No problem. Rereading it, I can see how it could come off that way.
I've been accused of being smug previously, but I have also previously pointed out that ad hominem attacks don't make an argument any less valid.
I wasn't saying *you* were smug.
I do think it's sad that people forget how many people out there are unable to express themselves properly and end up reverting to malicious responses (acting like children) and attacks even if they aren't actually prejudiced against such people.
Speaking for myself, it always raises my hackles when someone responds in such a way that I hear "you're not mature enough for this conversation so I'll ignore any argument you make, you poor, pathetic feeb." However, I haven't come up with any effective way to respond to this, so anger is the substitute emotion (whether you express that anger is obviously another question). I suppose it's probably entangled with my deep-seated hatred for smug people, too.
One can go on and on about how they're the only ethical person on earth, but following the rules and acting logically only gets you so far sometimes. And expecting enlightened reactions from everyone you interact with in life is foolishness.
P.S: Every post I make in this article, I feel like I have to end with "but I'm not condoning the threats" or someone will attack me. Sigh.
Yeah, and historically there were Lisp machines. The PC-combatible/x86 was implied.
Assuming the label is accurately applied. We do love to whip it out around here at the drop of a hat.
Ironically, having read War and Peace myself, I wouldn't say it's an overly good example of feminist literature as most of the female characters IIRC are mostly concerned about their husbands.
Having said that, I wholeheartedly agree. A lot of TV these days is too dark for me to watch much of in a single sitting.
Pulp fiction that is aware of its pulpiness isn't the problem; fiction that is unaware of its pulpiness and the reasons for it is the proposed problem.
But if you outlaw all of them you'll never see the rest.
There should be zero tolerance for
I have zero tolerance for people who propose zero tolerance reactions to things
Sounds like in practice all the victim has to say is "I took it seriously" no matter how obviously it wasn't serious in order to win in court. Partially because of "tough on crime" but hey.
Hmm...upon further reflection, please ignore all my jaw-flapping (in this thread
Sorry to waste your time and braincells
Er, when I say "A and B overlap" I mean that you can't tell for certain whether they're being serious or making a joke. Being both at the same time is rather difficult.
But if you can't tell, then it is credible as a threat.
You could have dropped half that comment and just put this as the first sentence. And I find it funny how much you use the word "clearly" when we're talking greyscale.
"If I knew where you lived, you'd be toast!"
...doesn't mean that they won't try to *find out* where you live. So whoop--it could happen! Therefore that one's credible.
Considering how notoriously hard it is to tell on the Internet whether someone is being serious, I would only exclude those threats that are physically impossible (your Cardassian example). In which case it's possible to end up with 90% of threats received being "credible." Maybe not likely, though? It is Internet trolls we're talking about here, but SWATing is a thing, too.
You can get the whole thing from the semantics of the words "credible" and "non-credible," by checking if it is non-credible. If it has something as mentioned above that makes it "non-credible," then it is not credible.
I'm not finding extracting an objective definition from this circular definition as "clearly" easy as you claim. Saying A = everything !B doesn't work when A and B overlap, because you can argue that B = everything !A and now we have an incompatible center of the Venn diagram which is both A, therefore !B, and B, therefore !A, which was kind of my point (in retrospect
I wasn't actually addressing your original post- merely your "side-stepping" of another poster's.
I wasn't sidestepping anything. If the OP had said "and on blogs" as I already stated I would have said, "Okay, let's take a look at those." They didn't.
As an addendum Ms. Anita's "research" is nothing more than youtube commentary
Well I guess we know why she got a lot of data on people being horrible, then
The link in the summary to her website isn't YouTube. This is somebody I've never even heard of before, and there are no links anywhere in the summary to YouTube. Ergo my first thought is not "the best place to look for information about this person is YouTube," which seems to be what you're criticizing me for. The hell?
A lot of sites these days upload their videos on YouTube and then embed them in their actual sites, which I guess is your logic?
You're right- that is a pretty good metaphor for willful blindness.
If "willingly blinding myself" to YouTube is wrong, I don't want to be right. I don't need to read 13-year-olds endlessly parroting lines from the video, calling each other homos, and getting in pissing matches to enrich my life.
2) GPL allows you to repackage software, but not under the same trademark. You can do whatever with the code, but cannot distribute it as Firefox if it's not coming from Mozilla. E.g. Debian had to rename their Firefox branch as IceWeasel
Technically Mozilla has its own license on Firefox which required that change. The Mozilla Public License is described as "hybrid BSD and GPL."
If the repackaging just involved slapping a skin and a couple extensions onto it but no code modification, I don't see why it would be a problem. Didn't IceWeasel involve recompiling or something?
Don't like Youtube? Plenty of blogs discussing it too.
Well, the parent didn't say that. I'd give blogs a shot; YouTube, not so much. Appealing to YouTube comments for "evidence" of anything other than the general low quality of Internet commentary is a hail Mary.
You quite neatly sidestepped my argument right into the path of an oncoming train.