Furthermore, the contents of my reply couldn't possibly be a response to their message, since there's no way to know what the message contains when I craft my response?
This is a stupid idea.
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).
In a major blow to the Washington Redskins, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday canceled six federal trademarks of the “Washington Redskins” team name because it was found to be “disparaging” to Native Americans.
“We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,” the PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board wrote. The panel voted 2-1 in favor of the decision.
Perhaps this move will speed up the inevitable name change which was expected within the next few years."
You did claim consensus should negate her opinion because the way that whole last paragraph reads, it's implied.
Perhaps that was poor wording on my part. All I was trying to state was that if we were to believe girlintraining any more than we are to believe wikipedia, I simply wanted her to back up her claims that Whitman was "normal". Now that she has provided citations from medical experts to make her case, I applaud her efforts. But people are entitled to their own opinion, and she failed to sway mine. Speaking of that,...
You do claim violence *likely* contributed. This I completely disagree with.
I think it is fair at this point that we agree to disagree. Nature vs. Nurture may not be settled scientifically, but since I am entitled to my opinion, I'm going to keep believing that nurture has a profound impact on human beings. To me, the Whitman story reinforces that point. If you wish to believe I am wrong, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, too.
Why did I think you were offended/incensed/defensive? [...] People who scream are often offended.
Again, poor choice of words on my part, and for that I apologize. My intention was to post a somewhat neutral position, but my last sentence certainly didn't help that cause.
And finally it was because you played the Godwin card. That's what even caught my attention in the first place. Had you not said it, I probably wouldn't have even responded.
It's funny, this is what prompted me to reply to you this time, too. People need to stop putting so much emphasis on the "Godwin card". Why is it that people's brains just shut down the minute Hitler or Nazi's come into an argument? I will concede that it is abused, but that doesn't mean any argument should be dismissed the moment it makes an appearance. People can carefully play that card without unraveling their own argument, and it seems to be your belief that this isn't the case is what makes these arguments break down. I was only trying to say that a person's life, or karma, if you will, can't be boiled down to a couple of sentences about their life. In this case I think I did play it carefully. Would my point really be any different if I had picked another example? And if I had chosen one much less well known, my point wouldn't have gotten across with anyone who had never heard of them and had to run off to Wikipedia to find out what I was talking about. (which incidentally is what led both of us to find out just who the hell this Whitman guy was in the first place...)
I can tell why you seem so incensed and defensive in your response
That's odd; I don't think I conveyed either of those things. I have no idea where you got that impression.
His father said of him: "Charlie could plug (shoot) the eye out of a squirrel by the time he was sixteen."
In my region, this would be considered an early exposure to violence. I believe that if you're taught to use a gun at a young age, you shouldn't be taking the lives of innocent animals unless you intend to eat them for survival. Call me a peace lovin' hippie if you will, but this act demonstrates a lack of empathy for other living beings, and that, I would classify as not "normal".
But again, I must stress that this could be considered normal to someone living in another region, who perhaps grew up in America, in the "gun culture". The definition for a "normal" person is subjective.
On a side note, I have seen many of your posts on
... with the GP. He feels threatened by the idea that this sort of thing could happen to anyone and by anyone, I mean him.
I certainly do not feel threatened, and nowhere in my previous post did I even allude to that. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Further to that point, I certainly do believe it is entirely possible that a brain condition could strike anyone at any time and cause them to do very irrational things, like Whitman here. I just think your Whitman example is of someone who was predisposed to violence, and his predisposal to violence *may* have played a role in his actions, too.
I'm right, you're wrong.
That's great. You found one medical expert who agrees with you. Bravo, good for you. But to make a statement like this just shows a childish approach to the argument and paints it as black-and-white. Surely you can see that there are shades of grey to this argument...?
In actuality, this was a perfectly normal man who...
It is very difficult for you to make a statement like this with your proof being a few sentences about a person's life. For instance, I could say that Hitler was an artist, who had an accomplished military career, as well as a career in politics (which must mean he was popular, right?)
Now I really hate to go Godwin so quickly on this, but looking through that Wikipedia article makes it fairly clear that his father was abusive, and he joined the military to get away from him. These two facts scream "predisposition to violence" to me, and I think most other rational thinking people.
And before you try to tell me that the Wikipedia article "undoubtedly is sensationalist garbage", I'm afraid I have to point out that the burden of proof lies with you. Wikipedia is crowdsourced, so many people had to agree what they could post about this guy as fact, and disputed facts are typically mentioned in the "talk" section of the page, which makes no mention of any doubt surrounding the basic facts about his father. Your comment, on the other hand, is your own statement of belief. Why should I believe that your side of the story carries more weight than what many knowledgeable people have to say on the matter?
... though his invention worked superbly -- his theory was a crock of sewage from beginning to end. -- Vernor Vinge, "The Peace War"