Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:Death Knell for Britain Clear (Score 1) 592

one possible solution that isn't being talked about is devo-max for England.

How would this help at all? The reason Scottish independence was rejected the first time around was because of the huge economic uncertainty it would cause plus being booted out the the EU and then being forced to rejoin. Well guess what that has now happened against their will and there already is a huge economic uncertainty. Giving England regional powers will do nothing for Scotland and there is already a huge politcal gulf between north and south in England alone.

Comment Re:Death Knell for Britain Clear (Score 1) 592

If Scotland does decide to commit suicide, the UK would continue and benefit from its freedoms while Scotland would be alone...

If that were true I would agree but the case for Scottish independence only makes sense if the plan is to rejoin the EU. In this case Scotland would not be alone but part of the EU instead of the UK.

Comment Re:What precentage caused by man? (Score 1) 358

Let's talk about the current paper: what do you think of the way Mann calculated error bars and uncertainty?

LOL, you mean you are not going to let me get away with being "sceptical of any only recently published paper" while the actual experts in the field boot it around for a year or so; you want me to read beyond the abstract?! I really ought not allow you to draw me here ...

To be frank I lack the expertise to form any reasonable opinion (which is why I defer to the orthodox position). My own science degree (and it was a mere BSc) was in Pharmacology & Psych, where papers were altogether an easier beast methodologically to pull apart. Moreover, there's a lot of water under the bridge and my NY resolution finally to learn 'R' and revivify my stats is yet to come to fruition ...

Sooooo you'll forgive me if I'm very slow on the uptake here ... but unless you are pointing to the fact that there are no error bars on the graphs per se, the uncertainly expressed (in Table 1) is +/- 1 SD. That would be a fairly common measure of uncertainty. You find that inadequate to the task?

Comment Re:[cough]poor education on display[cough] (Score 3, Informative) 276

When did regulate ever mean "to make regular". The word "regulate" comes from the Latin "regula" which means "to rule", and even as early as Middle English, meant "to direct, to make rules". You're just inventing a fake etymology to further a false argument about what the framers of the Constitution intended.

"Regulate" meant the same in 18th century English as it does today.

"regulate (v.) Look up regulate at Dictionary.com
early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule" (see regular). Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating."
http://www.etymonline.com/inde...

Comment Re:Goodbye Karma (Score 4, Insightful) 345

How about you let your personal morals dictate your decisions, admit that in a large society you're going to have to accept that you're side doesn't automatically win and further accept that conflicts of liberty are inevitable and complex.

Where did I say that my side automatically wins? I went to great lengths to indicate that the situation is more nuanced than "a unified group of people who believe that abortion recipients deserve the death penalty".

As to martyrdom, spare me. They doctored their recordings. That isn't just breaking what they may feel is an unjust law, that's a violation of one of the Ten Commandments; thought shalt not bear false witness.

If the recordings were doctored in a way that is misleading, then by all means, I concur with you. However, I submit that it's not false witness if the editing was not manipulative or intended to be misleading, and that the illegality of the recordings is a result of the two-party consent requirement. Moreover, if they were manipulatively edited, then by all means, slander charge, maximum sentence. The Pro-Life movement does not need that sort of behavior for the very reasons you've specified.

At any rate, you seem keen to hand wave away bastards who insist impregnated victims of incest and rape are examples of God's mysterious ways, meanwhile basically asserting anyone who is pro choice is an uninformed ignoramus.

How about this. You don't tell me what my personal medical choices will be, and I will keep my nose out of yours.

I have done neither. I have admitted that there are those who are extremists, but focusing on extremists is a guaranteed way to avoid the possibility of productive discussion as we find common ground on the unacceptability of the extremism while neglecting to address the more rational points of the discord. I did not use an ad hominem attack of any kind on anyone who is Pro-Choice, I did not tell anyone what their medical choices would be, and I did not advocate for any method, legislative or otherwise, which would give me such a 'right'.

Comment Re:Goodbye Karma (Score 2) 345

Here's a way you can do it: Disavow some of your crazies, there are more than a few of them around, including the submitter. Instead of ignoring, confront them and dissuade them from their madness. They're not hard to find, here in this thread, and you can make a good start by standing against them.

That's a suggestion for you. Even these "activists" would be a good target. Denounce them. Condemn them as enemies to your movement. Because they are, same as Trump lying about abortions in the debate, or Fiorina making up a story about seeing an abortion video, or Eric Harris committing an act of terrorism.

You lose the moral high ground with every lie, every deceit, and every act of violence.

And do look at the abuses at Crisis Pregnancy Centers. They're as bad as the Catholic ones in Ireland.

No problem. I disavow those who who cause harm to others, direct or indirect, specifically in the context of the movement which wishes to defend the lives of those who are not yet born They are enemies to the movement.

I have never lied about anything regarding those in Planned Parenthood or the nature of abortions, I have never harmed anyone with whom I have disagreed on the topic, and I have never knowingly supported, directly or indirectly, any group, organization, or facility which has done so, and have researched the groups and facilities I have supported to ensure that, to the best of my knowledge, they are providing assistance and services with dignity and respect to their recipients.

If that counts, you have what you want. If it does not count because I have not single-handedly silenced every individual who has caused harm, then the suggestion requires clarification.

Comment Re:Goodbye Karma (Score 1, Troll) 345

How about you let your personal morals dictate your decisions, admit that in a large society you're going to have to accept that you're side doesn't automatically win and further accept that conflicts of liberty are inevitable and complex.

As to martyrdom, spare me. They doctored their recordings. That isn't just breaking what they may feel is an unjust law, that's a violation of one of the Ten Commandments; thought shalt not bear false witness.

At any rate, you seem keen to hand wave away bastards who insist impregnated victims of incest and rape are examples of God's mysterious ways, meanwhile basically asserting anyone who is pro choice is an uninformed ignoramus.

How about this. You don't tell me what my personal medical choices will be, and I will keep my nose out of yours.

Comment Goodbye Karma (Score 5, Insightful) 345

As one of the handful of Christians on Slashdot, hopefully I can provide a reasonable, rational counterargument to the string of assumptions about "Pro-Lifers"...

1. Yes, there are crazies. We have them. The left has their SJWs, and the right has the weekly Pro-Life protesters whose concern ends on delivery day. Yes, I know. Extremism on *any* cause is invariably going to make a mess of the initial concern. Moreover, it's not helpful that the extremists tend to make the headlines, while the majority of people who adhere to a cause tend to be willing to avoid making waves despite agreement with the core principle. If, for the sake of argument, we could ignore the third standard deviation for a few minutes, I'd appreciate it.

2. As has been discussed elsewhere in the thread, the core question involved here is this: "At what point is it 'human'?". Is it at birth, and not a minute before? Is it 'human' the day before? Is it third trimester (i.e. where the fetus can generally survive outside the womb)? Is it when it can feel pain, when there's a heartbeat, detectable brainwave patterns, when RNA recombinates, when the zygote attaches to the uteran wall, or when the egg is fertilized? Right now, the legal limit is 'birth', but I submit that there's at least some validity to the notion that a child should be legally protected as much on the day before its birth as the day after. Disregarding the rhetoric and talking points, the core question at hand is where the line should be drawn.

3. Many Christians *do* provide help and care to mothers amidst crisis pregnancies. CareNet is a network of crisis pregnancy centers that are completely donor supported and provide assistance for women amidst crisis pregnancies both before and after their birth. Diapers and formula are freely given to those who need it. Most have a skeleton crew of paid staff with the majority being volunteers, all of whom go through formal training, medical services are being provided by licensed medical doctors, and they're hella quick to dismiss anyone who treats those who come for care with anything but dignity and respect. There are lots of Christians who are looking to solve the problem, rather than legislate it into a criminal act.

4. Yes, chauvinists are still a thing. However, pursuant to point #2, there's some middle ground between "it's not worth protecting until after birth" and "women belong barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen".

Yes, we can do better, and I (and many like me) am working on it. However, I have a completely sincere question: The elected officials who say dumb things and the protesters who clearly haven't done a lick of critical thinking get a whole lot of airtime, for free, and it echoes far and long. What should those who are trying to address the matter in the right way supposed to do? Put a camera in the face of every woman who walks in? Facebook Live every time a pro-life individual calls out a wreckless protester? Burn people at the stake if they say mean things to someone amidst a crisis pregnancy? Or, on the other hand, not act in accordance to a held set of beliefs, even if it's in a way that does not impose upon others? If doing the wrong thing gets publicity and doing the right thing doesn't, the narrative is going to be swayed as a result. I'm perfectly content helping out in the shadows and not claiming any sort of credit for it (happy to give any credit to God to whom it's due), but I honestly wish it were possible to realistically counterbalance the "Pro-Lifers are hypocritical jerks" narrative without publicity whoring and am completely open to suggestions in that respect.

On the topic at hand, if they took the videos in a state which requires both parties consent to recordings, then yes, they should have acted in accordance with the law. The situation they're in now is what it means to be a martyr, and if they did what they did because they believed in it enough to break the law, then this is the consequence and I while I wish them the best in court (due process is everyone's right), if the court does not rule in their favor, then that is the nature of martyrdom.

Thanks for reading.

Slashdot Top Deals

The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social sciences' is: some do, some don't. -- Ernest Rutherford

Working...