701. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221029 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 9:25 am

502. Comment #221015 by epeeist

The 50% figure comes with the assumption that at least 50% of children that are raised in violent homes grow up just fine. I'm not sure I'm willing to just accept that assumption.

702. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221024 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 9:22 am

503. Comment #221017 by Sciros

No, I understand the trichotomy, but failing to remove the child immediately is risking the childs welfare. Removing them as soon as you have cause, is favorable because it removes the children from risk of harm. Then whether the risk is real or not can be evaluated.

I bet you could cite some false positives, but I could cite some far worse false negatives. What is the worst that can happen in a false positive? Is it even remotely as bad as what could happen in the case of a false negative?

703. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221009 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 9:10 am

498. Comment #221005 by Sciros

There is no posibility of a child being injured. If they neglect to remove the children from a possibly dangerous home then they could be seriously harmed, or killed. I think that false positives are far better.

704. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221007 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 9:08 am

491. Comment #220992 by thewhitepearl

I was removed from my parents by the court during my parent's nasty divorse, and subsequent custody battle.

My three younger siblings were taken from my mother a couple years ago as well for a couple weeks, because my little brother told his teacher that my mother's boyfriend beat him. He was lying.

I still think in both cases the court did the right thing. It was worked out in the end.

705. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #221002 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 9:04 am

494. Comment #220995 by Sciros

Point taken.

I was not clear. They would require due cause, (I don't know if it is like this in the US, but police can search you in Canada if they have sufficient reason to suspect you) something like a complaint by a reliable person, like a teacher.

706. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220994 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 8:58 am

490. Comment #220990 by hungarianelephant

No, my point is morally neutral. See above (482. Comment). Whether this is good or bad or justified are completely different issues. If you define a mafia group that also tried to collect money from you through non-violent means and only turned to violence when you physically resisted them. Then I would draw the exact same distinction.

I never suggested that it was justified or good once.

Also, you are attempting to obfuscate yourself into victory now. By attempting to use more vague and ambiguous terms you can fit both under the umbrella, but the distinction will not disappear.

707. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220987 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 8:50 am

485. Comment #220981 by al-rawandi

I don't agree. An unwarrented removal of children from thir home is definitely traumatic, but failing to remove children from a violent home is potentially far worse.

In the former case, the child welfare services still has to make their case and prove it in court or your children will be returned to you. The latter case, it's too late.

I'd rather safe than sorry.

708. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220977 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 8:42 am

My point is that violence is not explicit or implicit in any penalties for infractions of the law. It is 100% to coerce compliance.

Saying that infractions of the law are threatened with violence is plainly false. The state uses violence, and one can argue whether it should, to what extent, and when this is appriopriate, but I think those are other issues.

My point is that you need to appreciate how the violence is threatened, and employed.

709. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220968 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 8:32 am

474. Comment #220950 by hungarianelephant

You're attempting to obfuscate with "force". If you wish to us words that include both violent and non-violent coercion then fine.

It follows by the same logic as "if you don't pay the mafia they will kneecap you" is analogous to state penalties. By saying that violent reprisals are the punishment for infraction of the law, instead of actually being for failing to comply with the states authority.

In both cases, the death threat being for trying to kill buddy's family, and the state violence being for failing to comply with the authority of the state. Neither example follows. That is my point. In my I fail to recognize the true caustion, the relevent variable. In your example you also fail to recognize the true caustion, and claim it to be the infraction of the law, when it is not.

As if have explained, unless you can shown me a penaltie for an infraction that involves violence (since you continue to use examples that shooting and kneecapping, and then when challenged about this not being violent change it to imprisonment, and then after that argued that they were the same thing...you would not have changed your example with "Mad Tony" if you thought that violence and incarceration with the same thing...otherwise doing so would be pointless) then it is a slippy slope fallacy to claim that the state threatens violence for infractions of the law.

No where in any penalties for neglecting to pay your taxes is violence either explicated or implicated. Nor is there in an invitation to someone's house. How you behave in both situations determines whether violence will befall you.

I'm flabbergasted that you can continue to not appreciate this.

Excluding incarceration, at least tell me that you agree with that excluded? I will sleep better tonight.

710. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220925 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 7:34 am

52. Comment #220708 by Steve Zara

I think they all deep down know that it's make belief, Steve. They're just asking the club leader to make the anything proof forcefield at least vulnerable to something. The game's starting to not be any fun anymore.

711. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220907 by Mitchell Gilks on July 29, 2008 at 7:09 am

443. Comment #220775 by hungarianelephant

No it is not like that at all. The penalty for not paying the mafia was the kneecapping, there are no violent penalties for infraction of the law. Call it an "absurd distinction" all you like, that doesn't make failing to appreciate it any less of a slipper slope fallacy.

What you are saying is tantamount to "an invitation to someone's house comes with a death threat, because if you go over and try to kill their family he will return equal force and kill you". Ipso facto, invitations to people's houses are death threats.

712. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220684 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 9:45 pm

Also you need to look up "indirect" and "implied" they are only with respect to the influence, or means by which the message is delivered, they have absolutely no bearing on whether they are carried out or not. An implied threat of violence, or indirect threat of violence is no less empty than a direct or explicit one if failed to have been carried out.

713. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220682 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 9:37 pm

434. Comment #220679 by Sciros

Then you are making a point that was never disputed, nor challenged.

Again, and again, and again. My point was that "if you don't pay your taxes, the government will come and shoot you" is fallacious, because it is absurdly reductionist, and it is a slippery slope fallacy.

I never once disputed that penalties are enforced with the threat of violence. What I said clearly was relevant to that context.

This whole thing has spun from your initial misunderstanding, and your stubborn unwillingness to try to understand. When I told you more than once that you had misrepresented what I said, and clearly did not understand, you kept telling me that you did. Which is claiming to understand what I'm saying better than I do. I think I know my own position better than you do, so it would be favorable to heed my warning.

This has left you arguing a point I never disputed, and failing to address what I actually have been arguing.

714. Obama Should Re-Think His Faith-Based Agenda

Comment #220649 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 7:28 pm

20. Comment #220640 by Double Bass Atheist

Sounds like a damn good mother...lucky bastard.

715. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220648 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 7:25 pm

This sounds like good news to me. Hopefully that 50 groups will turn into 51, 52, 53, until the church has to comply. Slow progress is progress all the same. I'll take it as I can get it.

716. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220636 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 6:33 pm

This one was difficult to make. In order to fit the whole scene in I had to remove more than half of the frames. It's a bit in fast forward.

but I like to watch people fighting more than I like to watch people kissing

717. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220624 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 5:58 pm

415. Comment #220619 by thewhitepearl

The next one will be more girls kissing, but I have to wait for the movie to download. The nice mid-air kiss from "Revolutionar girl Utena: the adolesence of Utena".

I wish there were more cool action sequences with girls. There are probably a lot I don't know about, since I mostly watch yuri. Which is usually drama/comedy/romance. Very few are action oriented.

I'd kill for a good yuri action/si-fi/fantasy. Yoruichi and Soifon from Bleach are cool, but they are only side characters and barely ever in it.

RD.net is awesome for good avatars. This one is only a third of the size it allows. This site allows the largest file sizes from any other site I visit by far.

718. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220618 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 5:33 pm

409. Comment #220604 by Sciros

None of that is for the infraction itself. It is 100% for upholding the authority of the state. As I have stated multiple times. You keep arguing that there is a threat of violence to enforce the law (I have repeated said that I do not dispute this, so stating it again and again demonstrates one of two things: you either have no idea what I'm saying, or you don't understand the difference between enforcing the penalties and the penalties themselves) and then ipso facto, one two skip a few, there thus is a threat of violence for infractions of the law.

This is a non sequitur. You need to demonstrate this link, not continue to assert it, and talk about the threat of violence for enforcing the law (which I never once disputed).

It simply cannot, and obviously cannot be true unless the threats are empty. You have ignored this point multiple times, but please address it directly.

How can there be a threat of violence for infractions of the law unless the penalties involve violent reprisals?

719. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220598 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 4:24 pm

404. Comment #220595 by kaiserkriss

That's neither here nor there. They still won't be violent toward you, or even threaten violence towards you if you don't pay your taxes. What you describe you might consider worse than that, but that also is neither here nor there. I am not arguing that violence is the worst they can do ir anything like that. My point has no implications, it is purely meant as a matter of fact statement, without anything resting on it being true.

720. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220588 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 4:06 pm

396. Comment #220584 by Sciros

You can assert it all you like. You must demonstrate a link. I have shown why it cannot logically follow that there is a threat of violent for an infraction itself or the repisals would necessarily involve violence. Saying "nope, nope. They do" is less than convincing.

That is "Dead fantasy" from part two. Here is a link to watch part one and two: http://www.veoh.com/videos/v14421056QQATNJts

721. Write to UCF

Comment #220583 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 3:56 pm

262. Comment #220165 by hawt4dawk

I am also a huge Miyazaki fan. Anything by his studio in fact is excellent, I am eagerly awaiting his newest film "Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea" which is due out sometime this year. "Princess Mononoke" is my favorite film of all time. Up next is "Nuasicaa of the valley of the wind". I have seen and enjoyed Kiki's delivery service, but it was a few years ago, and I didn't remember the cat's name. So I didn't get the reference.

Death note was also excellent. Too bad they made those horrible live-action versions.

722. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220559 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 3:12 pm

389. Comment #220557 by thewhitepearl

If you insist: I'm right and you're wrong.

723. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220554 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 3:03 pm

382. Comment #220544 by Quetzalcoatl

I'll say it!

You all are wrong, and I? Well, I'm right.

This is all emcompassing, in all respects and regards. If you don't believe me, then just ask me. I'll tell you.

724. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220529 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 2:34 pm

365. Comment #220522 by Sciros

So there is a threat of violence for the infraction of laws? If this is true then an infraction of a law would necessarily involve a violent reprisal.

Saying it is the threat of violence that makes one comply with the states decision is neither here nor there (and I in fact unequivocally agreed, which was expressed in HungarianElephant's criticism of the UN). That still doesn't equal the state threatening violence for infractions of the law.

725. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220516 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 2:20 pm

356. Comment #220507 by Sciros

"No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?" - Kakashi.

I am saying that violence is not threatened upon you for infraction of the law, it is for unwillingness to comply with the authority of the state.

The latter in no way implies the former because you can break any and all laws and have absolutely no violence befall you by the state as long as you comply with the alloted punishment. If the threat was violence for an infraction of the law then this would not be possible, unless the threat was empty.

The threat of violence is always with respect to your willingness to comply with the authority of the state regardless of the infraction. Reprisal for the infraction of the law itself never involves a threat of violence.

726. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220496 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 2:01 pm

339. Comment #220487 by Sciros

I never said anything remotely like that, nor was any of that my point. I also think I have a grasp on what HungarianElephant has said, and really don't think you need to speak for him.

My objection was to the claim that "if you don't pay your taxes the state will come to your home and shoot you".

I never once said that the state will not use force to enforce the law (actually said the opposite more than once).

The fact that you're not dwelling on the specifics misses my point. I replied to HungarianElephant, and I argued a point. If you want to make some other point then make it. If you want to ignore my point and say I'm missing yours, well then you're arguing past me.

727. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220478 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 1:36 pm

328. Comment #220475 by Sciros

No... go read through my posts from the beginning and you should see what I've been saying. I don't feel the need to repeat what is already there.

If you fail to see my point after all of that expaciation, then I doubt I could explain it to you. If you want to object to it, then do so.

728. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220473 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 1:30 pm

326. Comment #220472 by Sciros

You appear to be arguing past me, or thinking I'm trying to make some point I'm not. As long as you understand what I'm saying, then think it's pointless all you like.

729. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220471 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 1:22 pm

319. Comment #220460 by Fanusi Khiyal

Yes, Kyoshiro to Towa no Sora was a terrible, terrible anime. It was even worse than Kannazuki no Miko, and Kyoshiro was a contemptible little pedophile, but Kaon and Himiko were, and still are, absolutely adorable. I think it was a better yuri story than Kannazuki no Miko, despite Kaon and Himiko/Chikane and Himeko not being the stars. At least there was no rape to sour things. It was a lot sweeter, and they were together since the beginning, instead of not getting together till the end. (The rape was a hell of a lot more...invasive...in the manga, and Chikane actually kills Souma, opposed to putting him in the hospital like in the anime.)

Anyway, I will not stand for your blasphemy!

Freedom and value of life are goals. So what I said actually did appreciate that.

730. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220462 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 1:11 pm

316. Comment #220449 by Sciros

No, I never said anything remotely like that. I said that the threat of violence isn't explicit or implicit in the actions threated upon you for the infaction of a law. It is only explicit in the action the state is willing to use against you to enforce its authority. The violence is not threatened upon you for an infraction of the law, it is for failing to comply peacefully with the alloted punishment.

I think I'm being pretty clear. I don't know how to be any more clear.

Maybe if I am a little more explicit. I am not saying that the state does not threaten violence. I am saying that the threat of violence is only with relation to your willingness or unwillingness to yield to the authority of the state. No matter what your crime is, if you do not resist the authority of the state no violence will befall you, nor was it ever part of the threat of action that the state promises for infractions of the law. No matter what your infaction, if you fail to comply peaceful to the authority of the court, only then is violence threatened, and the amount of violence is directly linked to the amount of resistence you offer. It is in no way linked to your offence, it is completely and solely the result of your unwillingness to comply with the state's authority.

Is what I'm saying clear now?

731. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220446 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Personally I didn't know that there were "right" or "wrong" political views or systems. That would depend on your goals, and aims.

732. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220443 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 12:51 pm

312. Comment #220441 by Sciros

No, the threat for infraction of the law is not violence. The threat for failing to yield to the system's authority without resistence is violence. Which is not the same thing.

In sort, I agreed with most of what you said, I was just saying it wasn't relevant to my point. It is a seperate issue.

733. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220432 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 12:33 pm

304. Comment #220417 by Apathy personified

It is true that a free market forces a pragmatic and cost effective consumption of resourses.

Though, I'm not sure that that getting the most for the least should always be our goal, and that nothing one would take a lose on is worth doing.

734. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220403 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 11:58 am

292. Comment #220381 by Sciros

Firstly, you have described a thread of variables that I won't object to inthemselves, but I will say that since they are not a necessary factor, but merely a factor because of the way the system is, it is not relevant to my point. The state does not threaten you with violence, nor is incarceration in-itself violence. What may result during the incarceration is not part of the states threats, nor is it necessarily involved in its actions.

The use of force by the state, violent or otherwise is not directly linked to tax evasion, nor is it explicit or implicit in any state action that is threated upon you. The returning of appriopriate force is only explicit in relation to how you react to the state's attempted apprehension of you, and is not directly linked to your offence in any way other than being the catalyse for their attempts to apprehend you.

735. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220391 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 11:49 am

The self righeous who constantly attempt to ferret out racists whenever someone decries Islam are rarely able to take a joke.

736. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220367 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 11:13 am

278. Comment #220364 by Sciros

I don't think that I even implied that violence was worse than incarceration at any point. My objection has always been to the claim that the state threatens you with violence if you do not pay taxes.

Also to the absurdly reductionist and fallacious claim that they will come to your house and shoot you if you don't pay taxes.

I don't think it is relevant which is worse.

737. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220366 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 11:10 am

275. Comment #220360 by hungarianelephant

I only feel a need to respond to this.

To get to here you have to (a) define violence as excluding incarceration, and (b) ignore the fact that the state will shoot you if you resist incarceration.

738. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220362 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 11:02 am

267. Comment #220352 by hungarianelephant

I don't like it when people say "we" as a softer way of just saying "you". No, I don't think it isn't violence if the state does it. I do think that certain actions are justified, whether by the state or not, and others are unjustified, whether by the state or not.

I don't think that the locking up of the shop owner was violence in itself on the part of Mad Tony. Though I never argued that being incarcerated would not be a necessary repercuasion of tax evasion, I argued that violence wasn't.

739. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220358 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 10:48 am

267. Comment #220352 by hungarianelephant

Getting angry with you, and bashing your face in with a led pipe is only a matter of degree. Degree matters greatly.

740. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220354 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 10:43 am

264. Comment #220348 by hungarianelephant

Then your "Mad Tony" analogy is no longer relevant to my objection. If you read back I was specifically arguing that they will not use violence, as this whole discusion started with me disagreeing that there was any necessary link betwen tax evasion and state violence towards you.

By removing the violence, I no longer understand the point of your analogy.

266. Comment #220350 by thewhitepearl

I agree, and I said as much in comment 260.

741. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220349 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 10:37 am

259. Comment #220343 by hungarianelephant

I didn't suggest this. What I said was that "voluntariness" is not present in the system. And I quite agree - it isn't going to work unless some form of contribution is compulsory. Regrettably, there seems to be some strange idea in the UK that this means all of it should be compulsory. Which is odd, because even the renowned pinko-leftie countries of continental Europe don't go for such a system. Still, when did Britain ever try to learn anything from the continent?

742. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220346 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 10:34 am

261. Comment #220345 by thewhitepearl

Pretty sure he meant "if not a threat of violence".

743. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220344 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 10:30 am

259. Comment #220343 by hungarianelephant

I call violence anything that is physically damaging to your person. Incarceration need not be.

744. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220342 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 10:23 am

245. Comment #220326 by hungarianelephant

I wholeheartedly agree with your criticism of the UN.

The fatal flaw in your suggestion of voluntarily paying for such services is that those that can pay for it don't need the services, while those that do can't pay for it. Everyone needs capable of paying needs to pay or it simply can't work. This is true of any state payed for service. Only the people that need the services can't pay for it themselves.

Your analogy is false, because in order for "Mad Tony" to appriopriate the funds from you, he must use violence, or give up. The State will never use violence towards you until you use violence first. There is only a threat of violence as a counter measure to your own violent actions. Also there is a threat of violence if you resist apprehension, but that isn't necessarily tied into your tax evasion, but it isn't relevant.

You also end the example with a false dichotomy. Either violence or nothing. There is plenty of other actions at the states disposal, and violence isn't even one of them. Violence is seperate and unrelated to your offence in any way other than the states need to apprehend you. It is misleading and inappriopriate to tie this into any individual cases.

745. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220313 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 9:43 am

Utopian delusions scare the crap out of me. I can't even think of Star Trek without shivering.

746. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220306 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 9:36 am

224. Comment #220299 by BFKate

I was close.

747. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220302 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 9:31 am

215. Comment #220290 by BFKate

Drug/sex free and christian.

748. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220291 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 9:24 am

195. Comment #220265 by hungarianelephant

Not under threat of physical force she isn't. The escelation of force is entirely up to you. They will enforce the law by any means necessary, but what means are necessary are up to you. Force is not a threat for not paying your taxes. It is how you behave to the state's coersion that determines that.

It very much is a slippery slope fallacy. Which is precisely saying that B C and D follows from A without considering relevant variables. I definitely consider bustin' out "Betsy" and lobin' some shot off at state officals to be a relevant variable.

It may be presumptuous to comment on your friend's death, but I find it in bad taste to introduce an example that is personal, which makes it difficult to comment on. I would say that your friend's death was a result of the fault of officiers of the system, not the system itself. There is no such thing as a perfect system, and there is, and always will be the threat of human error. I think that the law should fall just as heavily on any officer (perhaps more heavily) whom makes such an error, if their error can be shown to be negligence.

It is just a fact that laws cannot be upheld without the willingness to use appriopriate force, depending on the force received.

You need to demonstrate that there is a threat of violance for the tax infraction itself or there is no link to caustion.

749. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220268 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 9:08 am

Well, if 1970-90 hollywood action movies have taught me anything, they have taught me that most terrorists are Russian. Occationally Chinese.

750. A third of Muslim students back killings

Comment #220240 by Mitchell Gilks on July 28, 2008 at 8:44 am

162. Comment #220225 by hungarianelephant

She isn't at liberty to reframe from paying taxes. Also, if you allot such a slippery slope of "if you don't pay taxes armed men will come and shoot you" you must also allot this for the violation of any law, even ones that would only result in a minor fine. I can easily ad hoc a scenero in which you'd get your ass shot in just about any situation. Claiming that it is ultimately the result of the the minor infraction of the law is not only fallaciously reductionist, but I would argue plainly disengenuous.