antillean

6 ms·

1.
by antillean 5y ago
If you happen to live in London or ever go there, you can see one of the oldest surviving New Testament Greek manuscripts. It's called Codex Sinaiticus ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus ), dates from
2.
by antillean 10y ago
It's worse than that. As the next paragraph says: "The online data were collected in two stages. In the first stage, the participants were recruited via several open internet discussion forums and several student mailing lists. In
3.
by antillean 10y ago
There's a lot of trust of the government here[1] and in general[2] -- though, as that Gallup link shows, it MASSIVELY depends on which arm of the government you're talking about. Again, not many people live in or around the libert
4.
by antillean 10y ago
Two responses to that. Firstly because, well, that's just the way it is sometimes. Putting a gate in your wall can let in bad guys who can plunder your city, yes. But it can also let in good guys who can fortify it. You just need to de
5.
by antillean 10y ago
It feels like everyone would be better served if the tech community admitted the legitimacy of the government's (and many, MANY people's) security concerns and stopped pretending that the right to privacy always trumps the right t
6.
by antillean 11y ago
Ah, yeah, you're right. My bad.
7.
by antillean 11y ago
Ah How does that work with Norway and Switzerland? Or is that different because they're members of the Schengen?
8.
by antillean 11y ago
Gove's statement today -- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-... -- sounds to me like he'd also like the UK to leave the ECHR.
9.
by antillean 11y ago
True.
10.
by antillean 11y ago
I'm one of those Commonwealth nationals resident in the UK with the right to vote in this referendum. I had thought the case for the UK staying in the EU was obvious until I started thinking about it and, in the process, stumbled upon
11.
by antillean 11y ago
Eh, what? Hasn't the ROI had a say up to now? What's about to change? Is the EC about to invade the ROI?
12.
by antillean 11y ago
Uh, no. Neither Ireland nor the UK is in the Schengen. The UK didn't want to be, and Ireland opted out because of the UK. From the BBC[1]: "The UK and Republic of Ireland have opted out. The UK wants to maintain its own borders, a
13.
by antillean 11y ago
Do you know what the estimate is for the proportion of monozygotic twins that are discordant for schizophrenia?
14.
by antillean 11y ago
> There is also a quote of Gandhi I cannot find. So I'll paraphrase: If you are angry at someone, and he did not intend to hurt you, you should not be angry. If he did intend to hurt you, he is not as wise/it's in his natu
15.
by antillean 11y ago
Wait. So, on your view, it's fair -- "Treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination" or "Just or appropriate in the circumstances", according to oxforddictionaries.com's top two definitions --
16.
by antillean 11y ago
On one version of retributive thinking, retribution isn't really about restoring fairness, about balancing out cosmic scales of justice. It's about giving a person what's due to him or her. We call it reward when what's
17.
by antillean 11y ago
That's an extremely narrow view of "secular". Not all secular societies or people are consequentalists. Some are at least as interested in the moral righteousness of a system -- in its means, in its processes, in what it does
18.
by antillean 11y ago
So if imprisoning people for beyond 16 years doesn't provide better opportunities for rehabilitation or reintegration, isn't that a reason to continue imprisoning them beyond 16 years in order to protect society from them? As a fa
19.
by antillean 11y ago
So 16 years is the magic point (for Danes? for [Western] Europeans? for all human beings?) beyond which imprisoning people has no impact on crime rates. Do you have any evidence that 1) that's actually the case for Denmark or anywhere
20.
by antillean 11y ago
> "Coming from Denmark where life is max 16 years..." What's the rationale for that limit? Is that the maximum time it takes to reform someone? The time after which anyone's being a threat to society expires? The magi
21.
by antillean 11y ago
That's not being bad at abstract thinking. That's thinking abstractly (and well), but just differently from you.
22.
by antillean 11y ago
> I also read in an article that the order to shot it down came from the turkish president. Can you link to that article?
23.
by antillean 11y ago
I don't even know where to begin. And I mean that literally. I started typing about five different responses, each beginning differently. None of them seemed to work, and besides I would've probably ended up typing too much anyway
24.
by antillean 11y ago
> SCOTUS acts like a classic common law court: the law exists independently of the courts, in the people, and the task of the court is to discover it I hope, for the sake of American democracy, that this just isn't true.
25.
by antillean 11y ago
People still make that argument now. SCOTUS decisions don't suddenly change everyone's mind.
26.
by antillean 11y ago
I don't think that's the trick. I'm talking about greater goods than privacy and order, goods that make privacy and order good. And I'm not just talking about things that one group or another really thinks should be ille
27.
by antillean 11y ago
Yes. And you could be a member of Ashley Madison who's just curious, or who's doing a documentary for Al Jazeera, or who's trying to see if your spouse is on it. I was speaking generally. I said that it's reason/evi
28.
by antillean 11y ago
> "Either way, debate about polygamy vs. monogamy in this case-scenario is completely irrelevant. Someone was hacked, privacy was violated (it doesn't matter what privacy) and that is the end of that. There's no reason to
29.
by antillean 11y ago
No, because I'm talking about intentions and motivations, not actions. I said it's reason to believe that someone has intentions/motivations to have an affair; I didn't say it's enough to believe that someone has
30.
by antillean 11y ago
Uh, what? How is membership in a website that is known, markets itself, and is designed as a cheating website not evidence of the intentions and motivations of its members? Of course membership in Ashley Madison isn't irrefutable proo

More ›