Studies Reveal Why People Get Beaten and Mugged The factors involve a persons inability to pick up on and respond to nonverbal cues from muggers.

A better analogy would be, "Studies Reveal Why People Get Beaten and Mugged: The factors involve walking alone through dark alleys in crime-ridden neighborhoods." Identifying and addressing factors that increase risk of being mugged doesn't exonerate the mugger, it just makes you less likely to get mugged. That's all this is. It isn't "blaming the victim" like so many people are shouting. It's simply a matter of identifying factors that increase the risk of becoming a victim and addressing those factors in order to reduce such risks. I only wish this study had been done 40 years ago. I have Asperger's Syndrome (only recently diagnosed) and was bullied a lot as a kid. If my parents had been armed with the information in this study, maybe I would have been bullied less.

Or FOX News? I see NBC/MSNBC listed.

No, you do not see MSNBC listed, unless you have a very vivid imagination. MSNBC's parent NBC Universal is a hardass about SNL footage (except for Andy Samberg's digital shorts, which they don't own) showing up on YouTube and consistently issues takedowns over such clips. This has nothing to do with MSNBC or your personal political differences with that channel.

Hmmm; guess the anti-fox bias has no basis.

Let me see if I'm following your "logic" correctly.

This EFF web page, which lists a small number (13) of examples of censorship by copyright assertion, includes a single example from NBC (not MSNBC) and no example from Fox News. From that it follows that Fox News does not engage in these tactics, and thence that their reporting is honest, ethical, and responsible.

That kind of argument is worthy of Fox News itself. Keep it up and you might get a job there.

Yes, but not flashing the light near food seems like a simple matter of discretion, not deception.

I'm not constantly broadcasting my location on Twitter like some people do. Am I being deceptive?

But when is the last time the UN did a thing for the US?

Well, they did try to warn the American public that George W. Bush and Colin Powell were full of crap about those supposed Iraqi WMDs. It's not their fault nobody listened.

A common view is that moral consideration is only warranted for moral agents that are capable of engaging in moral reasoning, and thus capable of reciprocating moral consideration.

Is that really a common view?

Dogs, though intelligent and social, do not have any concept of "morality." However, few people maintain that torturing dogs is acceptable behavior.

The intelligence, sociability, and complexity of the behavior of dogs tells us, intuitively, that there is a conscious mind operating in that creature. Unfortunately, the concept of consciousness is so elusive that we cannot even well pose the question "Is X conscious?" let alone have anything approaching a rigorous method for answering it, so we pretty much have to rely on intuition. My intuition tells me that there is a conscious mind operating inside a dog but not inside a lobster. But that's just me.

Well semantically, the difference between "Experiencing pain" and "Displaying pain behaviours" is so thin as to be non-existent. Might as well assume they're the same thing.

Oh, come on. There are robotic systems that can display pain behaviors. Doesn't mean they're actually sentient.

Can I create a bittorrent client with an EULA that allows me to put torrents on your system, hide them from the UI for a certain period of time, and forbid you from looking under the hood to see what's there?

Then if a copyright holder comes after you for sharing their stuff, you can claim that I put it there (they'll have no way of proving whether I did or you did), and there was nothing you could legally do to detect or prevent it. You have now attained carrier status and thus shielded yourself from lawsuits.

As for me, I'll live in Sweden, just in case.