The Refuge of the Toads

[Billie from Ockham]

Worth reading: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... g-backward

[Tigzy]

The tweet she linked didn't show up. Here it is, enjoy :

Hmmm. David Hooke. 'Islington resident. Labour Party member.'

So he's one of them, is he? The type who thinks braised ox cheeks in artichoke jus is 'typical pub food.' Or, as I put it in my tweet, the kind of person who very likely makes his own 'peasant style' organic salad dressing. He probably likes bitter Venezuelan fairtrade chocolate infused with chili.

He's a champion of the oppressed and marginalised. He's empathic. He knows what a fairer world should be like, for he has discussed it often with friends over vegan canapes and chilled Muscat in convival surroundings.

[ffs]

Well, at the risk of getting into an analogy battle, it more like the police requiring a disinterested neighbor to open the door so they can get in because he happens to have the ability to hack the lock (Lets assume the lock explodes and destroys the property if 3 failed attempts are made to enter the right code). The neighbor is free to assist, but IMO should not be compelled (under the thread of prison) to expend his time and effort to do so.

And how do you define "less valid situations"? Remember, its the government making that call, not Apple. Suspected pedophelia? Drug dealing? Alleged domestic abuse? Petty burglary? Insider trading? Selling non-taxed cigarettes? Criticising the mayor? Once Apples gives the governement the tools to unlock this phone, they will be able to unlock any similar phone they might want to in the future. And can other governments compel Apple to give them this tool? And to use for whatever "situation" they decide is "valid"?

Another point here, is that Apple is standing on principle. What the FBI is asking for is only possible because of the particular iPhone model in question. They're not actually asking Apple to unlock it, which Apple already can't do, but just to load on a crippled version of the operating system that will not automatically wipe the hard disk if more than 10 attempts are made to guess the password. The FBI themselves will then brute force the password by trying all possible combinations.

Newer iPhones have different security hardware and even if Apple were to load a different operating system onto them, the decision to wipe the data is no longer made by the operating system, but by the hardware. Thus, in the future there would be nothing even Apple could do in a similar situation.

Unless, of course, the US government requires all technology companies to cripple their hardware with backdoors. Note that China has been wanting companies to do this for some time, but so far hasn't been strong enough to require that. Be sure they're watching this with interest, and if the FBI succeeds, that's the beginning of the end for digital privacy not just from the FBI, but from all governments around the world.

Bingo. And again, Comey et al have literally stated that that is their end game. They do not want any form of encryption that they cannot bypass with ease to exist. They do not believe anyone but the government has a right to it.

Part of the reason to protest at this stage is to prevent precedent from going further

After all if the FBI can demand they program a custom version of the OS what's to prevent them from demanding Apple engineer custom chips or hardware bypass elements for them as well?

[John D]

Worth reading: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... g-backward

Scalia's originalism would conclude the Blacks where not human beings and that the States had the right to treat Blacks differently than non-Blacks. He was a bizarre little man, and while I wish no one harm, I will not miss him on the court. Now, if only Thomas would step down (as I wish no one harm). Thomas will go down in history as one of the weakest justices in history. At least Scalia will be talked about (talked about with revulsion... but at least talked about).

[deLurch]

It appears that one of the most even keeled youtubers has had it with a certain someone's bare faced lies.

[.youtube]6bVZq2rAf4M[/youtube]

Seems it was also a step too far for YouTube. I just clicked the link in her twitter profile to have a look, and her account is gone:

http://i.imgur.com/XVqXMBs.jpg

Check out her 3rd video on Armored Skeptic & Shoe0nhead:
Check out the reason Youtube shut it down. "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's policy on harassment and bullying."
[youtube]VbMVTwXbiu0[/youtube]

So in order.
Video Jenny posted on who she hates on youtube:
http://vjeon.com/jenny/YouTubers_I_Hate.mp4

She immediately uploads a video accusing Armoured Skeptic of being a rapist & being a pedo (despite the fact that his girlfriend shoe0nhead is 24 years old.
http://vjeon.com/jenny/Armoured_Skeptic_a_rapist.mp4

The next day, she doubles down and uploads this video about the Armored Skeptic's supposed lawsuit threat.
https://mega.nz/#!1kxxRC4Y!i-9f2pyi33-H ... jWmRHazrBo

Then later that day, she triples down reitterating her accusations and claiming that shoe0nhead's parents are responsible for her "rape."
https://mega.nz/#!dopS1ZRT!kalJHnjY30oE ... p2vDnCQdA8

[some guy]

Well, at the risk of getting into an analogy battle, it more like the police requiring a disinterested neighbor to open the door so they can get in because he happens to have the ability to hack the lock (Lets assume the lock explodes and destroys the property if 3 failed attempts are made to enter the right code). The neighbor is free to assist, but IMO should not be compelled (under the thread of prison) to expend his time and effort to do so.

And how do you define "less valid situations"? Remember, its the government making that call, not Apple. Suspected pedophelia? Drug dealing? Alleged domestic abuse? Petty burglary? Insider trading? Selling non-taxed cigarettes? Criticising the mayor? Once Apples gives the governement the tools to unlock this phone, they will be able to unlock any similar phone they might want to in the future. And can other governments compel Apple to give them this tool? And to use for whatever "situation" they decide is "valid"?

They wouldn't have to give them the tools. And certainly not to foreign governments. Do it in-house and give a printout of the results to the US gov't. Apple could decide for themselves based on the individual cases. A for-sure terrorist who has for-sure kills under their belt, should not need long to decide on. Very different than suspected anything, and very different from more minor things like non-terrorist, non-serial, ordinary killings. I don't see any slippery slope in this. However, if the government were to insist that Apple give them the virtual "key" for unlimited future use at the gov't's discretion, then they'd be right to say no.

Well what the FBI got the court to order Apple to do is to write a new verson of the OS, and then load that OS on the phone so that they (the government) can try the 10,000 different unique passcodes so they can eventually unlock the phone without the data being erased. So the government will have a copy of this OS, and I'm sure will be able to see exactly how Apple did it. (If they FBI can't do that, either NSA or any one of a thousand journeyman Russian hackers will be able to reverse engineer it for them.)

Regardless, my point is that this is not the case where an entity that is the legal (or wrongful) custodian of data is being asked to deliver that data. It is a third party being compelled to work for the government to hack a device that they do not own, control, or have responsibility for, at the risk of jail/fine/sanctions if they refuse.

Ask yourself this, what if it so happened that you had the hacking skills to hack the phone. Could the government compel *you* do that for them if you didn't want to?

[Billie from Ockham]

IMO, the key issue that will decide the current spat between Apple and the FBI is the definition of "undue burden" as it applies to what the FBI is asking Apple to do. None of this privacy shit will play any serious role in the legal battle because the FBI already has an order to search the phone. There is also nothing in the relevant decisions that mentions side-effects of compelling a third party to help the gov't under the All Writs Act. The only question is how much effort it would require from Apple. That's been the standard since 1977.

[Billie from Ockham]

Worth reading: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... g-backward

Scalia's originalism would conclude the Blacks where not human beings and that the States had the right to treat Blacks differently than non-Blacks. He was a bizarre little man, and while I wish no one harm, I will not miss him on the court. Now, if only Thomas would step down (as I wish no one harm). Thomas will go down in history as one of the weakest justices in history. At least Scalia will be talked about (talked about with revulsion... but at least talked about).

My prediction is that, now that he's gone and people won't be so afraid, is that you will see a flood of articles in more and more prestigious places absolutely ripping Scalia's "originalism" for the self-serving horseshit that we've known it to be all along. At least Thomas is consistent, even if his "opinions" are written for him and passed to him via his wife in a plain paper wrapper.

[Kirbmarc]

Mary P. Koss was the author of the 1980 research published in Ms. Magazine, which concluded 1 in 4 college women had been raped. Koss arrived at this number by disregarding the vast majority of those women's own assesment-- that the sex they had while drinking, or while 'held down', etc.-- had been pleasurable normal consentual orgasmic fun-- and they had continued to voluntarily have sex with the same men Koss deemed rapists. Koss failed to examine whether male college students experience similar drunk sex, or sex with a partner on top.

More recently Koss advised the Center for Disease Control against including men who reported having-been forced to penetrate-- as rape victims. One reason this matters: CDC stats are cited by the FBI.

I alluded to this in my exchange with Kirbmarc. Kirbmarc expressed disbelief in my allegation that parity in the fequency of rape of males and females had been covered-up, and asked me to substantiate the claim. I provided a link to a Time Magazine article by Cathy Young.

Just now, I came-across another link-- this one at MRA Allison Tieman's site, which provides damning examples from "Detecting The Scope Of Rape: A Review Of Prevalance Research Methods" by Mary Koss:

<snip>


The sexist anti-male double standard couldn't be clearer.

The evidence you provided clearly shows that Mary Koss has a clear double standard and a strong bias against males when it comes to her definition of rape.

I also accept that the statistics show that the number of men being forced to penetrate is roughly equal to the women who have been penetrated. I find this result highly surprising, but apparently rape has become an equal opportunity crime.

I still think that it's pretty insane to promote a systemic use of jury nullification in all trials for rape in which the accused is a man. Biases in the justice system aren't addressed by making it impossible to convict anyone.

The US justice system, and especially the institute of plea bargaining, is biased against all the accused, because since punishment after a trial by jury are often draconian plea bargaining is used as a blackmail tool to force admissions of guilt from the accused who cannot afford a good lawyer. This doesn't mean that jurors should systematically use jury nullification in every case where the eventual punishment would be harsh.

I can understand a social/political campaign to raise awareness about these issues. I can understand asking jurors to be cautious, to evaluate evidence critically in light of the biases you describe. Wrecking the system is just asinine and counterproductive.

[Scented Nectar]

Well, he doesn't address what I think is the real issue. IMO it is this: can a government force someone to do something to assist them (for whatever reason, but lets concede it is a compelling reason), when that person or entity did nothing wrong or illegal in the first place?

This is not a case where Apple is being asked to turn over things in their possession (like that data being sought, or even tools that they already have that would unlock the phone). The government is asking Apple to expend effort and resources to help the government do what the government wants, and at the same time to forever destroy what Apple considers to be a valuable (and completely legal) feature of their products.

I think it is a very important principle to defend. I'd have no problem if Apple decided to help them (even if backdoor- hush hush), but that should be their choice to make voluntarily.

I think of it like a search warrant. Even though those are sometimes misused, the terrorist in question is a valid search. It's way outside of being a basic privacy issue. It's like a landlord refusing to open a high-tech lock on a tenant's door when there's a search warrant, with the tenant being the terrorist in question, who has already murdered people. I doubt Apple would have to try hard to do it, or expend too much effort or resources. They know their products. And it wouldn't open the door to other people's privacy being at risk. Apple could simply refuse for any less valid situations, such as only open phones of terrorists who have murdered, like this guy, but not those who are merely suspected. I really think they are just scared of being considered islamophobic.

However, to look at it more charitably, maybe they are just making terrorists feel comfortable using their phones while in reality it's being monitored on the sly. That would be good. :)

I don't give much weight to the argument that compliance would be onerous for Apple - and Apple haven't themselves raised that as an issue, so far as I'm aware.

Subpoenas to Produce on individuals and corporations can require teams of persons and forests of paper to comply with. 'Conduct Money' must be paid, but the amount prescribed it usually only is notional ($50, if that) and once paid the onus shifts back on the subpoenaed party to make application to the court for additional conduct money.

There's a jurisprudential concept called the 'burden of litigation' which basically is an attempt to rationalise why the courts should be permitted to make onerous requests - for assistance, information and documents - of disinterested parties to court proceedings. The theory goes that we all in the end benefit from civil and criminal litigation, that it makes the rule of law function in society and if, from time to time, you're lent upon to put yourself out to grease the wheels a little, tough titties! We all benefit so all need to contribute.

My take on the present kerfuffle is Apple knows it will have to comply and it has made a very smart move socialising it's conundrum as a precursor to painting itself as the victim before it inevitably bows to either or a combination of political pressure or a court order. Win-win.

Finally, I wouldn't be discharging my obligations as the Pit's Official Shill for Harris ('POSH') without point you to SH's latest from yesterday which includes his take on the issue - which boils down to a position that data is information and property and if the courts can compel a bank to open a safety deposit box, why not Apple a phone (he doesn't use that exact analogy, but would of had he thought of it).

https://www.samharris.org/podcast

I agree with Sam Harris on that. It's the same as a safety deposit box. Do you know which podcast has that discussion? From the titles, the latest one seems to be about the ethics of meat production on the youtube versions of his podcasts. Is it the Ask Me Anything one that was before it? His channel's at http://www.youtube.com/user/samharrisorg .

I don't like that burden of litigation thing. It's not fair, and can be used to financially fuck someone up intentionally.

[comhcinc]

Mansplaining is when a man explains something to a womenin a condescending or patronising way.

Condescension means talking down to someone.



(nb I stole this joke from Graeme Garden, specifically from "I'm Sorry, I haven't a Clue")

Fixed it for you.

[ffs]

IMO, the key issue that will decide the current spat between Apple and the FBI is the definition of "undue burden" as it applies to what the FBI is asking Apple to do. None of this privacy shit will play any serious role in the legal battle because the FBI already has an order to search the phone. There is also nothing in the relevant decisions that mentions side-effects of compelling a third party to help the gov't under the All Writs Act. The only question is how much effort it would require from Apple. That's been the standard since 1977.

My particular take is that the FBI mucked up the avenues that Apple was already complying with to get to all the data they think they'd like, forcing a company to custom program an OS that can be sideloaded fails the 'undue burden' sniff test, and that trying to apply the All Writs Act of 1789 toward modern cryptography and telecommunication and programming concerns is pretty ludicrous even if it WAS updated in 1911

[Billie from Ockham]

As I alluded to above, any discussion of Apple vs the FBI (or the All Writs Act in general) that does not touch on the burden placed on the third party misses the point of the current reading of the law. This even applies to ... gasp! ... Sam Harris, IMO.

[comhcinc]

About the Apple thing.

Really the only information the feds are looking for is about who bought the guns. The call data has already been collected. The phone actually wasn't the suspects but belong to his employer so should that complicates it.

Also from what I understand what is being ask of Apple will only apply to this one phone. As in if they want it to do with any other phone it will require unique code every time.

Also it seems that they are only even able to do this because of the age of the phone and the os.


I could have all my information wrong.

Once the precedent is set, it becomes serial monogamy. "Just this phone. Okay, now just THIS phone. Okay, now JUST this phone." it would be an endless stream of "just this phone"'s.

I agree. My point was that it's a process that has to be done one phone at a time.

[Shatterface]

At what point does even a retard like Bob at Nugent's have to realise people have been pulling his dick for the last 20 hours?

[comhcinc]

[youtube]954VvxiHTRk[/youtube]

[Billie from Ockham]

IMO, the key issue that will decide the current spat between Apple and the FBI is the definition of "undue burden" as it applies to what the FBI is asking Apple to do. None of this privacy shit will play any serious role in the legal battle because the FBI already has an order to search the phone. There is also nothing in the relevant decisions that mentions side-effects of compelling a third party to help the gov't under the All Writs Act. The only question is how much effort it would require from Apple. That's been the standard since 1977.

My particular take is that the FBI mucked up the avenues that Apple was already complying with to get to all the data they think they'd like, forcing a company to custom program an OS that can be sideloaded fails the 'undue burden' sniff test, and that trying to apply the All Writs Act of 1789 toward modern cryptography and telecommunication and programming concerns is pretty ludicrous even if it WAS updated in 1911

I agree with you that what the FBI is asking for should fail the undue burden test (if what Apple has been saying is truthful), but the use of the All Writs Act for this sort of thing has become standard and Apple has complied many times in the past. Also, the most relevant "update" is the 1977 decision regarding forcing a telephone company to install a PEN register.

[Scented Nectar]

Easily fixed. Apple could open the phone in the privacy of their own offices, print out the info, and give the printout to the gov't. No one has to hand over any master keys. No one even has to see how they crack the encryption. Chain of evidence can be preserved by having one or more agents in the room who are not able to see the screen or keyboard action of the Apple person who's cracking the phone.

AFAICT, the government isn't asking Apple to open the phone, but to make it possible for the government to do so. They want Apple to write software that would disable the 10-strikes-you're-out security feature, after which the government (FBI, whatever) would brute force guessing the password (entering 4-digit numerical codes in a methodical fashion until the phone opened) .

Again, AFAICT, some of the issues include (a) a court could require it be used in all sorts of cases since it now exists, (b) once the software exists it could get into the wrong hands, and (c) hackers and other governments would know it was possible & start working on getting a copy, or writing their own versions.

If that's the case, then I'm completely on Apple's side. No one should be compelled to create something, like software, that doesn't already exist. And no one should be required to hand over a back door entrance that could potentially be used on anyone/everyone without proper search warrants.

[Guestus Aurelius]

Wee bit o' blues for yez. My mostly-improvised solo cover of ZZ Top "Blue Jean Blues".

[youtube]kpp9MSEOh3U[/youtube]

Nice rhythm, Paddy. Thanks for sharing.

[Scented Nectar]

And thereafter they will be legally compelled to do so by every police agency and tin-pot dictator the whole world round.

I can see how US police search warrants might be compelled, but how on earth would foreign governments be able to do that?

[comhcinc]

And thereafter they will be legally compelled to do so by every police agency and tin-pot dictator the whole world round.

I can see how US police search warrants might be compelled, but how on earth would foreign governments be able to do that?

China can simple tell Apple to do what they say or they will ban Apple from selling in China.

[Scented Nectar]

[youtube]C37RcvpFnmEC37RcvpFnmE[/youtube]

-Soylent f98

Oh shit, I promised one of those youtube tutorials. I forgot. So sometime today, unless I forget again.

[Billie from Ockham]

And thereafter they will be legally compelled to do so by every police agency and tin-pot dictator the whole world round.

I can see how US police search warrants might be compelled, but how on earth would foreign governments be able to do that?

The foreign gov't angle is a complete red herring, IMO. Why would Russia or China care about a legal decision in the US? Do we care about their decisions? If they want to try to force Apple to help them hack a phone (which China has already done), then they will.

[comhcinc]

And thereafter they will be legally compelled to do so by every police agency and tin-pot dictator the whole world round.

I can see how US police search warrants might be compelled, but how on earth would foreign governments be able to do that?

The foreign gov't angle is a complete red herring, IMO. Why would Russia or China care about a legal decision in the US? Do we care about their decisions? If they want to try to force Apple to help them hack a phone (which China has already done), then they will.

The thing is Russia or China would use the US courts.

[MarcusAu]

re: The Next Slympepit hangout

As the last one went so well - I was thinking:

- perhaps those that did not take part in the first one should be given priority. (As a newbie - I would even be willing to give up my privileged [!] position for someone else)
- as the first hangout proved secure and was not recorded, anyone who had concerns has a chance to reconsider about joining in (and I'm sure would be more than welcome - that means you Skep Tickle!)
- I think the plan was to schedule for Oceania time - to give the Southies better representation. Has the time been set yet?
- the hangout ended up being an informal conversation (which was fine) - but if anyone has suggestions for a set agenda, perhaps a thread could be created for it.

Looking forward to the next one - and thanks to our very own Agent 21 (Comhcinc) for setting it up

[--bill]

Made a disturbing discovery. John Thaw, when he started playing Inspector Morse, was younger than I am now.

https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hp ... e=576C3387

gah....me too....

[gurugeorge]

Mary P. Koss was the author of the 1980 research published in Ms. Magazine, which concluded 1 in 4 college women had been raped. Koss arrived at this number by disregarding the vast majority of those women's own assesment-- that the sex they had while drinking, or while 'held down', etc.-- had been pleasurable normal consentual orgasmic fun-- and they had continued to voluntarily have sex with the same men Koss deemed rapists. Koss failed to examine whether male college students experience similar drunk sex, or sex with a partner on top.

More recently Koss advised the Center for Disease Control against including men who reported having-been forced to penetrate-- as rape victims. One reason this matters: CDC stats are cited by the FBI.

I alluded to this in my exchange with Kirbmarc. Kirbmarc expressed disbelief in my allegation that parity in the fequency of rape of males and females had been covered-up, and asked me to substantiate the claim. I provided a link to a Time Magazine article by Cathy Young.

Just now, I came-across another link-- this one at MRA Allison Tieman's site, which provides damning examples from "Detecting The Scope Of Rape: A Review Of Prevalance Research Methods" by Mary Koss:

<snip>


The sexist anti-male double standard couldn't be clearer.

The evidence you provided clearly shows that Mary Koss has a clear double standard and a strong bias against males when it comes to her definition of rape.

I also accept that the statistics show that the number of men being forced to penetrate is roughly equal to the women who have been penetrated. I find this result highly surprising, but apparently rape has become an equal opportunity crime.

I still think that it's pretty insane to promote a systemic use of jury nullification in all trials for rape in which the accused is a man. Biases in the justice system aren't addressed by making it impossible to convict anyone.

The US justice system, and especially the institute of plea bargaining, is biased against all the accused, because since punishment after a trial by jury are often draconian plea bargaining is used as a blackmail tool to force admissions of guilt from the accused who cannot afford a good lawyer. This doesn't mean that jurors should systematically use jury nullification in every case where the eventual punishment would be harsh.

I can understand a social/political campaign to raise awareness about these issues. I can understand asking jurors to be cautious, to evaluate evidence critically in light of the biases you describe. Wrecking the system is just asinine and counterproductive.

I'm undecided on the jury question, but good on you for following the evidence in this. As someone who experienced minor sexual abuse at the hands of his step-mother, I too was surprised (after 50 odd years of thinking it was only some odd anomaly that happened to me) at the figures showing that female rape may be a bigger and more "hidden" problem than we think (of course still "anomalous" in the larger sense, just as penetrative rape; but you know what I mean).

Just as a side-note, and in line with the language discussions going on elsewhere, more about the "tone" of language:-

1) We have "high agency" (or "active agent"?) values for the penis - penetrating, thrusting, etc.

2) We have "low agency" (or "passive, patient") values for the vagina - violated, penetrated, receptive, etc.

But do we have "passive/patient" values for the penis, and do we have "active/agent" values for the vagina?

3) Possible "patient" terms for the penis: giving, sacrificing, etc.

4) Possible "agent" terms for the vagina: grasping, clutching, etc.

Indeed, the very model of the female/egg thing is an analogue of - what? A cell ingesting something - eating. A pretty powerful "positive" value on the whole.

Generally, the fact that we're sort of "blind" to a "positive value" for the vagina, that the very concept sort of slides off the mind (even though any male can testify that female sexuality can be incredibly force-of-nature-ish too) is, I think, symptomatic of something - mainly of the way that women's agency is downplayed in traditionalism, and sad to say, some forms of feminism. I'm sure the long-form explanation is probably quite complicated (partly sexual dimorphism with all its resonant consequences as canvassed by evol psych, etc.), but the consequence is some people finding it inconceivable that women can coerce men into unwanted sex (with all the values of "coercion" short of those requiring high upper body strength, except in circumstances with an older, stronger female and a younger, weaker male, of course).

The question of arousal in rape is also quite murky - so far as I can gather, precisely one of the most shameful things in the horrible crime of rape for some female victims, is the fact that they witnessed their body going through some kind of arousal pattern. Same is true for boys: the presence of an erection doesn't necessarily imply the sex was wanted or consented to, any more than the presence of wetness means "she was asking for it". And yet we have a tendency to snigger when we hear of (e.g.) female gaolers grooming and raping young offenders.

Yes, there's an innate difference in violence and other concomitants of upper body strength and that does indeed make male rape when accompanied by such violence objectively a worse offense. But visiting unwanted sex on another human being is a bad thing that should (depending on degree and severity obviously) be anything from frowned-upon to criminal, no matter which gender is doing it, by whatever means.

[Scented Nectar]

And thereafter they will be legally compelled to do so by every police agency and tin-pot dictator the whole world round.

I can see how US police search warrants might be compelled, but how on earth would foreign governments be able to do that?

The foreign gov't angle is a complete red herring, IMO. Why would Russia or China care about a legal decision in the US? Do we care about their decisions? If they want to try to force Apple to help them hack a phone (which China has already done), then they will.

Exactly.

[Billie from Ockham]

The question of arousal in rape is also quite murky...

I think that "murky" was exactly the correct word to use here, given that most definitions mention dark and moist. But it kind of ruins the whole gender-neutral approach, doesn't it?

[Scented Nectar]

And thereafter they will be legally compelled to do so by every police agency and tin-pot dictator the whole world round.

I can see how US police search warrants might be compelled, but how on earth would foreign governments be able to do that?

China can simple tell Apple to do what they say or they will ban Apple from selling in China.

Hey Com, what do you think of the latest Jenny McDermott scandal, wherein she called someone a pedo without any good grounds to do so?

[/rhetorical-question]

[Shatterface]

Lebanese media reports that the man who hit the late Christopher Hitchens in an altercation in Beirut in 2009 has been killed in Syria, fighting alongside forces allied with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. Adonis Nasr, an information officer with the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP), often boasted of slapping Hitchens, after the British-American author defaced a placard commemorating an SSNP "hero" who killed two Israeli soldiers in a Wimpy's restaurant in 1982.

Hitchens wasn't a big fan of Israel, and his gesture certainly wasn't intended to defend Israel's invasion and occupation of Lebanon. He just despised fascists and rightly interpreted the SSNP's ideology and symbols as fascist, so when he saw the SSNP's version of a swastika in the Hamra section of Beirut, he was moved to act. As Hitchens later wrote for Vanity Fair:

Well, call me old-fashioned if you will, but I have always taken the view that swastika symbols exist for one purpose only—to be defaced. Telling my two companions to hold on for a second, I flourish my trusty felt-tip and begin to write some offensive words on the offending poster. I say "begin" because I have barely gotten to the letter k in a well-known transitive verb when I am grabbed by my shirt collar by a venomous little thug, his face glittering with hysterical malice. With his other hand, he is speed-dialing for backup on his cell phone. As always with episodes of violence, things seem to slow down and quicken up at the same time: the eruption of mayhem in broad daylight happening with the speed of lightning yet somehow held in freeze-frame. It becomes evident, as the backup arrives, that this gang wants to take me away.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/fascist-d ... le/2001196

[Shatterface]

If we ever do a Pit convention we should call it Comhcincon.

There will be wrestling.

[HoneyWagon]

So I heard Brive1987 talking about The Orbit on the Sargon of Akkad podcast, but does anyone know what's happening with the Burning Bridges network ? Their FB page seems to be updated regularly enough but there doesn't seem to be any site up and running.

OMG, I had totally forgotten about them, lol

[Steersman]

<snip>

China can simple tell Apple to do what they say or they will ban Apple from selling in China.

Hey Com, what do you think of the latest Jenny McDermott scandal, wherein she called someone a pedo without any good grounds to do so?

[/rhetorical-question]

:lol: "The foregoing has been a paid political announcement. We now return you to our regular scheduled programming. ...." ;-)

[Steersman]

<snip>Maybe the idea doesn't hold a lot of water, or it is already a standard technique - though I haven't seen anybody using it, but a Twitter exchange I had with some researcher in, I think, evo-psych didn't shoot the idea down in flames. I await your, no doubt cogent and detailed, refutation of it.

Oh christ, he's gone full Carrier.

Typical Welch: all horn and no drive-shaft.

[ffs]

I can see how US police search warrants might be compelled, but how on earth would foreign governments be able to do that?

The foreign gov't angle is a complete red herring, IMO. Why would Russia or China care about a legal decision in the US? Do we care about their decisions? If they want to try to force Apple to help them hack a phone (which China has already done), then they will.

Exactly.

It's a lot easier to resist the pressure if precedent isn't set and your tools don't already exist. It's harder to say 'fuck your national concerns' if you've already bent to the US, to the UK on the US behalf, to the UK because terrorism is a global concern, to another nation we are bargaining with because the drug trade puts some money in terrorist pockets, to the dot dot dot

[comhcinc]

Hey Com, what do you think of the latest Jenny McDermott scandal, wherein she called someone a pedo without any good grounds to do so?

[/rhetorical-question]

Lol. You are still butthurt about that.

It's getting to the point that it's just sad.

[Scented Nectar]

<snip>

China can simple tell Apple to do what they say or they will ban Apple from selling in China.

Hey Com, what do you think of the latest Jenny McDermott scandal, wherein she called someone a pedo without any good grounds to do so?

[/rhetorical-question]

:lol: "The foregoing has been a paid political announcement. We now return you to our regular scheduled programming. ...." ;-)

:lol:

[Brive1987]

Just read the "mansplaining" thread at Nugent's. Jesus but that Bob creature is a twat. I love the way he's noticed that nobody agrees with him, but doesn't seem to have noticed that everybody's taking the piss.

I really don't understand the level of interest and need to fight back against Bob.

Mansplaining is clearly premised on privilage and the patriarchal bubble of understanding men find themselves in. The only way to break free from perpetuating a patriarchal world view is to shut up and then listen to the oppressed females. Especially on topics on inequality.

There is nothing more to it. Accept PP and it all makes sense. Don't accept the PP model and it is dehumanising identity politics bullshit.

[Scented Nectar]

The foreign gov't angle is a complete red herring, IMO. Why would Russia or China care about a legal decision in the US? Do we care about their decisions? If they want to try to force Apple to help them hack a phone (which China has already done), then they will.

Exactly.

It's a lot easier to resist the pressure if precedent isn't set and your tools don't already exist. It's harder to say 'fuck your national concerns' if you've already bent to the US, to the UK on the US behalf, to the UK because terrorism is a global concern, to another nation we are bargaining with because the drug trade puts some money in terrorist pockets, to the dot dot dot

Resisting words or pressure is not the same as having to resist actual laws. There are no laws forcing that slippery slope to happen. Sure, people can cave to any pressure, and people can also apply any pressure, but there is no mechanism to force anyone to comply with that pressure, such as a law saying they have to comply with foreign gov't requests. Corporate businesspeople and lawyers are grown-ups, and I'm sure they can say no to things that they know full well they're not being forced to do.

[Scented Nectar]

Hey Com, what do you think of the latest Jenny McDermott scandal, wherein she called someone a pedo without any good grounds to do so?

[/rhetorical-question]

Lol. You are still butthurt about that.

It's getting to the point that it's just sad.

So, I guess we should just never again mention that Jenny M did it too. Because referring to it more than once would just be sad? How about we never refer to Stollznow's false accusation of sex crimes either? And let's never mention PZ's grenade, perhaps, because that would mean we're butthurt. Is that what you want?

Sorry Com, but you did the same thing as what Jenny did. My memory may be shitty for the most part, but I'm not going to forget the false pedo claim you made any time soon. I'm still like, holy fuck!

[Brive1987]

How about we never refer to Stollznow's false accusation of sex crimes either

That made me cry a little.

[Guest_0048cc29]

Does David Futrelle live in Michigan? Because slap an orange jumpsuit on David and change his wig, and Michigan Uber Shooter

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

re: The Next Slympepit hangout

As the last one went so well - I was thinking:

- perhaps those that did not take part in the first one should be given priority. (As a newbie - I would even be willing to give up my privileged [!] position for someone else)
- as the first hangout proved secure and was not recorded, anyone who had concerns has a chance to reconsider about joining in (and I'm sure would be more than welcome - that means you Skep Tickle!)
- I think the plan was to schedule for Oceania time - to give the Southies better representation. Has the time been set yet?
- the hangout ended up being an informal conversation (which was fine) - but if anyone has suggestions for a set agenda, perhaps a thread could be created for it.

Looking forward to the next one - and thanks to our very own Agent 21 (Comhcinc) for setting it up

It really sucks that g+ is limiting the number of participants. Would Skype be any better? Honestly, the hangout was a lot less messy than I would have imagined, so I'm all for a "the more the merrier" approach.

As for a discussion agenda. I can suggest thumb-over-neck screwdriving chainsaws. Pretty sure I could get Rystefn to join in. :o

[Steersman]

How about we never refer to Stollznow's false accusation of sex crimes either

That made me cry a little.

:lol: ;-)

Man came in, said, "All rise!" We all stood up, and Obie stood up with the
Twenty-seven 8 x 10 colored glossy pictures, and the judge walked in, sat
Down, with a seein' eye dog and he sat down. We sat down.

Obie looked at the seein' eye dog . . . then at the twenty-seven 8 x 10
Colored glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the
Back of each one . . . and looked at the seein' eye dog . . . and then at
The twenty-seven 8 x 10 colored glossy pictures with the circles and arrows
And a paragraph on the back of each on and began to cry.

Because Obie came to the realization that it was a typical case of American
Blind justice, and there wasn't nothin' he could do about it, and the judge
Wasn't gonna look at the twenty-seven 8 by 10 colored glossy pictures with
The circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explainin'
What each one was, to be used as evidence against us.

Alice's Restaraunt, lyrics & video. :-)

[Steersman]

<snip>

Lol. You are still butthurt about that.

It's getting to the point that it's just sad.

So, I guess we should just never again mention that Jenny M did it too. Because referring to it more than once would just be sad? How about we never refer to Stollznow's false accusation of sex crimes either? And let's never mention PZ's grenade, perhaps, because that would mean we're butthurt. Is that what you want?

Sorry Com, but you did the same thing as what Jenny did. My memory may be shitty for the most part, but I'm not going to forget the false pedo claim you made any time soon. I'm still like, holy fuck!

Indeed. While I tend to rely on the dictionary - surprise, surprise, suprise - which tends not to have the same connotations as the common use, I'm kind of surprised, given the tendency of more than a few here to insist that such common uses should be held sacrosanct and the final arbiter, that more haven't similarly tried to take comhcinc to task over what is still a rather egregious accusation - at least in common parlance. ;-)

[Scented Nectar]

How about we never refer to Stollznow's false accusation of sex crimes either

That made me cry a little.

Sorry. Just send me any therapy bills this caused. :lol:

[free thoughtpolice]

Hey Com, what do you think of the latest Jenny McDermott scandal, wherein she called someone a pedo without any good grounds to do so?

[/rhetorical-question]

Lol. You are still butthurt about that.

It's getting to the point that it's just sad.

So, I guess we should just never again mention that Jenny M did it too. Because referring to it more than once would just be sad? How about we never refer to Stollznow's false accusation of sex crimes either? And let's never mention PZ's grenade, perhaps, because that would mean we're butthurt. Is that what you want?

Sorry Com, but you did the same thing as what Jenny did. My memory may be shitty for the most part, but I'm not going to forget the false pedo claim you made any time soon. I'm still like, holy fuck!

In Jenny McDermott's defense, at least she didn't call Armoured Skeptic a Steersman. :rimshot:

[Steersman]

Steersman wants to deport Muslims because they can't fit in with Western liberal ideals. Western liberal ideals, especially Canada, includes religious liberty and inclusion. Therefore Steersman is incompatible with Western ideals.

#DeportSteersMann

Freedom of religion isn't an absolute. If it were then gay marriage would have never gotten out of the chute. And likewise with the whole kerfuffle in the US over religious organizations attempting to opt-out of various obligations expected of everyone else. Logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

[Steersman]

<snip>

Sorry Com, but you did the same thing as what Jenny did. My memory may be shitty for the most part, but I'm not going to forget the false pedo claim you made any time soon. I'm still like, holy fuck!

In Jenny McDermott's defense, at least she didn't call Armoured Skeptic a Steersman. rimshot:

Yea, that would have definitely been beyond the Pale, a serious crossing of the Rubicon. And all that .... ;-)

[Guestus Aurelius]

Worth reading: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ ... g-backward

Meh.

I found many of Scalia's personal views abhorrent, but Toobin is full of shit:

But it was in his jurisprudence that Scalia most self-consciously looked to the past. He pioneered “originalism,” a theory holding that the Constitution should be interpreted in line with the beliefs of the white men, many of them slave owners, who ratified it in the late eighteenth century.

By this logic, justices should ignore the Constitution completely, since the entire thing is the product of "the beliefs of the white men, many of them slave owners, who ratified it."

Say what you will about Scalia—e.g., that he was a homophobic Catholic nutter—but I call bullshit when people declare that upholding parts of the Constitution they dislike is "backward" or racist or sexist. Of course, they change their tune quickly when the parts they do like are threatened, don't they? Suddenly then it doesn't matter that the Framers were slave-owning white men.

By the way, Scalia was also much more consistent than his detractors insist. I remember that after the Hobby Lobby decision, a lot of liberals were certain that he (and Alito etc.) only ruled the way he did because... Christianity. On the other hand, I don't remember many of them dialing back that certainty when the Court later unanimously upheld a Muslim's religious freedom in Holt v. Hobbs, citing the same law as in the Hobby Lobby case (RFRA/RLUIPA, with its "compelling governmental interest" and "least restrictive means" standard).

Oh, and funny enough, back in 1990 (before the RFRA was passed), it was Scalia who warned that granting religious exemptions to a "neutral, generally applicable law" would set a dangerous precedent, and that invoking the "compelling governmental interest" standard in such cases would open a can of worms:

Respondents argue that even though exemption from generally applicable criminal laws need not automatically be extended to religiously motivated actors, at least the claim for a [494 U.S. 872, 883] religious exemption must be evaluated under the balancing test set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963). Under the Sherbert test, governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. ... We have never invalidated any governmental action on the basis of the Sherbert test except the denial of unemployment compensation. ... In recent years we have abstained from applying the Sherbert test (outside the unemployment compensation field) at all. ...

Even if we were inclined to breathe into Sherbert some life beyond the unemployment compensation field, we would not apply it to require exemptions from a generally applicable criminal law. The Sherbert test, it must be recalled, was developed in a context that lent itself to individualized governmental assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct. As a plurality of the Court noted in Roy, a distinctive feature of unemployment compensation programs is that their eligibility criteria invite consideration of the particular circumstances behind an applicant's unemployment: "The statutory conditions [in Sherbert and Thomas] provided that a person was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits if, `without good cause,' he had quit work or refused available work. The `good cause' standard created a mechanism for individualized exemptions." Bowen v. Roy, supra, at 708 (opinion of Burger, C. J., joined by Powell and REHNQUIST, JJ.). ... As the plurality pointed out in Roy, our decisions in the unemployment cases stand for the proposition that where the State has in place a system of individual exemptions, it may not refuse to extend that system to cases of "religious hardship" without compelling reason. Bowen v. Roy, supra, at 708.

... The government's ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, "cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector's spiritual development." Lyng, supra, at 451. To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, except where the State's interest is "compelling" - permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself," Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S., at 167 - contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense.

The "compelling government interest" requirement seems benign, because it is familiar from other fields. But using it as the standard that must be met before the government may accord different treatment on the basis of race, see, e. g., [494 U.S. 872, 886] Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429, 432 (1984), or before the government may regulate the content of speech, see, e. g., Sable Communications of California v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 126 (1989), is not remotely comparable to using it for the purpose asserted here. What it produces in those other fields - equality of treatment and an unrestricted flow of contending speech - are constitutional norms; what it would produce here - a private right to ignore generally applicable laws - is a constitutional anomaly.

Nor is it possible to limit the impact of respondents' proposal by requiring a "compelling state interest" only when the conduct prohibited is "central" to the individual's religion. Cf. Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn., 485 U.S., at 474 -476 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). It is no [494 U.S. 872, 887] more appropriate for judges to determine the "centrality" of religious beliefs before applying a "compelling interest" test in the free exercise field, than it would be for them to determine the "importance" of ideas before applying the "compelling interest" test in the free speech field. What principle of law or logic can be brought to bear to contradict a believer's assertion that a particular act is "central" to his personal faith? Judging the centrality of different religious practices is akin to the unacceptable "business of evaluating the relative merits of differing religious claims." United States v. Lee, 455 U.S., at 263 n. 2 (STEVENS, J., concurring). As we reaffirmed only last Term, "[ i]t is not within the judicial ken to question the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith, or the validity of particular litigants' interpretations of those creeds." Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S., at 699 . Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine the place of a particular belief in a religion or the plausibility of a religious claim. ...

If the "compelling interest" test is to be applied at all, then, it must be applied across the board, to all actions thought to be religiously commanded. Moreover, if "compelling interest" really means what it says (and watering it down here would subvert its rigor in the other fields where it is applied), many laws will not meet the test. Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy, but that danger increases in direct proportion to the society's diversity of religious beliefs, and its determination to coerce or suppress none of them. Precisely because "we are a cosmopolitan nation made up of people of almost every conceivable religious preference," Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S., at 606 , and precisely because we value and protect that religious divergence, we cannot afford the luxury of deeming presumptively invalid, as applied to the religious objector, every regulation of conduct that does not protect an interest of the highest order. The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind - ranging from [494 U.S. 872, 889] compulsory military service, see, e. g., Gillette v. United States, 401 U.S. 437 (1971), to the payment of taxes, see, e. g., United States v. Lee, supra; to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, see, e. g., Funkhouser v. State, 763 P.2d 695 (Okla. Crim. App. 1988), compulsory vaccination laws, see, e. g., Cude v. State, 237 Ark. 927, 377 S. W. 2d 816 (1964), drug laws, see, e. g., Olsen v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 279 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 878 F.2d 1458 (1989), and traffic laws, see Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569 (1941); to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, see Tony and Susan Alamo Foundation v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290 (1985), child labor laws, see Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), animal cruelty laws, see, e. g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 723 F. Supp. 1467 (SD Fla. 1989), cf. State v. Massey, 229 N.C. 734, 51 S. E. 2d 179, appeal dism'd, 336 U.S. 942 (1949), environmental protection laws, see United States v. Little, 638 F. Supp. 337 (Mont. 1986), and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races, see, e. g., Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 603 -604 (1983). The First Amendment's protection of religious liberty does not require this. 5 [494 U.S. 872, 890]

(If tl;dr, then at least read that last paragraph.)

So back when religious freedom was strictly a First Amendment thing, Scalia ruled against granting religious exemptions to neutral/general laws, and explicitly highlighted the danger in going down that road. But then once the RFRA was passed in 1993 (nearly unanimously, by the way, and mainly in response to the decision I just quoted from), which put into law precisely what Scalia had warned was a bad idea, he nonetheless adjusted his rulings accordingly, as in both Hobby Lobby and Holt v. Hobbs.

Look, I'm not trying to suck Scalia's rotting Italian sausage over here, but I just don't think he's what he's often painted as. He took the law and the Constitution seriously, and he tried to uphold them as he understood them—including in many cases where they conflicted with his personal views. I think Toobin is virtue-signaling, pandering to those liberals who haven't read a law or a Court decision in their lives but suddenly become mind-reading legal experts when a case doesn't pan out how they want it to.

[--bill]

Made a disturbing discovery. John Thaw, when he started playing Inspector Morse, was younger than I am now.

gah....me too....

and
i'm actually caught up!

and apparently eco died
i was at the 23rd world congress of philosophy in athens (and their economy was beginning to tank; airbnb apartments were dirt cheap) and eco was going to talk but was too sick to make it---his talk was basically undermining post-modernism in philosophy.
a summary of a similar event: http://www.iitaly.org/18621/new-realism ... t-hangover
a pdf of his talk: http://www.wcp2013.gr/files/items/6/649/eco_wcp.pdf

also
"kant and the platypus" is good stuff.

and now
back to oblivion....

[Scented Nectar]

<snip>

Lol. You are still butthurt about that.

It's getting to the point that it's just sad.

So, I guess we should just never again mention that Jenny M did it too. Because referring to it more than once would just be sad? How about we never refer to Stollznow's false accusation of sex crimes either? And let's never mention PZ's grenade, perhaps, because that would mean we're butthurt. Is that what you want?

Sorry Com, but you did the same thing as what Jenny did. My memory may be shitty for the most part, but I'm not going to forget the false pedo claim you made any time soon. I'm still like, holy fuck!

Indeed. While I tend to rely on the dictionary - surprise, surprise, suprise - which tends not to have the same connotations as the common use, I'm kind of surprised, given the tendency of more than a few here to insist that such common uses should be held sacrosanct and the final arbiter, that more haven't similarly tried to take comhcinc to task over what is still a rather egregious accusation - at least in common parlance. ;-)

The dictionary definition is technically accurate in that a pedo need not ever act on their desires, but unfortunately the common use definition almost always implies that it has been acted on. With most word definitions, I go with the dictionary. But in the case of "pedo" the common use definition, when used in false claims, ends up meaning that most people read it as "this person raped a child". So, the common use becomes important in that it is harmful, and it becomes a claim that a crime was committed.

However, even if he, and everyone reading his tweet, were to be thinking of the less-bad dictionary definition, it's still a libelous claim. One that could lead to people not trusting you around kids, etc, if it spilled over to real life. Even if a pedo has never actually done it, who in their right mind is going to risk letting such a person be around their kids? Maybe not all pedos are child fuckers, but all child fuckers are pedos.

[MarcusAu]

*snip*

As for a discussion agenda. I can suggest thumb-over-neck screwdriving chainsaws. Pretty sure I could get Rystefn to join in. :o

Phil - you bastard. Kill me now before it begins.

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

*snip*

As for a discussion agenda. I can suggest thumb-over-neck screwdriving chainsaws. Pretty sure I could get Rystefn to join in. :o

Phil - you bastard. Kill me now before it begins.

I thought Commodus took care of that.

(He didn't. Marcus Aurelius died of a fever in Vindobona, modern days Vienna).

[Phil_Giordana_FCD]

I did mention I'm on a Gladiator ride.

[Kirbmarc]

Steersman wants to deport Muslims because they can't fit in with Western liberal ideals. Western liberal ideals, especially Canada, includes religious liberty and inclusion. Therefore Steersman is incompatible with Western ideals.

#DeportSteersMann

Freedom of religion isn't an absolute. If it were then gay marriage would have never gotten out of the chute. And likewise with the whole kerfuffle in the US over religious organizations attempting to opt-out of various obligations expected of everyone else. Logic doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

Gay marriage doesn't go against with freedom of religion. Extending freedom to everyone to marry doesn't violate the religious freedom of anyone. You're free to believe that gay marriage is the work of Satan or whatever you want. You're not allowed to make your belief become law because of separation of Church and State, which is the premise of freedom of religion.

When Church and State aren't separated there is no freedom of religion, because the only religion which is allowed, or which is treated better than others, is the religion of the state. Theocratic regime oppress other supporters of other theocracies: fundamentalist Muslims oppress fundamentalist Christian and vice versa (like in Angola).

This is Liberal Democracy 101. Try to apply the words in your quote in a consistent way, not only when your interpretation of a dictionary definition suits you.

[Couch]

snip

Finally, I wouldn't be discharging my obligations as the Pit's Official Shill for Harris ('POSH') without point you to SH's latest from yesterday which includes his take on the issue - which boils down to a position that data is information and property and if the courts can compel a bank to open a safety deposit box, why not Apple a phone (he doesn't use that exact analogy, but would of had he thought of it).

https://www.samharris.org/podcast

I agree with Sam Harris on that. It's the same as a safety deposit box. Do you know which podcast has that discussion? From the titles, the latest one seems to be about the ethics of meat production on the youtube versions of his podcasts. Is it the Ask Me Anything one that was before it? His channel's at http://www.youtube.com/user/samharrisorg .

I don't like that burden of litigation thing. It's not fair, and can be used to financially fuck someone up intentionally.

SN, the discussion of the iPhone encryption issue is during the first part of the most recent podcast, which as you point out is labelled the ethics of meat production.

[ffs]

I didn't know syfy was allowed to broadcast porn

[youtube]k5W_LyzWEzE[/youtube]

Well I guess it's just Clarence porn

[free thoughtpolice]

Leave Jenny alone! The patriarchy silences another womyn. :cry:
[youtube]5ounv3cr-50[/youtube]