Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Should come with a complementary barf bag

smitty_one_each (243267) writes | about a year and a half ago

User Journal 30

Maybe Tina Brown was literarily spoofed by someone wanting her to appear the demented love child of Andrew Sullivan and Rachel Maddow:Maybe Tina Brown was literarily spoofed by someone wanting her to appear the demented love child of Andrew Sullivan and Rachel Maddow:

The idea of losing Hillary has seemed especially unbearable at this political moment. Itâ(TM)s as if she has become, literally, the ship of state. She stands for maturity, tenacity, and self-discipline at a time when everyone else in Washington seems to be, in more senses than one, going off a cliffâ"a parade of bickering, blustering, small-balled hacks bollixing up the nationâ(TM)s business. Sheâ(TM)s a caring executive too, and that takes its own emotional toll. What a disgrace that John Bolton and his goaty Republican ilk accused Her Magnificence of inventing a concussion to get out of testifying at the Benghazi hearings. Bolton is not fit to wipe her floor with his mustache.

This blog must double down on its unwavering stance regarding the physical condition of this storied civil servant:

May Secretary of State Clinton receive better treatment than Ambassador Stevens, Smith, Woods or Doherty. #Benghazi

— Smitty (D-aft) (@smitty_one_each) December 31, 2012

via Kaus

cancel ×

30 comments

How about that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42460501)

Hillary Clinton Leaves Hospital After Treatment for Clot [time.com]

So, is your posse ready to grab her and bring her in for questioning? You might be able to get a discount on pitchforks at WalMart this time of year.

Re:How about that (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42460825)

your posse

Were such a posse in existence, and had it such power, you'd be promptly rounded up for a light beverage or so. ;-)
There's no need to rush. Haste won't resurrect dead heroes.

Re:How about that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42461127)

There's no need to rush

But aren't you trying to spare our country from the socialist hell-hole that you are utterly convinced Obama will unilaterally unleash upon us any day now? How could you possibly wait? Isn't Hillary Clinton a key component of the vast conspiracy to use Benghazi to cover up the vast and obvious socialist fascist anarchist muslim atheist capitalist takeover of everything that you have ever known?

It would seem that time is not on your side!

Haste won't resurrect dead heroes.

But I thought this was about the future! Aren't you trying to prevent Obama from destroying our country?

And how are you so certain that these guys were heroes and not just pawns of the Obama administration? What if they were secretly working for the UN on the side?

That's right, I unleashed another great conservative boogey-man, the UN. Boo! United Nations! Boo-gah!

Re:How about that (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42462761)

Isn't Hillary Clinton a key component of the vast conspiracy to use Benghazi to cover up the vast and obvious socialist fascist anarchist muslim atheist capitalist takeover of everything that you have ever known?

You think I'm impressed by that kind of limited hangout [wikipedia.org] ? I totally know that Benghazi was really a beachhead for the invading aliens from Planet Bugglethwiddy, and Hillary is really the Maximum Ungeheuer of Planet B, hell-bent on turning planet Earth into a vast avocado ranch, with full, if chattel, employment for all conservatives. Your cheap distractions impress me not.

But I thought this was about the future! Aren't you trying to prevent Obama from destroying our country?

What if the country is already kinda dead, and merely staggering forward on inertia? The quest for the truth for the dead heroes becomes sort of a funeral rite. . .

UN

My position on the UN is that it's slightly better than no UN. I did get to ask Ambassador John Bolton [theothermccain.com] personally about what he'd say to conservatives who'd like to scuttle Alger Hiss's Folly, and he replied (in summary): "We need to reform the funding structure, but I wouldn't get rid of it."

Re:How about that (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42470811)

Now that the Hobby Lobby decision has come down, there is no way to stop Obama becoming a dictator. It is clear that Congress and SCOTUS are just rubber stamp organizations to the Executive at this point.

Re:How about that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42471377)

Now that the Hobby Lobby decision has come down, there is no way to stop Obama becoming a dictator.

Sure, because providing insurance that includes contraception coverage is really exactly the same thing as providing abortions in your place of business in spite of your beliefs, right? It is abundantly clear how this ruling on providing employees with an option will lead to the decay of all the division of governmental power in this country and ultimately an unchecked executive.

Tell me, what color is the sky in your world? I'm guessing perhaps apocalyptic red?

Re:How about that (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42471517)

Politician: Vote for me, I'll provide universal insurance!
Voter: Yeah, I had a $50 dollar tax bill, a $100 dollar checkup, and the State covered $10.
Politician: But I kept my promise!

Of course, I pulled those numbers from the air, but here is the principle: having the government do anything always costs more, every time, without fail, full stop.
You're welcome to shout all the invective you want, but that's Just. The. Way. It. Is. [amazon.com]

Re:How about that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42473655)

Politician: Vote for me, I'll provide universal insurance!

I wish there was a politician who I could have voted for in 2012 who was promising universal insurance. Since the health insurance bailout act Obama has made no such promise and I'm not aware of any congress people (fed or state level) who have made that promise for my area either.

Voter: Yeah, I had a $50 dollar tax bill, a $100 dollar checkup, and the State covered $10.

You do realize how insurance works in this country, right? Because what you just described is close to how the for-profits pay out. Generally an HMO (or whatever you call your health plan) will pay ~10-30% of the cost that you as an individual would pay if you simply walked in the door. They then of course pass on the "savings" to you in the form of increased subscriber fees.

Politician: But I kept my promise!

If any of them had made that promise I would point out that they have failed it. However I am not aware of any who made that promise - and reforming health care is not the same as providing universal insurance - so while I am enormously unsatisfied with the results of the health insurance bailout act, I can't fault them for having promised universal coverage as no such promise was made.

Of course, I pulled those numbers from the air, but here is the principle: having the government do anything always costs more, every time, without fail, full stop.

On the matter of health care, the rest of the industrialized world disagrees with you.

Re:How about that (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42474257)

On the matter of health care, the rest of the industrialized world disagrees with you.

A mind is a powerful thing. We will always arrive at a special pleading, every time. *smooch*

Re:How about that (1)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42498785)

The Hobby Lobby Decision has ramifications that has NOTHING to do with health care or even freedom of religion or contraception.

Basically, the Hobby Lobby Decision is precedent for the executive branch enacting a bureaucratic rule that has force of law, that affects private individuals in the public sphere, without consent of congress or the courts. The HHS Mandate goes beyond the written law of Obamacare, and therefore, is a new law in and of itself. It is just a tax, and therefore the courts will not interfere with it.

This gives the Executive Branch an opening to do anything it damn well pleases, with no input from the other two branches of government. It basically makes the constitution null and void, and gives no recourse to the courts for people damaged by governmental action. They decide you are a terrorist and a drone is sent to destroy your house from 30,000 feet? Your survivors have no recourse to the courts, because by the Hobby Lobby decision, executive actions are always legal.

THAT is what I meant by dictatorship. And while the Obama Administration may not use it further, you can be sure that a Republican Administration will not waste the opening.

Re:How about that (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42504735)

And while the Obama Administration may not use it further, you can be sure that a Republican Administration will not waste the opening.

A fair cop. Asking bureaucracy to shrink is like asking a plant to ungrow itself. Withering is as close as it gets.

Re:How about that (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42521261)

The Hobby Lobby Decision has ramifications that has NOTHING to do with health care or even freedom of religion or contraception.

Not really. It may, in the future, but it is a minority ruling, in that pretty much every other challenge on religious grounds has been upheld so far. And there's simply no way, in the end, it won't be upheld. This ruling will be overturned easily. There's two undeniable factors here, that are sufficient for victory:

* You do not lose your religious freedom just because you're operating a business
* This law is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest while respecting religious freedom

The end. That's all she wrote. The District Court judge was clearly wrong, and it won't stand.

The HHS Mandate goes beyond the written law of Obamacare, and therefore, is a new law in and of itself.

Well, the government often empowers its agencies to make rules, and the ACA did that here. That's why Pelosi said you have to pass it to know what's in it, because literally, the law empowered the creation of new laws. I think it does cross an unconstitutional line -- you are penalizing people millions of dollars for doing something that Congress never said they couldn't do! -- but it's commonplace these days.

They decide you are a terrorist and a drone is sent to destroy your house from 30,000 feet? Your survivors have no recourse to the courts, because by the Hobby Lobby decision, executive actions are always legal.

You are misinterpreting the case -- which wasn't about the legitimacy of the process of rulemaking -- and the scope, which isn't about killing citizens. You're, as usual, just making stuff up.

Re:How about that (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42521047)

providing insurance that includes contraception coverage is really exactly the same thing as providing abortions in your place of business in spite of your beliefs, right?

In that you have a constitutional right to not be forced to do either, yes.

Re:How about that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42526705)

Wow, another Pudge drive-by? How exciting! I am still intrigued by how Pudge would eternally ban the likes of myself from discussions and yet come and inject himself into an existing discussion that I am involved in without seeming to have the least bit of regard for the rank hypocrisy of such an action. I can't help but wonder how long Pudge might stick around this time and make baseless accusations of lying before leaving. Apparently since you can't perma-ban people by sticking them on your eternal hate list (when you're not in your own journal entry), you don't enjoy "discussion" as much?

But moving on...

providing insurance that includes contraception coverage is really exactly the same thing as providing abortions in your place of business in spite of your beliefs, right?

In that you have a constitutional right to not be forced to do either, yes.

Do males at or above the age of 18 have the constitutional right not to be forced to sign up for selective service? No, they do not.

Do employers have the constitutional right to work their employees for arbitrarily long hours for no pay? No, they do not.

Do hospitals - including private ones - have the constitutional right to turn away mortally injured patients who they don't like, don't agree with philosophically, or cannot pay? No, they do not.

Re:How about that (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42527191)

Wow, another Pudge drive-by? How exciting! I am still intrigued by how Pudge would eternally ban the likes of myself from discussions and yet come and inject himself into an existing discussion that I am involved in without seeming to have the least bit of regard for the rank hypocrisy of such an action.

Perhaps I should not be, but I am a bit surprised that you do not understand what "hypocrisy" means. For there to be hypocrisy, I'd have to be engaging in or promoting ideas or behavior that I, in some way, opposed.

Hope that helps!

Do males at or above the age of 18 have the constitutional right not to be forced to sign up for selective service?

Yes.

Do employers have the constitutional right to work their employees for arbitrarily long hours for no pay?

Of course not. That's my point. You can't force people to do anything, which includes forcing employees to work (whether for pay, or not).

Again, perhaps I should not be, but I am always surprised when you work so hard to make my case for me, while appearing to think you're damaging my case. You appear to think that it makes sense to say that if we cannot use force against others, then employers cannot be forced to not use force on their employees. But even you must agree that this makes no sense. The government exists for the purpose of securing individual rights, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, which would include preventing your employer from forcing you to work (again, whether for pay, or not).

All work must be mutually agreed to in a free country: the employee must volunteer his services, and the employer must volunteer payment in return. That's absolutely required.

Do hospitals - including private ones - have the constitutional right to turn away mortally injured patients who they don't like, don't agree with philosophically, or cannot pay?

If they are private, then yes, they do.

Now, on the first and third questions, I concede the government disagrees with me. But they are wrong to do so. A military draft could not be a more obvious violation of human rights, and while I believe all private hospitals should treat everyone who needs emergency care to survive, it's quite clear they cannot be obligated to do so in a free country.

Re:How about that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42527719)

For there to be hypocrisy, I'd have to be engaging in or promoting ideas or behavior that I, in some way, opposed.

You oppose the exchange of opinions, and yet here you come to voice your own. You oppose people asking questions, and here you come to ask questions. You oppose answering questions, and here you come seeking others to answer your questions.

In other words, you are a hypocrite.

Do males at or above the age of 18 have the constitutional right not to be forced to sign up for selective service?

Yes

So are you opposed to selective service or are you not aware of the consequences of not signing up for it?

You appear to think that it makes sense to say that if we cannot use force against others, then employers cannot be forced to not use force on their employees.

Even for you, that is a bizarre conclusion to draw.

All work must be mutually agreed to in a free country: the employee must volunteer his services, and the employer must volunteer payment in return. That's absolutely required.

Except that the labor market in the united states in its current configuration favors so heavily the employer that the fate of the employee is of nearly no consequence. If you are trying to present such conditions as being a "free country" then you have a very twisted notion of freedom.

Do hospitals - including private ones - have the constitutional right to turn away mortally injured patients who they don't like, don't agree with philosophically, or cannot pay?

If they are private, then yes, they do.

So you are saying then that a hospital is constitutionally entitled to play god as they so see fit?

Re:How about that (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42532135)

You oppose the exchange of opinions ... You oppose people asking questions ... You oppose answering questions

You're a liar. There is no sense in which any of that is true. I have spent more time exchanging opinions, and asking and answering questions, with people I disagree with than most people, including yourself. You're just making things up, as usual.

What I explicitly oppose is dishonest or abusive discussions, that prevent reasonable exchange of opinions, and asking and answering of questions. Hence ...

So are you opposed to selective service or are you not aware of the consequences of not signing up for it?

I recognize the fact that the requirement to sign up for Selective Service is unconstitutional, regardless of what the Court has said about it.

Even for you, that is a bizarre conclusion to draw.

How? You don't actually explain it. The fact is that all employment in the U.S. is at will. No one is forced to work. Period. If you can show me any counterexample, it will necessarily be illegal slavery. You are just making shit up, as usual.

Except that the labor market in the united states in its current configuration favors so heavily the employer that the fate of the employee is of nearly no consequence.

False.

If you are trying to present such conditions as being a "free country" then you have a very twisted notion of freedom.

Well, sure. In some states you are required to join a union or pay exorbitant fees to the government or a trade group or have other irrational requirements just to work. We do not live in a free country, because the left does so much to get in our way.

So you are saying then that a hospital is constitutionally entitled to play god as they so see fit?

No, I neither said nor implied any such thing. Not even remotely. You're making shit up again. All I said was that I own myself -- and the people at hospitals own themselves -- and that you have no right to force us to do something.

Deciding to not help someone in need is not "playing god." You're making shit up again. The bizarre thing is that you have it precisely backward: forcing people to do what you want is "playing god."

Re:How about that (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42532165)

The fact is that all employment in the U.S. is at will. No one is forced to work. Period.

Well, except for the draft, of course.

Re:How about that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42532937)

There is no sense in which any of that is true

Here we see your unusual definition of truth again.

I have spent more time exchanging opinions, and asking and answering questions, with people I disagree with than most people, including yourself.

You have answered such an abysmally small fraction of all the questions I have asked you that it would be nearly fair to say you do not answer questions from me at all. When I ask you questions your standard M.O. is to instead accuse me of lying and then not answer the question in any way, shape, or form.

I would ask you why you are lying about answering questions from people such as myself, but there is no reason to expect that you would actually answer such a question from me.

What I explicitly oppose is dishonest or abusive discussions

Perhaps you are redefining "dishonest or abusive" as well, then. I would ask you if you see those terms as exactly synonymous to anything that does not agree with you philosophically, but of course again there is no reason to expect an answer from you on said question.

that prevent reasonable exchange of opinions, and asking and answering of questions

And putting someone on your permanent hate list somehow encourages asking and answering of questions? No, it most certainly does not. It is no better than when a radio host yells at a caller to shut up and then disconnects them.

The fact is that all employment in the U.S. is at will. No one is forced to work.

That depends on what you consider to be "force". If you mean physical force with a whip and a gun, then sure. There are other senses of force that apply that are indeed used. Of course in your black and white world you probably would not consider them valid.

Except that the labor market in the united states in its current configuration favors so heavily the employer that the fate of the employee is of nearly no consequence.

False.

Just because you say so? Try opening your eyes and reading some time, rather than just giving a single-word response based on your own opinion of how the world might be.

In some states you are required to join a union

Are you referring to employers requiring you to join a union? I am not aware of a state that requires you to join a union for a job (or than a job working for that state). Indeed some states allow employers to be closed-shop, and others do not.

However you already said that nobody can force you to work. If you don't want a job with a union employer, don't take it. Where is the problem? You are free to go work some place else, right?

or a trade group or have other irrational requirements just to work.

Allow me to present some actual facts to you (which you likely will not read).
Union membership in the US is less than 12% of the workforce [bls.gov] . How can they be such a huge impediment on your freedom when they represent such a tiny fraction of all workers? If less than 1 in 6 workers are in a union it makes no sense to blame them for your problems, you might as well blame your problems on people with blonde hair.

because the left does so much to get in our way.

Oooh, the left. Yes, less than 1 out of 6 people are in a union. They are clearly going to significantly impede your freedom.

Deciding to not help someone in need is not "playing god."

It most certainly is. If someone comes to you in mortal danger asking for help which you are qualified to provide and you deny it to them, you have chosen for them to die. That is playing god.

Re:How about that (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42533709)

You have answered such an abysmally small fraction of all the questions I have asked you that it would be nearly fair to say you do not answer questions from me at all.

It's "fair" to lie? That explains a lot.

When I ask you questions your standard M.O. is to instead accuse me of lying and then not answer the question in any way, shape, or form.

You're a liar. I do no such thing. I do accuse you of lying -- because, as you said above, you (thinking it is fair) lie a lot -- but I always answer reasonable questions, and most questions are reasonable. I defy you to show a single example of a reasonable question you asked me, that I did not answer.

And keep in mind that it is not reasonable to ask an apparently reasonable question, while dodging other points. For example, if you say I am wrong that 2+2=4, and I ask you to explain it, and you ignore me and ask me the answer to 3+3 ... that is, obviously, not reasonable.

I would ask you if you see those terms as exactly synonymous to anything that does not agree with you philosophically

Yes, you could ask that inherently dishonest question.

You have before you my obviously true claim that I have many discussions with people who disagree with me. You also have before you my claim that I do not engage with people who are dishonest or abusive. Your question is, quite obviously, therein answered.

And putting someone on your permanent hate list somehow encourages asking and answering of questions? No, it most certainly does not.

Correct. I do not intend it to. I intend it to prevent them from polluting a space where others might ask and answer questions, and to prevent them wasting my time. It's because I've given up on that person's comments being reasonable, and do not care to see them anymore.

It is no better than when a radio host yells at a caller to shut up and then disconnects them.

Many callers deserve to be hung up on. Sometimes that is a very good thing, because if a caller is dishonest or abusive, it discourages listeners and takes up radio time that could be used by reasonable callers.

That depends on what you consider to be "force".

No, it does not, because there's only one reasonable definition.

If you mean physical force with a whip and a gun, then sure. There are other senses of force that apply that are indeed used. Of course in your black and white world you probably would not consider them valid.

They aren't. And the reason you didn't provide any examples is because you know they wouldn't hold up to reasoned analysis.

Just because you say so?

See, this is an actual example of hypocrisy. You do not back up your claim initially. If you had, I would've responded to your evidence. But since you gave no evidence, I didn't rebut anything. You said x, I said !x. But somehow I am in the wrong for doing precisely what you did.

Try opening your eyes and reading some time, rather than just giving a single-word response based on your own opinion of how the world might be.

The number of words you use don't change the fact that you provided no evidence of any kind to back up your claim, despite now TWO chances to do so.

Are you referring to employers requiring you to join a union?

No.

I am not aware of a state that requires you to join a union for a job (or than a job working for that state).

So, you are keenly aware of states requiring you to join a union for a job.

However you already said that nobody can force you to work. If you don't want a job with a union employer, don't take it. Where is the problem?

Fine, then we'll require everyone who wants a job with government to be a Christian. Where's the problem?

Same basic place: the First Amendment. Just like government has no right to have a religion requirement for employment, it has no right to have an associational requirement for employment. Freedom of association is an important constitutional principle. Read about it.

You are free to go work some place else, right?

I actually stood up for the rights of private businesses to require union membership, in the recent hubbub. Government, however, is required to provide equal protection of the laws and equal opportunity.

How can they be such a huge impediment on your freedom when they represent such a tiny fraction of all workers? If less than 1 in 6 workers are in a union it makes no sense to blame them for your problems, you might as well blame your problems on people with blonde hair.

You are not actually arguing against anything I said. Please try again. (This is an example of an unreasonable and dishonest question. You pretend to be responding to a point I made, but you're not.)

Deciding to not help someone in need is not "playing god."

It most certainly is.

No, it's not.

If someone comes to you in mortal danger asking for help which you are qualified to provide and you deny it to them, you have chosen for them to die.

Obviously false.

That said, I believe strongly that I, and anyone else in that situation, should help them. I also believe strongly that no one has the right to force me, or anyone else, to do so, because -- unlike you -- I believe in both compassion and freedom. I know you don't believe in the latter, and I suspect you don't believe in the former.

Re:How about that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42534027)

You have answered such an abysmally small fraction of all the questions I have asked you that it would be nearly fair to say you do not answer questions from me at all.

It's "fair" to lie? That explains a lot.

It's not a lie, it's an approximation. I have asked you many questions and you have answered approximately none of them. Perhaps your lack of understanding of basic math is part of why you suck so atrociously at logic.

When I ask you questions your standard M.O. is to instead accuse me of lying and then not answer the question in any way, shape, or form.

You're a liar.

This new meaning of liar that you use, please define it.

I do accuse you of lying -- because, as you said above, you (thinking it is fair) lie a lot

I said no such thing. Just because you claim otherwise does not make it so.

but I always answer reasonable questions, and most questions are reasonable

I challenge you to show a question that was asked of you which was not in agreement with your worldview which you deemed to be sufficiently "reasonable" to answer.

I defy you to show a single example of a reasonable question you asked me, that I did not answer.

I have asked you many reasonable questions, including the one that you originally placed me on your perma-hate list for, which you have never answered. You, however, have a completely different understanding - and application - of the world "reasonable" than the rest of the world.

You have before you my obviously true claim that I have many discussions with people who disagree with me

Can you show an example? I have not seen one here on slashdot. I have, however, seen a great number of times where you have instead demonstrated the same behavior of deep eternal hatred that you display towards me, towards others.

And putting someone on your permanent hate list somehow encourages asking and answering of questions? No, it most certainly does not.

It's because I've given up on that person's comments being reasonable, and do not care to see them anymore.

So then since you refuse to consider the possibility of my ever being reasonable, why do you come and ask me questions? You could instead opt to not participate in this discussion, or even just not reply to comments I post. Instead you come here and post replies to my comments specifically.

In other words, once again you are the one being unreasonable.

I am not aware of a state that requires you to join a union for a job (or than a job working for that state).

So, you are keenly aware of states requiring you to join a union for a job.

So we agree then that you were not sufficiently specific in your claim of state's requiring union membership as what you said and what I said were not the same thing.

Fine, then we'll require everyone who wants a job with government to be a Christian. Where's the problem?

If the job is somehow related to Christianity - say perhaps being a liaison to the church - then sure it would make sense to require that job to be filled by a Christian. There is not a state that I am aware of that requires all of it's state employees to be union for all jobs. Union membership is an easy way to ensure that employees are properly vetted for the job - particularly in the case of tradesman jobs like plumbers, electricians, etc. They could just as well have a standard test but testing for physical aptitude is time consuming and it is easier for a union to do it than for the state to do it individually.

If someone comes to you in mortal danger asking for help which you are qualified to provide and you deny it to them, you have chosen for them to die.

Obviously false.

If your choice to act could prevent their death, and your choice not to act causes their death, then you have chosen for them to die. You can claim otherwise but that does not cause it to be so.

Re:How about that (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42534621)

I have asked you many questions and you have answered approximately none of them.

You're a liar.

I defy you to show a single example of a reasonable question you asked me, that I did not answer.

I have asked you many reasonable questions, including the one that you originally placed me on your perma-hate list for, which you have never answered.

You realize that anyone reading this will note the fact that you refuse to give even a single example, and take it as proof that you are as much of a liar as I say, right?

Can you show an example?

Yes.

I have not seen one here on slashdot.

False.

I have, however, seen a great number of times where you have instead demonstrated the same behavior of deep eternal hatred that you display towards me, towards others.

You're a liar. I have only extremely rarely demonstrated anything that could be called "hatred," let alone any emotion that was "deep" or "eternal." I am one of the most dispassionate people on this site.

So then since you refuse to consider the possibility of my ever being reasonable

You're a liar.

... why do you come and ask me questions?

Frankly, it's none of your business why I ever do anything I ever do. I find this question to be generally rude and presumptuous (and, quite obviously, unreasonable).

In other words, once again you are the one being unreasonable.

Just to point out the obvious: you lied about what I will "consider," and then you presumed that my reasons for doing what I do are poor, despite having no apparent idea what those reasons are. No, I think, self-evidently, your claim that I am unreasonable is unreasonable.

So we agree then that you were not sufficiently specific in your claim of state's requiring union membership as what you said and what I said were not the same thing.

Um. I was perfectly sufficiently specific. I said all that needed to be said: that this is not a free country, in part because "In some states you are required to join a union or pay exorbitant fees to the government or a trade group or have other irrational requirements just to work." This is true.

There is not a state that I am aware of that requires all of it's state employees to be union for all jobs.

So?

Union membership is an easy way to ensure that employees are properly vetted for the job

False. That is not remotely accurate. You, frankly, have no idea what you are talking about.

If your choice to act could prevent their death, and your choice not to act causes their death, then you have chosen for them to die.

False.

Re:How about that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42534853)

I have asked you many questions and you have answered approximately none of them.

You're a liar.

The list of questions that I have asked you which you have chosen not to answer is dramatically longer than the list of questions I have asked you which you have chosen to answer.

Just because you see it has not fitting your own sense of reality does not make it a lie.

I defy you to show a single example of a reasonable question you asked me, that I did not answer. I have asked you many reasonable questions, including the one that you originally placed me on your perma-hate list for, which you have never answered.

You realize that anyone reading this will note the fact that you refuse to give even a single example, and take it as proof that you are as much of a liar as I say, right?

First off, wrong. Second off, why would we expect that anyone else would be reading this at this point? They would have likely seen that you very quickly jumped in to your usual pattern of question avoidance and baseless allegations, and given up.

If someone else was reading this far into this discussion they likely are aware of the questions I have asked you before that you have chosen not to answer and hence they know that you are - as usual - in the wrong.

I have not seen one here on slashdot.

False.

Wow, you are so self-righteous that you are now claiming to be an expert on what I have or have not seen. It is hard to believe that you can take yourself seriously at this point. I stated that I have not seen something, and you are now insisting that I have. I did not make a statement as to the existence of something, only that I have not seen it. You could, if such a thing exists, provide a reference to show its existence and I would say "hey, look, it exists". Instead you are trying to dictate to me not just the existence of a mythical item but my experience with it.

... why do you come and ask me questions?

I find this question to be generally rude and presumptuous (and, quite obviously, unreasonable).

Wow, what a surprise. You decided not to answer a question I asked you. There are some obvious potential answers (which might be offered by a reasonable person) that can be ruled out for your motivation, but what the actual answer is, apparently from your viewpoint the world does not deserve to know.

So we agree then that you were not sufficiently specific in your claim of state's requiring union membership as what you said and what I said were not the same thing.

Um. I was perfectly sufficiently specific. I said all that needed to be said: that this is not a free country, in part because "In some states you are required to join a union or pay exorbitant fees to the government or a trade group or have other irrational requirements just to work." This is true.

Wrong, you were not sufficiently specific. You did not specific that some states can require you to do those things for a specific job with the state. The way you stated it, one could interpret you to be saying that a state requires people to do such things for any job.

If your choice to act could prevent their death, and your choice not to act causes their death, then you have chosen for them to die.

False.

You are just simply 100% wrong on that matter. Responding with one word does not make you less wrong. You have demonstrated before that you are pretty well completely incapable of admitting to be wrong, even when it has been demonstrated repeatedly to be the case. Your best move on that matter is to just not respond to it as you can't make yourself less wrong and you're not willing to admit to being wrong.

Re:How about that (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535519)

If someone else was reading this far into this discussion they likely are aware of the questions I have asked you before that you have chosen not to answer ...

... even though you have given NO examples? Huh.

Wow, you are so self-righteous that you are now claiming to be an expert on what I have or have not seen.

I know you have seen discussions you have taken part in. I know that I have had many discussions with people who disagree with me, asking and answering reasonable questions, and that you have been involved in some of them.

This isn't self-righteousness, it's simple deduction.

I stated that I have not seen something, and you are now insisting that I have.

Correct. Because you have. You might not recall it, for various reasons, or due to your myopia you may not have recognized it for what it was. But you've seen it, regardless.

Wow, what a surprise. You decided not to answer a question I asked you.

Yes, I did not answer an unreasonable question. I explained why it is unreasonable. Unless you can rebut my claim that it is not reasonable, and convince me it is reasonable, then this only backs up my case, not yours. You would, for clarity, have to show not only that the knowledge of why I do things is any of your business, but how it pertains to the discussion at hand. Good luck with that.

(And if you can't do that, you must therefore concede it was an unreasonable question, by the way.)

Wrong, you were not sufficiently specific. You did not specific that some states can require you to do those things for a specific job with the state.

You clearly did not believe I meant all jobs, because your response showed you clearly understood that I was referring to particular jobs. Stop lying.

You are just simply 100% wrong on that matter. Responding with one word does not make you less wrong.

Responding with many words, but no actual argument, doesn't make you any more right.

You don't seem to get this.

You didn't actually back up your claim, in any way. You simply made assertions. To deny a mere assertion, no more words are required than "False." If you present an actual argument, then I would be required, by the rules of logic and reason and argument, to address them. When you don't, I have no such obligation.

All you said is I chose for them to die. That is self-evidently false. I chose no such thing. I merely chose to not help. You're wrong.

Re:How about that (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about a year and a half ago | (#42535937)

I know that I have had many discussions with people who disagree with me, asking and answering reasonable questions, and that you have been involved in some of them.

If such a discussion happened, then it should not be difficult for you to provide an example of such a discussion. However you cannot provide an example of such a discussion because none ever happened. You could have likely spent less time finding an example than the amount of time you have spent repeating your baseless assertions, but you chose the latter anyways because you knew you could not fulfill the former.

This isn't self-righteousness, it's simple deduction.

No, it is not. If that deduction was based on actual events that actually happened, you could easily provide an example. You cannot provide an example because those events did not happen. You're just making shit up because you are too arrogant to admit when you are wrong.

The rest of your comment consisted of you shoving your fingers in your ears and repeating the same baseless statements that you made earlier, so I refer you back to what I already said, which already proved you wrong.

Go ahead, reply. You cannot resist. You want to get the last post, even though you don't have the power to prevent me from posting in this journal entry discussion. I'll let you put your unique form of reality up there because I've lost interest and we both know you're wrong.

Re:How about that (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42536455)

If such a discussion happened, then it should not be difficult for you to provide an example of such a discussion.

Again, with your wonderful examples of hypocrisy. You refuse to provide any examples anywhere of me not answering a reasonable question, and now you demand I provide examples to you?

You do realize, of course, that given your hypocritical refusal, your request here counts as "unreasonable," right?

... I refer you back to what I already said, which already proved you wrong.

You're a liar. You did no such thing. The weird thing is that you are claiming you proved me wrong, when as best I can tell, you didn't even try to do so. You never provided evidence or argument of any kind. You just kept making assertions against me, and when I said you were wrong, you demanded I provide the evidence.

I have to hand it to you, though. Despite you being absolutely terrible at this -- among the worst I've seen -- you persist.

Re:How about that (1)

pudge (3605) | about a year and a half ago | (#42521039)

The "decision" didn't mean anything at all. It's just that they picked the wrong venue for relief.

Re:How about that (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42464471)

Awwww. He likes you, smitty! He's basically wanting attention from you, basically saying, "where's my buddy? i want to suck his c... I mean, "argue" with him some more!

The latent homosexuality surrounding this place is astounding.

Re:How about that (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42464685)

You know as a guy who took 30+ years to marry and 40+ to become a father, I've just never been able to detect signals like that.
My thought is that my good Lefty interlocutors are simply trolling. Which is fine. Having perpetrated Burma Shave trolls on odd Tuesdays these years, I can hardly complain. I will confess some boredom when we get to the "make the rubble bounce" phase, and my sources, facts, motives, alphabet, and very reasoning capacity itself starts to get demolished.
It's hard to play in the sandbox when the other side insists on retaining the pails, scoops, and every grain of sand in play. But I guess that's Progress for ya.

Re:How about that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42465065)

Hi RG!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...