Lawtonfogle

Could that back fire? There are cases where humans judge taking no action because it avoids costs as inherently better than taking action to bring in profit even when others in general are better off. I could see a lot of people getting mad at being charged for updates which cost money who wouldn't get mad when there are no updates because the company doesn't want to lose money making free updates. It's almost like a section of society judges not helping as better than helping for some price, even though anyone who doesn't want to pay is no worse off than if they were never given an option. I see this trend outside of business as well.

Is there any similar writeups of the fishing glitch where you get the fisherman to sit on the tree and then go fishing? That's one of the two I found as a kid. The other gave me some super item but I never could recreate it.

Being on a jury gave me the opposite experience. The guy who slept through parts of the trial was given as equal a say as those who stayed awake and the topic of them sleeping was a joke to many of the jurors. Charisma counted for more than reasoning. It made me have a lot more believe in the statement that the innocent seek trial by judge while the guilty seek trial by jury.

The problem? Because those actions are discrimination. Using discrimination to fight discrimination largely targets the under privileged members of the privileged groups.

It's basically a call for equity instead of equality, except it is limited equity which automatically assume some do not need equitable help. It is also limited in how it's applied.

Find the actual problems causing any modern day biases and fix those. Personally I work with some kids to help them love math. In my (admittingly anecdotal experience) there is a bias noticeable in middle school for all kids to not like math that evolves into a gender bias but to some extent hurts both genders' ability and desire to learn. Identifying and remedying the cause of this would do more to help both girls and boys than targeted aid in high-school or college.

The second half of your last sentence is the key to the issue, IMO. People calling things racist, and yet those who agree with the things being called racist seeing those name calling ignoring similar behavior weakens the concept of bigotry.

My favorite example of this is the legal system. The legal system is racist against blacks and Hispanics because it is harder on them. The legal system is also sexist against women because it is easier on them. When someone sees both of these views together, the entire concept of bigotry is called into question.

And it's becoming a self parody as well. People are now being called transphobic for being unwilling to have sex with a transsexual they aren't attracted to. A gay guy who is only attracted to people with a punishment is now a bigot... what? Yeah, that view isn't by any means common yet, but it has been appearing online for a while now.

So the Best Buy employees were in possession of child abuse material and even used it to make profit? Sounds like they should be charged for abusing children. Merely viewing it or possessing it harms children, so no excuses. Even the FBI shouldn't be allowed to posses it.

Or they thought she was guaranteed to win and wanted to have this mattered handled much quietly once the election was over.

I bet Trump supporters are happy nothing bad about Trump was leaked and no foreign news networks ran ant hit pieces on Trump. He probably would have lost if that had happen.

/s

Besides for the illegal action of actually doing the hack, I don't see how this is any different than all the news stories attacking Trump.

During my time in college I took multiple ethics and related classes and in my opinion they aren't worth the paper I printed class assignments on.

None of these answer practical issues like what happens when the law is bad or when one's livelihood is on the line. None of these give practical advice on how to fix a society where ethical behavior is not inherently incentivized.

The problem is finding which point was wrong. What behavior was done here that should be discouraged or banned by society? People don't like the outcome, but where should the government intervene?

Because you want people to pay for something they don't see any benefit for. It's like trying to get a company to invest in better security, except harder because there is little in the way of the climate change equivalent of security breaches.

Yeah, such a better system. Even set up a bit coin address where they have to pay about $25 to get in to prove intent (along with visiting the site and then logging in).

And how many charged with child molestation will have the police raid their homes and check their computers? How many will end up only being charged with child porn to spare the actual child the trauma of going through a case and how many times is there not enough evidence to convict for child molestation but there is plenty to convict for child porn?

Yes, what about that. The only way the FBI is justified is if we ignore that. And if we are choosing to ignore it to justify the FBI's actions then why not do it here for the greater good? Personally I'm with you that we shouldn't ignore it in either case.

I don't buy it for a second. Instead, I think that those who use but don't physically touch an actual child are so unlikely to get caught, the numbers are horribly biased.

To give some example numbers, say that 5% of those who view the material ever directly harm a child. And say that 100% of those who harm a child view the material. Now, say that 50% of those who harm a child get busted, but only 1% of those who don't get busted for viewing the material. The end result would be that of those caught about 5 of every 7 who viewed material harmed a child directly.

Now, the numbers are made up, but there are many values that lead to a false conclusion if people only look at those caught.

I have to disagree with the list. How we discriminate can't be put in a list because it is different for different issues. For one example, consider that the legal system discriminate far more on gender than race. In some areas your list is close to accurate (I would definitely put mental health much higher), but in general a list is a poor data structure to represent how discrimination occurs. It also ignores interactions between groups.

They may also get better at hiding their bias. May not even be conscious but as a side effect of blatant bias being called out while hidden bias is not. It would also be harder to study because our bias detection algorithms largely focus on blatant bias.

Even 'just the facts' Is broken because one cannot tell if all facts were given or if only certain facts were given designed to create some view. For example, given two studies that find opposing results, I can then list all the criticisms of the study I don't like while listing only the least significant criticisms of the study I do like. As long as I don't claim to have listed all criticisms, I have given 'just the facts' and yet made an quite biased article.

Uh... you can make your own roads without guard rails. But if I grow the wrong plants on my private property the government will do some really evil things to me. But they won't touch you for not adding guard rails to your private roads.

As does Hillary. Well maybe not all of those, but she clearly incites sexism.

1. Men are more likely to end up in prison in the US. By a really large amount. That seems to be a very misleading way of reporting statistics that is sexist.

2. One sexist system being used to justify another.

3. Prisoners aren't given respect. Nothing special about either of those conditions that make it stand out any more than all the recent cases of prisoners with medical needs dying because of disrespect.

Saying women need more help is not just sexist, it is so incredibly and blatantly sexist that any educated person that agrees can have significant judgments made about their views in regards to sexism.

Here, let me give an example.

1. Whites in the US are X percent of the total white population but white US prisoners are >X percent of the total white prisoners.

2. Whites going to prison are more likely to be an active patent to a child, meaning the child will be instead raised in a single parent family or go to foster care.

3. Whites in prison aren't respected.

Thus, whites in prison need more special treatment to help them more than minorities.

Anyone seriously giving the above argument, who was also educated in the racial disparity in prison, would clearly be acting racist.

So when Hillary wants to help women, who already get vastly lower prison sentences than men, get even lower prison sentences... what do we call that?

The people who support diversity and yet support Hillary seems to disagree with your last line.

I know a Hispanic girl who says all lives matter. She is fed up with how the common narative is that only Blacks are people of color. Is she ignorant?

And before someone says I'm sexist for using girl instead of woman, she isn't 18 yet.

So by Marcos own logic does anyone who support Hillary support slut shaming 12 year old girls who have been raped?

When considering all abortions there are many positions which limit different subsets as being wrong, but for any given situation one must choose between abortion allowed or abortion banned (and technically the choice of abortion required but that almost never pops up).

So while one might be against partial birth abortion but for second trimester abortions, they still have to look at a given situation and say yay or nay.

Would you leverage similar criticism towards any other reports concerning sexual assault? Such as how numbers concerning sexual assault on college campuses are told lacking the context of how they were derived and also report magnitudes more crime than official FBI statistics.

It seems both sides abuse these numbers to lead readers to draw certain conclusions. Yet criticism of the practice often is not evenly applied.

But you are allowed to, because as long as you don't greatly abuse the privilege the law will not penalize you at all.

Do while the legal system does not say he has a legally enforceable claim to watch the movie, the same system will not punish him for doing so.

Now, if we are talking morally, I'm going to guess we have different moral systems and thus not reach the same conclusion.

P.S. for the blender example, it would be more as if his purchased blender didn't work so he used a working one to turn his blender into a working copy, while the second blender continues to sit on the shelf for someone else to buy.

Given how selective enforcement works, I would say you did it the legal way in as much as so.eone doing 70 on a 65 interstate while everyone else is doing about 70 is legally driving. As long as the infringement isn't massive it is largely tolerated and if the law as written was fully enforced, it would result in the law quickly being changed. Much like if they started handing out tickets to everyone who went even a 1 mph over the limit the law would change.

Now, I don't like selective enforcement and think it has many problems, but it does seem to be how our legal system functions these days.

Recidivism rate is actually quite law compared to other crimes. As for execution, you are playing chicken with people who hare far less to lose. It will also give them a great tool to silence any victims because most victims do not want their abusers killed and many will make the choice to tolerate the abuse rather than have a family member killed.

To say nothing that the level of hatred will only lead to pedophiles thinking through system is being rigged against them and thus be less likely to even try to live a non harmful life. Germany's program which does the opposite of what you want seems to be the far better method for ensuring the least amount of children are abused.

Can a cop commit rape or murder? Normally a cop is only allowed to do minor illegal things that aren't on the level of directly harming a person. Since the government argues child porn directly harms the child (as otherwise it would be protected by the first amendment), a cop should not be allowed to engage in activities related to it.

On a related note, why doesn't the mafia just require any suspected cop to commit rape of some target. Or are cops allowed to go that far?