Who would read that shit? It is a blatant straw man.
Critical thinking would require looking for articles about people who are in prison with a long sentence for possession.
Maybe you missed it when it was in the news that Obama was shortening the sentences of a bunch in that situation in federal prison. There are many more in State prisons.
Those ones got their registrations canceled a month earlier. Don't you follow the news?
Mao is a statue; attempts to discover anything more is forbidden in China. Maoist student groups are carefully monitored to make sure they don't do anything other than sing patriotic historical songs and organize holiday socials.
It is that any American who read a newspaper even just once a week for a year would already know it isn't true. And if you didn't know, but wanted to check, you'd easily find the answer.
That's how ignorant it is; you've been exposed to the information numerous times, and also you could look it up and check right now.
No need to wave your hands about what "everybody" knows; the standard is for you to know about the subject of your own claims. And you fail to meet that standard. That "everybody" knows the information is why I won't explain it to you, I'm only explaining that you're ignorant.
If you take an anonymous poll of any population, you'll find that 25% disagree with almost everything. 5% take extreme and offensive positions. This is like, a smaller number than the number of Americans who support government-sponsored religion.
It is like worrying that cracking down on shoplifters might be unpopular, because there is so many of them.
For reference, the US gives out 41 million speeding tickets per year. It results in lots of poor-taste jokes about cops and traffic tickets, but the population doesn't come out in support of speeding! Nor are the people who got the tickets accused of "hating the system," though perhaps they do. Some of them might even be otherwise-capable people.
It seems reasonable to expect unexpected results from the Chinese experiment, but I disagree that the numbers you presented have value.
You might want to research what happened to Falun Gong. You're about 20 years late to rescue them from being put in camps and turned into living organ banks. Not even exaggerating. Look it up.
A suspected terrorist is innocent until proven guilty. When you called them a suspect, I already knew it is disputed and you haven't proven it yet according to the necessary process.
If we know for sure that the guy was really smoking on the train, he sounds like a proven terrorist to me. Give him the death penalty for intentionally putting other people's lives at risk.
You're conflating drug users with drug dealers. The U.S. generally doesn't imprison people at all for possessing recreational quantities of drugs, much less for a "long time."
Last month they were canceling the registration of Marxist student groups who pointed out the same things, so things might get "interesting" with that crowd.
That said, their system isn't based on Communism it is just a Confucian autocratic dictatorship that uses the colors and symbols of communism. It is actually just a traditional system for understanding Merit and deciding who has the most Merit to lead based on who shows the most success at taking control of the levers of power. There is deep-seated national unity around that concept of Merit.
But it definitely complicates things for them if that conflict does develop further, because of the messaging. It is potentially a major threat to current leadership in the future, though not really a systemic threat of any sort.
Everybody keeps throwing around all of these ways that China could abuse this system, like discrediting based on social media post or publishing dissenting material. Thing is, they haven't implemented anything like that.
This isn't some theory people are throwing around, it is literally what they say their plan is, and it is part of what they say they're already doing.
There is very little speculation that they'll do some horrible thing, the speculation is that they'll do exactly what they said they'll do.
Scientific Consensus would be argumentum ad popolum if it was true that consensus determines facts, however, it does not. It merely flags particular theories as known-to-be-accepted-in-the-mainstream.
Science is a process, not a set of theories or conclusions. Therefore, you identified the correct fallacy in the argument, but in the wrong part of the argument. Where they're engaging in argumentum ad popolum is when they're saying that because there is a "scientific consensus," therefore the body of the consensus is also correct, or worse, sometimes they'll even want to call it "proven." But science does not and can not attempt to "prove" things. Science is merely a process by which you can attempt to repeat things; the personal goal of scientists is often to discover the "why" of things, but science doesn't actually do that. And the good ones know it! Their personal goal of understanding "why" is separate from their professional goals of taking additional steps in a process. But conclusions are not one of the steps that is even part of the process, so consensus about what the current-best-answer is doesn't even touch on or support coming to conclusions about it!
"I think, therefore I am" is a complete failure, but because the lesson is valuable (if I don't exist it doesn't matter if I'm wrong, if I do exist but believe I don't I won't be motivated to survive, therefore belief in existence is the only answer with potential utility) we also value scientific consensus; not because it is ever correct, or capable of being correct, but because it supports additional attempts at understanding.
I actually meant "people have Faith that the Earth is round," the Flat Earthers only have Faith that idiots will lie about what they personally can prove.
Right, but everybody pretending to believe in the flat Earth are really just challenging the fact that you would claim to know facts, but humans can't know facts directly. People have faith that the Earth is flat, and they have faith that the people who told them so saw some proof. But primarily they're simply told that it is true, and they believe it. But that isn't how they talk; tell them you believe in Flat Earth and they'll start in on some absurd holier-than-thou nonsense about science they don't actually understand and could never repeat themselves.
Some answer is already known, sure; but is it actually know in the way presented, to the person presenting it? Almost never! Just repeating it more strongly, with a stronger feeling of Righteousness, doesn't make it more known to you, it actually makes it less known to you. The flat earther is a troll, sure, but they're not actually being less honest than the other person; both sides of the argument are being dishonest, one intentionally, the other accidentally, but the intentionally dishonest person is being honest about the part the other person is accidentally dishonest about. And enjoyment of that inversion appears to be the primary appeal of their trolling efforts.
Except that guy with the steam rocket, he was just getting paid to say it. And said so all along.
Nobody even knows if it was done; you'll never know unless somebody gets arrested for it. It was probably a false claim, because nobody got arrested. Or even, it actually happened months earlier, and the government told them when the correct time to trigger the canary was. That's much more reasonable than just assuming, "I read about a press release, therefore, it was true.
Information about these things only comes out after a long time. But in the meantime, does Reddit have more power than the government in these matters? If not, then it is silly to think they were violating a court order.
Probably over 85% of devices are the cheapest device, but in a nicer case. If you don't know enough to choose the good parts, you're screwed; paying more doesn't help, that just nonsense. Often the peak of quality in on a mid-range item.
Slashdot Mirror
Never trust. Never.
Even if I set it up myself, I don't trust it. It still might have been compromised.
Even if I set up the VPN myself, I still need to encrypt the traffic. Because trust is for fools.
And if I already encrypt the traffic, I still need a VPN. Because trust is for fools.
The issue isn't actually with operating the device in Russia.
The issue is with having paying subscribers that live there.
A foreigner trying to test the law will just get arrested as a spy for it, they won't "test" shit.
Who would read that shit? It is a blatant straw man.
Critical thinking would require looking for articles about people who are in prison with a long sentence for possession.
Maybe you missed it when it was in the news that Obama was shortening the sentences of a bunch in that situation in federal prison. There are many more in State prisons.
Those ones got their registrations canceled a month earlier. Don't you follow the news?
Mao is a statue; attempts to discover anything more is forbidden in China. Maoist student groups are carefully monitored to make sure they don't do anything other than sing patriotic historical songs and organize holiday socials.
Appeals to moral relativism isn't going to stop any patriotic American from killing nazis.
While the etymology might be interesting, it doesn't tell you anything about the meaning.
When killing nazis, there is no value in differentiating between the "true believers" and those who defend them.
It isn't that everybody knows.
It is that any American who read a newspaper even just once a week for a year would already know it isn't true. And if you didn't know, but wanted to check, you'd easily find the answer.
That's how ignorant it is; you've been exposed to the information numerous times, and also you could look it up and check right now.
No need to wave your hands about what "everybody" knows; the standard is for you to know about the subject of your own claims. And you fail to meet that standard. That "everybody" knows the information is why I won't explain it to you, I'm only explaining that you're ignorant.
The reporting in this is a little vague - not sure if that's just the standard of journalism or intentional.
This answer is always yes. The standard of journalism is intentional.
It is the same as 7 million people in the US.
If you take an anonymous poll of any population, you'll find that 25% disagree with almost everything. 5% take extreme and offensive positions. This is like, a smaller number than the number of Americans who support government-sponsored religion.
It is like worrying that cracking down on shoplifters might be unpopular, because there is so many of them.
For reference, the US gives out 41 million speeding tickets per year. It results in lots of poor-taste jokes about cops and traffic tickets, but the population doesn't come out in support of speeding! Nor are the people who got the tickets accused of "hating the system," though perhaps they do. Some of them might even be otherwise-capable people.
It seems reasonable to expect unexpected results from the Chinese experiment, but I disagree that the numbers you presented have value.
You might want to research what happened to Falun Gong. You're about 20 years late to rescue them from being put in camps and turned into living organ banks. Not even exaggerating. Look it up.
A suspected terrorist is innocent until proven guilty. When you called them a suspect, I already knew it is disputed and you haven't proven it yet according to the necessary process.
If we know for sure that the guy was really smoking on the train, he sounds like a proven terrorist to me. Give him the death penalty for intentionally putting other people's lives at risk.
And then anytime someone comes along and tries to make one that's "free speech" based, it's immediately associated with nazis or other bad elements.
"Associated with" nazis, or "frequented by" nazis?
Do you agree that it is the nazi part that is the problem?
Honestly, you sound like a nazi trying to pretend to be a liberal, rather than a liberal.
You're conflating drug users with drug dealers. The U.S. generally doesn't imprison people at all for possessing recreational quantities of drugs, much less for a "long time."
That's incredibly ignorant.
Fuck that, lets just kill the nazis. Worked last time.
Last month they were canceling the registration of Marxist student groups who pointed out the same things, so things might get "interesting" with that crowd.
That said, their system isn't based on Communism it is just a Confucian autocratic dictatorship that uses the colors and symbols of communism. It is actually just a traditional system for understanding Merit and deciding who has the most Merit to lead based on who shows the most success at taking control of the levers of power. There is deep-seated national unity around that concept of Merit.
But it definitely complicates things for them if that conflict does develop further, because of the messaging. It is potentially a major threat to current leadership in the future, though not really a systemic threat of any sort.
Everybody keeps throwing around all of these ways that China could abuse this system, like discrediting based on social media post or publishing dissenting material. Thing is, they haven't implemented anything like that.
This isn't some theory people are throwing around, it is literally what they say their plan is, and it is part of what they say they're already doing.
There is very little speculation that they'll do some horrible thing, the speculation is that they'll do exactly what they said they'll do.
What a maroon.
Continental Drift called, it wants you to be less credulous of the Divinity of the extant process.
Scientific Consensus would be argumentum ad popolum if it was true that consensus determines facts, however, it does not. It merely flags particular theories as known-to-be-accepted-in-the-mainstream.
Science is a process, not a set of theories or conclusions. Therefore, you identified the correct fallacy in the argument, but in the wrong part of the argument. Where they're engaging in argumentum ad popolum is when they're saying that because there is a "scientific consensus," therefore the body of the consensus is also correct, or worse, sometimes they'll even want to call it "proven." But science does not and can not attempt to "prove" things. Science is merely a process by which you can attempt to repeat things; the personal goal of scientists is often to discover the "why" of things, but science doesn't actually do that. And the good ones know it! Their personal goal of understanding "why" is separate from their professional goals of taking additional steps in a process. But conclusions are not one of the steps that is even part of the process, so consensus about what the current-best-answer is doesn't even touch on or support coming to conclusions about it!
"I think, therefore I am" is a complete failure, but because the lesson is valuable (if I don't exist it doesn't matter if I'm wrong, if I do exist but believe I don't I won't be motivated to survive, therefore belief in existence is the only answer with potential utility) we also value scientific consensus; not because it is ever correct, or capable of being correct, but because it supports additional attempts at understanding.
I actually meant "people have Faith that the Earth is round," the Flat Earthers only have Faith that idiots will lie about what they personally can prove.
Right, but everybody pretending to believe in the flat Earth are really just challenging the fact that you would claim to know facts, but humans can't know facts directly. People have faith that the Earth is flat, and they have faith that the people who told them so saw some proof. But primarily they're simply told that it is true, and they believe it. But that isn't how they talk; tell them you believe in Flat Earth and they'll start in on some absurd holier-than-thou nonsense about science they don't actually understand and could never repeat themselves.
Some answer is already known, sure; but is it actually know in the way presented, to the person presenting it? Almost never! Just repeating it more strongly, with a stronger feeling of Righteousness, doesn't make it more known to you, it actually makes it less known to you. The flat earther is a troll, sure, but they're not actually being less honest than the other person; both sides of the argument are being dishonest, one intentionally, the other accidentally, but the intentionally dishonest person is being honest about the part the other person is accidentally dishonest about. And enjoyment of that inversion appears to be the primary appeal of their trolling efforts.
Except that guy with the steam rocket, he was just getting paid to say it. And said so all along.
Wait, wait, wait, you used the word "math" and then you calculated the cost of moving cargo based on the retail ticket prices of airline travel? What?
Stop there. Stop using numbers. You have to figure out what the different correct parts are before you can calculate things.
Scots Wha Hae.
Nobody even knows if it was done; you'll never know unless somebody gets arrested for it. It was probably a false claim, because nobody got arrested. Or even, it actually happened months earlier, and the government told them when the correct time to trigger the canary was. That's much more reasonable than just assuming, "I read about a press release, therefore, it was true.
Information about these things only comes out after a long time. But in the meantime, does Reddit have more power than the government in these matters? If not, then it is silly to think they were violating a court order.
Probably over 85% of devices are the cheapest device, but in a nicer case. If you don't know enough to choose the good parts, you're screwed; paying more doesn't help, that just nonsense. Often the peak of quality in on a mid-range item.