I guarantee you that height is more correlated to fights than gayness. No one can look at you and see that you are gay, but any drunk meat-head in a bar looking to impress some airhead girl can look at someone and see that they are short.

Height is, in my opinion, the greatest discriminatory stereotype of all of them. There is a reason presidents are usually the taller candidate, and that midgets are used as comic relief. Humanity will probably never overcome height discrimination, gayness doesn't even come close.

If you were exactly 5'10'' that would be pretty cool. You could become the new SI unit for length. An international standard. All that careful dieting and your dreams are realized. Pride, women, fame...

Ah, I see GP's subtlety was lost on someone. I'll give you a hint. By "discrimination", he meant the kind of problem that occurs when meat-heads with something to prove need an easy target. See if you can guess the rest.

Why would you say:

1) He shouldn't be proud because being gay is not a choice

but

2) He should be unproud if he was a paedophile?

Do you consider paedophilia to not be a choice? How do you get +4 insightful for saying something so blatantly illogical?

Privacy is not defined as a right. "No true Scotsman" arguments are arguments which arbitrarily redefine terms. Thus you have also need to work on your understanding of logic.

Assuming you mean "should be a right" rather than "is a right" as is the common misusage, it is still not a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. It's not even a wrong style of argument. For example, change the "privacy" to "running around naked" to make an isomorphic argument. "This isn't a rights violation because running around naked isn't a right". See how that isn't problematic?

The issue you seem to be having with logic is "confirmation bias". Since you are upset by what occurred, you are agreeing with every argument which argues your feelings and disagreeing with every argument which disagrees. It's a common mistake as well. I call it "you aren't right because you don't care to be right".

A "no true Scotsman" argument is when one redefines terms in a contrived way. When you specifically choose your definitions to support your argument, rather than choosing generally agreed upon definitions, you are making a "no true Scotsman" argument.

This, and the other post you responded to, are not "no true Scotsman" sophistries. They are not redefining privacy, they are saying that it is a trivial invasion of privacy. An example of a "no true Scotsman" sophistry here would be: "this isn't an invasion of privacy, because it was police officers who obtained the photographs." Notice how it arbitrarily chooses to make an exception to the common definition solely for the sake of defending the argument.

If you are having trouble understanding logic and argument, the I suggest imagining yourself as an uninterested observer. It may take practice, but you'll eventually get the hang of it.

That's idiotic. It's like trying to fly by lifting up on your own boots.

You can't improve the spending power of a population by taxing them, whether by direct or inflationary tax. People have more to spend when you put less restrictions on what they can do with their labor.

Does that mean it has a 30% - 50% immortality rate? Hmm....

It was made illegal in 23 states. And this was during a time when the 14th amendment wasn't being taken literally by the supreme court. So except for the 14th amendment, it wasn't a violation of the US Constitution.

The Sedition Act of 1918 is a better example, where Freedom of Speech was infringed: "any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the form of government of the United States...or the flag of the United States, or the uniform of the Army or Navy".

No one would do at a buffet what the bit-torrent users are doing on the network because of the beating the bit-torrenters would take. Vigilante justice is what prevents this thing from happening person-to-person. People may condemn "vigilante justice" with righteous indignation, but the fact that it exists as an option is what keeps many people from doing what they could if they were anonymous. Or have you not noticed the misery that the anonymity of the internet has created?

He's just poisoning his own share of the food. The fact that the other took it and ate it, they got what they deserve.

People who live their life by "as much as possible for me, and I don't care who I hurt in the process" open themselves up to punishment by their own beliefs. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

It is your first amendment right not to believe in the second amendment.

It is your first amendment right not to be prosecuted for declaring your disagreement with the second amendment.

It is NOT your first amendment right to request government employees to ignore your second amendment right. That is criminal. You can declare your belief that they should, but any intention to actually carry it out should land you in jail. And that goes for all constitutional rights.

The exact same argument can be applied to buying food in a grocery store. So by isomorphic substitution it must be a wrong argument.

The difference isn't demand, it's supply. Very few hospitals, lots of people wanting health care. Maybe we should be looking at how much training institutions charge for their government-granted privilege of choosing who gets to practice medicine. Put some price caps on health care licensing organizations, and watch the supply go up and the price go down.

If he contacted Comcast from his company, there was a good chance that it was related to his job for the company.

Yes, Comcast is the government. *Every* public utility is the government, whether it is sewage management or Comcast.

Consider this: try to make a company to compete with Comcast. Assume all the powers that Comcast has. Just go around tearing down the copper that Comcast "owns", and lay down your own. Rip up people's front yards. You'll find out quickly that you are not allowed to compete because Comcast is the government.

There is nothing unreasonable about organizations created by the legislature, startup funded by tax dollars, and existing by grant of government right such as eminent domain to be held to *every single standard* that the government itself is. That includes the first amendment. It includes public management of accounting.

Comcast never had any claim to not being a government agency. Ever.