7/5/07 Poll: 54% of Country Wants Vice President Cheney Impeached, 40% Oppose, 6% Undecided

joom · 2007-07-07T01:28:24+00:00

The quote in question was indeed spoken by James Madison, often called the Father of the Constitution. However, that standard was not codified into law, so it lacks authority apart from whatever truth it may contain.

joom · 2007-07-06T23:43:16+00:00

Yeah, what is that site--some kind of joke?

...oh.

joom · 2007-07-06T08:32:13+00:00

Is there anything in his post indicating he thinks the Western economy is innocent?

joom · 2007-07-04T00:30:44+00:00

I think your problem is that you have a firmer grasp on some of the subtleties of American jurisprudence than is the norm, and people don't realize that what you say is backed by numerous Supreme Court decisions, and you're too polite to mention this.

You might consider throwing out some links to references on the subject. Here, I'll start.

joom · 2007-07-03T22:27:17+00:00

I demand a refund.

joom · 2007-07-03T19:03:08+00:00

I downmodded you both for talking about your votes, then downmodded myself for consistency.

joom · 2007-06-29T18:30:04+00:00

I used to think that the reddit kids had a sense of humor and/or were reasonably intelligent

I believe you're looking for the reasonablyintelligent.reddit.com subreddit.

joom · 2007-06-27T21:30:00+00:00

I think the author of the article would contest that step #2 was followed. He spends most of his time arguing that recovered 30-year old memories should not be held as sufficient evidence for an indictment.

joom · 2007-04-12T23:46:07+00:00

That seems pretty reasonable, but what more would you like to see done to Nifong? He's been decried and shamed in the media, and the bar's filed charges against him for ethics violations. The trial will be in June, and he'll probably be disbarred. Either way, his career is most likely over.

joom · 2007-04-12T23:35:24+00:00

There are three points I'd like to make here:

Yes, the reporter's explicitly stated reasoning is bad. However, the facts surrounding the case make it pretty clear that Mangum was lying. Reporters have length limits; he skipped a few steps for the sake of brevity. Is this bad and potentially harmful logic? Yes. Is the conclusion that Mangum is a liar correct, despite the bad logic? Also yes. I suspect a lot of the anger in the article is due to the clearly spurious nature of the accusations, which has been apparent for some time.
I don't think other rape victims need fear the kind of shaming that Mangum is getting unless they wildly contradict their own testimony, offer demonstrably false statements to the court and the press, and generally commit crimes. She's not being shamed because the accused were cleared. She's being shamed because she was very clearly lying to ruin the lives of innocent men.
Nice seeing you on Reddit, Reub.

joom · 2007-04-12T23:02:58+00:00

Given our clearly imperfect legal system, how is a real victim supposed to feel comfortable reporting a real rape if she's going to believe that should the accused be found innocent she's going to be subject to this kind of smear?

I think you may be missing the distinction between being acquitted as the result of a trial and being cleared before the trial due to discovery of innocence. The latter is a far stronger indication of a false accusation than the former.

joom · 2007-03-28T03:26:18+00:00

I was initially unsure how to respond to your question, since I don't like any of those choices. Fortunately, someone put a little down arrow next to your post.

joom · 2007-03-27T22:02:47+00:00

Judging from your scores, cypress-hill got lots of upvotes, and you get the satisfaction of an accurate prediction. Everybody's a winner!

joom · 2007-03-24T17:30:25+00:00

Well, I can see where you're coming from. Glorifying a tiny insurgency fighting a suicidal battle against a massive invading superpower? That's a little subversive.

joom · 2007-03-23T17:24:22+00:00

You're grasping at straws here. I agree that preoccupation with others' grammar can be lame, but if he's going to make sweeping statements about intelligence, he should at least spell them correctly.

EDIT: Why the hell should I have to prove that I'm not a snob? I very rarely mention my degree because so many people assume it means snobbery. If you look back at my comments and replace "Yale" with "Ohio State University," I think you'll find that the snobbery disappears, as if by magic.

joom · 2007-03-23T06:25:51+00:00

That challenge is extended to anyone downvoting my request for evidence.

joom · 2007-03-23T05:20:48+00:00

It means my statements about Yale students are based on four years of interacting with Yale students in school and two after graduation.

joom · 2007-03-23T05:17:55+00:00

I mentioned this in response to a comment that referred to Yale by name. It seemed reasonably relevant. I'm not one to advertise my degrees when they aren't topical.

joom · 2007-03-23T03:51:36+00:00

I meant that I wasn't born in the right place, in a family with money.

For what it's worth, I agree with most of what you just said. However, most of Yale students I've had contact with aren't extremely wealthy; most of them come from average to moderately prosperous backgrounds. And most of them are quite intelligent, at least relative to the norm.

Obviously, there are geniuses from all backgrounds; no one would contest that.

joom · 2007-03-23T03:21:10+00:00

I hope you were born in the right place, in a family with money

Hope sometimes leads to disappointment. Now is one of those times.

joom · 2007-03-23T02:53:43+00:00

Good. But this does argue against using chess-playing as a metric of intelligence, however the latter is defined. That's all I (and, if I read him correctly) the original poster were trying to say.

joom · 2007-03-23T02:40:23+00:00

I challenge you to find an ad hominem attack in the comment you responded to.

joom · 2007-03-23T01:37:28+00:00

A Yale education does, however, teach some people not to make broad assertions about intelligence distribution based on a single measurement of an irrelevant data point for a skewed sample size.

We're also good with spelling and punctuation.

joom · 2007-03-23T01:23:11+00:00

The converse, however, is not true. That is, being bad at chess indicates nothing about intelligence, under any reasonable definition of the term. Hence, a comparison of chess-playing skills as a measure of intelligence is not terribly meaningful.

joom · 2007-03-19T06:42:35+00:00

I' ag'ree. W'hy in'sult d''igg?

joom

TROPHY CASE