Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:July:02 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2008/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Domestic/California] UID:50446 Activity:kinda low
7/2     Why do people CCW or open carry? I mean, in a place such as
        Cupertino or Sausalito, wouldn't you get more disturbances out and
        hastle from open carry than the minute, less than lottery chance
        that you'll heorically save someone from danger?
        \_ Let's see. If you are a Mormon with Asperger's syndrome, you'll
           feel that you're a lot smarter and better and more righteous
           than everyone else and that no one can be trusted. In addition,
           if you live in Chico, you gotta protect yourself because
           everyone else is a nutcase -- they have very different
           "values" and beliefs that you have. So in that respect, it
           totally makes sense to carry a weapon.
        \_ It's worth it so you can finally feel like a man again.
           \_ Is it worth even responding to this crap?
              \_ Wait, there really is some other reason?  Let me guess, you
                 are just waiting for the armed revolution to start so you can
                 go shoot some cops, and it would really suck if you had to go
                 home first casue someone else might have gotten them all?
                 \_ My right to protect myself and my property is
                    constitutionally protected.  Your interpretation is
                    \_ But the right to protect your right to protect yourself
                       and your property is not constitutionally protected.
                       I.e. the constitution can be changed by votes.
                        \_ do you really go to UC Berkeley?
                           \_ Yes I did.  Do you?
                       \_ It has been many years since I took crim law, but
                          iirc, the US Constitution does not require the states
                          to provide any defenses to the accused, i.e. self-
                          defense, defense of of others, and defense of
                          property are all defense provided by state law and
                          are constitutionally protected, if at all, by state
                          constitutions. So, in one sense, your statement is
                          probably correct.
                          In the context of this discussion, I assume that you
                          are referring to 2d amendment personal right(s) to
                          keep and bear arms.  And I assume that you mean that
                          the constitution can be changed via the amendment
                          process.  If so, I think that your statement is only
                          true in a very technical sense because the amendment
                          process operates as designed and prevents any drastic
                          changes from being made to the constitution. We have
                          only used the process 27 times and the 27th amendment
                          was pending was over 200 years. This suggests that
                          the 2d amendment personal rights can considered
                          immutable because amending the constitution to remove
                          the 2d is about as likely as an armed revolution to
                          to overthrow the republic.
                          \_ It's really easy. The EARLIER number amendment
                             the less likely you can challenge it as time
                             goes on.
                    \_ If you are so afraid of the world you can't wander
                       the mean streets of Cupertino without packing lethal
                       force you are laughbly pathetic, constituationally
                       protected or not.
                       \_ I keep a flashlight on my keychain as well.  Does
                          that make me afraid of my own shadow?
                          \_ Do you keep the flashlight around so that if
                             some scary dark looking person comes near you
                             you can shove it in their eyeball while shouting
                             "semper fi motherfucker!"
                             \_ Do you do that with your car instead of riding
                                on the bus?
                       \_ So you don't drive?
                        \_ I sure don't keep a car in my pants in order to
                           keep my dream of getting to run over some dangerous
                           looking feller in the name of justice alive.
                       \_ If you have to rely on someone else to protect you,
                          you're pathetic.
                          \_ See, unlike you I'm not afraid of my shadow, so
                             I don't need to have a gun around as a security
        \_ Dude, you don't know what it is like on the mean streets of
           Cupertino. Jackbooted, BMW-riding Cupertino motorcycle cops
           routinely use their gestapo tactics to ticket jay-walking
           pedestrians who are just trying to save a few minutes on their
           walk to TapX or I Heart Yogurt. Open carry is all that keeps
           the man at bay.
           \_ OpenCarry Yogurt!
2008/7/2-6 [Industry/Startup] UID:50447 Activity:nil
7/2     "Oil is making millionaires in North Dakota - Yahoo! News:"
        This is better than stock options and IPO, man.
2008/7/2-6 [Computer/SW/WWW/Browsers] UID:50448 Activity:nil
7/2     After Firefox 3.0, now we have Firefox
2008/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50449 Activity:nil 85%like:50443
7/1     Who's smearing whom? [politico]
        \_ This article is really out to lunch.  The smears of Obama are
           everywhere.  There are whole websites devoted to proving
           that he's a gay racist from Indonesia who studied in a Madrassa,
           and there are armies of freepers feeding the rumor mills.  See
           the above WaPo article for more.  Just because "nobody with the
           McCain campaign" is openly calling him a Muslim doesn't change the
           fact that a large % of Americans now fervently believe this, and
           are seemingly oblivious to the true fact of the matter.  Obama
           not be Swift-boated, because the fringe lunatics will do it for
           \_ So is being called a Muslim a smear?
              \_ Of course not. It happens to be untrue. If someone were to
                 say that John McCain is homosexual, would that be a smear?
2008/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:50450 Activity:moderate
7/2     Christopher Hitchens on Waterboarding: "Believe me, it's torture."
        \_ Gee, how nice of him to change his mind now.  Rats.  Ships.
           \_ As much as I dislike Christopher Hitchens, it seems hard to
              fault him for this.  He had the courage to back up his claim
              that waterboarding wasn't torture by trying it out, and then
              (having learned what it was like) he admitted he'd been wrong.
              I wish everyone was so principled.
              \_ 4 years too late... I don't have much sympathy for anyone
                 who defended torture as strongly as that man did.
              \_ FLIP FLOPPER!
        \_ And why should I care what he thinks?
           \_ Because he has been a tireless defender of the technique as not
              being torture and has now been convinced, by experience, that it
              is. If you believe that it is not, perhaps you should try it out
        \_ Torture is any experience so horrible that no-one would consider
           trying it out simply for the purpose of writing a Vanity Fair
           article about what it's like.
           \_ If he'd thought it was torture before he experienced it, he
              would not have tried it out. Now that he's experienced it, he
              recognizes it as torture and would not do it again.
              \_ Yah, see here's the thing, torture is something that you know
                 you wouldn't try it even before you try it.
                     \- i think that is true for "medieval" type
                        torture [gouging out eyeballs], and highly
                        likely for modern "clinical" pain-inducing
                        torture [electric wire between teeth] but
                        i dont think it is necessarily possibly to
                        i dont think it is necessarily possible to
                        know the effects of things like sleep deprivation,
                        and psychological/terror oriented approaches such
                        as mock executions [russian roulette style, fake
                        firing squad, blind folded and dropped from
                        firing squad, blindfolded and dropped from
                        helicopter etc] until you've "been there/done that".
                        anyway, i thought this was a settled issue given
                        that all the "warriors" [mccain etc] said "wboaring
                                     \_ Not by a long shot.  Quite a few
                                        military members said *they'd* been
                                        waterboarded, and said they had no
                                        problem with us doing it to others.
                                        \- who is a "military member" who
                                           has said "it's ok if somebody
                                           waterboards US troops when
                        is totally clearly over the line" and it was only
                        chickhawks [bush, cheney, limbaugh] either saying
                        it wasnt clear or it was like frat hazing.
                        i was was captured and you said you were going to
                        if was was captured and you said you were going to
                        put me in the iron maiden, i'd talk right way.
                        if you threatened to waterboard me, i might go
                        for a minute or two. --psb
                        \_ McCain voted to support waterboarding.  -tom
                           \_ I missed that.  A point in his favor. -emarkp
                                \_ I'm sorry, "emarkp", but I
                                   think you need some introspection on
                                   whether you're serious about your
                                   religion and whether your support of
                                   torture is really consistent with
                                   \_ Why the quotes?  It really is me, and I
                                      find it laughable when someone else tells
                                      me what my religion should be.
                                      Especially the prolific atheist
                                      relgion-haters here (though I obviously I
                                      don't know if you're one of them).
                                      \_ The quotes were simply to open
                                         the door to the idea that someone
                                         was masquerading as you to make
                                         you look bad.  Now I'm forced to
                                         go with the person below:  your
                                         "religion" is a hollow sanctimonious
                                         shell over your hateful and vile
                                      \_ yeah, it's easy as an atheist to
                                         underestimate the ability of
                                         religious people to rationalize
                                         whatever it is they want to do
                                         or believe.  -tom
                                         \_ You should be careful trying to
                                            apply your childish understand of
                                            something to a grown-up discussion.
                                      \_ You're right, no one can tell you
                                         what your religion is or should be.
                                         But thanks to threads like this one
                                         we know that whatever your beliefs
                                         are, they serve as little more than
                                         a hollow sanctimonious shell over
                                         your hateful and vile core.
                              \_ you're an idiot.
                                 \_ I don't understand, shouldn't you be
                                    calling him evil rather than stupid?  This
                                    looks like a clear values call. -- ilyas
                                 \_ and anyone disagreeing with your opinion
                                    is an idiot. Great logic, comrade! Welcome
                                    to People's Republic of California.
                                    \_ No, I am tom!  Do not anger me!
                                    \_ I disagree with people who are not
                                       idiots all the time.  But *you* are
                                       an idiot.  -tom
                 \_ I believe you are confusing torture with deterrents.
                 \_ I wouldn't try waterboarding, but I'm not a fucking
                    idiot like Christopher Hitchens.  -tom
2008/7/2-6 [Reference/BayArea] UID:50451 Activity:nil
7/2     i love oakland
        \_ Next season of The Wire will be in Oakland.
           \_ sure looks that way!  I like how the 'city administrator'
              told everyone she was going to postpone her retirement
              at the end of this month to clear her name.
              \_ It will be called "The Probe". Brother Mouzone will
                 be coming west.
2008/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion, Health/Women] UID:50452 Activity:moderate
7/2     Not a troll: What's the best way to get to a Family Planning
        specialist, for abortion? The website for my health care (PPO)
        doesn't seem to point anywhere to abortion. Is Planned
        Parenthood a good place for this sort of thing, or is it better
        for teenagers?
        \_ go to Planned Parenthood.  there you go.
        \_ My wife once got an early-term abortion from her OB/GYN.
           \_ I see, was it easier/tougher than Planned Parenthood?
              Do they ask a lot of questions and make it even more
              difficult than it is now? What was your occassian? Thanks
              PLEASE help out.
              \_ We didn't try Planned Parenthood.  The OB asked a lot of
                 questions, but they were all medical.  She didn't ask any
                 ethical or moral questions at all like "Why do you decide to
                 do this?" or "Are you emotionally ready?", or say anything
                 like "Just call us to cancel the appointment if you change
                 your mind." which would hint something.  The occasion was that
                 she got pregnant between our engagement and our wedding, which
                 was way too early for us to have kids.  We ended up having our
                 first kid 4 years into the marriage as planned.
                 was too early for us to have kids.  We ended up having our
                 first kid 4 years into the marriage.
                 \_ THANK YOU we're in the EXACT same situation. We just
                    went to an obgyn and she gave us a lot of information
                    and time to think about it. She did NOT give us any
                    trouble or her bias, just information. It was very very
                    professional and she was very very understanding and
                    said we have a lot of time to think about it since
                    it's still really early. Did you do the chemical or
                    surgery and why? We're leaning towards the chemical
                    \_ Any particular reason you morons didn't use birth
                       control if you don't want a baby?
                       \_ Dude, give it a rest. Maybe the condom broke,
                          you don't know.
                          \_ I don't. That's why I asked.
2008/7/2-6 [Politics/Domestic/911, Computer/SW/Security] UID:50453 Activity:kinda low
7/2     On the torture debate (or maybe just flame fest), the claim that
        torture doesn't work is true most of the time but untrue some of the
        time.  Most of the reasoning for pro-torture positions doesn't make
        sense to me, I feel like its not logical to give support to something
        that doesn't produce results while the same time being oppressive.
        The one thing I think I can see is that I make a decision that I
        would rather have a little less security to have more human rights/
        civil liberties.  When Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty of give me
        death" he didn't mean unless he might get hurt.  I can understand
        that if you won't tolerate any threat to your personal security (at
        least any threat outside of our government) it would be in your best
        interest to want them to torture anyone they thought might be involved
        in terrorism.  But to me that seems like a cowardly approach, a
        minimal risk to yourself is worth the gain in liberty for all.  Its
        easy to see that deaths from terrorism << torture/government repress-
        ion. -mrauser
        \- the ticking time bomb scenario has long been "the standard"
           classroom hypo after THE TROLLY PROBLEM for the tension between
           UTILITARIAN theories [cost-benefit analysis] and DEONTOLOGICAL
           theories [torture is wrong. the exact reason it is wrong depends
           on the flavor of deontology, but probably "the standard" again
           is the kantian one but maybe simpler to understand is the RDWORKIN
           "RIGHTS AS TRUMPS" view ... mostly this is beyond the scope of a
           motd discussion]. but the "i only care about me" sort of begs
           the question ... since a core question of moral philosophy is
           "what do we own other" and you're pretty much saying "nothing"
           "what do we owe others" and you're pretty much saying "nothing"
           in that "degenerate" case. EGOISM may be an apt description of a
           lot of people, but it's not really a philosophy [although i
           suppose maybe FWNIETZSCHE might have spun it into one, but i am
           not really an expert on FWN ... and that is also beyond the
           scope of the motd]. here is a problem with the "results
           oriented" view: do you think it would be categorically wrong
           to say torture a family member of the terrorist ... say KSM's
           wife and kids ... if that would be a highly effective way of
           producing results. if you want "the standard" critiques of
           utilitarianism, see BERNARD WILLIAMS [formerly UCB Dept Philosophy,
           now dead] and AMARTYA SEN ... at the core, utilitariamsism
           "does take persons/rights seriously. Williams also has a very
           influential critique of deontology, but that may be a little
           hard to follow.
           \_ I've heard of the ticking time bomb, and its pretty easy to feel
              saying you would torture the guy, because in this magical fantasy
              he is directly responsible for the bomb being there and you know
              that there must be a bomb so there is a perverse justice in
              torturing him to make him tell you.  But as a real world example,
              it holds no water, because how often do you KNOW that there is
              a threat and the person in front of you has specific knowledge
              of it.  You torture without this information, in the hopes of
              getting it.  Another scenario, say a terrorist kidnaps someone's
              family and then tells that person where they put a bomb in a
              building, but they tell that person if they tell the authorities
              they will kill thier family.  So do you torture a complete
              innocent who has a self interest in not telling you the info?
              Here is a scenario which is nearly as plausible as the ticking
              time bomb, but I don't think anyone could feel good about either
              option.  The problem to me is that torture is used in ambigious
              situations with a presumed guilt or presumed having of the info.
              I think that because torture can really never be used with
              certainty, it should never be used at all.  Plus, there is a
              strong argument that it leads to false confessions and false in-
              formation just as long as it leads to good ones. -mrauser
              \_ look up "a fortiori"
           \_ Your writing is only partially intelligible. What was your
              "i only care about me" and "what do we own other" sentence
              referring to?
2008/7/2-6 [Uncategorized] UID:50454 Activity:nil
7/2     motd getting hella laid guy here.  i just want to sleep.
        \_ what's going on?
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2008:July:02 Wednesday <Tuesday, Thursday>