Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×

Comment: Re:Correlation is not Causation (Score 2) 304

by aardvarkjoe (#49377389) Attached to: Poverty May Affect the Growth of Children's Brains

Frankly, their rationale sucks.

In particular, their points:

"No clear standards exist for defining foods as good or bad, or healthy or not healthy." -- true that it's hard to categorize everything as "good" or "bad", but that doesn't mean that it's hard to categorize some foods as bad. To use the OP's example, Froot Loops have zero value in a healthy diet.

"No evidence exists that food stamp participation contributes to poor diet quality or obesity." -- this one is a strawman; I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim that being on food stamps causes obesity. This is missing the point.

"Restrictions may be ineffective in changing the purchases of food stamp participants" -- another strawman; this one argues that food stamp rules should not change because people can spend their non-food-stamp money on something else. Who cares? I don't mind them spending their own money on whatever they want; it's just when they're taking money from my pocket that I should get some input.

Of course the USDA doesn't want any restrictions on food stamp benefits. Like every government organization, they have to justify their existence, and the more money that you can pump into their budget, the better.

Comment: Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... (Score 1) 301

by aardvarkjoe (#49374837) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

Police shootings should be reserved for life and death EMERGENCIES - I have seen no proof this was one.

Yet you think that the law enforcement officers should be willing to risk their own lives to stop them, which unless you place a very low value on their lives, tells me that you think it is an emergency after all.

While there is of necessity some risk to their safety in the course of their job, that doesn't mean that they signed up to give up their lives needlessly just to satisfy some jackasses who don't know the difference between fantasy and reality.

Comment: Re:Ballsy, but stupid ... (Score 4, Insightful) 301

by aardvarkjoe (#49373517) Attached to: Attempted Breach of NSA HQ Checkpoint; One Shot Dead

The car could have been easily stopped by ramming it off the road, and people tackled and arrested.

This isn't Hollywood. That's a course of action that has pretty good odds of resulting in the people attempting to do the arrest injured or killed.

You'll rue to day in America when you allow any idiot with a badge shoot anyone for any reason

This isn't "any reason." This is attempting to ram the gate at a secure checkpoint, where the use of deadly force is expected.

I'm not willing to risk the lives of law enforcement or soldiers in order to try to spare people who are apparently too stupid to live.

Comment: Re: Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1) 880

by aardvarkjoe (#49346563) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

Your argument doesn't make any sense. A corporation is an abstract entity that is made up of people. It doesn't exist in any independent sense. If you force a corporation to do something, you are forcing the people employed by that corporation to do it.

You don't get to put down your corporate shield whenever that suits you, yet hide behind it the rest of the time.

When have I claimed that an employee gets to hide behind this "corporate shield" whenever they like? A person, whether they are an employee (or owner) of a corporation, are still legally and morally responsible for their own actions. You can certainly be prosecuted for a crime committed while working for a corporation.

You are perhaps making the mistake of thinking that the concept of "limited liability" is more all-encompassing than it really is. That applies to the financial liability of shareholders, not to the actions of the corporation's employees.

Comment: Re: Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 3, Insightful) 880

by aardvarkjoe (#49340573) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

Society has a very clear interest in preventing you from running someone over in your car, which trumps your claim of religious freedom.

It's much more debatable whether society has, for example, such an interest in forcing you to participate in a gay wedding.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 2) 880

by aardvarkjoe (#49340065) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

What is this nonsense? They aren't trying to "curtail the freedom" of anyone.

Sure they are. They (and you) want to take away people's freedom to avoid actions that conflict with their religious beliefs.

Maybe you have a good reason for doing so, but don't pretend that there is no restriction of freedom here. There is.

Comment: Re:Do It, it worked in AZ (Score 1, Flamebait) 880

by aardvarkjoe (#49339217) Attached to: Gen Con Threatens To Leave Indianapolis Over Religious Freedom Bill

No.

Gen Con should be (and are) permitted to take their business elsewhere, for whatever the hell reason they want.

But the narrative that is being pushed that they are standing up to racists or homophobes by taking this action is inaccurate. They're primarily trying to make life painful for people that largely agree with them in order to get them to curtail the freedom of people that don't agree with them.

Committees have become so important nowadays that subcommittees have to be appointed to do the work.

Working...