abraininavat

Your definition of "hypocrisy" is off. A hypocrite is someone whose current actions and professed moral standards don't agree. The father was simply wrong about you, not a hypocrite. And the The View host simply changed her mind due to a new perspective, for right or wrong.

and I was hoping you'd get that it was a joke instead of spending time explaining what you meant :)

We're "neutering language"? Hyperbolize much?

This is your friendly reminder that jlgreco's is not a deductive argument and that most of the logic we base our everyday decisions on would be called logical fallacies. It's time for a Fallacy Fallacy, I think.

This is also your friendly reminder that jlgreco wasn't even employing "slippery slope" logic. He wasn't arguing that employing a cost comparison will lead inevitably to employing further cost comparisons. He simply pointed out that one cherry-picks the level that best makes one's argument.

This is your friendly reminder that your post makes no sense.

But what is the point? Having had an opinion before the trial started doesn't preclude someone from talking about it today. Not having watched the trial from start to finish doesn't either. You're just saying "be civil"? Thanks, that's already in the site guidelines though.

Given that the entire trial was televised gavel-to-gavel, how do the jurors know a lot more about the details than anyone else?

Do you realize that 99% of people use gmail, facebook, twitter, and play web games for 99% of the time?

Dad?

How do you recognize that, though? Your heuristic can't be "promotes comments with many downvotes" because the problem at hand is bad comments with many upvotes. If your heuristic is "promotes comments that others don't promote", how do you know you're not punishing someone for a minority viewpoint?

If the plan is for you to personally investigate promoters' promoting habits and make the call to take away the right, then I guess that would work but I don't know how it would scale. My skepticism is based on the idea that this could be done automatically.

You've simply assumed that engaged users are less likely to vote up fatuous vitriol. That remains to be shown and I'm skeptical.

This assumes there's a correlation between karma/age and the tendency to promote fairly (i.e. due to civility and positive contribution, rather than promoting what one agrees with).

I doubt there is. The problem is that no one judges the judges. That is, you don't lose karma points by making bad judgment calls. The same problem exists at my work. People become managers by being good engineers and by having been there a long time, but no one is judging their management skills.

Apparently you hate self-promoting on your website as well. Am I missing where you explain what your product does? I see

* this blurb: Factor.io lets developers automate the most tedious processes in minutes, not weeks, so they can ship with ease.

* a link to pricing info, which I'm not interested in because I don't know anything about your product

* a sign-up form, which I'm not interested in because I don't know anything about your product

* one tiny screenshot embedded in a picture of a laptop

and that's about it. You need more screenshots, a video, a list of features, etc.

Also, the interactive map on http://www.restorethefourth.net/ is completely broken. Clicking on any of the locations for more information leads you straight to a 404.

Judging from the comments on the subreddit, it's not something I want to get my family involved with anyway. There's an unfortunte lack of serious effort here.

What is your point exactly? I'm not saying they will. I'm saying they would.

Guess you missed the sarcasm. I know it's the internet, but I thought I slathered it on pretty thick.

Of course! The government will go as far (and only as far) as it takes to quell the dissatisfaction brewing among the people. If that goes as far as real action, that's what will happen.

I agree with most of what you said. I want to nitpick one thing though. I don't agree that "the ends justify the means" is a valid argument. It's not an argument at all, it's a premise in the argument at hand.

And, as you alluded to, the majority of us here seem to disagree with the premise, making the overall argument invalid. Probably not the case for the rest of the country th ough. I'd like to think that we represent the "thoughtful minority", but doesn't everyone.

Costs to the US?? What do you mean?? But people have been blathering for weeks on HackerNews that the US spying on anyone who's a foreigner is good and right and expected! Surely they can't have neglected to consider that there's only so long you can fuck with people's liberties, whether within your own borders or without, before the lie is revealed and the system build around it crumbles.

No, I won't buy it. I stand with HackerNews here. Spy on foreigners FTW!

Every time something is released, people like you come on HN to say, "Really, you're all so naive, were you really surprised?"

Would you mind please telling us the next big development before it happens so that we can get a jump-start on being so surprised?

I don't see that assumption in the parent's post. You apparently are operating under the assumption that politicians are less two-faced than they are.

People keep saying this. A democratic nation derives its power from its people. These nations are not willing participants in the spying program. What you mean is that their elected representatives have sold out their country.

I addressed your us-versus-them mindset in my reply to Goladus, but I couldn't help but point out how disingenuous this is:

Good can triumph over evil, but as even Jesus said, it needs the "cunning of snakes" to succeed.

The whole quote is: "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

You conveniently forgot the "innocent as doves" part, obviously because it doesn't fit in with the rest of your argument that America must act like a cirminal gang to secure peace. I feel unfortunate to live in a world filled with others who feel the same as you.

I'm pretty sure nkoren's point has just flown over your head.

You're talking about the obligations of the US Government. The US Government clearly only has the obligation to secure the rights of its own citizens.

nkoren is talking about the rights of the US Government. Just look at the language of the very first clause. All men are guaranteed these rights. It makes no mention of citizenship. That the US Government has the obligation to protect the rights of only US citizens does not mean that it has the right to violate the rights of non-US citizens. I don't buy the bullshit that the government can only protect my rights by violating the rights of others. That's small-minded thinking.

I agree with 4891 that nations act like criminal gangs. I seem to be one of very few who believe they shouldn't, though.

my country? I wish people would grow up and stop thinking in terms of these stupid imaginary lines.

Or just be completely honest and say "".

Take out the to decide what the public gets to know and your statement makes a lot more sense.

This is a maybe-sensible dose of speculation. Be very skeptical of such speculative diagnoses.

Why is it that people always feel the need to ask, "Why is anyone surprised,", when in fact it's not clear that anyone's surprised? Is it just to assert that you're smarter than some group of imaginary surprised people?

What about an organization that has no secrets?

EDIT: Downvotes? Clearly I need to explain myself better. My point is that an organization built around full transparency is indeed impervious to informants. Take the government, for example. If they had made public that they'd be monitoring our Gmail conversations for our own safety, we may have agreed or disagreed with the policy but there would be nothing to leak.

A neutral statement? Not with the Poor little Siggi part.