Slashdot Mirror
Reconciling Information Privacy and Liberty?
thetan asks: "F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote that 'The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.' However, for many outsiders, it's hard to understand how cliques reconcile seemingly contrarian views.
For example, many US Republicans are against abortion but in favour of the death penalty (no doubt they have their reasons). Amongst the Slashdot commentariat, one often hears that information wants to be free, almost as a catchcry of the open source, copyfight and related info-libertarian movements. OTOH, these same Slashdot readers stridently guard their privacy, so presumably information about their shopping preferences or websurfing does not 'want to be free'. How does the intelligent and functional Slashdot crowd reconcile the liberty of other people's information with the privacy of their own?"
Oh shit! And I'm at ground zero!
How, exactly does that happen if the baby is given up for adoption?
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
she knows that fucking makes babies.
She does? They teach that in school or something these days?
she musta fucked somebody if she's pregnant
Or someone forced her into having sex, or someone just drugged her and raped her while she was out.
Second, who the hell wouldn't put up a child for adoption but would kill it?
Texas's "Baby Moses" law exists precisely because people were leaving newborns in trashcans or alleyways. So the "who" are "enough people to convince the government to change the child abandonment laws".
I think the anti-abortion groups should look into the "why" of that, it might explain a lot, and go a long way towards reaching their goal, without throwing around laws and constitutional amendments to enforce those laws.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
It's perfectly possible for someone to oppose abortion and support the death penalty, although I'm not sure how it would fit into the Christian ethic espoused by Republicans of late in the US.
That's the nice thing about the Bible. It's really long, and it has plenty of time to take both sides of every issue.
I am troubled by abortion rights -- even in the absence of religious motivation -- because I can't answer the question, "When is it no longer OK to kill a baby?"
Let me know if you get a better answer, but for now I find it works out pretty well to use this one: if you have sympathy for it, don't kill it. Look at a picture of what your baby looks like at its current age, and if you see a baby, let it live. If you see a fish, and you really want it gone, get rid of it. Short of The Big Guy coming down and explaining it, I doubt you'll ever get a better answer than that.
Disclaimer: I'm a hardcore liberal. But I can't stand it when liberals make the "how can Republicans want the death penalty, but not abortion." It's easy. Unborn children haven't committed crimes. Criminals have. Personally I still don't want the death penalty for a different reason, because there is a clear racial and financial bias going on in the American legal system; however, I still hate it, and feel embarassed when, my friends try to use this idiotic argument of "Republicans are contradicting themselves!" when my friends are arguing for abortion or against the death penalty.
Holy. Crap. I just had my stance fairly and eloquently defined by a self-described "hardcore liberal." You, sir, have earned my respect. *bows*I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
For example, many US Republicans are against abortion but in favour of the death penalty (no doubt they have their reasons).
How about, for example, many Democrats are in favor of jail time for disturbing the eggs of the Piping Plover (or name an endangered species), but are in favor of sucking a human fetus out of a womb... Don't touch the growing bird, but go ahead with the human.
Many Republicans say "I am proud of what you do in the Guard, I would be over there with you if I wcould be." And then i point out that they are under the enlistment age, and we will gladly take them. And then of course, well, I'd fight if they really needed me. Hmmm.... Lets see- the army could use some people bud...
Or when Hannity, who never served, says "I don't agree with you but I would die for your right to say that..." Um sure- I have never heard a vet say that- I mean, I wouldn't put my life on the line and die so that someone is free to say that the US sucks...
Not in favor of the death penalty? Would you be if you kid was raped, or your mom was beaten? I pray to got that never happens. People often say one thing to hypotheticals, but it is very different in reality.
Look, the test is not what you say, but what you do. If you believe info should be free, but you get paid to design information that is sold, well then you aren't practicing what you preach.
Character is what you do when no one is looking.
The best leaders/influencers are those who are "do what I do", not "do what I say, not what I do."
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
I shudder to think of a future where the innocent (other than just the unborn) fear "termination" by arbitrary individuals and the state, but those proven guilty of raping and murdering the innocent are protected, and guaranteed the "right" to continue raping and murdering the innocent.
Oh, wait -- I forgot. That's where we live, today...
-- -pjk Perry Kundert perry@kundert.ca http://kundert.2y.net
She does? They teach that in school or something these days?
Yep. Starting around 4th grade, unless mom and dad say "no sex ed for my kid."
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
The classic knee-jerk pro-life response. Replace "babies" with "fetus", and your statement is perfectly acceptable. Why? Because "babies" relates to something everyone can see, feel, hear, and relate to as a separate living entity. "Fetus", on the other hand, connotes a living entity that must depend upon the woman's body to survive. It cannot survive on its own like a "baby".
As a last shot at injecting a true thought into your brain: At what point is it truly a baby if, for example, it's hydrocephalus and has no real brain? Should the woman be forced to carry it for the remaining months, only to have it die at birth?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I love it when moderators moderate based on their beliefs rather than on the content of a posting.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
What I'm trying to point out is that the abortion shouldn't happen just because it's an easier decision. That's not a good reason to end a life or a potential life. A decision like that should be made because it's the *best* decision that can be made, and determining that should include the fate of the embryo or fetus.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
You need a picture of CowboyNeal fiddling (err...playing air guitar?) while the 'net burns.
--LWM
Famous "Troll"s and "Flaimers:" people:
Thomas Paine
Thomas Jefferson
Ben Franklin
Karl Marx
Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King
Martin Luther
Ghandi
I can't believe you left out the biggest flamebait of all time: Joan of Arc!
But seriously, a "troll" post in the classic sense is one designed to make the people responding to it look stupid. For instance, in a physics thread, posting something with technical-sounding but totally wrong physics is a troll. Similarly, well-desguised links to goatse.cx are also trolls.
The term has been extended to people who copy-paste the same stupid, false, offtopic things every time a story on a given topic comes up, eg, complaining about one-button mice or 17MB files in every Apple story, or saying that *BSD is dying in every BSD story. Perhaps these should be modded offtopic along with "fr1st ps0t b1tch3s", but they're frequently moderated troll.
Flamebait is an overused mod. It is intended to mod down only obscene and nasty posts ("flames"), and posts designed to attract them. These deserve to be modded down. However, I agree that it's being used too often against controversial statements. The solution is, if you're going to write a controversial statement, make sure it's well-thought-out, doesn't contain false information, and addresses the issue rationally rather than just calling the other side dipshits.
Martin Luther didn't write up a bunch of things calling the Catholics idiots, he addressed specific points that he had problems with, and brought in relevant evidence as to why they were wrong. King was one of the more eloquent speakers of his day; his speeches were brilliant, and were in line with both his beliefs and his actions. Similarly for Franklin; he is considered one of the cleverest diplomats and inventors of all time, and many of his essays are still considered authoritative. Karl Marx thought about his Communist Manifesto for more than 3 minutes, and once again backed it up with facts and evidence. Paine's satire was both funny and relevant, and Jefferson's writings are used as guidelines by judges and lawmakers today.
None of these compare with disguised links to disgusting pornographic images (or ASCII representations of said images), page wideners, stories about Richard Stallman getting raped by various animals, attempts to get idiots to show off their stupidity, or direct or semi-direct copies of false comments which have been posted at least 15,000 times.
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
Points 1 and 2 are all that should be needed to mod submitter imbercile. People who don't understand something like 'information wants to be free' need to go back to elementary school.
;-)
I'm not sure I agree with 3, being pro-life and pro-death seems pretty fucking contradictory to me. If you have the intelligence to form your own views, you probably have the intelligence to mod parent post up