I find it disgusting that law teams are willing to defend scum like Sandusky (or OJ, or Casey Anthony, etc.), and actually try to help them out of it. That's like a complete lack of morals to defend your client in such an obvious case like that.
But wouldn't them not doing it completely disregard the whole 'Innocent until proven guilty" thing?
see you are just picking on the grammar of stuff and missing the meaning, there is no point in arguing with you... we change our minds and are open, you's dont...
Who are you fitting under the umbrella of "you's"? I think Foxblade is wrong in his arguments and it has nothing to do with being stubborn or obstinate, but that there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction that "I don't know" suddenly means, "Well, maybe, we should give it serious consideration" (It doesn't).
I have a Black Lotus... Now the burdon of proof is on you to show that i dont have one... no matter how many of my cards you look through and cant find one, there could always be one in another place.. but its up to me to show you that i have one... how can the burdon of proof be on you to show that i have no black lotus???
You saying you have a black lotus puts the burden on you. However, if I claimed "Haha, you absolutely have no black lotus." I would have a burden of proof too. The correct thing to say to such a claim (despite your claim being actually falsifiable) is "I don't know if you do or don't!" as I actually don't!
I think HTime is correct here, and from what I've read it seems that I can see where you are getting hung up by "I don't Know".
Foxblade Said "This doesn't mean that people can't change their minds should evidence present itself, but in no way does this mean we should give credibility to all claims equally."
At no point in the phrase "I don't Know" is it implied that it is equally likely with all the other "I don't know's". It is perfectly acceptable (and how I am) to say "I don't know, but with no reason to believe, I will live my life treating it as false." But once you say "With no reason to believe, it is false", it has become a positive claim and the burden is now equally on you to prove your claim.
"I don't know" is also not a claim of a middle ground. "I don't know." can mean everything from being 99% sure, to having an astronomically small chance. But until you are able to take the burden of proof and reject the claim, at best you can be (while being intellectually honest) "I don't know if this is false, but the likelihood of it being true seems so much higher to me I can see no reason myself or anyone else should believe it."
Rejecting the "God exists" claim is not a positive claim and has no burden, I agree, but when you equate that rejection to a proof of the negation, you better believe you have a pretty big burden of proof there.
That's really the problem. I've dealt with and encountered too many of the "I'm going to make this system huge and incomprehensible to guarantee work from people who are satisfied with my work" rather than my aim now of "I am going to make my products streamlined and user friendly and have people be very happy with the work and give referrals" (which it has been so far, and referrals are awesome).
That's another reason I want to look for newer entries to the market. They expect less pay, have a chance of having new and exciting ideas, haven't become jaded and still have time and ability to get better at the aspects that I/my company is lacking. In other words a little more risk (mitigated by having testing sub contract work) for a lot of possible reward.
And I am definitely working 40h/week. Probably more. Working from home is great like that, no commuting time
I also plan to do work on the projects myself, but in the long run I'd much prefer to be more on the project management/sales side of the business. I find myself excited and dynamic when selling myself to clients, then a little ho-hum in comparison when doing the work (not to say I dislike it, but comparatively its much more fun/challenging).
CL just had my posting deleted with it saying "This type of posting isn't allowed here" and the best I could figure is someone thought it was spec work (which they don't allow). I think I'll try again but maybe have to be more careful on the wording.
I've considered affiliate marketing, but I feel what's holding me back right now is getting over the "Wow, this is actually working and I NEED to expand." I originally just thought I'd get a few projects a month as spending money. It's still a little overwhelming. I just finished a project where I was getting $60 an hour which for some isn't that much, but I've never made more than 18 in any of my other jobs.
My parents both have their own businesses (Mom in market research, dad in video game design) and they work under the same company. They have offered to put my businesss when I make one under their company as it's already all set up with the liability and such. As for contracts I have found reasonably cheap legal services to make contracts for subcontractors to cover my butt.
I started earlier this year on a freelancing site advertising myself as a contractor to design and code websites, applications, logos, etc. It took a few false starts before someone took the gamble on me (and chose one of my proposals) and gave me a small (~$200 for a day of work) project. Anyway, I got a great review from them and started getting way more invitations for proposals and jobs.
Fast forward to now and I'm completely swamped with more and more jobs (having signed up to another similar site) as well as masses of people from referrals. I'm having to turn down 20+ to up to 30+ proposals a week (with about a 70%+ turnover of proposal -> contract job). This has led me to make the decision that:
"Why the Heck am I not finding people to help me out and grow this thing!"
This leads to what I am looking for as advice. Where is the best place to look for people to work in a subcontractor position and possibly later give a job to if they work out well? A lot of places that I'd think frown on this because it comes off as spec work (despite the fact that I'd pay for the testing position decently well) and have had my ads on sites like Craigslist and Kijiji flagged and removed.
I'm currently 22 and would prefer to work with people who are recently out of college/uni as I doubt people much older would like to work under someone my age. I also would prefer to have someone who lives within the city I live in.
As for the OP's mention of people getting arrested for not paying tips, my first question was "where the hell did that happen?" Then I saw your Canadian flag and I understood completely.
Nice try but it happened in Philadelphia.
Anyway, I think the most contentious part of tipping is when you go as a group or to specific places that pre-charge 15-20% tip no mattter what. When this doesn't happen, well, you aren't obligated to tip, but I almost always do. (Only time I didn't was at a buffet where it took them over an hour to bring the bill, despite us stopping and asking multiple waitstaff, despite this we still got stopped and asked for tip, so we laughed at them and left)
"It's not silencing their ideas"
"It's just silencing their ability to disseminate the ideas."
Seriously -- what is the difference between silencing an idea and prohibiting the dissemination of that idea? I submit that there is no difference. They are, in fact, the same thing.
Edit: What seems apparent to me, and at least some other posters, that does not seem apparent to you or Teia (based on your posts) is that hate speech laws don't do anything to curb the spread of bigotedness. Rather, all they do is sweep it under the rug so that people who aren't affected by it can pretend it doesn't exist.
You give equal value to an idea, and an idea that has no purpose but to subjugate/marginalize a group. I do not, nor does the country I live in. They are unfounded, baseless opinions (because if they aren't baseless, they can't be hate speech!) that are very similar in my eyes to defamation or obscenity. They are ideas that don't improve the country or society.
Quirkiness has given reasons that I don't agree with and you'll have to convince me that the US allowing public hate rallies such as the WBC or the KKK have led to positive gains in the society (and don't go saying that freedom of speech is a positive gain in itself, that is irrelevant here).
@Captain Morgan- but in this case Hate Speech is something where the bigotry and group ARE the message. There's no ambiguity to "Lets kill all group X'. There is no argument about whether that is just a threat or if it is based on hate of a specific group.
Canada isn't a totalitarian regime yet and I never said that it was. But one of the main reasons that it isn't is because you still allow (religious) hate speech!
And this is because truth/good faith belief it is truth has and will be a reason that makes the hate speech claim get thrown out. What makes the claim 'hate speech' or bigotry is having a negative, stereotypical, 'hateful' belief without any indication of reasonable cause for this belief. It works in a very similar way to defamation laws in both countries. If you heard from a friend of a friend that person X is thing Y, and say this to hurt their reputation, you haven't met the reasonable truth burden. If you say "Group X should all be deported/sterilized/whatever, because they are all terrorists" and your reasoning is personal Group X-o-phobia, you are inciting Hatred, with no reasonable truth value and no reasonable cause for such a claim (baseless). And before anything about "Defamation doesn't allow opinion!" comes up, I've shown already quite a few times that the US constitution does not require an opinion priviledge.
If you say "Let's all hate group X' in a public forum, what value does that have other than to make that group feel fear/marginalization? If I lived in a white minority and a white guy commited a heinous crime, I would like to be able to be in public without some proclaiming a need for hatred of the whites. (Or even if I was in the majority group!)
To use a previous example of Principia Mathematica, the value of the work is in no way requiring the sentance "Go forth and kill the Jews" to have the value it does. Hate speech laws aren't silencing the work/ideas of bigoted people, but instead silencing the ability to publicly spread their bigoted-ness.
Saying "We should go out and kill group X" is not an opinion, and has as little value as what is legally considered 'obscene'.
No. I'll put this as simply as I can. My argument is that it's either objective or subjective, not both or neither. If something isn't objective, then it's subjective, which is what my C-based pseudocode communicated. "Not objectively" does not make any statement about "objectively not." You're claiming that it somehow does, in contradiction to what I said about my own argument, and attacking me on those false grounds. This is a strawman on your part, nothing more.
Just to point out, while I don't agree with how it was inferred, B_S said the actual words 'objectively not a right' and you replied and didn't correct it. It's not a strawman, but I still think what you meant was pretty clear from the context.
So I was discussing this a while ago with a friend and we came up with a bunch of really funny deck ideas for it, so I thought I'd share.
The objective of the game is to kill yourself (draw from empty library, 0 life etc.)
Banned cards:
Cards that have an activated ability that costs life and nothing else.
Cards that have phyrexian mana as the only cost to play an activated ability.
Pacts.
Final fortune type effects (you lose next turn).
Legacy Ban list
You could run something like:
fetches
shocks
burn
anhk of mishra
Or
rituals into abyssal prosecutor
cards to protect it
Fine I will explain it again and see if anyone has anything relevant to say: As far as I am concerned regarding this discussion, free will is only important because it is necessary for people to make morally relevant choices. This means that the question "Wouldn't we still have free will if things were as following: ... ?" is irrelevant.
Limiting desire in no way limits ability. For someone to desire something, they see it as a good that will benefit them. Why does God have to create people that will have/do have the desire(see it as a personal 'good') to do something that goes against His tenants. My body is perfectly capable of committing many heinous acts, but I will never act on this ability because I could never see it as a personal good.
But wouldn't them not doing it completely disregard the whole 'Innocent until proven guilty" thing?
Who are you fitting under the umbrella of "you's"? I think Foxblade is wrong in his arguments and it has nothing to do with being stubborn or obstinate, but that there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction that "I don't know" suddenly means, "Well, maybe, we should give it serious consideration" (It doesn't).
You saying you have a black lotus puts the burden on you. However, if I claimed "Haha, you absolutely have no black lotus." I would have a burden of proof too. The correct thing to say to such a claim (despite your claim being actually falsifiable) is "I don't know if you do or don't!" as I actually don't!
Foxblade Said "This doesn't mean that people can't change their minds should evidence present itself, but in no way does this mean we should give credibility to all claims equally."
At no point in the phrase "I don't Know" is it implied that it is equally likely with all the other "I don't know's". It is perfectly acceptable (and how I am) to say "I don't know, but with no reason to believe, I will live my life treating it as false." But once you say "With no reason to believe, it is false", it has become a positive claim and the burden is now equally on you to prove your claim.
"I don't know" is also not a claim of a middle ground. "I don't know." can mean everything from being 99% sure, to having an astronomically small chance. But until you are able to take the burden of proof and reject the claim, at best you can be (while being intellectually honest) "I don't know if this is false, but the likelihood of it being true seems so much higher to me I can see no reason myself or anyone else should believe it."
Rejecting the "God exists" claim is not a positive claim and has no burden, I agree, but when you equate that rejection to a proof of the negation, you better believe you have a pretty big burden of proof there.
He probably meant if it was put under a mimic vat. Vat it out, block and go to 13. Pretty cool I'd say.
That's another reason I want to look for newer entries to the market. They expect less pay, have a chance of having new and exciting ideas, haven't become jaded and still have time and ability to get better at the aspects that I/my company is lacking. In other words a little more risk (mitigated by having testing sub contract work) for a lot of possible reward.
And I am definitely working 40h/week. Probably more. Working from home is great like that, no commuting time
CL just had my posting deleted with it saying "This type of posting isn't allowed here" and the best I could figure is someone thought it was spec work (which they don't allow). I think I'll try again but maybe have to be more careful on the wording.
I've considered affiliate marketing, but I feel what's holding me back right now is getting over the "Wow, this is actually working and I NEED to expand." I originally just thought I'd get a few projects a month as spending money. It's still a little overwhelming. I just finished a project where I was getting $60 an hour which for some isn't that much, but I've never made more than 18 in any of my other jobs.
My parents both have their own businesses (Mom in market research, dad in video game design) and they work under the same company. They have offered to put my businesss when I make one under their company as it's already all set up with the liability and such. As for contracts I have found reasonably cheap legal services to make contracts for subcontractors to cover my butt.
Thanks for the advice so far!
I started earlier this year on a freelancing site advertising myself as a contractor to design and code websites, applications, logos, etc. It took a few false starts before someone took the gamble on me (and chose one of my proposals) and gave me a small (~$200 for a day of work) project. Anyway, I got a great review from them and started getting way more invitations for proposals and jobs.
Fast forward to now and I'm completely swamped with more and more jobs (having signed up to another similar site) as well as masses of people from referrals. I'm having to turn down 20+ to up to 30+ proposals a week (with about a 70%+ turnover of proposal -> contract job). This has led me to make the decision that:
"Why the Heck am I not finding people to help me out and grow this thing!"
This leads to what I am looking for as advice. Where is the best place to look for people to work in a subcontractor position and possibly later give a job to if they work out well? A lot of places that I'd think frown on this because it comes off as spec work (despite the fact that I'd pay for the testing position decently well) and have had my ads on sites like Craigslist and Kijiji flagged and removed.
I'm currently 22 and would prefer to work with people who are recently out of college/uni as I doubt people much older would like to work under someone my age. I also would prefer to have someone who lives within the city I live in.
So, any suggestions?
Nice try but it happened in Philadelphia.
Anyway, I think the most contentious part of tipping is when you go as a group or to specific places that pre-charge 15-20% tip no mattter what. When this doesn't happen, well, you aren't obligated to tip, but I almost always do. (Only time I didn't was at a buffet where it took them over an hour to bring the bill, despite us stopping and asking multiple waitstaff, despite this we still got stopped and asked for tip, so we laughed at them and left)
You give equal value to an idea, and an idea that has no purpose but to subjugate/marginalize a group. I do not, nor does the country I live in. They are unfounded, baseless opinions (because if they aren't baseless, they can't be hate speech!) that are very similar in my eyes to defamation or obscenity. They are ideas that don't improve the country or society.
Quirkiness has given reasons that I don't agree with and you'll have to convince me that the US allowing public hate rallies such as the WBC or the KKK have led to positive gains in the society (and don't go saying that freedom of speech is a positive gain in itself, that is irrelevant here).
@Captain Morgan- but in this case Hate Speech is something where the bigotry and group ARE the message. There's no ambiguity to "Lets kill all group X'. There is no argument about whether that is just a threat or if it is based on hate of a specific group.
And this is because truth/good faith belief it is truth has and will be a reason that makes the hate speech claim get thrown out. What makes the claim 'hate speech' or bigotry is having a negative, stereotypical, 'hateful' belief without any indication of reasonable cause for this belief. It works in a very similar way to defamation laws in both countries. If you heard from a friend of a friend that person X is thing Y, and say this to hurt their reputation, you haven't met the reasonable truth burden. If you say "Group X should all be deported/sterilized/whatever, because they are all terrorists" and your reasoning is personal Group X-o-phobia, you are inciting Hatred, with no reasonable truth value and no reasonable cause for such a claim (baseless). And before anything about "Defamation doesn't allow opinion!" comes up, I've shown already quite a few times that the US constitution does not require an opinion priviledge.
If you say "Let's all hate group X' in a public forum, what value does that have other than to make that group feel fear/marginalization? If I lived in a white minority and a white guy commited a heinous crime, I would like to be able to be in public without some proclaiming a need for hatred of the whites. (Or even if I was in the majority group!)
To use a previous example of Principia Mathematica, the value of the work is in no way requiring the sentance "Go forth and kill the Jews" to have the value it does. Hate speech laws aren't silencing the work/ideas of bigoted people, but instead silencing the ability to publicly spread their bigoted-ness.
Saying "We should go out and kill group X" is not an opinion, and has as little value as what is legally considered 'obscene'.
Just to point out, while I don't agree with how it was inferred, B_S said the actual words 'objectively not a right' and you replied and didn't correct it. It's not a strawman, but I still think what you meant was pretty clear from the context.
The objective of the game is to kill yourself (draw from empty library, 0 life etc.)
Banned cards:
Cards that have an activated ability that costs life and nothing else.
Cards that have phyrexian mana as the only cost to play an activated ability.
Pacts.
Final fortune type effects (you lose next turn).
Legacy Ban list
You could run something like:
fetches
shocks
burn
anhk of mishra
Or
rituals into abyssal prosecutor
cards to protect it
Or
life gain on your opponent
Or
Dredge self mill
Limiting desire in no way limits ability. For someone to desire something, they see it as a good that will benefit them. Why does God have to create people that will have/do have the desire(see it as a personal 'good') to do something that goes against His tenants. My body is perfectly capable of committing many heinous acts, but I will never act on this ability because I could never see it as a personal good.