In one breath you chide anyone for daring to hint at even a *smidgen* of wrongdoing,
That is a big leap you just made there, which leads only to you falling on your face. What I have called you out on is not at the suggestion that perhaps something wrong was done, but rather on how certain you are that something was intentionally done wrong in the exact way that you believe it to have been done. You have absolutely no evidence yet to support your allegations. Is it possible that your conspiracy could be supported by facts at some point in the future? Yes, it is possible. However at this point your conspiracy is based on nothing other than your undying hatred of her last name and party affiliation.
and just as quickly assert that all information has been fully divulged.
Being as you haven't evaluated the information on the server, and the analysis - which is presumably being done by people better qualified to analyze it than you - is not complete either, how can you be sure that there is more information than what has been turned over? As usual you have no shortage of conspiracies...
You must have confused me with a wretched loser like Michael Moore.
I don't recall him being a part of this discussion. Your kindness in your description of him is noted.
I still believe the ideals inherent in our founding documents are worth preserving
That is a strange misstatement, there. You mean the ideals that you place in the founding documents. There is a large chasm between those two statements. I could also point out that the founding documents - if you go back to the original signed issues - does not allow women, people of color, or people who do not own land, to vote. Do you really want to support those ideals?
system of government worth restoring from the godless Commie sodomite infestation.
You forgot Illuminati Atheist Islamist Martian Reptoids from Io. Come on, you wouldn't want to indicate we are being invaded by just garden-variety Commies, after all.
If she publicly admitted to having classified information go through her private email server
I'm sorry; we're talking about a lawyer.
Who hasn't been licensed to practice law in how long? Sure, she practiced law after finishing law school, but that was some time ago. You can label her as a lawyer but that is not the most meaningful label here. We don't label George HW Bush as a CIA director when discussing him...
Please explain why you think she would admit to, well, anything.
The server logs and server contents have been released for analysis. You don't need her to admit to anything, the information will show if it handled classified information or not. You insist that it had, even though you have not a single shred of evidence to support that notion.
Nor do I think anything resembling "justice" will ever be applied to her case.
Then why do you keep expending so much energy into this conspiracy if you are so certain that nothing will come of it? You either don't believe that statement yourself or you really badly need a new hobby.
Whether the past eight years are enough of a cautionary tale to drive the electorate to resist Her Majesty.
What happened in the last years of the Bush Administration that should cause people to subscribe to your belief of Clinton being the Antichrist? I know you are fond of attributing every bad conceivable thing to Obama and/or Clinton, but you could at least follow a semi-logical timeline.
How much difference resistance will make in an era where one is inclined to wonder to what degree elections are just a joke anyway.
I believe you had a phrase that you were fond of when you were on the losing side of a presidential election that you told those of other beliefs... "don't let the door hit you on the way out". Feel free to go find democracies (or non-democracies) in other lands that better fit your belief structure, nobody is stopping you, right? I hear Somalia is exciting this time of year.
It is less than racism and oppression of the working class are fundamental tenets to the conservative movements.
However your belief that it is automatically makes your "fallacy" exclusive to those of particular political persuasions. Hence even if it were a valid "fallacy" - and it very much is not - it would not belong with the others as none of the others are exclusive to any particular group of people.
No. That is not how psychology works.
Certainly not. Since psychology doesn't work. Period.
It is a safe bet that if you are willing to make such a sweeping and silly generalization that you haven't studied psychology yourself much - if at all. You encounter successful applications of psychology in your daily life regularly without realizing it, and the influence of psychology on other sciences is also significant.
You are trying to establish a "fallacy" that can never apply to you, in spite of the fact that no fallacy on the site currently exists in such a narrow focus.
I am? Help me understand in what way you think that this is actually occurring.
It is in the very quote you used in your JE. You said yourself that it is all about redistribution, which you claim to be a central tenet of "leftism".
You don't need to refer to facts to which she has publicly admitted
If she publicly admitted to having classified information go through her private email server, then it should be very easy for you to cite a reference where she said that. This is what I have been asking you repeatedly to do; the fact that you keep avoiding the question supports the notion that you know she has never said it happened.
It is shameful that you were modded up for that comment, it shows how little people on slashdot understand about psychology.
The more they understand about it, the worse it looks.
Quite the opposite most of the time. A big problem here is that a lot of people (particularly people on slashdot, though this happens in many other circles as well) think they know a lot about psychology because they have read a lot of angry rants against it, even though they have never had formal exposure to the fundamentals or history of psychology.
If you have some interest in the outcome, for example if you yourself are a psychologist, it would be considered a minimal level of integrity to disclose that
I am not a psychologist. I have friends and colleagues who are, and I took psychology as an undergrad. My work is in a more contemporary hard science.
It is noteworthy that you call up ethics here, when earlier in the same comment you said
That ethical concerns are part of the cause is irrelevant.
Nice of you to so consistently show concern for ethics.
Oh further along those lines, I wonder just how much the field is influenced by the incredible profitability of prescription drugs?
Last time I checked, few states allow psychologists to write drug prescriptions, that job is usually left to (medical school trained) psychiatrists (wikipedia shows only three states grant that ability to psychologists in the US). Psychologists have little to gain financially by encouraging pharmacological treatments for their patients.
I bet that would be a fascinating research topic.
The most commonly prescribed (in terms of patients who have had it prescribed to them) drug for mental health use is Prozac, which has been available generic for some time. Once a drug has become available generic, the profit is nearly gone. If you want to look in to the prescribing rates of new drugs for mental health versus other health conditions, and compare which are prescribed more quickly, that may indeed be an interesting topic. Your bias is so evident here though that I would be shocked if you were to ever attempt to undertake such a study.
I'm not so sure that nobody was doing any investigating or prosecution. Just because there wasn't front-page news about such an action doesn't mean it wasn't being done. The wheels of justice don't always turn quickly, and fraud investigations in particular are seldom quick.
First, you would need to prove this.
It is generally (at the very least) very difficult to prove a negative. There are a lot of variables at play as well; if the Canadian Mounties prosecute AM would the FBI go for it as well on behalf of American victims? If the company goes bankrupt entirely (I haven't seen any suggestion yet that this would happen, but just to consider another possible situation) would anyone bother to prosecute afterwards? What they did was criminal but not murder. If we think of other cases of fraud - Goldman Sachs and Enron come to mind - the prosecution does sometimes fold completely when the company goes broke, regardless of the fate of the people from that company who held the power to make fraudulent decisions.
Intentionally dragging feet leads to vigilantism for the same exact reason a lack of action does.
That is a rather high accusation, there. When did someone first bring accusations about the fraudulent activity of the site to the attention of authorities? Wikipedia tells us the site launched in 2001, with a lawsuit against them that went through in 2012. We don't know if anyone up to that point ever brought this site to the attention of law enforcement with allegations of fraud.
You are entitled to your opinion but the fact of the matter is that Schwartz in particular was an idiot who broke the law and deserved to be punished. He did not deserve to die but he made that choice himself. These hackers are comparable to him, but neither are comparable to Snowden or Manning.
Thanks for letting me know what my opinion was instead of asking. I didn't give an opinion positive or negative, I simply stated that these hackers are not very different from those people.
Reread what I wrote before criticizing me for writing it. I added emphasis to a part of what you quoted to direct your attention.
"Leftists in general" is not the same as any one party you can name.
It doesn't matter if it is one party, 12 parties, or an infinite number of parties. The statement "leftists" automatically includes some people and excludes some other people. You are trying to establish a "fallacy" that can never apply to you, in spite of the fact that no fallacy on the site currently exists in such a narrow focus. You are asking a site that has tried hard to be non-partisan to take in your strictly partisan new "fallacy".
If you want to celebrate it on your own blog, go ahead. I highly doubt they would be foolish enough to adopt it on theirs.
Can we have an adult conversation?
I'd love to. Care to join me?
your shrill, prissy cries for "fair trials"
Apparently, you don't.
as though she isn't going to be pardoned
If you believe she's going to be pardoned, then why do you get yourself so worked up in this conspiracy? Why even bother going forward if you are so certain of the outcome?
Or is that your justification for your armchair prosecution based on nothing but your feelings - you have convinced yourself that your hand can only lose, so you might as well play it out as loudly as you possibly can without regard for facts?
God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein