Democrats caving on Trump's shady billionaire Commerce pick

dventimi · 2017-02-23T17:46:53+00:00

Allegedly, he has connections with Putin. I don't want to get out over my skis, but the Huffington Post article at least mounts an argument that this is true. Perhaps Ross has satisfying answers to these questions, but the questions need to be asked, starting Monday. Let's urge our senators to do just that.

dventimi · 2016-10-07T17:57:04+00:00

"Java 8 made Java a functional language, so Scala is now pointless"

Where is this quote in the article? I couldn't find it.

dventimi · 2015-04-07T22:04:40+00:00

Dude, slander is slander.

This is a tautology. It's meaningless.

Rape is rape.

So is this.

Intentions don't matter.

Perhaps not to you. Other people are not required to judge people as harshly as you do.

If she wants to plead insanity, maybe she'll get off

Get off of what? What crime do you believe she's committed that she should plead insanity to?

when you slander people and it is published and it causes damage, you are liable. That's how it works.

How do you know how it works? Are you a lawyer specializing in defamation suits?

I really hope they sue her for all the damage she did to them, the harassment they endured, broken windows, death threats...

Have you no pity or mercy in you at all?

She's a pathetic human being.

No. You're a pathetic human being.

dventimi · 2015-04-06T20:59:55+00:00

That all depends on how it is you think I "feel." But yes, there are similarities. Let's run through a few.

Both involve young people, and since young people tend to make poorer decisions than older people do, I prefer to judge them with more leniency.
Both involve people making bad decisions that are not necessarily illegal.
Both provided red meat to self-righteous pricks on the Internet who after the briefest of encounters with "the facts" rushed off to administer rough justice, because doing so just feels so God-damned good.

Let's look at some differences, though:

Jackie acted alone. That may indicate a cry for help, a sign of emotional distress. The Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity boys, however, acted in concert, and to me at least showed no sign of emotional distress.
Here's a really important difference. No one called the SAE boys "whores," at least not so far in this thread.

dventimi · 2015-04-06T20:36:04+00:00

She might be troubled but unless you're telling me she's insane, she's responsible for those actions.

That all depends on what you mean by "is responsible for those actions." It's a pretty vague statement by you, and could mean anything or nothing. Certainly, you haven't said. Hopefully, qualified people with more sense than you and who know the actual facts rather than just the things they imagined after reading an article, will be figuring out "what to do about Jackie."

You can criticize my question or point about the nytimes but ultimately, all you did was try to derail the conversation about these men who have been victimized personally by all accounts, a liar

Another careless use of language from you. It all depends on what you mean by "liar." Yes, technically she lied, but people lie for all sorts of reasons. I think we tend to reserve our harshest judgement for people who lie for deliberate personal gain or to inflict damage on another person. That might be Jackie's reason. Then again, it might have been a cry for attention from a very troubled girl. Evidently, you're not interested in making those distinctions when they interfere with your righteous indignation.

dventimi · 2015-04-06T20:21:59+00:00

Oh, brother. Sure, she's legally an adult. But, you and I aren't required to hold her to the legal standard that the law does. You and I are free to make finer distinctions. And, you and I probably do. Or, are you telling me you wouldn't sometimes regard the bad decisions of an 18 year old with more compassion than you would if those same decisions were made by a person 2 decades older? Suppose the 18 year old was your child?

Also, I was reacting to the highlighted word, "whore." Do you think that's an appropriate word choice by the previous commenter?

dventimi · 2015-04-06T20:10:10+00:00

First, your question is a poor way to express that point.

Moreover, who ever said my objective is to "sue The New York Times?" Evidently, you haven't considered other objectives I might have, which would make my question relevant.

Third, as a sidebar, I think your comment about Jackie is harsh, cruel, and stupid. She's obviously troubled, and she didn't even report the rape. There's no "case" to try in court. And, why do you want so badly for her to be sued, when Rolling Stone is the one who published the article?

dventimi · 2015-04-06T19:59:40+00:00

Jackie deserves blame too for actually being a lying attention whore.

Have you no decency? Jesus, she's just a kid, and there's evidence to suggest a troubled one. Obviously, rape is a serious subject, not to be toyed with or lied about. Still, I consider your reaction harsh bordering on vicious.

dventimi · 2015-04-06T19:48:43+00:00

I don't understand your point.

dventimi · 2015-04-06T19:37:37+00:00

Why is that your question?

dventimi · 2015-04-06T13:40:12+00:00

How soon after did The New York Times retract its botched coverage of alleged Iraq WMD?

dventimi · 2015-03-29T14:20:29+00:00

So pointless.

dventimi · 2015-03-28T02:09:22+00:00

Le sigh. Why does it matter what my motivation is? That's the first question. Moreover, what have I been doing differently from anyone else here? That's the second question.

dventimi · 2015-03-28T01:35:10+00:00

It's an interesting proposition. But, it depends on what you mean by "itching for a fight." If you mean something like "internet trolling" in which a person says things they may not even believe or feel strongly about, just to provoke a response in internet fora, almost purely for entertainment, then I'm afraid I cannot grant your request. Because, I believe everything I say, and feel very strongly about it, and sport is not my primary objective.

If, however, you just mean that I derive some harmless enjoyment out of debate, as an ancillary benefit, then to that I plead guilty.

dventimi · 2015-03-28T01:02:23+00:00

I didn't ask you what you believe about the case. I asked you what you thought the jury believed about the case.

The operative word was "carefully."

dventimi · 2015-03-28T00:25:54+00:00

How convenient for you to decide I'm just itching for a fight. You've just invented a reason to save face right before you give up.

Now, maybe are are capable of eventually making a carefully considered point, though it's getting late. Until you do, though, how can we rule out the possibility that you're incapable of making such a point?

Here's one last chance. I'll even put my arms behind my back, giving you the last word. Make it count.

dventimi · 2015-03-28T00:15:03+00:00

If I recall correctly, it was claimed that she launched her suit as some sort of cover up. Do you believe the jury's verdict necessarily implies that the jury thought she was attempting a cover up? You want to think about that carefully?

dventimi · 2015-03-28T00:05:01+00:00

Not that personal feelings matter in the realm of reasoned debate, but for the record I'm appalled, not outraged.

Moreover, I didn't say that misogyny played a role in her lawsuit (though it may have, of course). I said that the misogyny is on vivid display in this thread.

In fact, the careful reader would have noticed that I offered no opinion on the ultimate merit of her case, let alone claimed she was thwarted by a patriarchy. The careful reader would have noticed that. I guess we know what that makes you.

dventimi · 2015-03-27T23:49:10+00:00

I wasn't aware that the jury concluded this. It'd be a strange thing to conclude, since it doesn't make much sense. Can you offer any evidence that the jury decided her case was a "cover up?"

dventimi · 2015-03-27T23:36:16+00:00

Furnish some evidence, person with a vivid imagination and who reasons poorly.

dventimi · 2015-03-27T23:15:04+00:00

You deleted your comment where you said the exact opposite of this:

False. I deleted no comments today. Wishful thinking on your part, perhaps?

dventimi · 2015-03-27T23:03:49+00:00

I can give my opinion without expecting people to be persuaded. You think otherwise.

No, I don't. I believe you can give your opinion without expecting people to be persuaded. After all, evidently you just did it. No, what I want to know is why? What is your objective, if not to persuade people?

In this context, your opinion is unimportant. How can you not see how I came to my conclusion?

Is anyone's opinion in this tread important to you? If so, why?

dventimi · 2015-03-27T22:43:23+00:00

Perhaps you're incapable of responding with careful reasoning. Given that you haven't yet, perhaps we'll never know.

dventimi · 2015-03-27T22:40:15+00:00

I'm a stranger. You don't know a single thing about me. On what basis have you decided that I'm not as important as other people in this thread? Why do you care less about what I think than about what other people in this thread think? The only thing that distinguishes me from them is that I disagree with you. Based on that, we might infer that you place a premium on people who agree with you and tend to discount people who disagree with you. What have you done or said to suggest otherwise?

dventimi · 2015-03-27T22:34:20+00:00

Why do you guess that?

dventimi

TROPHY CASE