Which Soviet Union are you talking about? It was formed in a decade of brutal armed conflict, and its resolution is still being fought over today in Moldova, Georgia, Russia, and in a hundred little border disputes. If you think India was entirely bloodless you may want to look up Subhas Chandra Bose, he didn't get any credit but he's a national hero there every bit as much as Ghandi. Martin Luther King always had his Malcolm X. What about the fighting in Iran after the supposedly bloodless transfer of power where "Overthrow the Shah" became "I am your unquestioned ruler"?
But hey, Hitlers takeover was pretty smooth, so was Mussolinis. The American Revolution wasn't, nor was the UKs or Irelands. Spain's was messy and did lead to a dictator, as did France. I bet if we sat here all day we could make a giant list and I don't know that you'd see any correlation between peace and success.
I could agree with the idea that the US media was running this whole war if they hadn't been a week behind in covering it. Why start a conflict if you're going to be outdone in grabbing the ratings? If there's already facebook marches being organized before you report the first story on the war you created you're doing it wrong.
Please repost stating that the protests were created by an alliance of mischievous 4channers and we can talk.
You may be a bit confused, the outrage is in support of free democratic elections for people who want a basic amount of self determination, Mousavi just happens to be their candidate of choice.
I doubt most people abroad are actually terribly fond of him, hence the tagline "Where is my Vote?" not "Got Mousavi?"
In other words his involvement was, from what I gather, potentially: possession, distribution, production, and from the sound of it trading this produced content with others.
Can you honestly not tell why someone might refer to downloading child pornography from where ever, as a completely one sided exchange, as in no way furthering the victimization of youth, given that the images already exist and no incentive is being provided for the production of more? In contrast I think it's very easy to say exactly where the victimization in your example is, and the fact that he would (my gathering) be involved in bartering of the fruits of the victimization rather than straight purchasing is irrelevant to the argument and provides a very clear incentive for continued violence.
In other words, your friend doesn't fit the definition. Leave him out of it.
That's crazy talk! Everyone knows that if man were capable of communicating with God himself people would get all sorts of wild ideas, the whole hierarchy of the church would be undermined!
Judging by firearms that I own from the turn of the century (1907), a good firearm purchased right now will last longer than my life will, and there is plenty of WWII and Cold War surplus ammunition still being sold right now. Well maintained and used as much as any single person would need to, a good firearm will still be there to protect your children when they venture into the wild.
I think in a more ideal circumstance you would go in believing that every man deserves a day in court, and that if, in the end, he is guilty by letter of law but deserves no punishment that nullification is an option.
Lying to the court to keep yourself on a jury when you have absolutely no interest in the guilt or innocence only in your own political band-standing serves absolutely no one. I fail to see how it's any different than if she had refused to convict because he was black or because they were actually old friends.
I have no issue with jurors attempting nullification beyond how wildly ineffective. and in many cases disallowed, it is, but I don't think it should be taken as a blanket course of action when so much of its moral base is rooted in context.
Really she wasn't even fined for her refusal, or the reason she refused, she was fined because it could be reasonably surmised before the trial even started that she was going to refuse which would have gotten her kicked off the jury, but instead hid this from the courts to allow her to remain on the jury even though she was neither fair nor impartial.
No, he's asking for overarching events that effect the community as a whole rather than individual players, you know take advantage of the fact that this is supposed to be a collective world where people can play and interact with each other.
The biggest example of an even like this would be the blood curse, and sadly that was a glitch.
Re:You can't win if you don't play
on
Linked In Or Out?
·
· Score: 1
I can understand in certain situations, but really, I have to question the deep wisdom of it.
If you look at my facebook profile you'll see plenty of pictures of me drinking, burning things, smashing things, in various awful outfits; I would guess these are things that one would consider not giving me a job for because I'm a drunken destructive weirdo. However, I'm also a consummate professional with nothing but praise from employers and coworkers. What I do on my time is my business, and given that I very rarely interact directly with customers I somehow doubt that what I do in my personal life is ever going to affect anyones bottom line.
It is hyperbole, and it's completely unnecessary given that there are in fact plenty of people who claim that global warming will cause a massive amount of disaster in the future. (B) is thus not by necessity hyperbole, nor is (A).
You should stick to hammering away on the Al Gore thing, because the sibling and I don't agree on that. When you try to take the argument as a whole it only takes two Google searches to show that there is an equivalence between elements of the climate change movement and the radically religious.
I'd ask the same thing, but that's the sad state of parenting these days. There are many parents who either don't care or who actively avoid being involved in the raising of their children. There might be a connection between parents who don't keep their emergency contact information up to date and parents who don't raise their children to follow the rules.
I like that your response to "you can't make a child cooperate" was "well they should have just made the child cooperate." You essentially responded to my post by reiterating the same argument that I was replying to. I don't understand.
1) They didn't have her parents number.
2) The police did not arrest her for "not cooperating" they arrested her for lying to the police and being a disruption. There's a pretty big difference between the two, even in Australia.
3) I think she'll plea out before it would ever go to trial, most things are. I don't agree with them calling the police either, but, as I have stated about five times already for anyone who has read this thread, I think it's wrong to assume that with an uncooperative child that they will suddenly start cooperating. It might have made a difference it might not, I wish people could accept that.
Because you're denying the point that he's making, which is entirely valid, based on the exact wording he choose which contains a small amount of hyperbole. It's pedantic, and the fact that you even bother to post when you admit that's all you're doing really says something about your character.
The problem is that it was only spotted because it was so obviously wrong that independent observes took note, and that their response was "This happened becasue we use out dated an potentially inaccurate methods, which we will continue to use because we have used them previously."
I don't understand the logic that Data A is flawed, we have confirmed this using Data B which is more accurate, we will not however be switching to Data B because it doesn't match Data A.
Ok, so change "end of the world" to "global climate catastrophe" and admit that there are in fact climate change doom-sayers that you claim don't exist.
I'm going to post this again because the guy who replied to me posted AC and I don't know if he'll ever see it again.
I've seen the research that states that spankings are not beneficial to the child being spanked,and as I stated in my example the spanking did nothing to help the child. I'm curious if you know of any research about what I was relating, the effect of one child being spanked on other children.
We've seen that prison fails regularly and preventing repeat offenders, but throwing them in jail does seem to be a pretty good tool for keeping others honest.
Legitimately asking here, not calling you out:
I've seen the research that states that spankings are not beneficial to the child being spanked, I'm curious if you know of any research about what I was relating, the effect of one child being spanked on other children.
We've seen that prison fails regularly and preventing repeat offenders, but throwing them in jail does seem to be a pretty good tool for keeping others honest.
I don't mind reiterating my point, so I wont hold it against you that I have to repeat myself.
"I understand that these are routes that went untried, but I think it's misguided to assume they would have had a different result given the attitude of the child in question."
I am not arguing that they made the right choice, I'm arguing that it's misguided to assume that things would have gone differently if only they had tried to suspend her before calling the police. I'm not stating that you should never ask a murderer to stop, I'm stating that it's dumb to assume with any degree of certainty that if you ask they'll stop.
No where did I say "Don't bother" I said (in paraphrase) "There's no reason to believe it will be effective."
I believe that it's wrong to assume that the reaction was completely unjustified given that the people on the ground probably have a lot more history and context to work from than anyone armchair quarterbacking on Slashdot does.
I would argue that there's as much evidence to suggest that this is where things were headed regardless as there is to a believe that that similar appeals to authority would have been effective.
Studies say that it doesn't help, but here's something I've never seen studied:
When I was a kid I was a fairly well behaved boy, one of the other kids I grew up with was not. He was spanked regularly because he frequently acted out and was violent and destructive.
Now, true, he was not helped, he's still a moron, BUT, my desire to avoid a similar fate lead me to be very well behaved. There are some kids that can't be helped, but that doesn't mean that making an example of them can't yield fringe benefits.
I read it too, I know it's not in there, the point is that it's an ineffective solution because there's no ability to enforce it. Since you did read it you'll know that they tried to call her parents, and she did everything in her power to make it impossible for them to make contact, of course she could have just said nothing and made it impossible.
So, given that my point what "none of that works if the child doesn't cooperate" do you have any suggestions that don't require exactly that?
Detenion: Refuse
Suspension: Refuse
Parents: Withhold the contact
councilor: Refuse
I understand that these are routes that went untried, but I think it's misguided to assume they would have had a different result given the attitude of the child in question.
Slashdot Mirror
Excuse me?
Which Soviet Union are you talking about? It was formed in a decade of brutal armed conflict, and its resolution is still being fought over today in Moldova, Georgia, Russia, and in a hundred little border disputes. If you think India was entirely bloodless you may want to look up Subhas Chandra Bose, he didn't get any credit but he's a national hero there every bit as much as Ghandi. Martin Luther King always had his Malcolm X. What about the fighting in Iran after the supposedly bloodless transfer of power where "Overthrow the Shah" became "I am your unquestioned ruler"?
But hey, Hitlers takeover was pretty smooth, so was Mussolinis. The American Revolution wasn't, nor was the UKs or Irelands. Spain's was messy and did lead to a dictator, as did France. I bet if we sat here all day we could make a giant list and I don't know that you'd see any correlation between peace and success.
I could agree with the idea that the US media was running this whole war if they hadn't been a week behind in covering it. Why start a conflict if you're going to be outdone in grabbing the ratings? If there's already facebook marches being organized before you report the first story on the war you created you're doing it wrong.
Please repost stating that the protests were created by an alliance of mischievous 4channers and we can talk.
You may be a bit confused, the outrage is in support of free democratic elections for people who want a basic amount of self determination, Mousavi just happens to be their candidate of choice.
I doubt most people abroad are actually terribly fond of him, hence the tagline "Where is my Vote?" not "Got Mousavi?"
Unless he's not guilty.
People like to skip that thing in these sorts of cases.
In other words his involvement was, from what I gather, potentially: possession, distribution, production, and from the sound of it trading this produced content with others.
Can you honestly not tell why someone might refer to downloading child pornography from where ever, as a completely one sided exchange, as in no way furthering the victimization of youth, given that the images already exist and no incentive is being provided for the production of more? In contrast I think it's very easy to say exactly where the victimization in your example is, and the fact that he would (my gathering) be involved in bartering of the fruits of the victimization rather than straight purchasing is irrelevant to the argument and provides a very clear incentive for continued violence.
In other words, your friend doesn't fit the definition. Leave him out of it.
That's crazy talk! Everyone knows that if man were capable of communicating with God himself people would get all sorts of wild ideas, the whole hierarchy of the church would be undermined!
Judging by firearms that I own from the turn of the century (1907), a good firearm purchased right now will last longer than my life will, and there is plenty of WWII and Cold War surplus ammunition still being sold right now. Well maintained and used as much as any single person would need to, a good firearm will still be there to protect your children when they venture into the wild.
I think in a more ideal circumstance you would go in believing that every man deserves a day in court, and that if, in the end, he is guilty by letter of law but deserves no punishment that nullification is an option.
Lying to the court to keep yourself on a jury when you have absolutely no interest in the guilt or innocence only in your own political band-standing serves absolutely no one. I fail to see how it's any different than if she had refused to convict because he was black or because they were actually old friends.
I have no issue with jurors attempting nullification beyond how wildly ineffective. and in many cases disallowed, it is, but I don't think it should be taken as a blanket course of action when so much of its moral base is rooted in context.
Really she wasn't even fined for her refusal, or the reason she refused, she was fined because it could be reasonably surmised before the trial even started that she was going to refuse which would have gotten her kicked off the jury, but instead hid this from the courts to allow her to remain on the jury even though she was neither fair nor impartial.
No, he's asking for overarching events that effect the community as a whole rather than individual players, you know take advantage of the fact that this is supposed to be a collective world where people can play and interact with each other.
The biggest example of an even like this would be the blood curse, and sadly that was a glitch.
I can understand in certain situations, but really, I have to question the deep wisdom of it.
If you look at my facebook profile you'll see plenty of pictures of me drinking, burning things, smashing things, in various awful outfits; I would guess these are things that one would consider not giving me a job for because I'm a drunken destructive weirdo. However, I'm also a consummate professional with nothing but praise from employers and coworkers. What I do on my time is my business, and given that I very rarely interact directly with customers I somehow doubt that what I do in my personal life is ever going to affect anyones bottom line.
There is a definite equivalence if you knew how to use Google.
It is hyperbole, and it's completely unnecessary given that there are in fact plenty of people who claim that global warming will cause a massive amount of disaster in the future. (B) is thus not by necessity hyperbole, nor is (A).
You should stick to hammering away on the Al Gore thing, because the sibling and I don't agree on that. When you try to take the argument as a whole it only takes two Google searches to show that there is an equivalence between elements of the climate change movement and the radically religious.
No, as I stated, because there's no reason to assume that it would have made a difference, we shouldn't assume that it would have made a difference.
I think that's pretty fair.
I'd ask the same thing, but that's the sad state of parenting these days. There are many parents who either don't care or who actively avoid being involved in the raising of their children. There might be a connection between parents who don't keep their emergency contact information up to date and parents who don't raise their children to follow the rules.
I like that your response to "you can't make a child cooperate" was "well they should have just made the child cooperate." You essentially responded to my post by reiterating the same argument that I was replying to. I don't understand.
1) They didn't have her parents number.
2) The police did not arrest her for "not cooperating" they arrested her for lying to the police and being a disruption. There's a pretty big difference between the two, even in Australia.
3) I think she'll plea out before it would ever go to trial, most things are. I don't agree with them calling the police either, but, as I have stated about five times already for anyone who has read this thread, I think it's wrong to assume that with an uncooperative child that they will suddenly start cooperating. It might have made a difference it might not, I wish people could accept that.
Because you're denying the point that he's making, which is entirely valid, based on the exact wording he choose which contains a small amount of hyperbole. It's pedantic, and the fact that you even bother to post when you admit that's all you're doing really says something about your character.
The problem is that it was only spotted because it was so obviously wrong that independent observes took note, and that their response was "This happened becasue we use out dated an potentially inaccurate methods, which we will continue to use because we have used them previously."
I don't understand the logic that Data A is flawed, we have confirmed this using Data B which is more accurate, we will not however be switching to Data B because it doesn't match Data A.
Ok, so change "end of the world" to "global climate catastrophe" and admit that there are in fact climate change doom-sayers that you claim don't exist.
I'm going to post this again because the guy who replied to me posted AC and I don't know if he'll ever see it again.
I've seen the research that states that spankings are not beneficial to the child being spanked,and as I stated in my example the spanking did nothing to help the child. I'm curious if you know of any research about what I was relating, the effect of one child being spanked on other children. We've seen that prison fails regularly and preventing repeat offenders, but throwing them in jail does seem to be a pretty good tool for keeping others honest.
Legitimately asking here, not calling you out: I've seen the research that states that spankings are not beneficial to the child being spanked, I'm curious if you know of any research about what I was relating, the effect of one child being spanked on other children.
We've seen that prison fails regularly and preventing repeat offenders, but throwing them in jail does seem to be a pretty good tool for keeping others honest.
I don't mind reiterating my point, so I wont hold it against you that I have to repeat myself.
"I understand that these are routes that went untried, but I think it's misguided to assume they would have had a different result given the attitude of the child in question."
I am not arguing that they made the right choice, I'm arguing that it's misguided to assume that things would have gone differently if only they had tried to suspend her before calling the police. I'm not stating that you should never ask a murderer to stop, I'm stating that it's dumb to assume with any degree of certainty that if you ask they'll stop.
No where did I say "Don't bother" I said (in paraphrase) "There's no reason to believe it will be effective."
I believe that it's wrong to assume that the reaction was completely unjustified given that the people on the ground probably have a lot more history and context to work from than anyone armchair quarterbacking on Slashdot does.
I would argue that there's as much evidence to suggest that this is where things were headed regardless as there is to a believe that that similar appeals to authority would have been effective.
Studies say that it doesn't help, but here's something I've never seen studied:
When I was a kid I was a fairly well behaved boy, one of the other kids I grew up with was not. He was spanked regularly because he frequently acted out and was violent and destructive.
Now, true, he was not helped, he's still a moron, BUT, my desire to avoid a similar fate lead me to be very well behaved. There are some kids that can't be helped, but that doesn't mean that making an example of them can't yield fringe benefits.
I read it too, I know it's not in there, the point is that it's an ineffective solution because there's no ability to enforce it. Since you did read it you'll know that they tried to call her parents, and she did everything in her power to make it impossible for them to make contact, of course she could have just said nothing and made it impossible.
So, given that my point what "none of that works if the child doesn't cooperate" do you have any suggestions that don't require exactly that?
Detenion: Refuse
Suspension: Refuse
Parents: Withhold the contact
councilor: Refuse
I understand that these are routes that went untried, but I think it's misguided to assume they would have had a different result given the attitude of the child in question.
Yeah, once they get a hold of her parents after she repeatedly lies about how to contact them.