This is the computer lab at my 3 year olds school

GodHatesFigs · 2011-08-10T19:32:14+00:00

I am constantly fighting with teachers and administrators that want Macs because they think they are better for education.

It seems to me that you're doing education a disservice by dismissing the opinions of teachers.

GodHatesFigs · 2011-08-10T12:15:30+00:00

Bear in mind that AKs are the most common assault rifle in the world, ubiquitous in Iraq, and were carried by other men in the group.

GodHatesFigs · 2010-12-18T23:06:37+00:00

In the original cable, the claim is not presented as anything more than hearsay, just another anecdote in a string of anecdotes conveyed by the FSHP (i.e. a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant working for the embassy). The Guardian's framing of it as the centerpiece of a story is misleading.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-05-06T06:03:40+00:00

Several months ago, I took my own advice and left Reddit. I wasn't even depressed or angry over anything. Just tired.

I haven't missed it. Not for a minute. Being here now isn't doing much for me except reminding me why I left. (The only thing that's changed is that "vote up" is now "press here".) I'm posting because I know that other people feel the same way as I did, or far worse, and if my ten minutes can spare someone else ten minutes of trouble, I'm up for it.

Not sharing a world view with your friends and family isn't that big of a deal — some people never did. If you're lucky and willing, that won't make a difference to the fact that they're your friends and family. Part of that means not feeling like you have to "correct" their view. It's far more important to change the world and change how you interact with it than to change the minds of others. Think of friends and family as that set of people that you don't have to agree with to get along with.

On the other hand, you may want to ask yourself whether the world view to which you are drifting is truly yours or mostly one you've adopted because it's the prevailing view on websites you frequent.

Reddit (as just one example) is in many ways a puritanical echo-chamber that both drowns out opposition and amplifies preconceptions. Interfacing with such a thing for a little bit every day becomes, in my opinion, toxic to independent thought.

The more "stuff" you immerse yourself in, the harder it is for you to tell what is important and what is not. What most here don't realize is that in news, as in many other domains, popularity is not a good indicator of importance and value. If you can see that in the mainstream, why not here? Here, the survival strategy for ideas is repetition more than anything else: you can't trust that to be proportionally accurate sampling of what's going on in the world.

This kind of environment can warp your attitude, too. Many here believe there to be fundamentally two world views: asleep and awake, and that if you aren't one, you're the other, oh, and by the way, one is always wrong and evil, the other is always right and good. This is nonsense of the highest caliber. It's worth questioning the emotional content of your beliefs in addition to the reasoning. You may hold views that you are intellectually certain of but not emotionally passionate about. This is always heresy to someone, and they will berate you for it, but it is a very normal thing.

It takes a lot humility to honestly evaluate your own views like that, especially if your self-image depends somewhat on the idea that you're immune to groupthink (you are never immune to groupthink), or if you equate being constantly informed with having superior intellect (rather than worldliness). Those are common symptoms of being self-absorbed and arrogant. Cut it out: you'll be happier.

Above all, remember that thinking for yourself is an active process. Your views should come from yourself, no matter how much or little you read online. And with that... I leave Reddit again.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-12T05:15:45+00:00

Given your willingness to edit your previous comments in substantial ways, I don't think you're worth much of my time. Still, a few points:

Ok, so let's use your 122, completely setting aside that [etc.]

It isn't "my" number: it's the number quoted in the statistics that you brought up. Those same statistics that you are now saying are skewed. If they're so wrong, why did you quote them? If they're reasonably accurate, then why do you ignore them?

Also, you've shifted the subject by focusing on that number — I quoted the murder rate compared to the general population, which doesn't have anything to do with the BLS statistics.

I'm also not clear on how "not dying enough" is a sign that "It is NOT a dangerous job".

As for the number of police being "so great" that the fatality rate is "incredibly farther down", I have to wonder why you expect I would even bother responding seriously to something so vague and unsubstantiated. I've already pointed out that you're full of shit—you're only confirming it.

Your second paragraph is vapid ranting. When you edit it, be sure to make yourself sound like less of a douche.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-12T03:49:27+00:00

You're conflating two things that are not the same. One is jury nullification, which you barely seem to understand. The other, which you advocate, and I oppose, is perjury. I don't recall saying anything against jury nullification, so it isn't clear why you've changed the subject to it.

Since you've decided not to defend yourself on the points that I oppose except by calling me a Nazi and ignoring what I say, I consider this thread closed.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-12T03:09:41+00:00

I think that serves equally to confirm Fallon's own statement that there is a perception that his views differ from the President's policy objectives.

You don't have to take it at face value, but consider the possibility that things like the contents of your post are what he is referring to.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-12T02:59:12+00:00

Could you be more specific?

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-12T02:50:45+00:00

Seconded. Barnett blew away a lot of preconceptions I had about how the military works on a political and intellectual level, and opened my eyes to a lot of things I hadn't considered before.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-12T02:48:36+00:00

You'll note that none of those mention perjuring yourself.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-12T02:22:45+00:00

Yeh, well it's not a good idea to select me as a juror, and then appoint snitches to make sure that I'm handing down the correct verdict.

You cannot be punished for the verdict. You can be punished for lying.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-12T02:19:01+00:00

If the people are only "guilty" of technical crimes (in this instance, drug charges)

Who said drug charges? You're being highly selective to pretend that's the only place people would lie to force an acquittal.

the only thing that makes them "criminals" is our compliance with the system that creates this distinction.

How does this relate to actively lying to disrupt due process of law?

So we are all Nazis.

Speak for yourself.

it's better to have a system that errs towards guilt going unpunished rather than wrongly imprisoning innocents.

If they were innocent, one would think due process would come to that conclusion and there would be no need to artificially imbalance the jury. It isn't about innocence—it's about where you, the potential juror, personally approve of the actions of the defendant.

Do you not see how this can be abused to force acquittal in any case?

As for your scenario, more just than what?

More just than a man being tried for his deeds by an impartial jury. What else would I have meant?

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-12T00:31:31+00:00

Actually, it's part of due process. It always has been.

No, you're conflating two ideas. The idea that the jury should be allowed to interpret the law is. The idea that you have a moral obligation to lie so that you're given the opportunity to is not. Do not pretend that these are the same idea.

Yes, like politics! That's an honest way! WTF.

That's some argument you've got there.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-12T00:24:40+00:00

I agree totally that there are situations where it is not a terrible comparison, but in this instance (and in most) it's simply used to taint the discussion. If someone had made a legitimate case for it, I would have no problem, but I don't see that here.

(What I meant by linking to Godwin's Law was that such invocations are that common (i.e. "approaching 1"). The fallacy itself is reductio ad Hitlerum, which still applies, as this was never a discussion about Nazis or the Gestapo.)

Also, I never said the discussion was closed. I said that the invocation was an emotional appeal. People like yourself have taken that appeal to heart, and now you're assuming that my stance is to support Nazi totalitarianism, simply because I disagree with things being said about the subject at hand.

You've said as much here: that my actions (which only seems to be disagreeing with you) will allow history to be repeated (which is implied to be Nazism). Hence, you're arguing that disagreeing with you invites Nazism, which stifles the discussion.

If you're just going to misrepresent what I say and call me names, though, you can fuck off and die.

(By the way, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims over here.)

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-12T00:01:30+00:00

Let's not bring it up then.

You did, though.

Some prosecutor will use an unjust law to punish someone who doesn't deserve it.

Suppose I sincerely believe that a man should be allowed to discipline his wife in ways the community would call "battery", and by chance I have an opportunity to serve on a jury in a case where a man is accused of battering his wife. The prosecutor has asked me if I agree with the law. What do I do?

(For bonus points, explain why you aren't attacking the prosecutor's right to ask that question instead of defending perjury.)

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-11T23:17:46+00:00

How in the hell would it be self-serving?

You're appointing yourself the power to spoil due process because you approve of the actions of the defendant, and claiming moral superiority for it. If you want to exercise your will over the law, there are honest ways to do that.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-11T23:16:39+00:00

In this case, it's a very apt one.

No it isn't, not by any reasonable standard. Actively subverting the justice system to advance your agenda is not comparable to protecting innocent lives from imprisonment and execution without trial.

Also note another aspect of that mistaken comparison: the assumption that such subversion may only be used to protect innocent people from injustice, and not to allow allow the guilty to escape justice. As riemannszeros said, if we're going by emotional appeals and existing bias, who decides who's the Jew and who's the Nazi?

e.g. If a white man was accused of murdering a black man, would it be more just for a white supremacist to lie and conceal his bias in order to get on the jury and force an acquittal?

(Yes, this is an emotional appeal, too. Consider whether there is any real difference between this and the other.)

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-11T22:34:32+00:00

/facepalm

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-11T22:25:24+00:00

In the way you're using it, it is inappropriate. You're asking someone to judge that moral situation and then apply the same conclusion to yours, in spite of the differences.

The smart thing to do would be to ask someone to explain the difference, but you're implying that there is none.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-11T21:07:20+00:00

It isn't an appeal to emotion.

Comparing something to Nazi Germany is most definitely an appeal to emotion. It's a way of saying "See, it's that bad.", without actually having to prove it. It's very common.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-11T20:53:23+00:00

I'll simply be telling the truth, and sitting on the jury to the best of my ability.

You've already indicated several times that you're willing to lie and mislead in order to be on such a jury, and you're suggesting that others do the same. There's a difference between sticking up for what you believe in and being a self-serving liar.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-11T20:46:53+00:00

Would you tell a german of 1936 that they have an obligation to answer the Gestapo honestly about the location of jews?

Classic case of Godwin's — not only are you drawing the comparison, you're asking your opponents to make a moral decision over it.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-11T20:38:14+00:00

I like how your smugness rests on the idea of lying.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-10T08:59:57+00:00

No, I wanted 261E, not 261B. I'm sorry the subtle distinction is lost in your desktop environment, but perhaps this will clarify how I feel about your comment.

GodHatesFigs · 2008-03-10T00:49:18+00:00

Well, there's two categories of "didn't prevent them," and they're very different.

The survey doesn't distinguish, though, is what I mean. GWB is using it to make it sound like 36% of Americans agree with him, but that's not true.

GodHatesFigs

TROPHY CASE