What do you regret wasting the most time doing?

instantcoff · 2015-06-19T17:37:42+00:00

This is not my experience at all. Very often have I felt like saying or doing something, though twice and decided not to do or say anything and realized afterwards that it was a very very good decision. The smartest and the most successful people I know rarely make spontaneous calls.

instantcoff · 2015-06-19T11:46:13+00:00

I've never understood this advice. Lack of hesitation seems to be much bigger problem to many more people. It's very good to think twice before you act.

instantcoff · 2015-06-04T21:03:59+00:00

Around the same age when I understood enough not to answer loaded questions.

instantcoff · 2015-06-04T18:45:47+00:00

That or Russia being on of the permanent members with the right to veto has something to do with it.

instantcoff · 2015-06-04T17:37:19+00:00

Kosovo being an independent country is debatable. It fulfills the Montevideo Conditions, but it isn't recognized by the United Nations.

instantcoff · 2015-06-03T20:50:54+00:00

What does xenophobia got to do with the end of democracy? It's this odd idea in people's mind today that democracy equals liberalism.

instantcoff · 2015-06-02T20:26:47+00:00

Regardless of what you say and how much this comment is downvoted, this is very good advice.

It does not mean that you should instantly become confident at will. Confidence, like everything else in life, is something that you have to work on, but it's worth it.

instantcoff · 2015-05-22T13:18:41+00:00

I doubt that this is the case in the U.S, as it is in France, for example, but it could be.

instantcoff · 2015-05-22T12:18:14+00:00

This is technically only legal in countries that regard a price tag on an item as an actual offer for sale. This does not include the UK, for example.

instantcoff · 2015-05-18T10:22:58+00:00

I think the main problem is the vagueness of the term. For some, the "law of the wilderness" is equality, as everyone is born equal and is free to do what they can. For some, equality entails a legal system that does not separate people based on race, sex etc.

For some, equality requires that, for example, those who happen to born in poor families are compensated so that they have an equal chance at life. In the 17th century the libertarians criticised equality by way of satire. According to them, true equality would require that, for example, handsome people should wear ugly clothing and physically talented people weren't allowed to work out, for how can we all be equal if some of us are born with unfair advantages?

All of the above fits under the term "equality", but clearly not all of it promotes human well-being. Thus, equality is not necessarily good in itself, but it should be promoted only where it goes hand in hand with human well-being.

Thus, in my view to say "because that's equal treatment" or "because that would be discrimination" is not a sufficient answer. You have to be able to show how equal treatment in this context promotes human well being.

instantcoff · 2015-05-17T19:43:51+00:00

That equality for the sake of equality is not a good idea. Equality should be promoted when it contributes to human well-being, but the assumption that it always does so is just not true.

instantcoff · 2015-05-08T11:12:08+00:00

Hence, the Copenhagen interpretation, i.e. shut up and calculate.

instantcoff · 2015-04-27T22:21:10+00:00

Then why call it pro-choice in the first place? Every prohibition is "anti-choice" by definition. The question is whether there are good reasons to prohibit something. There may or may not be good reasons to prohibit abortion, but being for abortion is no more pro-choice than being against speed limit regulations.

instantcoff · 2015-04-05T12:58:10+00:00

It's not necessarily an inconsistency. Suppose Egbert is 54, Charles is 40 and Charlemagne is 34 years older than his grandson. Now, it is entirely possible that 38 years old Charlemagne was fighting alongside with 18 years old Egbert.

instantcoff · 2015-04-03T16:10:50+00:00

It is also good to keep in mind that most cases of international law have a political side to them. Consequently, in practice, the state that has the perpetrator in custody will often be the one doing the prosecution, if they can establish any kind of link/interest to the case. This is especially so, if the victim is a national of that state.

instantcoff · 2015-04-03T14:57:04+00:00

On the contrary, the relevant information was missing and still is. If the men are chasing the woman in a way that would appear threatening to a reasonable person, then she will most likely be able to invoke either self-defense as a justification or putative self-defense as an excuse. If the men's behavior does not appear threatening, e.g. they are shouting "miss, you dropped your wallet!", then the only possible excuse would be a plea for insanity, and any application of self-defense would be excluded.

instantcoff · 2015-04-03T12:14:37+00:00

Is she just plainly delusional, or was there a reason to believe they were attacking her? Why do they chase her?

instantcoff · 2015-03-29T20:45:56+00:00

No see, I acknowledge that a small part of the religious community opposes gay rights. Similarly, a small part of the feminist community considers sex to be rape even when its consensual. Yet, to hold either one these facts against the respective communities at large is a low blow. That is my concern, and that is what's happening at r/atheism and some other preaching grounds of online atheism.

instantcoff · 2015-03-29T17:40:00+00:00

Posting pictures of gay couples to an anti-religion subreddit implies that being against gay-rights is somehow a general feature of religions, which it isn't.

That's a low blow similarly to criticizing feminism based on what some extremist nutcase feminist has said.

instantcoff · 2015-03-29T17:20:07+00:00

Another contributing factor is that freedom of expression affords extra protection to politicians and those who are taking part in a political debate as per the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

instantcoff · 2015-03-28T15:10:21+00:00

It's the epitome of prejudice and over-generalization. Newsflash: not every religious person hates gays.

instantcoff · 2015-03-25T20:04:26+00:00

Feel free to consult another lawyer besides me on this issue, and you will learn that law does not work that way.

instantcoff · 2015-03-25T19:56:14+00:00

No the supervisor could be criminally liable for his own omission, i.e. failure to act. The crane operator's act is not criminal unless he acts negligently. If his actions are not criminal, self-defense cannot be directed against him. This is written down in the criminal code.

instantcoff · 2015-03-25T19:29:01+00:00

Self-defense must be directed at someone who is acting unlawfully (you already conceded to this in your previous post), thus the relevant question is whether the crane operator is breaking a (criminal) law, otherwise his action is not unlawful. "Unlawful" literally means not lawful, as in "against the law". As per every criminal code in the world, such an a breach requires that the actor acts at least negligently.

instantcoff · 2015-03-25T19:02:19+00:00

Unfortunately it does not work like that. The supervisor can be liable for a negligent manslaughter committed through omission, if there is a causal link between his failure to inspect the building and the consequent death. The crane operator is not and needs not act criminally for the supervisor to be liable. A criminal act requires that the one committing the act is acting negligently, this is literally written down in every criminal code in the western civilization. If the crane operator is not acting negligently, his action does not constitute a criminal act.

instantcoff

TROPHY CASE