Eiuol

It's not a lie, it's just bad reporting. Anyway, does it bother you that the EXISTING trend is that more than half the people in the past 14 years sentenced to LWOP are non-violent offenders? "Non-violent" is defined, and so is the methodology. The numbers are all valid, except the 79% wasn't clearly stated because it didn't mention range of years. So no, it's not a monumental lie, somebody just failed to proofread a sentence, and then no one proofread the ACLU's report. Really, it's one sentence in the report that's horribly misleading. Everywhere else the context is clearly a limited range of time. edit: found stats for the whole LWOP prison population. See page 22. It's 12.3%. 12.3% is what I should've said before (the 8% was a miscalculation, 6.5% would be correct). 2948 sentenced for LWOP for nonviolent crimes from 1999 to 2011. 3278 people altogether in 2012. So at most 330 are from before 1999. Those numbers the ACLU got from the site Nicky linked to earlier. That's just very bad.

Now, you need to add in all years. By the way, I checked, that is 8.96%, so it is more.

Not really, the ACLU report highlights some things wrong, the first big highlight especially. It's misleading and they are not a totally unbiased source. At least they have citations, so it's better to use the "hard" stats straight from the source. Because the worst stats are more limited, things aren't worse than the report shows. What is shown is a VERY bad trend that many people ARE being given LWOP for drug crimes. I'll try to look up stats for ALL prisons - maybe it's just as bad. Nicky's 50,000 stat isn't wrong, but the number of people on LWOP for drug crimes on a national level is more than 5%. Federal level alone for only the past 14 years is about 5%. Add in all states, you increase that percent. Add in all years, you increase the percent again.

Actually, the stats are with regard to people sentenced since 1999. 3465 were sentenced to LWOP. 2,948 of those were nonviolent. 2034 of those were for drug crimes. The ACLU report is seriously flawed, it interpreted the stats it shows wrong, even, or in a weird way. In the past 14 years 85% of people sentenced for LWOP were non-violent; ~58% of people sentenced to LWOP were drug crimes. This is for federal prison - that 50,000 number is all prisons. Read page 24 of the report (text below). It says this, but again, there seem to be a lot of confusing wording or wrong. Still, the stats at least for federal prison are VERY bad for the direction things are going. In the federal system, more than half (51.1 percent) of the total population of prisoners currently serving LWOP are serving their sentences for nonviolent offenses. Between 1999 and 2011, 3,465 prisoners were admitted to federal prison to serve LWOP sentences; 2,948 of them were convicted of nonviolent offenses, indicating that nonviolent offenders could account for as much as 85 percent of the federal prison population that was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole during that 13-year period.

I think the idea is more along the lines of how saying the truth means you can have a blank check to state the truth in any way you want. There are sometimes better ways to convey an idea. As far as this cartoon though, I don't find it offensive, I just think it conveys ignorance that many Republicans are at fault too. Well, it is a bit over the top in itself when the cartoon suggests Obama *wants* to destroy America, even for humor. You know what'd be cool? Obama and Romney tag-teaming on Uncle Sam. After all, Romneycare is the same idea. A higher standard for this cartoon is to not let others off the hook.

The article is about minimum wage and fast-food, not everything the fast food industry does. Basically, minimum wage is not a fix. At best you could say the article is too narrow, and isn't written well enough. But it's not that silly "orthodox" Objectivism thing in any case.

I agree. I made 3 points, and you sort of responded to all 3. Sorry if it's a bit disjointed. Taken in isolation, yes, Binswanger just made some categorizations, which is fine. But then came this line which changed the article's tone: "Here’s a modest proposal. Anyone who earns a million dollars or more should be exempt from all income taxes." I don't get it - why add the "earns a million dollars" qualifier? It seems to have some unqualified position on profit as though profit is a measure of personal worth. He doesn't go onto saying anything about what those producers do that's virtuous. Well, he does go on to mention Lady Gaga and Buffet. Except he speaks badly about Lady Gaga as though fame is bad to have. That reminds me of I think Bentham who thought certain values are inherently superior. As though pop music deserves less respect than finance... Why not praise both people for being generally good people? So to me there are implications that Binswanger made a utilitarian social value argument. That point is driven home with this line: "Since profit is the market value of the product minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created." It's just... odd that he simply says "profit represents value created". That's at best poor wording. There is a lot more that adds or takes away from value. Taken with the rest of the article, it appears that according to Binswanger making no profit represents less value than making a profit. If profit is just *a* value, well, it doesn't fit with what else he said in the article. The Lady Gaga example ruins it. I mean, why not acknowledge nonmonetary value that her fans get? It's like nonmonetary value "taints" the value of profit. You make good points Nicky, I just think Binswanger failed to make any good points.

I mean in the sense that some musicians become icons, and deservingly so, and it's due to more than just their music. People like Bowie, or Siouxsie, have a compelling personality, and goes beyond just being a musician. The greatest performers are people who convey their passion or emotion - stage elements are inessential to that (they're a positive, but doesn't make a performer good or bad). Actually, I knew the White Stripes cover of Conquest, and found the original one on Youtube when I made the post. I didn't know Jezebel was a cover, I should listen to to the original, too.

Cool stuff. Reminds me of St. Vincent, except better. Actually, I think of Siouxsie Sioux - a comparison to Siouxsie is something I'm careful about. Calvi even sounds like the vocal style of goth musicians (a bit wailing, long notes), with a lot more vocal range/ability/emotion. My main preferences are elsewhere, and I like this. I wonder, though, if Anna Calvi here has the attitude to not only be a good musical act, but also an inspiring *performance* artist? Time will tell I guess. The first song makes me think of the song "Conquest", and a lot better. And of course, how Calvi reminds me of Siouxsie: Back to Calvi... The flamenco guitar sorta style and gender bending (Wikipedia says she wears what a male flamenco dancer wears) aesthetic is really interesting. Oh, and the only reason I mention what I'm reminded of is because I find that Anna Calvi takes inspiration from a lot of music after listening to everything linked. Seems like a PJ Harvey vibe is in there, too. She definitely has her own style, though. (Oh, and if Wikipedia is any indication, I'm not the only one who has compared Calvi to Siouxsie. )

DonAthos, I think the whole "get it out of the way" ideas in a sexual context is the core issue here. The phrasing in other contexts means not being happy to do something but it must be done. Really I find that it demeans anything good about sex in the sense that there is a "problem" to fix. I'm not suggesting you think the OP must do it out of duty to grow up, I'm only saying it's the wrong way to show a positive attitude about sex towards someone who hasn't even been in front of someone naked. It sort of reaffirms the OPs anxiety. Sure, it's great the OP is looking for even a mild sexual experience, but the problem is the attitude towards sex. I would agree 100% with you if the topic were "I feel comfortable with sex and I really think I have a good attitude and I'm even mentally ready, but I'm unsure about seeing an escort". But it seems to me the topic is about feeling shame for lack of experience. Is it proper or healthy for someone to pursue sex if there are psychological concerns underneath it? Sometimes, that's why there are sex therapists. Still, it's foolish for anyone to think finally seeing and touching a naked body will solve the real issue. I think it's more productive to put sexual things in a more positive light and see how to achieve a positive, healthy attitude.

You should read Binswanger's article - he really makes a poor quality argument that seems to contradict basic principles of what value is. That is, I don't get why he seems to misrepresent so much of Objectivism by speaking about what we "owe" to the 1%. It's just sad to see.

I have to wonder, if it makes you so uncomfortable, why do you want to pursue this route any further? Beyond that, not enough context to say anything more.

Nobody inherently owes anyone anything. Binswanger appears to be making a collectivistic argument where the value society gets should be recognized. "It is “the community” that should give back to the wealth-creators." This is how so. Wealth isn't going to be absolute, but all I see is an implicit position of intrinsic market value. "Since profit is the market value of the product minus the market value of factors used, profit represents the value created." Yes, this is profit, and money paid for a product represents value someone has for a product. Then again, we mustn't forget profit becomes distorted with regulation. Binswanger should know better. "Imagine the effect on our culture, particularly on the young, if the kind of fame and adulation bathing Lady Gaga attached to the more notable achievements of say, Warren Buffett." Yet another example of intrinsic market value. Binswanger is implying that Lady Gaga has to be less valuable than Buffet. Entertainment value is valid, and some people value Lady Gaga. The bottom line is that Binswanger looks to be making a "social value" utilitarian argument mixed with profit being the end-all of that value.

That would be wishful thinking - free loaders will exist. Even if all people did donate, how would you make sure there are sufficient donations?

"Can you please settle the argument and tell us which you are: an anarchist or a communist?" You've really poisoned the well, Marc... And dare I say made the thread into something worse than it is. "The depth of your thinking on the issue is on full display. " is an example of taking it further than necessary - not that Crow should do the same, but you did the same as Crow. There's really no point to just start with a hostile post except to throw away standards of communication. The worst Crow said is "some taxation might be required". It's not nearly as bad as your portrayal. By phrasing it as a dichotomy, Crow can only be EITHER an anarchist OR a communist. Since Crow is one of those, he is not worth listening to. This all would be okay if you said Crow's view implies communism or anarchy, but the sentence here is saying Crow IS one of those two. Usually I'd put this into a PM, but there is enough harshness here on top of rhetoric that I should say out loud that more rational discussion is required. If Crow or Marc continue their spat, I'll delete their posts. Now, I'll try to clean out the poisoned well. I won't do the whole post now, but Crow seems to be proposing that taxation may be required at least in limited capacity. The reason for this is concern about the free loader problem, preventing free loaders from expecting rights protection for no cost, and how to get people to pay enough. Free loaders will exist for sure. So, do we just not protect people who don't pay? Or do we force them to pay because funding is a prerequisite for having a government. If it's okay to not pay, social psychology indicates that it will lead to more people not paying if for no other reason than people see a signal that not paying is that much more acceptable. If it's not okay to not pay, what do you do to stop free loaders?

The OED says this about its etymology: < Anglo-Norman perfeccion, perfeccioun, perfectioun, Anglo-Norman and Old French, Middle French perfection (French perfection ) state of highest religious accomplishment (c1145), state of highest general achievement (1262), achievement, act of finishing (1360) That's the partial entry. So, at least in English, the usage of "perfect" has mainly refereed to an absolute perfection where there would be no mistakes or a very religious connotation. But the English word has Anglo-French origin, which in turn derives from Latin. Dictionary.com says this about the Latin word: < from Latin perfectiō a completing, from perficere to finish] The Latin meaning seems to be more about a completed state, not a state where nothing went wrong. Others could take it as completed and total in a person requires no mistakes ever. It's more the victim of inconsistent development as a word.

Expanding on Reidy's post, Rand described Dominique like herself on a bad day. So, Rand seems to be writing about thoughts and emotions she had but actually thinks are poorly founded. Sometimes I've felt like most people are vapid and stupid, Even about day to day things, not just "big" moral questions. Still, I don't believe that people really are on average hopelessly irrational, but that isn't to say I've never had pessimistic thoughts.

No, it's more that for ALL people in a society, it is virtually impossible that ALL people will be rational. It just... doesn't make sense. I don't know what would indicate that it's possible for ALL people in any given society (future or otherwise) will be rational. Statistically speaking, you'll find some irrational people, because for whatever reason, some people choose that. Basically, since all people have volition, some people will choose irrationality. That's all Crow was saying. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that since it is possible to be rational by nature of being human, it is possible that all people can be rational. Well, sure, but it's wishful thinking - that's not how people are in reality. You can be rational if you want, but not everyone will make that same choice.

I didn't swap the subject. I'm saying some Americans say stupid things, and so do some non-Americans. Well, if you're talking about DA, I think DA should have said "some". I forget the word "some' more often than I'd like, personally. A sweeping generalization is one usually done with induction by enumeration, which is not good. Thus, it's another way to say stereotype. Why might some people develop particular stereotypes about Americans? Grames gives good possibilities.

I have. Some Americans do it too towards other countries in equally unfair ways. My point was mainly that it's not necessarily "anti-Americanism". Sometimes it's just a stupid stereotype and nothing more nefarious. I see it more along the lines of the Portlandia sketch where some Americans make themselves look ironically ignorant.

Not any more than some Americans make sweeping generalizations about other countries. People have assumptions about Americans, but it doesn't exactly translate to anti-Americanism. Some Americans in fact make assumptions, or may not bother to learn about a language when going to another country. There are also some aspects of American culture that are rather odd compared to other countries. Sometimes it's rather bizarre to imagine that there are reasons to say Americans are narrow-minded, but it's rather hard to actually get a non-American perspective. Likewise for people from other countries. There is no malicious ideology necessary. Sure, vocal politicians of other countries express anti-Americanism, but it doesn't translate to all negative opinions being "anti-American". The perspective of Europeans about Americans might be "gun owners that like to wear cowboy hats and go hunting every week" for instance, while American perspective about Spaniards might be "classical guitar lovers who eat paella every day". Just silly stereotypes that are mostly unfair, but it's not anything like "anti-whatever" sentiments. Example of what I'm thinking about:

Sorry, I'm confused. Disagree with what? I agree with the caption. The picture also is good because it portrays the irony of how Islamic extremist terrorists are quicker to blame the US than their oppressive country.

They do, whether you realize it or not. I mean, most people here seem to notice assumptions you've taken for granted.

Blorps are zeeps because they live on Wulark.. Is that true or false? Really, you can't say this is false despite there being clear grammatical structure. It lacks anything to be evaluated as true or false. You are analyzing the syntax of a statement, while there is no semantic meaning. There is no context. I don't see why a universal liar would need to be able to make only evaluable statements anyway. The whole example of a universal liar claiming to be such itself can't be evaluated! If say, the universal liar is a robot, you'd program it not to say such meaningless sentences. Or you'd allow it to lie, and state meaningless propositions, but never the truth.

What do you mean that there's an answer? There is no particular answer any more than there is an answer to "I don't know anything". It's just an arbitrary statement, and I'd say the result is that it can't be true or false. The sentence literally makes no sense. Green ideas sure do sleep furiously, wouldn't you say? Back to the paradox. Grammatically correct? Yes. Any meaning? No.