Soapbox posts that seem less than useful - or something like that.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

And wasn't the mathematician, whose attempt to pre-empt Andrew Wiles by more than 300 years was frustrated by an inadequate margin, the same one who "knew" that was prime for all n? That's what I thought only_human was referring to in his response to ewmayer.

Find an odd perfect number and someone on this general forum who is not so dear to my heart will be in the same position as Fermat. This "metal" man has been convinced there are no odd perfect numbers.

[only_human]

I have a very low tolerance for calling out forum members for criticism. When the target is not participating in the conversation it is unacceptably egregious. There might also be other reasons that I move posts to this thread in the future.

I do not have authority to move posts outside of the Soapbox, nor do I want that. Since I don't like censorship or mysterious deletions, posts that I consider beyond the pale will land here.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by only_human

I have a very low tolerance for calling out forum members for criticism. When the target is not participating in the conversation it is unacceptably egregious. There might also be other reasons that I move posts to this thread in the future.

I do not have authority to move posts outside of the Soapbox, nor do I want that. Since I don't like censorship or mysterious deletions, posts that I consider beyond the pale will land here.

Especially when the poster:

(1) Deliberately mangles someone's name as an insult.
(2) Criticizes a technical point of view when he himself is totally clueless about the subject.
(3) Fails to realize that the technical point of view is also held by other experts.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...rug-sentences/

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://arstechnica.com/business/2015...-endless-fees/

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...-the-beginning

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Quaker Action, fall 2015 (pdf) | AFSC @afsc_org

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...s-14-a-minute/

This is just a technical request. I personally tend not to even click on a link such as these
unless the poster has provided some indication of what I'm getting into. Preprocessing and
all that. If you've already read a page or site, couldn't you always make some kind of
enticing comment on its content? Doesn't have to be too long, some of us overdo it.
Just make it worth our while. Meeting of the minds and all that.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...sault-charges/

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...g-fleeing-man/

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...off-recording/

Same comment as in that other thread - I generally don't even click on links
unless I have some idea of what they lead to.

[davar55]

I believe "hate speech" can be defined and delimited.

I once questioned the necessity of labeling a crime based on prejudice as a "hate crime".
Why the redundancy?

However, the first amendment's way of protecting our free speech and free press
is by proscribing what congress must NOT do. Not what it can do.

Since some kinds of speech are in fact nothing short of forceful intimidation,
hence WRONG and immoral and improper and criminal (pick what you like)
it is appropriate to define the class or types of speech (incitement to riot or violence, threats)
that should be proscribed.
The class that includes forceful suggestion of violence AND resort to irrational bigotry can be called "hate speech",
and because of the violence may be defined and forbidden, under proper contexts.
If where to draw the line isn't clear, we can learn to err on the side of the first amendment.
But SOME speech DOES fall in this category.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by davar55

What we need is separation of church and state. Applied rigidly.
I totally agree that collision of rights is the issue, in this and most cases.
Freedom of and from religion is not the first primary right.
That would be right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Followed by freedom of speech.
Followed by freedom of the press.
Followed by freedom of and from religion.
To apply this precedencial list of rights to the given case:
(1) A woman has a right to contraception of her choice, paid for by herself.
This is a consequence of her right to her pursuit of happiness.
(2) A corporation or company is a special group of individuals, which is legitimately
treated as an individual or "person" for legitimate historical, practical reasons
(which are explained in law and which I am not qualified to give here).
(3) A corporation of more than one person (owner) cannot have religious rights that
violate a woman's right to her pursuit of happiness
(by the precedence of rights above).
In such a case, if all employes are to be treated equally, then if medical insurance
is provided to all employes, then the owners have no right to say what terms that
medical insurance should consist of, and can have no legal religious objection
to a woman's insurance paying for her choice of contraceptive.
(4) A corporation of one owner (if there is such) has the right to have his / her
religious beliefs about abortion or contraception respected.
Hence such a corporation may refuse to pay for an employee's contraceptive choice.
In this case, the female employe may purchase her own contraceptives, or do without
contraception, or find a new less biased employer.

I could have added: religion is the problem.
Judge the religion, not those who practice or preach it, so long as they do not violate the rights of others.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by davar55

...
And if you doubt anyone has free-will, that's just determinism,
and you should probably take some more philosophy.
...
Since (and I don't quote) you've said in that mini-poll that you can't
define free-will so you don't know whether you have it, I as
observer evaluate that choice and many others you've made in this
forum and conclude you evidenced free will. If your computer
program makes smart choices, I'd call it intelligent at least. But if
it is totally demonstrably deterministic, I wouldn't say it had free will.

I left the philosophic issue of the existence of non-determinism alone.

[davar55]

I disagree with the previous post.

[only_human]

08 Jul 15, 11:46 #92

Originally Posted by davar55

I believe you questioned whether "hate speech" could be defined and delimited.
I too once questioned the necessity of labeling a crime based on prejudice as
a "hate crime". Why the redundancy?

But the first amendment's way of protecting our free speech and free press
is by proscribing what congress must NOT do. Not what it can do. Since
some kinds of speech are in fact nothing short of forceful intimidation,
hence WRONG and immoral and improper and criminal (pick what you like)
it is appropriate to define (I think) the class or types of speech (incitement
to riot or violence, threats) that should be proscribed. The class that includes
something of violence AND resort to irrational bigotry can be called "hate speech",
and because of the violence may be defined and forbidden. If the line isn't
clear, we can learn to err on the side of the first amendment. But SOME speech
DOES fall in this category.

16 Nov 15, 02:46 #99 (now moved to the current thread)->#6

Originally Posted by davar55

I believe "hate speech" can be defined and delimited.

I once questioned the necessity of labeling a crime based on prejudice as a "hate crime".
Why the redundancy?

However, the first amendment's way of protecting our free speech and free press
is by proscribing what congress must NOT do. Not what it can do.

Since some kinds of speech are in fact nothing short of forceful intimidation,
hence WRONG and immoral and improper and criminal (pick what you like)
it is appropriate to define the class or types of speech (incitement to riot or violence, threats)
that should be proscribed.
The class that includes forceful suggestion of violence AND resort to irrational bigotry can be called "hate speech",
and because of the violence may be defined and forbidden, under proper contexts.
If where to draw the line isn't clear, we can learn to err on the side of the first amendment.
But SOME speech DOES fall in this category.

Please do not quote yourself to bump a thread without adding anything new. Also when quoting yourself it is polite to say that you are doing so, so that others don't have to read the whole thing again to merely learn that you are repeating yourself and expecting different results.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by xilman

Scintillate, scintillate, globule vivific,
Fain would I fathom thy nature specific.
Loftily poised in the æther capacious,
Strongly resembling a gem carbonaceous.


Sorry. Strong tendency to go off at a tangent today.

If you grab a tiger by the tail, don't let go.