Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Slashdot comments indicative of the problem (Score 1) 989

Somebody created an account just to harass a person whose honesty has come into question before, and they just so happened to do it less than 5 minutes before someone who wasn't logged in and didn't do an actual search somehow found the user page?

Sounds like someone doesn't know how Twitter works. Let's say someone else follows her. They see the @her tweets. So they see it, and make the screen capture. But, they don't want to get involved in the mess, so they save the search, log out, and paste in the URL, showing the tweets in that search, without showing the person who captured it or how they searched for it.

Yes, it does make it unlikely that the person threatened was the one to capture the tweets (unless it was a setup), but not an unreasonable or unlikely chain of events.

You realize you just contradicted yourself here, right? If trust is a binary decision, than the statement "Trust all the time isn't the same as trust everyone all the time." would be invalid, since it implies degrees of trust rather than a "yes/no" configuration.

No. That's not a contradiction. Trust is binary. But trust isn't a single act. It's a binary between "yes" or "no" but not for all options. If your friend has been playing the "pull the chair" joke, you could trust your chair to hold you, but not trust it to be there. You still have trust all the time, just not in everything all the time. I trust that my next breath will contain oxygen. That is permanent, unless I'm in a fire or otherwise in trouble. But that doesn't mean that I have to trust everything all the time. Just that not trusting anything at any point in time would result in paralysis, and is mostly impossible. 10 minutes of analysis of the air before each breath isn't sustainable.

Comment: Re:Slashdot comments indicative of the problem (Score 1) 989

If this were a courtroom, she would be the plaintiff (because she's the one making an accusation of harassment), and thus would be required to provide the supporting documentation that gives her claimed evidence credibility.

No, that's not how it works. In a courtroom, the balance of the evidence is not slanted to any special requirement of "proof", just "preponderance". And a screen shot of harassment is evidence that could be sufficient for a "win".

OK, so what's your banking access information? What, don't you trust me (and the rest of the Slashdot community)?

Trust all the time isn't the same as trust everyone all the time.

Do you also trust that the voting machine you use hasn't been tampered with, or is there that nagging little thought in the back of your head that something could have been rigged?

There has never been a voting machine type that hasn't been tampered with, even paper and pen methods. Do "trust until proven otherwise" wouldn't apply, as "proven otherwise" has been met.

Obviously, and contrary to what is apparently popular opinion on Slashdot, trust is not a binary decision.

But it is. You either do it or you don't. How do you 37.5% trust your chair to not break when you sit in it? Find a weight exactly 37.5% of your weight and place it on the chair to test it before sitting down?

Comment: Re:Just proves the point (Score 1) 989

What was his experience with feminist professors?

I read that after. The threading doesn't line up right sometimes, and the indicated GP wasn't the actual one. (and no, it wasn't because I have a high threshold and something was hidden)

So I stated those generalizations. Did that make me irrational and incapable of discussion?

No, it just made you wrong, and if you are wrong about the basics, a logical reader will assume you wrong about everything else (unless proven otherwise to a higher standard).

If you used the fact that you personally lived outside the US to claim that Americans do not live in America, you are far more wrong than the generalization is.

And you are creating a strawman in which I make a stupid false dichotomy.

Not all Americans live in America. Is that a generalization?

And no, the presence of manboobs is irrelevant to the claim that women have boobs.

It's not irrelevant. It points out the inanity of the claim. "All women have noses." True or not, it's 100% useless, as not only do all women have them, but all men, and all cats as well. So it is "wrong" even if true, because it implies some specilization, otherwise, there's be no reason to say it. And any indication that non-women are less nose-worthy is 100% false, so the factual statement is also a lie (a lie is a misleading statement, even if true).

Comment: Re:Slashdot comments indicative of the problem (Score 1) 989

What she's getting now is beastly bullshit, and you're basically saying "she shouldn't have dressed that way, it's her fault for getting raped."

Where's the line between that and the drunk men who harassed a tiger until the tiger jumped the fence and killed one? Did they not bring it upon themselves by deliberately provoking a tiger?

Comment: Re:Slashdot comments indicative of the problem (Score 1) 989

Locking your car is a sensible precaution. But women getting ruffied in bars is still her fault for dressing "nice". That's like blaming the person with the stolen car for not replacing all the windows with armored glass. Possible, but not reasonable.

If women only dressed like described in the Koran, then we'd be less tempted to rape and kill them, right?

Comment: Re:Slashdot comments indicative of the problem (Score 1) 989

Isn't it also "genuine sexism" to assume she's not lying?

She's provided evidence of harassment. Those accusing her of lying haven't provided proof of lying. The win goes to the side with evidence, even if weak.

Personally, I don't trust her, not because she's a woman or anything stupid like that, but rather because I don't trust anyone I don't personally know.

If that were true, then you'd never leave your house. Assuming everyone is a violent murderer until you "know" them would be debilitating, and that's the natural consequence of your assertion. I trust all the time. I trust the guy in traffic to not deliberately ram me. I trust the ATM to not give me $100 and deduct $1000 from my account. I trust the store to sell me the item labeled, and not poison in a peanut butter jar.

Comment: Re:Just proves the point (Score 1) 989

Did you even address his personal experience on why he thought that? No, because you categorized him as a bigot,

No, because he posted none.

Americans live in America. Asian people have black hair. Women have boobs.

I'm an American who doesn't live in America. I work in IT, I think the average guys boobs are bigger than women's.

That you think the use of a generalization makes one unfit to be reasoned with is irrational.

When the generalization is used as a character assassination, then yes. You post on slashdot, therefore you must be a mysogynist. There is no rationalizing with such a bigot, therefore, there is no rationalizing with you. That's the logic the original poster used, and the responder made fun of. Does it work?

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself. -- A.H. Weiler

Working...