You seem to have a consequentialist morality. I sympathise with it greatly but find it an incoherent morality due to its double standards and subjectivity.

I guess my greivance is calling something moral that would otherwise not be moral. It seems to dilute the very notion. Call it just or necessary but do not call it moral. Calling it moral leads to all sorts of other "justifications" such as "pre-emptive war" (which I guess this was) and terrorism etc etc. (No I am not calling you a terrorist I am just mentioning how such claims to morality can be contorted to suit ones needs).



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:
>> ^Kofi:

Political Realism demands sufficient national interest to act. That can come about in material gain such as resources and markets or regional political favour. Even the most liberal of governments does not act outside self-interest.
When questioned about the Libyan conflict and why the West was not pursuing other targets of similar standing, such as those in Sudan, Niger and Cote d'Ivoire Obama stated this same principle. The flip side of the coin is that some is better than none.
However, we have all been indoctrinated into thinking that killing to prevent killing is somehow moral. Morality is not about what is just, it is about what is good. If it is not moral to kill someone out of wartime then it is incoherent to say that it becomes moral in wartime. It may be just but it is not moral. One must recognise the difference between good and bad and right and wrong. Conflating good with right and bad with wrong leads to all sorts of problems.
Lastly, these rebels who executed Gaddafi are assumed to be forming a new government. What does it bode for the Libyan people that the new government values vengeance over law and order. Say what you will about Gadaffi, but if this is anything to go by the new government seems to be replicating the same precedent set 42 years ago.


Only if your morality is absolute, inflexible and immune to logic.

My moral compass declares the killing of another human being one of the worst things that can happen. That is DIFFERENT than someone that believes that killing another human being is the worst thing a person can do.

The difference is vitally important. By one compass, which my pacifist forefathers held to, killing one human to stop him from operating a Nazi gas chamber killing thousands every day is morally wrong and much worse than refusing to kill him and letting the people die. By my moral compass, failing to stop that man is by far the worse crime.

This applies directly to the NATO involvement in Libya, as Gaddafi had publicly declared his intention of waging a genocide against the opposition, and cleansing the nation of these cockroaches house by house. More over, Gaddafi had done it before, and was in the very process of seizing the military positioning required to do it. His own deputy minister to the UN stated on the day that NATO decided to participate in the UN mandated mission that Gaddafi was within hours of instituting a slaughter of innocents.

Akshully I think he was complaining about the fact that the cops were "geared out." That is, they looked as though they were preparing for war, or a violent encounter. As Sgt. Thomas explained on the KO clip, they had been in similar situations in Iraq, with people even going so far as throwing stones at them. They never took an aggressive posture towards those people. They never drew weapons. The cops seem to have no sense of restraint, nor ability to recognize the difference between dangerous and non-dangerous situations.

{edit] In fairness to the cops, if that dude was yelling at me like that, I'd view that as a dangerous situation. "Pepper spray this."

>> ^Duckman33:

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
@Duckman33
He was there to make a point and keep the cops in line. He did that.
STFU. please and thank you. ; ]

Um, well he's making a point to the wrong people. Find cops that are beating people and yell at them. Yelling at cops doing nothing proves nothing. I find it hilarious you folks will get all up in arms when cops mistreat folks that are doing nothing, but it's OK to scream and yell at cops doing absolutely nothing. I suppose all NYPD are guilty by association? Double standards much? I don't like the fact that Marines killed innocent people in Iraq. Should I find this guy and start yelling at him and any other Marine I see? LOL
Oh, and science forbid I should want some information on what actually occurred just before this was shot. Much better to assume in ignorance they had just got done beating people.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@Duckman33
He was there to make a point and keep the cops in line. He did that.
STFU. please and thank you. ; ]


Um, well he's making a point to the wrong people. Find cops that are beating people and yell at them. Yelling at cops doing nothing proves nothing. I find it hilarious you folks will get all up in arms when cops mistreat folks that are doing nothing, but it's OK to scream and yell at cops doing absolutely nothing. I suppose all NYPD are guilty by association? Double standards much? I don't like the fact that Marines killed innocent people in Iraq. Should I find this guy and start yelling at him and any other Marine I see? LOL

Oh, and science forbid I should want some information on what actually occurred just before this was shot. Much better to assume in ignorance they had just got done beating people.

I'm not attacking you. It's true that you paid the theater to show your film. It's true that no one came out to see it. It's true that your film is (while not terrible) certainly not a professional grade film. And it's true that it was projected off a laptop. Which one of these facts do you dispute?

I generously offered to score your flick pro bono not because I wanted to get in on the ground floor of the blankfist rocket to super stardom, but rather because you were a friend. There would have been nothing for me to gain by spending dozens of hours working for free on a film that no one would see other than the fun of working with a friend. And, you already had someone else lined up when I made my offer, so no need to lie in order to save face.

You have a real double standard when it comes to 'being a prick'. You dish out a steady stream of insults, abuse and cruelty on a daily basis, but when someone calls you on it or stands up to you, all of a sudden you are this innocent victim. You don't seem capable of understanding when you hurt others, but if there is even a whiff of criticism directed back towards you, you go into a rage.

Essentially all we need is to eliminate the double standard in which short term capital gains are taxed as ordinary income and long term capital gains are taxed at 15% no matter how much you make. Tax it all as ordinary income.

>> ^criticalthud:

@bcglorf
why i'd be happy to. scroll up! and i'll quote:
"Do you want to discuss this like an adult, or just whine incoherently like a spoiled naive child?"
you might find that your ideas and opinions have a better impact when not accompanied by an insult. but hey, that's just me.
and when our government is murdering people, in our name, I tend to have somewhat high standards
...or maybe the word of our government is good enough? a quick glance at history reveals that our government has absolutely no problem saying whatever need to say in order to create a certain perception and keep business dealings draped in the american flag.
But if you haven't noticed, our government is largely run by corporate special interests, and they act according to those interests, not ours.


I class what I said as categorizing your comments and not your person. I believe you finished with "it's what we hung the nazi's for at Nuremberg". I class that incoherent and childish whining.

Meanwhile, immediately after complaining about how insulting my own language is, you state as matter of fact that the government is murdering people...

Sorry, I am responding to comments likening Obama to Hitler, Americans to nazis, and at the same time insisting that innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, beyond a shadow of doubt be the standard applied to self admitted terrorists. You aught not be surprised by the vehemence with I reject this ludicrous and disgusting double standard.

1a. The ravages of globalization are the result of a lack of effective regulation. We can’t regulate the world, but we can end the international trade agreements that pit our labor against 3rd world slaves. We can create public sector jobs to take up the slack for the failings of the market. We can tariff the fuck out of countries (looking at you China) that pollute the environment and lower the value of labor. It’s not a matter of skilled vs. unskilled jobs. Unemployment is hitting the working class and working poor alike. Much of the current disparity is between people with similar levels of education.

1b. Huge double standard here. You recognize private contributions to society as things of value, but you are blind to the benefits the public sector provides you every waking (or sleeping) moment of your life. Whatever satisfaction you provide your consumers pales in comparison to the security, infrastructure, safety standards, constitutional rights, court system, labor protections and other benefits that have allowed you the opportunity to live, work and thrive in this society. You take these things for granted because you’ve never known a life without them. Spoiled libertarian brat (is there any other kind).

2. I believe there is a lot of truth to this.

3. Obviously this is important to you, but I’m not getting the significance of the article you linked to or it’s political or scientific ramifications? Some scientists are skeptical about a controversial hypothesis. Are they holding up the creation of a master race of brilliant chess playing super-Jews? I’ve got enough to read at the moment. Give me the cliff notes version.

I don’t want to live in a society of slaves and masters. I don’t want to live under absolute socialist equality either. A hybrid system that strikes a compromise between the benefits of socialism and capitalism, run with the oversight and transparency of a working democracy would be best.

The market should be free to do it’s thing just so long as it does not become harmful to society (and itself). When the market fails to create jobs, the public sector should step in. When markets pollute or exploit, the public sector should step in. The public sector should also handle services that are too important to gamble away in the private sector like health care, social security and education.

It really comes done to whether or not you believe that humans have a moral obligation to care for one another. I do absolutely. I don’t want to be anyone's slave or master. I don’t want to be a millionaire. I’d just like to live in a country that doesn't punish the meek and powerless for being meek and powerless.

Don't tell blankfist, but you are a much better debater than he. Good chatting with you, Chilaxe.

I agree with you that both parties are spending addicts, but one party certainly seems to burn though the money a heckuva lot faster than the other. Remember also, Republicans don't govern in a vacuum; should they try to cut spending, they are immediately assaulted by the State-run media as "trying to kill children", not to mention the lies about the Right somehow planning to scrap Socialist Security and the Medi-welfare programs EVERY election cycle.

Spending money to make money? Keynesian bullplop. FDR's folly prolonged the Depression until his arse was saved by WW2.

Here's a fresh idea: curtail the federal leviathan from spending money it doesn't have, return more power to the States.





>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^quantumushroom:
Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?

Remember QM, spending addiction knows no party affiliation. so-called conservatives haven't been able to balance the budget for a long time. They cling to the myth even though it hasn't been true for a long time.
Not to mention the lesson that conservatives still haven't learned yet despite history brow-beating them over the head repeatedly: You cant save your way out of a recession. You have to spend money to get money. All your millionaire buddies know this QM, yet they continue to sabotage gov't with their double standard. It's ok for them to spend money...but not anyone else.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Federal government wastes half of every tax dollar.
So what's this magic millionaire money going to do that the spending addicts haven't done already?


Remember QM, spending addiction knows no party affiliation. so-called conservatives haven't been able to balance the budget for a long time. They cling to the myth even though it hasn't been true for a long time.

Not to mention the lesson that conservatives still haven't learned yet despite history brow-beating them over the head repeatedly: You *cant* save your way out of a recession. You *have* to spend money to get money. All your millionaire buddies know this QM, yet they continue to sabotage gov't with their double standard. It's ok for them to spend money...but not anyone else.

@heropsycho

1. My original point was more aimed at questioning whether teaching is so exceptional. It is certainly harder than many other jobs, but does it deserve exclusive status with it's restrictive labour laws? If so, do you believe jobs equal to or more stressful than teaching should receive the same benefits? More specifically, if we knew that greater job security in stressful jobs created better outcomes (ie, in teaching the students are better taught), then why is it that the private sector has not willingly adopted this? What I'm saying is, there's double standards at play.

2. This is getting off topic, but I don't think anything is innate. We may have a predisposition to better at certain things but anything that we wish to excel at will ultimately require countless hours of practice. Again, I think you're being selective in exemplifying only a very good teacher which directly engages with everyone in the class. Most of what I recall (from 4 schools) involved teachers teaching in their own style 'at' a class, not directly to individuals.

3. My point would be that merit pay would raise the wages of 'good' teachers and thereby attract more teachers into the workplace. It won't ever be perfect as a system, enterprise bargaining in the private sector is subject to the whims of cronyism/favoritism of your superiors and isn't a perfect reflection of performance, but as a system it functions. By the way, I'm not in any way implying multiple choice tests are sufficient, open ended questions can be standardized just fine.

5. I would put down the opposition of unions to merit pay to several reasons:

a) Unwillingness to change - this reflects all changes not just merit pay. There are potential ups and downs but there is no incentive for them to take a risk. You would think flagging students scores relative to other countries (particularly Scandinavian and rich SE Asian countries) would be an incentive, but ultimately they are delinked from these outcomes.

b) Potential fall in membership - A move to individual wage setting over a seniority based wage (at least that is what it's here in OZ) would diminish their power and their members base. Standardized wages are generally seen in low skilled jobs where there is high turnover, a large supply of willing workers to replace them and therefore constant pressure to push down wages - a place where unions have great value in preventing this from happening. We both agree teaching requires considerable expertise. Were the labor system to move to individual wage setting on performance their role would diminish and their members base would dwindle.

As far as I'm concerned merit pay is but a scapegoat to justify their opposition from a more selfish point of view.

Last point - As I made sure to mention, I'm not opposed to the arts. What I'm appalled by is teacher's union activists talking about the benefits of these ultimately extracurricular areas when there are countless schools in impoverished regions unable to imbue many of their students with the ability to hold down an rudimentary job. Talking about these luxury activities and painting a rosy picture detached from reality, while glossing over the overt failings of basis education in derelict communities is disgusting to me frankly.

"You've got to be kidding to me. How low-human-potential do you have to be to find STUDENTS, hapless school administrators, and idiot parents with a fraction of your intelligence intimidating?"

That's what he said. You don't think he was saying the job is easy?! So what did he mean by "low-human-potential"?! On what planet is that not an outright insult?! Ask any teacher if dealing with difficult students and idiot parents is difficult. If they say it is, saying that about those teachers is okay?! So I'm "low-human-potential" then?!

He doesn't have a point. He's being ignorant and idiotic, and there is no justification possible for that kind of crap.

No, I don't teach, as I mentioned above, I went into IT because of abysmal pay, but I did eventually realize I hated the job anyway because I wasn't actually teaching anymore.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
Apparently you can't read particularly well.
The original comment I was responding to said basically it can't be that difficult dealing with students, administrators, and idiotic parents.
I said until he actually has to do it, he has no idea wtf he's talking about.
There's no double standard, here. I have no problems with people being critical of the education system. But idiotic comments describing a teacher's job as easy when they have no personal experience whatsoever is out of line. Do the job before you talk as if it's an easy job. Anyone can sit on their butts and say someone else's job is easy without any factual basis.
I'm guessing it must have been difficult for your reading teachers when you went to school...

I don't think he wrote that the job was easy. I'm pretty sure he questioned what kind of person you'd have to be to be easily intimidated by students, administrators or parents. He has a point.
Question. Do you still teach? If not why'd you leave? Or were you let go? Cheers.

>> ^heropsycho:

Apparently you can't read particularly well.
The original comment I was responding to said basically it can't be that difficult dealing with students, administrators, and idiotic parents.
I said until he actually has to do it, he has no idea wtf he's talking about.
There's no double standard, here. I have no problems with people being critical of the education system. But idiotic comments describing a teacher's job as easy when they have no personal experience whatsoever is out of line. Do the job before you talk as if it's an easy job. Anyone can sit on their butts and say someone else's job is easy without any factual basis.
I'm guessing it must have been difficult for your reading teachers when you went to school...


I don't think he wrote that the job was easy. I'm pretty sure he questioned what kind of person you'd have to be to be easily intimidated by students, administrators or parents. He has a point.

Question. Do you still teach? If not why'd you leave? Or were you let go? Cheers.

Apparently you can't read particularly well.

The original comment I was responding to said basically it can't be that difficult dealing with students, administrators, and idiotic parents.

I said until he actually has to do it, he has no idea wtf he's talking about.

There's no double standard, here. I have no problems with people being critical of the education system. But idiotic comments describing a teacher's job as easy when they have no personal experience whatsoever is out of line. Do the job before you talk as if it's an easy job. Anyone can sit on their butts and say someone else's job is easy without any factual basis.

I'm guessing it must have been difficult for your reading teachers when you went to school...

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^heropsycho:
Excuse me, I never said people can't be critical of the system. I said that someone who sits there and judges how difficult it is to be a teacher without actually teaching is a completely unqualified judge on the matter.
That's the rules - you don't talk out of your butt about things you have no idea about if you actually are looking for truth instead of what you want to be true.

Mmmm, I feel like you're changing your meaning. And maybe contradicting yourself? So you're saying we can be critical but we're not qualified to be critical? What does that mean exactly?
The truth is if you pay for a service you maintain the right to scrutinize that service. Let me give you an example. You got to a restaurant for dinner, but your waiter gives you bad service (doesn't take your order for half an hour, doesn't refill your drinks, brings food out late and cold, etc.).
When you complain he asks if you've ever waited tables. Let's assume you haven't. Does that negate your right to evaluate the waiter's performance? Should you instead just hand over your money graciously and leave because you're unqualified to judge him?

>> ^SDGundamX:

He wasn't arrested for animal abuse, he was arrested for "willfully teasing a police K-9" which is an misdemeanor offense in Mason County (see this WSJ law blog). The reason for the law should be obvious--unlike your normal house pet, these dogs are actually trained to bite people and if you get them agitated enough they may attack without command and not respond to an officer's orders to stop biting.
From this web site on the behavioral nature of police dogs:
No matter how well-trained in suspect apprehension a police dog might be, all police dogs can easily make behavioral mistakes, such as attacking at the wrong time, attacking out of context, attacking a suspect when not commanded to do so, and failing to stop an attack after being commanded to do so by the handler. Because of the behavioral nature of aggressive responding in dogs, and despite the extensive training most police service dogs have been subjected to prior to being deployed in the field, they will make behavioral mistakes, thereby causing injury to a victim that was uncalled for or far beyond what was probably needed.
Teasing the dog increases the likelihood of that happening. The drunken dumbass who was barking at the dog was putting people at risk and got arrested for it. I love the 1st amendment but I have absolutely no problem with these charges sticking. First amendment rights don't mean you can say whatever you want to say whenever you want to say it. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater just for lulz and you can't intentionally agitate police dogs into a frothing rage.
I love how Judge Napolitano apparently made a snap judgment himself about the situation without bothering to look at the facts of the case (as reported in the WSJ link above). Upvoted to promote yet more awareness of the stupidity that airs on Fox News.


I agree with everything you said, except the part where you said stuff about the law. While there could be a case for civilly responsible for acts of speech (suing), the constitution on clear on criminal charges. I have been in a movie theater when a false alarm of the real system went off, we didn't send the alarm maker to jail...double standard. Two people were injured in that false alarm of the alarm system. It is pretty dubious to just start arbitrarily dissecting speech, even more so when no one was ACTUALLY harmed. We have enough problems and we take time to legislate theoretical ones, great. That is the only reason drugs are still illegal, because of all the theoretical stuff that could happen. Let real crime be punished, and let fake crime fall away as dodging a bullet.

</lunch rant>

equality, but not real equality...


though this falls into the same moronic nature of the whole some people can say the N word, some can't... real equality means no double standard, no special exceptions, etc...

entitlement from one extreme to the other is still inequality...

that being said, its a show with big mouthed women, blabbing about stuff no one but other big mouthed women care about... it's comedy, not my brand, but its comedy...

where the perfect meeting point lays is a little beyond the ability of anonymous-internet trolls to determine tbqh...

comedy and rational though suffer because of the above