After all, let's remember that Michael Moore has never told a factual untruth. Because casting aspersions is not a factual untruth. Clever intercutting and editing are not factual untruth. Statements prefaced with "maybe" or "I think" or "it's possible" are not factual untruths. "Just asking questions" is not factual untruth.
It's been my experience that "slippery slope" is more often used as a denial of a valid argument than it is properly identified. That is, people don't understand what the term means, and think that "a hypothetical series of consequences with which I disagree" is the same thing as "slippery slope".
HEATH: "If we can improve our methods, then we should!"
HANLEY: "But you can't prove that we can!"
HEATH: "But if we can improve our methods, then we should!"
HANLEY: "But you can't prove that we can!"
HEATH: "But if we can improve our methods, then we should!"
HANLEY: "But you can't prove that we can!"
As I understand it, the only nations that made Christian religious doctrine an overt part of the government were crazy-Catholic nations like Spain and Portugal. If that's the definition of "Christian nation" then I can certainly see how the FF would not want that.
When you say things like "...a friendly reminder that the U.S. government targets and kills journalists, just as the Russian government does, and even consulted with Blair on killing a great deal more of them" it's kind of hard to NOT conclude that you see all such incidents as cold, deliberate murder.
"Another part of me notes that arriving late is a distraction to other students and a theft of their investment in college."
But then, if you're taking the "life skills" approach, then maybe you'd be doing the on-time students a favor by giving them a chance to learn to avoid distractions and focus on the matter at hand.
Alternatively, you could take the attitude--as my employer does--that as long as you get your work done, nobody cares whether you show up on time, or at all.
*sigh* so in other words, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, sticks and stones can break my bones but (lack of) words can never hurt me, and a company that depends on communication services as the fundamental basis for its operations can't be said to be harmed--in any way!--by having those communications services shut off.
Alternatively, we could start thinking about what exactly it is that "privacy" is meant to protect, and ask ourselves why it is that we're so worried about this behavior that we want to hide it and pretend like it isn't happening.
Do you have a link to a news story about the event you describe? Because I've heard some pretty wild stories about stuff that happened to my friends' friends' friends. For example, "strip search" turned out to be "asked to take off sweater", and "groped my privates" turned out to be "touched the inside of my thigh".
See, this is the kind of "oh it's just the Internet, it's not like it matters" thinking that's getting more and more people in trouble. It's like people still think the Internet is just for nerds, just a kid thing, just a passing fad and next year we'll all be crazy about something else.
Imagine if, instead of a DDoS, this anonymous crowd went out to Visa's corporate headquarters and glued the doors shut, then threw caltrops and burning diesel fuel all around the building, and then disconnected all the phone lines going in. We wouldn't be sitting around talking like it was a harmless prank.
Courage can be insufficient; optimism can prove to be foolhardiness. If you don't jump you can't fly, but you also won't fall, and falling hurts.
We choose fear and hope because they never fail us. If you fear that something will go wrong, then you'll always--eventually--be right. If you hope that tomorrow will be better, then you'll still have that hope tomorrow, and the day after, and forever.
To the OP: I think we have both legislation and precedent protecting people who publish information that they've obtained, no matter what that information is.
Now, the person who gave the publisher that information could be in quite a bit of trouble, but that's a different issue.
Heck, my personal favorite time-travel scenario is to go kill Kaiser Wilhelm II. Forget Hitler. Kaiser Bill's toy-soldiers and play-navy obsessions were responsible for the arms races that let WWI occur, and if that hadn't happened then Hitler would have been a struggling artist and beer-hall punk.
Wilson's "nonintervention at any price" policy kept World War I going for about twice as long as it ought to have, and may well have contributed to it starting in the first place.
"Constitutional rights trump national security by definition. "
In other words, "yes. I, Mark Thompson, believe that revealing the design secrets of nuclear weapons to the Nazis is Constitutionally-protected free speech, and to punish anyone who did such a thing would be a reprehensible violation of fundamental Constitutional rights."
Stupid shit like this is why Madison didn't even want there to be a Bill Of Rights in the first place!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Michael Moore posts bail for Julian Assange”
After all, let's remember that Michael Moore has never told a factual untruth. Because casting aspersions is not a factual untruth. Clever intercutting and editing are not factual untruth. Statements prefaced with "maybe" or "I think" or "it's possible" are not factual untruths. "Just asking questions" is not factual untruth.
On “Self-Serving Slippery Slopes”
I'm looking forward to the end result of all this, where for legal insurance-coverage reasons we are required to marry our boss.
"
It's been my experience that "slippery slope" is more often used as a denial of a valid argument than it is properly identified. That is, people don't understand what the term means, and think that "a hypothetical series of consequences with which I disagree" is the same thing as "slippery slope".
On “Trading Off Security for (Relative) Privacy”
"Terrorists can do just as much damage by blowing up a cruise ship or bus on the freeway..."
It would take one hell of a bus explosion to kill 4000 people.
"
It is amusing, though.
HEATH: "If we can improve our methods, then we should!"
HANLEY: "But you can't prove that we can!"
HEATH: "But if we can improve our methods, then we should!"
HANLEY: "But you can't prove that we can!"
HEATH: "But if we can improve our methods, then we should!"
HANLEY: "But you can't prove that we can!"
(repeat for twelve posts deep)
On “Not as Straightforward As You Think”
As I understand it, the only nations that made Christian religious doctrine an overt part of the government were crazy-Catholic nations like Spain and Portugal. If that's the definition of "Christian nation" then I can certainly see how the FF would not want that.
On “Monday Jukebox and Press Release UPDATE: ANONS FACE MASS ARRESTS”
When you say things like "...a friendly reminder that the U.S. government targets and kills journalists, just as the Russian government does, and even consulted with Blair on killing a great deal more of them" it's kind of hard to NOT conclude that you see all such incidents as cold, deliberate murder.
On “Thucydides: The Peloponnesian War, Empire and Democracy”
"...when you compel men by force, they think of you as a superior, but when you rule them by laws, they feel cheated by an equal."
Like the man said, it's better to be feared than to be loved.
On “Slippery Slopes to Nowhere”
Nobody likes to think about how much of their personal morality is based on "ew, that's gross!"
On “Markets in Procrastination–Corrupted Term Papers”
"Another part of me notes that arriving late is a distraction to other students and a theft of their investment in college."
But then, if you're taking the "life skills" approach, then maybe you'd be doing the on-time students a favor by giving them a chance to learn to avoid distractions and focus on the matter at hand.
Alternatively, you could take the attitude--as my employer does--that as long as you get your work done, nobody cares whether you show up on time, or at all.
On “Tough Crowd”
"Finally, I just answered that people who actually know what is going on support WikiLeaks. "
Nice, an Argument from Authority to support an indefensible position.
If you can't explain something to a reasonable person, then maybe you don't understand it as well as you ought to.
On “Anonymous preparing for new Wikileaks effort”
*sigh* so in other words, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, sticks and stones can break my bones but (lack of) words can never hurt me, and a company that depends on communication services as the fundamental basis for its operations can't be said to be harmed--in any way!--by having those communications services shut off.
That's what you're saying here, right?
On “Wikileaks and the Tea Party”
Alternatively, we could start thinking about what exactly it is that "privacy" is meant to protect, and ask ourselves why it is that we're so worried about this behavior that we want to hide it and pretend like it isn't happening.
"
But sometimes it really hits the fan, and *then* what do you do?
On “Trading Off Security for (Relative) Privacy”
Do you have a link to a news story about the event you describe? Because I've heard some pretty wild stories about stuff that happened to my friends' friends' friends. For example, "strip search" turned out to be "asked to take off sweater", and "groped my privates" turned out to be "touched the inside of my thigh".
On “The War on the Poor”
" The problem with school choice alone is that whlie you are opening a window for the lucky kids the poor schools just continue to fail. "
In other words, "we can't help everybody, so let's help nobody."
On “Anonymous preparing for new Wikileaks effort”
See, this is the kind of "oh it's just the Internet, it's not like it matters" thinking that's getting more and more people in trouble. It's like people still think the Internet is just for nerds, just a kid thing, just a passing fad and next year we'll all be crazy about something else.
Imagine if, instead of a DDoS, this anonymous crowd went out to Visa's corporate headquarters and glued the doors shut, then threw caltrops and burning diesel fuel all around the building, and then disconnected all the phone lines going in. We wouldn't be sitting around talking like it was a harmless prank.
"
Oh hello tu quoque, how are you today? It's been a while since I saw you.
On “On Consumerism, Living the Dream, and Hope”
Courage can be insufficient; optimism can prove to be foolhardiness. If you don't jump you can't fly, but you also won't fall, and falling hurts.
We choose fear and hope because they never fail us. If you fear that something will go wrong, then you'll always--eventually--be right. If you hope that tomorrow will be better, then you'll still have that hope tomorrow, and the day after, and forever.
On “Question for readers”
To the OP: I think we have both legislation and precedent protecting people who publish information that they've obtained, no matter what that information is.
Now, the person who gave the publisher that information could be in quite a bit of trouble, but that's a different issue.
On “Exceptionalism, Imperialism, and the Necessity of “Closed Systems””
Neither was Japan up until December 7th 1941.
"
Heck, my personal favorite time-travel scenario is to go kill Kaiser Wilhelm II. Forget Hitler. Kaiser Bill's toy-soldiers and play-navy obsessions were responsible for the arms races that let WWI occur, and if that hadn't happened then Hitler would have been a struggling artist and beer-hall punk.
On “Question for readers”
Didn't the Times sit on the wiretapping story (for a time) at the request of the Bush administration?
On “Exceptionalism, Imperialism, and the Necessity of “Closed Systems””
Wilson's "nonintervention at any price" policy kept World War I going for about twice as long as it ought to have, and may well have contributed to it starting in the first place.
On “Julian Assange: bank account closed, prepares to meet with police, face talking-point wrath of GOP hopefuls”
"Constitutional rights trump national security by definition. "
In other words, "yes. I, Mark Thompson, believe that revealing the design secrets of nuclear weapons to the Nazis is Constitutionally-protected free speech, and to punish anyone who did such a thing would be a reprehensible violation of fundamental Constitutional rights."
Stupid shit like this is why Madison didn't even want there to be a Bill Of Rights in the first place!
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.