourself.
As someone else in the thread has noted, a lot of the US extradition treaties are one-way (i.e. extradition in the other guy-> US direction was traded for something other than the reciprocal right). This means that the US can demand extradition of a lot of foreign citizens while those people's countries can't do the same to us. This isn't our fault necessarily, it's what both parties agreed to whenever the treaty was signed.
Also, extradition generally has to be approved by the country doing the booting, so it's hardly a level of bullying beyone the normal bullying associated with any form of politics. There are doubtless times when countries denied the US the right to prosecute their citizens: in this case, they didn't, because they agree that the man is a criminal and know that nothing worse would happen to him under U.S. law than under their own law.
The idea of a soul transcending the physical is a fairly recent invention, actually, cropped up a bit into the rennaisance. In the original form of christianity, at least, the soul represented the totality of what made you you, so your body (including genes, I suppose) would be as much a part of your soul as anything else. So, no, a large number of people would not necessarily agree that a human soul should necessarily transcend the posession of a single gene. Not that it mattered, because it was the grace of god that was important, not having a soul, necessarily.
'Gene' is also a bit fuzzily defined... but then, after several thousand years of philosophers with a penchant for redefining words however they felt like, so is "soul", so i'll just not pursue that point.
In the defense of religion, you have to decide what to do somehow. Science only gives options and explanations, whereas religion gives a system by which an option might be selected and an analysis utilized. If we completely lost all forms of assertive belief, human society would stop just as surely as if we lost all forms of logical analysis and empirical thought.
Generally, even scientists who think of themselves as atheists aren't denial atheists. This means that they don't believe that there is a god, not that they believe that there is no god. If you don't see the difference, I'd guess that you're not a native english speaker, as it's rather dramatic and noticeable to those of us that grew up with the language.
The data is still useful, however, as it allows us to identify wether the systems that we've theorized the human body uses to combat cancer actually do so, and gives us the opportunity to fiddle with such systems without injecting experimental chemicals into our next-door neighbor. At the least, it provides confirmation regarding the reliability of previous data.
Forcing industry to alter its behavior, by making it conform to clean-air regulation, costs me in the form of more expensive products (in this case, transportation). This isn't really any more tenuous than one tier up from my previous post, which asserts that we are paying "through artificially low gas prices that don't reflect the costs of maintaining a road network or fixing the environmental damage".
I don't entirely agree that you've succeeded in refuting the point that you were intending to refute, as your example tells me the benefits of you breathing dirty air (filtering of smog?). Regardless, my example aside, "People should bear the entire cost of their lifestyle choices themselves" is a stupid argument because anything done repeatedly, including bodily functions, is a lifestyle choice, and 'cost' is rather arbitrary and easy to define as you like. This was the thrust of my argument.
Thirdly, you've mistaken an example for a premise. You refuted my example. To refute my premise (You can do [this type of argument] with anything) would involved demonstrating that I can't form a statement form such an argument with "breathing clean air"; what you showed was that I haven't. Of course, proving my statement logically would involve either induction or a list of everything in existence, so I think we're probably stuck here as far as pure logic goes.
The point is to make domestic sources on par costwise with petrol, and foreign sources not so much. That's what all tariffs are attempting to do, and it generally works. In this case, the tariff is also protecting workers in US oil, which, from the Democratic party/ Union standpoint, is great! And because it would piss off the average worker to remove the protections, Repubs won't touch it with a 49.5 foot pole either.
The reaction won't necessarily be any more complete, as it still requires attack by an external oxygen molecule. The barrier to the corresponding reaction in the absence of burning (oxygen gas and heat oxidation) is large enough that that reaction is insignificant by comparison in a fuel situation. Which is a good thing, because otherwise your beer would spontaneously explode (not burn, explode) on hot days.
Um... I don't know how to break this to you, Fan, but Marijuana and Hemp are not the same plant. If you smoke that hemp rope you bought at WalMart, all you're going to get for your trouble is respiratory damage.
If you're running it on batteries, then, given the energy-density of batteries, your power source is actually heavy enough to weigh down your vehicle and effect its energy consumption. You really have to run that kind of thing off the grid, or charge it every 10 minutes, to keep your weight from getting out of hand.
Given that, it's an optimization problem, as most electric motors are also lighter than their gas-powered counterparts, so there might be a range where it was actually worthwhile. (The gap isn't as large as you'd think on wieghts, though, with what GM's been doing with magnesium alloys recently)
Notice that "+" by the 20 in the grandparent? That means that it will be more than 20, not necessarily in the 20-30 range. If you actually read the post involved, you'll note that he took the figure from the previous post, because it was a counterargument and that was the logical thing to do.
Now, you've been hiring cars (which, firstly, implies you don't own one and thus really don't have the experience to comment, but I'll leave off that, i guess). Rental companies tend to buy fuel efficient cars, because renters tend to get upset if they end up paying significantly more than that little number on their rental contract. Thus you saw things like hybrid vehicles in rental stations years before anyone in their right mind would have actually bought one for private use. Secondly, you're talking about a car, which, depending on the specific vehicles involved, is anywhere from 1/2 to 1/8 the mass of a loaded van and similar in profile (air resistance). As those of us familiar with the advanced mathematical concept known as 'multiplication' will know, an object of double the mass requiring double the work to move it the same distance is not entirely beyond comprehension. So a fuel-efficient van will tend to have higher gas consumption than a similarly efficient car.
Welcome to the world of primary-school math and elementary logic. May your stay be long and pleasurable.
By arbitrarily calling things 'lifestyle choices' and stating that this immediately dismisses them from consideration, you open yourself to an interesting style of logic. Allow me to demonstrate:
Breathing clean air is a lifestyle choice: If that's what people want, they should have to pay the 100$/bottle for aqualung refills, not force the rest of us to pay for them through environmental regulations that we don't want.
See? you can do it to anything, which makes it a worthless argument.
As for towing, you can tow a boat or trailer with a dirtbike, if that's what you want. The point is that a truck is optimized to tow things, i.e. it has better fuel efficiency and lower emissions hauling a two-ton box of furniture than your geo metro. You'd think someone as environmentally conscious as you would understand the advantages of that. And that someone browsing/. would be in a technical field that would require one to understand optimization./innocent expression
Wait... you're saying that dividing one empirically derived mumber by another empirically derived number equates to agenda-pushing? I feel sorry for your middle-school math teachers and laugh at them at the same time.
Given the image most sports teams want to project, "Zulus" would be an excellent name for one. "Blackskins" not so much, since in this country's history that equates to being on the losing side more often than not.
In conclusion, what's your point? (addendum: the foam spears would be awesome)
Well, I'd actually say it has more to do with the increasing role of public institutions as the population density goes up. A thousand years ago, being rich meant not having to have direct contact with anyone rom another economic section. Now, with public roads, public schools, public libraries, public offices (to the extent that everyone has to walk through the same rooms to get to their office), public toilets, and public theaters, disease transmission is rapid and uniform, and the health of the weakest becomes the health of the group. This explains also why the effect might be exaggerated in the USA (as others in the threads have claimed), as we have much more direct contact between economic groups than a lot of countries than even your usual middle-class-heavy society. (Anecdotal evidence only, I have not walked around every country in the world with a really big measuring tape, just observed the places I've visited.)
You think Texas is bad? I moved to Cali a few years back (don't ask). Now every time I visit the family in Texas and hit traffic, I just smile and relax smugly as everyone else on the road gets upset.
"So then what do people think about the Judas gospel. Well it is funny but the 'real' gospels are somehow still more real and have something holy about them. WTF? Just goes to show that facts and believes have nothing to do with each other."
New gospels must be approved by the college of cardinals and, ultimately, the pope to be legitimate Christian scripture. The real gospels are more holy because they have been thus certified by the official arbiter of such descisions. Things that aren't so approved aren't scripture, and things that are considered for approval and rejected are called "Apocrypha" and also aren't scripture, i.e. they aren't holy.
This holds for most of the offshoots of the church as well, just the appoved/unapproved scriptures were frozen at the time whatever branch broke off from the main body of the religion. The exception are the fringe cults, like Mormonism (the largest one) which either formed for the specific purpose of including one of the Apocrypha in their scripture (the book of Mormon, in my example) or simply lost all structure upon their break-off.
This may, of course, seem rather arbitrary to you, but remember that root Christianity was based on solid practicality: that was part of its appeal(they got a bit crazy later and some of the founders were quite bats, but that's another story). Having the pope in charge of the official canon was neither hypocritical nor a poor idea, but a simple precaution against everyone and their little dog Toto forging their own documents and attempting to fragment the church and steal part of its power base. (And don't think that they wouldn't, manufacture of 'artifacts' was one of the biggest industries through the middle ages and the end of the roman era.) Papal control prevents that kind of hijacking and, perhaps ironically, served to shield the church from a bunch of fanatics and lunatics leading people astray.
Between that and the "mere human" comment (he's not a mere human, he's the mere human explicitly put in charge of the canon by the basic tenets of the religion), I am forced to conclude that you've never even met a christian, and must have watched the programme in esperanto or something to prevent you from picking up this kind of basic knowledge from context. Please, at least know something about what you're talking about before posting on public forums. Even though that involves going against the grain.
Yes, a thousand years of common understanding is definitely a reliable source of information. What have I been thinking, trusing empiricism and the modern sciences all these years? Clearly, I've been suffering from a brain fever, and need a good leeching to remove the black humours from my system.
I spent far too much money on education, when all I needed was the five thousand years of common understanding gathering dust on my bookshelf. I mean, if you can't trust that the first woman was grown from the rib of the first man, sho was in turn formed from river clay, then what can you trust?
Ok, I'm done now. It was really just that bit about the understanding that got me, the rest was quite insightful (though not informative, either the mods don't know the difference between the two words or they've recently moved from crack to LSD). Hope you aren't offended by the nitpicking.
"Social Security is only a 'ponzi scheme' if you consider the plans of Libertarians, who, in their infinite selfisheness and greed, plan to make it happen by their own actions."
Yes, because "We don't want any of your damn handouts! Stop giving out money!" is definitely the rallying-cry of a group caught up in fits of greed and self-interest.
SCORE: Your syntax is inelegant and your post is lacking in logical continuity. Plus, the attack on a party that was unrelated to the discussion was a bit too spontaneous, as ad-hominem needs to be presented as an implication rather than a direct statement: you want to tempt the respondents of your post to engage in logical fallacies, not do so yourself. I give your troll an overall rating of 3/10, and that's only because it at least contained some logical statements, albeit out of order and disconnected.
Thank you for using troll-o-tron 5000 trolling editor, have a nice day.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realize that paid labor is by definition not slavery? It's not that uncommon for paid laborers to have a worse deal in terms of food/lodging than the enslaved, one might even call it a reasonable price to pay for their freedom. Having the sort end of the stick is not, nor will ever be, necessarily slavery.
"By the same standards the USA is clearly a repressive regime."
/. means 'completely lacking perspective regarding history, politics, and social theory'. Good to know for future reference.
So apparently 'insightful' on
(1) ridiculous has an 'o'.
(2) If a treaty signed by both nations says it only works one way, then it only works one way. You know, treaties, those things that define international law?
(3) It's not so much 'forcing'. If the UK denied us the trial of this fellow and tried him themselves, all we'd be able to do is shrug and move on. He wasn't extradited because his government was forced, he was extradited because his government agrees that he's a criminal and know that he won't be punished any more harshly under american law than he would be under british law. Welcome to the world of being able to make your allies happy at no loss to yourself.
As someone else in the thread has noted, a lot of the US extradition treaties are one-way (i.e. extradition in the other guy-> US direction was traded for something other than the reciprocal right). This means that the US can demand extradition of a lot of foreign citizens while those people's countries can't do the same to us. This isn't our fault necessarily, it's what both parties agreed to whenever the treaty was signed.
Also, extradition generally has to be approved by the country doing the booting, so it's hardly a level of bullying beyone the normal bullying associated with any form of politics. There are doubtless times when countries denied the US the right to prosecute their citizens: in this case, they didn't, because they agree that the man is a criminal and know that nothing worse would happen to him under U.S. law than under their own law.
The idea of a soul transcending the physical is a fairly recent invention, actually, cropped up a bit into the rennaisance. In the original form of christianity, at least, the soul represented the totality of what made you you, so your body (including genes, I suppose) would be as much a part of your soul as anything else. So, no, a large number of people would not necessarily agree that a human soul should necessarily transcend the posession of a single gene. Not that it mattered, because it was the grace of god that was important, not having a soul, necessarily.
'Gene' is also a bit fuzzily defined... but then, after several thousand years of philosophers with a penchant for redefining words however they felt like, so is "soul", so i'll just not pursue that point.
In the defense of religion, you have to decide what to do somehow. Science only gives options and explanations, whereas religion gives a system by which an option might be selected and an analysis utilized. If we completely lost all forms of assertive belief, human society would stop just as surely as if we lost all forms of logical analysis and empirical thought.
Generally, even scientists who think of themselves as atheists aren't denial atheists. This means that they don't believe that there is a god, not that they believe that there is no god. If you don't see the difference, I'd guess that you're not a native english speaker, as it's rather dramatic and noticeable to those of us that grew up with the language.
The data is still useful, however, as it allows us to identify wether the systems that we've theorized the human body uses to combat cancer actually do so, and gives us the opportunity to fiddle with such systems without injecting experimental chemicals into our next-door neighbor. At the least, it provides confirmation regarding the reliability of previous data.
Forcing industry to alter its behavior, by making it conform to clean-air regulation, costs me in the form of more expensive products (in this case, transportation). This isn't really any more tenuous than one tier up from my previous post, which asserts that we are paying "through artificially low gas prices that don't reflect the costs of maintaining a road network or fixing the environmental damage".
I don't entirely agree that you've succeeded in refuting the point that you were intending to refute, as your example tells me the benefits of you breathing dirty air (filtering of smog?). Regardless, my example aside, "People should bear the entire cost of their lifestyle choices themselves" is a stupid argument because anything done repeatedly, including bodily functions, is a lifestyle choice, and 'cost' is rather arbitrary and easy to define as you like. This was the thrust of my argument.
Thirdly, you've mistaken an example for a premise. You refuted my example. To refute my premise (You can do [this type of argument] with anything) would involved demonstrating that I can't form a statement form such an argument with "breathing clean air"; what you showed was that I haven't. Of course, proving my statement logically would involve either induction or a list of everything in existence, so I think we're probably stuck here as far as pure logic goes.
The point is to make domestic sources on par costwise with petrol, and foreign sources not so much. That's what all tariffs are attempting to do, and it generally works. In this case, the tariff is also protecting workers in US oil, which, from the Democratic party/ Union standpoint, is great! And because it would piss off the average worker to remove the protections, Repubs won't touch it with a 49.5 foot pole either.
Really? You equated every system with the entire universe? Yeah, I would have failed you, too.
The reaction won't necessarily be any more complete, as it still requires attack by an external oxygen molecule. The barrier to the corresponding reaction in the absence of burning (oxygen gas and heat oxidation) is large enough that that reaction is insignificant by comparison in a fuel situation. Which is a good thing, because otherwise your beer would spontaneously explode (not burn, explode) on hot days.
Um... I don't know how to break this to you, Fan, but Marijuana and Hemp are not the same plant. If you smoke that hemp rope you bought at WalMart, all you're going to get for your trouble is respiratory damage.
If you're running it on batteries, then, given the energy-density of batteries, your power source is actually heavy enough to weigh down your vehicle and effect its energy consumption. You really have to run that kind of thing off the grid, or charge it every 10 minutes, to keep your weight from getting out of hand.
Given that, it's an optimization problem, as most electric motors are also lighter than their gas-powered counterparts, so there might be a range where it was actually worthwhile. (The gap isn't as large as you'd think on wieghts, though, with what GM's been doing with magnesium alloys recently)
Notice that "+" by the 20 in the grandparent? That means that it will be more than 20, not necessarily in the 20-30 range. If you actually read the post involved, you'll note that he took the figure from the previous post, because it was a counterargument and that was the logical thing to do.
Now, you've been hiring cars (which, firstly, implies you don't own one and thus really don't have the experience to comment, but I'll leave off that, i guess). Rental companies tend to buy fuel efficient cars, because renters tend to get upset if they end up paying significantly more than that little number on their rental contract. Thus you saw things like hybrid vehicles in rental stations years before anyone in their right mind would have actually bought one for private use. Secondly, you're talking about a car, which, depending on the specific vehicles involved, is anywhere from 1/2 to 1/8 the mass of a loaded van and similar in profile (air resistance). As those of us familiar with the advanced mathematical concept known as 'multiplication' will know, an object of double the mass requiring double the work to move it the same distance is not entirely beyond comprehension. So a fuel-efficient van will tend to have higher gas consumption than a similarly efficient car.
Welcome to the world of primary-school math and elementary logic. May your stay be long and pleasurable.
By arbitrarily calling things 'lifestyle choices' and stating that this immediately dismisses them from consideration, you open yourself to an interesting style of logic. Allow me to demonstrate:
/. would be in a technical field that would require one to understand optimization. /innocent expression
Breathing clean air is a lifestyle choice: If that's what people want, they should have to pay the 100$/bottle for aqualung refills, not force the rest of us to pay for them through environmental regulations that we don't want.
See? you can do it to anything, which makes it a worthless argument.
As for towing, you can tow a boat or trailer with a dirtbike, if that's what you want. The point is that a truck is optimized to tow things, i.e. it has better fuel efficiency and lower emissions hauling a two-ton box of furniture than your geo metro. You'd think someone as environmentally conscious as you would understand the advantages of that. And that someone browsing
Wait... you're saying that dividing one empirically derived mumber by another empirically derived number equates to agenda-pushing? I feel sorry for your middle-school math teachers and laugh at them at the same time.
... Monty Python's flying Circus! (/non-sequitir)
The sky will fall, cats will be sleeping with dogs, and men will be marrying men.
So what you're saying is that the world will go to Sand Francisco?
Given the image most sports teams want to project, "Zulus" would be an excellent name for one. "Blackskins" not so much, since in this country's history that equates to being on the losing side more often than not.
In conclusion, what's your point? (addendum: the foam spears would be awesome)
Well, I'd actually say it has more to do with the increasing role of public institutions as the population density goes up. A thousand years ago, being rich meant not having to have direct contact with anyone rom another economic section. Now, with public roads, public schools, public libraries, public offices (to the extent that everyone has to walk through the same rooms to get to their office), public toilets, and public theaters, disease transmission is rapid and uniform, and the health of the weakest becomes the health of the group. This explains also why the effect might be exaggerated in the USA (as others in the threads have claimed), as we have much more direct contact between economic groups than a lot of countries than even your usual middle-class-heavy society. (Anecdotal evidence only, I have not walked around every country in the world with a really big measuring tape, just observed the places I've visited.)
You think Texas is bad? I moved to Cali a few years back (don't ask). Now every time I visit the family in Texas and hit traffic, I just smile and relax smugly as everyone else on the road gets upset.
"So then what do people think about the Judas gospel. Well it is funny but the 'real' gospels are somehow still more real and have something holy about them. WTF? Just goes to show that facts and believes have nothing to do with each other."
New gospels must be approved by the college of cardinals and, ultimately, the pope to be legitimate Christian scripture. The real gospels are more holy because they have been thus certified by the official arbiter of such descisions. Things that aren't so approved aren't scripture, and things that are considered for approval and rejected are called "Apocrypha" and also aren't scripture, i.e. they aren't holy.
This holds for most of the offshoots of the church as well, just the appoved/unapproved scriptures were frozen at the time whatever branch broke off from the main body of the religion. The exception are the fringe cults, like Mormonism (the largest one) which either formed for the specific purpose of including one of the Apocrypha in their scripture (the book of Mormon, in my example) or simply lost all structure upon their break-off.
This may, of course, seem rather arbitrary to you, but remember that root Christianity was based on solid practicality: that was part of its appeal(they got a bit crazy later and some of the founders were quite bats, but that's another story). Having the pope in charge of the official canon was neither hypocritical nor a poor idea, but a simple precaution against everyone and their little dog Toto forging their own documents and attempting to fragment the church and steal part of its power base. (And don't think that they wouldn't, manufacture of 'artifacts' was one of the biggest industries through the middle ages and the end of the roman era.) Papal control prevents that kind of hijacking and, perhaps ironically, served to shield the church from a bunch of fanatics and lunatics leading people astray.
Between that and the "mere human" comment (he's not a mere human, he's the mere human explicitly put in charge of the canon by the basic tenets of the religion), I am forced to conclude that you've never even met a christian, and must have watched the programme in esperanto or something to prevent you from picking up this kind of basic knowledge from context. Please, at least know something about what you're talking about before posting on public forums. Even though that involves going against the grain.
Yes, a thousand years of common understanding is definitely a reliable source of information. What have I been thinking, trusing empiricism and the modern sciences all these years? Clearly, I've been suffering from a brain fever, and need a good leeching to remove the black humours from my system.
I spent far too much money on education, when all I needed was the five thousand years of common understanding gathering dust on my bookshelf. I mean, if you can't trust that the first woman was grown from the rib of the first man, sho was in turn formed from river clay, then what can you trust?
Ok, I'm done now. It was really just that bit about the understanding that got me, the rest was quite insightful (though not informative, either the mods don't know the difference between the two words or they've recently moved from crack to LSD). Hope you aren't offended by the nitpicking.
"Social Security is only a 'ponzi scheme' if you consider the plans of Libertarians, who, in their infinite selfisheness and greed, plan to make it happen by their own actions."
Yes, because "We don't want any of your damn handouts! Stop giving out money!" is definitely the rallying-cry of a group caught up in fits of greed and self-interest.
SCORE: Your syntax is inelegant and your post is lacking in logical continuity. Plus, the attack on a party that was unrelated to the discussion was a bit too spontaneous, as ad-hominem needs to be presented as an implication rather than a direct statement: you want to tempt the respondents of your post to engage in logical fallacies, not do so yourself. I give your troll an overall rating of 3/10, and that's only because it at least contained some logical statements, albeit out of order and disconnected.
Thank you for using troll-o-tron 5000 trolling editor, have a nice day.