Or do you hold a double standard--interpreting "pro life" quite broadly, but interpreting "pro choice" very narrowly?

FTFM

~Loyal

I'm not sure why I should, we don't claim a "right to life".

To be clear...do you claim that one shouldn't take a "pro choice" person seriously unless that person is against all coercion? In particular, a pro choice person should permit a person to hire and fire whomever they will, regardless of race, creed, national origin, sex, or sexual orientation? They should allow people to collude together to restrict prices, markets, entry, engage in price gouging and any other means to increase profits. They should be able to spray whatever weedkiller, fertilizer, or other chemical on their lawns they wish. They should be able to decide how much of their money goes to the poor, unwed mothers, drug addicts, sick, or arts. They should be able to quit the military any time they wish, including on the battle front while engaged with the enemy. A pro choice person should be in favor of allowing a person to make any choice whatsoever. Is that what you claim?

Or do you hold a double standard--interpreting "pro life" quite broadly, but interpreting "pro life" very narrowly?

~Loyal

Unless a "pro life" person is against all killing of humans—including institutional killing (war, police shootings, death penalty)—I don't take their "pro life" claim seriously at all.

Do you hold the same opinion of "pro choice" people?

~Loyal

Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where the religious nutjobs found a home".

Well, it could stain your reputation, or at least that of your education, quite a bit if your university gets known as "that place where free speech is permitted".

The group then used the University's name in all their press materials, giving them false credibility.

Didn't they have to use the University's name so people would know where to attend?

~Loyal

The fantasy convention is not an attack on the University. Nor is the fantasy convention trying to abuse the reputation of the University for it's own gain.

How about if you were to go to the conference and ask them, "Do you deny that you're attacking the university?" Or, "Why are you abusing the reputation of the University for your own gain? Wouldn't you agree that's a despicable act?"

~Loyal

Argument from authority is a popular tactic with Creationists.

There is no argument from authority fallacy. There is an argument from inexpert authority fallacy, and there is an objective procedure for determining whether an authority is expert.

~Loyal

No, there are many people who have impressive titles who can be trusted.

So, how does one decide whom can be trusted?

Further, are you saying that impressionable people need to be protected from believing the wrong things?

~Loyal

Ah, Godwin.

Is there a reason you believe Godwin's Conjecture to be true?

~Loyal

But see that won't work because these people are not in any way, shape, or form 'rational' to start with; logic and reason won't work on someone who believes in fairy-tale level nonsense.

Why, these people aren't even human. They're less than human--or, if you prefer the latin, untermenschen.

~Loyal

They will also find a speaker with an impressive title that implies that he is a respected scientist and try to give the impression that serious/rational scientists believe their fairy stories. It might not get far with most slashdot readers, but it will sound good and 'may be right' to many; most people do not have much understanding of science - these are their target audience - the masses, not the educated minorities - enough to keep the collecting plates full at the churches.

So...what you're saying is that people with impressive titles aren't to be trusted, and impressionable people need to be protected from believing the wrong things?

~Loyal

The world would be a better place if corporations had to be objective and stick to the facts when advertising their goods.

And while we're at it we can make it illegal for politicians to make claims they don't follow through with. And religions. Religions can't make any claims they can't objectively prove. And political action committees. And athiests. Athiests won't be able to claim there is no god unless they can prove there is none. And the press. The press won't be able to report anything unless the reporter actually saw and understands it. I'm sick and tired of reading science reports where the reporter gets the basic science wrong. You know, I think you may be on to something here. Perhaps we could have a Ministry of Truth, and the Ministry of Truth could have two books. One book could list everything that's mandatory, and the other everything that's forbidden. Everything that can be spoken or written would be in one of those two books. In no time at all we would have Utopia.

~Loyal

The correct ruling is that the papers are yours, not the house's and you have a right to not have your papers and effects searched without a warrant.

Agreed. And the correct ruling in this case is that all of the purported misstatements are inactionable statements of opinion, optimism, or puffery, and that the owners of the corporation have a right to make those statements, and that the government may not infringe them.

~Loyal

Corporations are not just people, but protected people now.

That worries me. Suppose a policeman admitted that people had a right against unreasonable search and seizure, but homes don't. Since this home doesn't have any rights then it's perfectly alright to search the papers and effects in this home. Denied? OMG!!! The Supreme Court has ruled that houses are protected people.

~Loyal

The definition of puffery requires that the customer doesn't take the claim seriously.

Not "customer," but rather "ordinary consumers." For the courts to reward the customers who believe the claims and not those who didn't would be to reward the people who are gullible--or at least those who claim to be gullible.

It sounds like the investors (the customers in this case, in a sense) did indeed take them seriously.

They have a vested interest to make that claim.

~Loyal